Catholoic Church says: Pro Choice = No communion for you!

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-23 11:47am

linky

They noted pro-choice political figures especially. This should be interesting to watch develop.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-04-23 11:54am

The Catholic Church needs to shut the fuck up,they're not qualified to say whats right and whats not,personnaly i think abortin should not be abused,only if the pregnancy is a risk for the woman's life or if she was raped,but not be used as a contraceptive method by idiots who don't use rubber or any other contraceptives.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-04-23 11:55am

I'll take not of what they say the next time they engage their collective brains.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-23 12:00pm

damned assholes. Yet another case of the church guilt tripping the public into following what they want them to do. I see this going over not so well for them.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-23 12:03pm

Darth_Zod wrote:damned assholes. Yet another case of the church guilt tripping the public into following what they want them to do. I see this going over not so well for them.

This is the Catholic Church seeing that for the first time in 40 years the United States could have a Catholic President, and they are already trying to control him.

Fuck them.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-04-23 12:23pm

Hmm, I can still receive communion. Maybe I should go to Mass, get communion, and then say "I'm pro-choice, bitch!" and run out.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-23 12:41pm

Joe wrote:Hmm, I can still receive communion. Maybe I should go to Mass, get communion, and then say "I'm pro-choice, bitch!" and run out.

can i go with you!?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-04-23 01:01pm

Good. Maybe they'll drive more people away so they can just fucking wither and die.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-23 01:11pm

It's a good thing nobody listens to the Vatican when they shoot their collective mouth off.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-04-23 01:24pm

Hey, give them credit for at least trying to be consistent on the issue.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-23 02:36pm

Col. Crackpot wrote: This is the Catholic Church seeing that for the first time in 40 years the United States could have a "Catholic" President, and they are already trying to control him. Fuck them.

Your quote is correct now.

Seriously, if this is what it takes to stop
opportunist politicans from pulling this shit of photoops in church while
at the same time, sucking NARAL's collective cocks, hey I'm all for it.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-23 02:54pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote: This is the Catholic Church seeing that for the first time in 40 years the United States could have a "Catholic" President, and they are already trying to control him. Fuck them.
Your quote is correct now. Seriously, if this is what it takes to stop
opportunist politicans from pulling this shit of photoops in church while
at the same time, sucking NARAL's collective cocks, hey I'm all for it.

Naturally, of course, Right Wing politicians never stoop to that sort of hypocritical opportunism...

Oddysseus · Post by **Oddysseus** » 2004-04-23 03:20pm

Thing is this isn't new. The Senate Minority Leader is Catholic, and while he was in the Majority their was a push to have him excomm or denied communion. Granted at the same time a number of Reps were Pro-Choice and NOTHING was being threatened against them. Interesting. Sure Reps are pressured some. But the front page attacks, and threats played out for the public, are left for Dems.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-23 03:24pm

I think the best thing for this situation would be for every pro-choice or contraception-supporting Catholic in America to stop going to church. Then, after about half of the congregation (and hence revenue) disappears, the Church will have to recognize that they're fucking stupid. I can't really think of anyone I know who seriously believes that condoms are evil... at best, they think that they're harmless but it's still necessary to follow the Vatican's orders, regardless of their sensibility.

Smiling Bandit · Post by **Smiling Bandit** » 2004-04-23 03:27pm

the Church will have to recognize that they're fucking stupid

Why would you assume that? You're being rather foolish here. Its more important what you stand for than who you stand with. If every last person on earth was against me I still wouldn't bow to what I felt was wrong. So it is with my Church. Those who come to church and listen and go home and ignore it all are not Catholics; they have already broken their ties and engage in self-deception. Let them think they can soothe their guilty consciences now, they will still face the Lord's displeasure later.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-23 03:34pm

Smiling Bandit wrote:
the Church will have to recognize that they're fucking stupid
Why would you assume that? You're being rather foolish here. Its more important what you stand for than who you stand with. If every last person on earth was against me I still wouldn't bow to what I felt was wrong. So it is with my Church. Those who come to church and listen and go home and ignore it all are not Catholics; .

is this a no true scotsman fallacy i hear? The fact that the church is forcing people to either agree with them or be forbidden to do certain things pertaining to the organization is ethically wrong. It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of logic. Were they anything except a church attempting to pull this shit they'd be hammered down so hard by lawyers thier grandkids would feel it. A hospital certainly would be in deep shit if they said their patients could only think a certain way or they'd be refused treatment x y or z.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-04-23 03:37pm

Darth_Zod wrote:is this a no true scotsman fallacy i hear? The fact that the church is forcing people to either agree with them or be forbidden to do certain things pertaining to the organization is ethically wrong. It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of logic. Were they anything except a church attempting to pull this shit they'd be hammered down so hard by lawyers thier grandkids would feel it. A hospital certainly would be in deep shit if they said their patients could only think a certain way or they'd be refused treatment x y or z.

It is indeed, and as a true scotsman I hate that one

The thing about churches is, they provide no real neccesary service, so they can get away with denying it on any grounds at all because no one needs it.

I think churches should think carefully about turning people away lest people in general come to realise that.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-23 03:37pm

Smiling Bandit wrote:Why would you assume that?

Because condoms are not evil, and there is no evidence within the bible to suggest that any form of contraception would be considered evil.

You're being rather foolish here. Its more important what you stand for than who you stand with. If every last person on earth was against me I still wouldn't bow to what I felt was wrong.

That's a very noble sentiment. But if so many people disagree with you, there tends to be a fair possibility that their accumulated experience has enabled them to arrive at the correct answer.

So it is with my Church. Those who come to church and listen and go home and ignore it all are not Catholics; they have already broken their ties and engage in self-deception. Let them think they can soothe their guilty consciences now, they will still face the Lord's displeasure later.

Right... you'll show them all, won't you? Just as soon as Jesus comes back.

Anyway, history supports my argument far better than it does yours. Hit the Church in the wallet and it'll fold like one. Forget ye not the lesson of enforced celibacy.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-04-23 03:57pm

In the 1460's, the Pope declared an interdict against the city of Venice during a war between the Republic and a coalition of Italian powers. The interdict was a powerful weapon, similar to mass excommunication, which had once before brought Venice to it's knees. The result?

The city simply ignored it and went about its business. I'm betting this will end similarly.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-04-23 04:22pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote: Because condoms are not evil, and there is no evidence within the bible to suggest that any form of contraception would be considered evil.

The good brick, eh book of course anybody taking the bible as 100% truth has greater problems than their view on contraception.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-04-23 04:25pm

TheDarkling wrote:The good brick, eh book of course anybody taking the bible as 100% truth has greater problems than their view on contraception.

Of course that's into the land of interpretation as god literally gets pissed about cumming on the ground. Vengful, spiteful, murderous and pissy....remind me again why people worship this fuckhead?

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-23 05:15pm

TheDarkling wrote:The good brick, eh book of course anybody taking the bible as 100% truth has greater problems than their view on contraception.

That interpretation is a crock of shit, IMHO. The full story is that Onan's brother Er was wicked in the sight of the Lord (doesn't say how exactly) and that Yahweh struck him down. God then decided that it would be nice for Er's wife Tamar to have some children to take care of her. Thus He commanded Onan to go and lie with Tamar and get her with child; this child would then be counted as Er's kid.

Onan decided that he liked the part about lying with the woman, but didn't particularly like the part about siring children who would not be considered his... so he "spilt his seed on the ground," thus displeasing THE LORD which resulted (as usual) in teh smiting. Huzzah.

Now, the logical interpretation for this passage is that Onan was punished for the most obvious offence: defying the word of God. This interpretation was the prevailing one for 3,000 years, more or less. Then, at a more recent date (19th century, I think) the religious types became unaccountably concerned with the "problem" of non-procreative sexual acts, and the Onan story was resurrected and re-packaged to be a condemnation of said acts.

This is a crock of shit, as I expressed earlier. Sex has always been "dirty" in the eyes of the Book, but only in the sense that one should wash afterward and not do it constantly. The condemnation of non-procreative sex is a fairly recent development. It's worth noting that Saint Hildegaard of Bingen (click here) produced medieval contraceptives.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-04-23 05:17pm

Keevan_Colton wrote: Vengful, spiteful, murderous and pissy....remind me again why people worship this fuckhead?

Because he's Vengful, spiteful, murderous, pissy, and supposedly omnipotent so you better not mess with him?
Yes of course that's garbage but if you know so, you don't worship the bugger in the first place.
And why is anybody surprised that the Catholic Church are morons? I thought that's what they're around for.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2004-04-23 05:21pm

Darth_Zod wrote: is this a no true scotsman fallacy i hear? The fact that the church is forcing people to either agree with them or be forbidden to do certain things pertaining to the organization is ethically wrong. It should be blindingly obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of logic. Were they anything except a church attempting to pull this shit they'd be hammered down so hard by lawyers thier grandkids would feel it. A hospital certainly would be in deep shit if they said their patients could only think a certain way or they'd be refused treatment x y or z.

Wrong. Private organizations have the legal right to place qualifications on membership. The Church or any other organization has every right to say, "if you want to play with us, you have to agree with our rules and philosophy; if you don't, get lost." Think about it, if the Church or any other group couldn't do that, then what meaning would there be in having a Church? If they were forced to tolerate any belief or activity within their own membership, then they would cease to exist as a unique organization. Their beliefs and practices would have no meaning or relevance, and it would become nothing more than a play acting club. I have a right to make a club for people who refuse to asparagus, and to deny membership to anyone who does eat asparagus. If you like asparagus but for some reason want to be in my club, you might not like the rule, but I am well within my rights, both legally and morally. If you don't like it, you can give up asparagus or make your own club. It is ethically unsound for you to force me to change my rules and change the club to your liking so that you can play in it.

A hospital is completely different, because sickness or injury are not voluntary actions. You don’t choose to get sick, but you can choose which church to attend. How in the world can you say that a church should not be free to tell its members to toe the line or find a church they agree with? How could it be morally acceptable for a person to force a church to change its values to fit the person's wishes instead of the person quitting the church to find one that he can agree with?

As to the OP, sooner or later, there is going to be a major split, and the Church in America , or at least a large portion thereof, is going to break away from Rome.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-23 05:28pm

Johonebesus wrote:
Wrong. Private organizations have the legal right to place qualifications on membership. The Church or any other organization has every right to say, "if you want to play with us, you have to agree with our rules and philosophy; if you don't, get lost." Think about it, if the Church or any other group couldn't do that, then what meaning would there be in having a Church? If they were forced to tolerate any belief or activity within their own membership, then they would cease to exist as a unique organization. Their beliefs and practices would have no meaning or relevance, and it would become nothing more than a play acting club. I have a right to make a club for people who refuse to asparagus, and to deny membership to anyone who does eat asparagus. If you like asparagus but for some reason want to be in my club, you might not like the rule, but I am well within my rights, both legally and morally. If you don't like it, you can give up asparagus or make your own club. It is ethically unsound for you to force me to change my rules and change the club to your liking so that you can play in it.

how is a church a private organization when effectively everyone can join it or participate in its services?

A hospital is completely different, because sickness or injury are not voluntary actions. You don’t choose to get sick, but you can choose which church to attend. How in the world can you say that a church should not be free to tell its members to toe the line or find a church they agree with? How could it be morally acceptable for a person to force a church to change its values to fit the person's wishes instead of the person quitting the church to find one that he can agree with?

How is it morally acceptable for any organization to tell others what to think about subjects which that organization has no actual authority over?