Monday, March 9, 2009

Infallible? Pffft.

When is the Catholic world going to stand up and call this stuff coming out of the Vatician what it is? It's bullshit.

As Pam puts it:
When it's not a 24/7 homo hate blast coming out of the Vatican, or another story about enabling pedophile priests on the loose, it's about underscoring the second-class citizenship of women.
Here's the latest Vatican story in a nutshell: 1. A twisted pervert rapes his 9-year old step-daughter. 2. Mom, who is concerned that the twins her 9-year old daughter is carrying as a result of this rape might endanger her daughter's health, takes her daughter to a doctor. 3. Doctor agrees that the daughter's life in in danger and performs an abortion.

And what does the Catholic Church do? It excommunicates the girl's mother and the doctor, but not the pervert who raped a little girl, setting this entire, horrible chain of events in motion. I am not kidding. Read it and weep.

The Catholic Church, the Vatican and the Pope are simply wrong on this (to pick just one) issue. Where is the outrage? Until people in the Church start speaking out, the slow drain of Catholics will continue leaking from the Church, despite the baubles, breathtaking naves, and promises of absolution. How can people stay in the face of such speciousness?

And don't even get me started on the consistent hypocrisy of the Catholic hierarchy...

Sincerely, A former Catholic

17 comments:

smijer said...

The way I read it originally, the girl was not excommunicated. Not sure. Would be doing her a favor if you ask me.

june said...

Horrible...but not surprising.

Buck said...

I just can't imagine waiting to be kicked out of such an organization.



Why join in the first place?

alice said...

smijer, you're right -- depending on which story you read, the status of the girl can be confusing, but one story clearly has her un-excommunicated. I edited my post to fix that.



Buck, I know only a very few people who joined the Catholic Church on purpose (I can't think of only one off the top of my head)...

Keera said...

(Hrm. Did I know you were ex-Catholic?)



I have never understood how it is acceptable to kill an (innocent or guilty) adult but not a fetus that may risk the life of its mother. I grant you, my "hypocrisy" swings the other way - anti-death penalty, pro-choice - but here's my reasoning: 1) There are enough innocent people on death row (and in prison, in general) to justify not killing anyone there, and 2) In a perfect world, we wouldn't need abortions, but we do not live in a perfect world, and I know what happens to unloved children; it's worse than death.

Sloms said...

Great points Keera. Also, I am not a Bible expert, but isn't this stuff about how it is ok to kill a full grown human but not a cluster of cells that might develop into a human, Catholic dogma, as opposed to decrees from Jesus? In other words, the Catholic Church has morphed its own rules on a lot of things (e.g. the Pope and his (or her!) infallibilty) in its couple thousand year existence that do not necessarily follow from its raison d'etre.

Unpalatable at Tête-à-Tête-Tête said...

[...] didn’t repost when I saw this go around, but it is in the pukey category, too. 1. A twisted pervert rapes his 9-year old step-daughter. 2. [...]

RW said...

Sloms,

IIRC, the catholic church is against the death penalty. I know the pope is.



Keera,

but we do not live in a perfect world, and I know what happens to unloved children; it’s worse than death.



Great closing argument for proposing euthanizing anyone who isn't loved and declaring it a side-effect of an imperfect world. Sorry, you're just rationalizing your hypocrisy. No biggie, most people do, but.....doesn't make it any less irrational.

alice said...

RW, the Catholic Church may be against the death penalty in theory, but they are not in action.



And your second comment almost didn't make it past moderation. It is a very sloppy straw man argument. Keera never proposed that anyone should be euthanized for being unloved. Not even close. Please read what she wrote.



And in the future, if you'd like your comments to be published, please use a valid email address.

Keera said...

RW, my statement about unloved children is based on one of the reasons for wanting an abortion: An inability to care for (or even about) the child. Adoption is not always an option: Not every woman is up to being pregnant for 9 months and then giving the baby away; not every woman has someone to give the baby away to. If you want really creepy conclusions, I refer you to the Freakonomics claim that abortion reduces crime.

RW said...

alice,

It was intended to say that someone could use those exact same words while making the closing arguments for euthanization. My apologies for the pathetic wording (wasn't trying to attack anyone).



What Keera most certainly proposed was that it's better to kill a baby that Keera thinks won't be loved to the level that Keera determines to be suitable for living. That's a perfectly legitimate position for one to have. Of course, the counter-argument would be "wouldn't that be a decision that should be left up to the person you're more than willing to terminate?"



Please keep in mind that these pro-lifers think it's a BABY. Agree or disagree, that's their position. If you accept that they think that cluster of cells is LIFE, why would you be aghast that they want the state to protect its life?





There are enough innocent people on death row (and in prison, in general) to justify not killing anyone there



Because person X may be innocent, we shouldn't have executed the slam-dunk-no-doubt-confessed-guilty Tim McVeigh?



That's not logical.

RW said...

RW, the Catholic Church may be against the death penalty in theory, but they are not in action.



???

Not sure what "not in action" means. They've extended proclamations denouncing the death penalty, which means they're on record as being against the death penalty. The certainly don't execute people, so they don't engage in the "action" of the death penalty (not trying to be anal, really don't understand that part). Because a few of its members may endorse the DP doesn't change the fact that the official position of the church is against it.

Keera said...

RW, you're arguing the Catholic church's standpoint: The unborn should be given the right to live regardless of the state of its mother/parents. As I stated above, in a perfect world that wouldn't be an issue at all.



Re McVeigh: It's logical if you know that revenge is futile.

RW said...

RW, you’re arguing the Catholic church’s standpoint: The unborn should be given the right to live regardless of the state of its mother/parents. As I stated above, in a perfect world that wouldn’t be an issue at all.



Please forgive me, but saying "in a perfect world...." is a throwaway line that in reality means little and constructively accomplishes less. In a perfect world we wouldn't need laws protecting women in the workplace. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need billion-dollar-bailouts. Well, we're on earth and if we're going to debate the issues affecting this planet, it's best to keep the context of the argument there. This argument, as it pertains to the church's stance on abortion, is that they determine a fetus to be a liife by way of a forming baby. I assume, and forgive me/correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't accept that stance & thus do NOT think it's a baby or a life. Fine. All I'm saying is that if you can cross the hurdle of acceptance in that they really & truly believe that it's a life - not that you agree, but that you can accept their posision as being legitimate - then it should come as no surprise that they think it's akin to murder for someone to end that life. If Mommy or Daddy would rather spend next year on a trip to Europe or if she doesn't want stretch marks, if they're not comfortable changing diapers or if they can't afford another mouth to feed aside, the church takes the position that it's a life.



Re McVeigh: It’s logical if you know that revenge is futile.



So Argument A (the DP is wrong because people are innocent) has been set aside and now Argument B - it's used for revenge - is the M.O. Will this one stay if I take the time to respond or will it switch to Argument C (usually, "hey, it's not a deterrant")?

Keera said...

RW, we're on the same page regarding focusing on reality, which is why I use the phrase "in a perfect world": It doesn't exist so we shouldn't put demands on pregnant women as if it did.



Regarding arguments A and B: My reason for being against the DP (and I used to be for it, BTW) is A. However, you asked about an unquestionably guilty person, therefore B.

RW said...

BTW, you guys can thank smijer for the a-hole (me) starting all these arguments. :)





If you want really creepy conclusions, I refer you to the Freakonomics claim that abortion reduces crime.



Kinda morbid to consider, but (I'm not familiar with "Freakonomics") not surprising. If the oft-used claim that women get abortions because can't afford the child, can't care for the child & don't live in conditions that are suitable for a child (as opposed the more rational conclusion: it's birth control for middle income people, just used after the fact) then it would be logical to surmise that if the child weren't aborted & thus lived in a home of poverty (higher crime rates) where the parents weren't the primary care-givers (higher crime rates) and in conditions that aren't suitable for a child (higher crime rates) it would have a probability of criminal behavior.



That's basic statistics, using the foundation of "environment" as the foundation (ignoring the argument "heredity"). A child born in Raleigh is more likely to become a NASCAR fan than one born in Dover. Nothing devious or creepy, just parlaying statistics. Sometimes stats can be used in a discussion about things that make people uncomfortable and they can be manipulated (and lord knows, they can be wrong), but they're still plausible devices to use in arguments.

Buck said...

My wife explained it to me very, very slowly last night.



Catholics. Think. Abortion. Is. Murder. Buck.



It is hard for me to wrap my mind around that but once you do it makes it easier to understand their position.



Not agree with it but at least understand it.