Catholics: Abuse victims "dwelling crankily on the past

[Kanastrous]

As hilarious as your overblown theatrics are, why the fuck should anyone care about an apology from someone when the guy they're apologizing for doesn't even know the person making the apology exists?

What is overblown about apologizing for something you know is wrong?

Because your apology is only meaningful if it covers something that you did yourself. Since - I figure - you're not a priest/molester or party to RCC policymaking, your apology for their misdeeds is meaningless.

Now, if you wanted to apologize for advertising a continued devotion to this organization controlled by a cadre of disgusting smug corrupt indifferent theocrats, thereby promoting their operation and carrying water for them - that would be a meaningful-type apology, should you for whatever reason feel moved to offer it.

[Invictus ChiKen]

Now, if you wanted to apologize for advertising a continued devotion to this organization controlled by a cadre of disgusting smug corrupt indifferent theocrats, thereby promoting their operation and carrying water for them - that would be a meaningful-type apology, should you for whatever reason feel moved to offer it.

Okay for what it's worth I offer my appolgies for that... I admit it was an epic act of stupidity on my part for equally stupid reasons.

[sketerpot]

Now, if you wanted to apologize for advertising a continued devotion to this organization controlled by a cadre of disgusting smug corrupt indifferent theocrats, thereby promoting their operation and carrying water for them - that would be a meaningful-type apology, should you for whatever reason feel moved to offer it.

Okay for what it's worth I offer my appolgies for that... I admit it was an epic act of stupidity on my part for equally stupid reasons.

You're no longer Catholic? Or am I misreading your post?

[Invictus ChiKen]

You're no longer Catholic? Or am I misreading your post?

I'm apologizing for being so public. As for being Catholic well a lot of my convos on Church issues tend to go like this

Church mate: You heard there legalizing gay marriage!?

Me: Yeah it's cool

CM: But that's against the church.

Me: So what? They don't gotta get married here. This is good for faiths allowing gay marriage and those not Catholic. We shouldn't force our faith into law.

CM: *Looks at me like I've sprouted horns*


I expect to be excommnicated sooner or later. Especally as I am affiliated with libera groups like the Secular Franciscans (most liberal lay order in the church), See Change (which wants the Vaticans position as a state revoked), Catholics for Choice (pro-choice) and Dignity USA (change the church teachings to allow gays and lesbians to have relations).

[Siege]

I expect to be excommnicated sooner or later. Especally as I am affiliated with libera groups like the Secular Franciscans (most liberal lay order in the church), See Change (which wants the Vaticans position as a state revoked), Catholics for Choice (pro-choice) and Dignity USA (change the church teachings to allow gays and lesbians to have relations).

Oh come on. Liberation Theologians have to practically kickstart marxist rebellions before they get excommunicated. No-one's going to bother excommunicating you just for being a liberal voice among the thronging masses of believers. Seriously, you don't really expect ecclesiastical courts to take an interest in the average joe on the street, do you? Perhaps if you were to gather a huge following and became a real nuisance to the catholic church at large they might bother officially condemning your newfound movement, but even then the chances of actual-factual excommunication are slim.

[Bounty]

I expect to be excommnicated sooner or later.

Do you have any idea what it takes to be excommunicated? There's one priest here who lived with his male lover and started a nasty fight with the cardinal, got himself suspended, joined a service that provided catholic services outside the church - but he was never even in danger of being excommunicated; in fact, he's just been reinstated as a priest.

Being on a pro-choice mailing list won't even be a blip on the radar, unless you're planning to becoming a bishop.

[Oskuro]

Do you have any idea what it takes to be excommunicated?

Stealing a book from the Vatican's library.

No, seriously, if I recall correctly, there's a sign over there stating that whoever steals a book, is automatically excommunicated.

[Bounty]

Do you have any idea what it takes to be excommunicated?

Stealing a book from the Vatican's library.

No, seriously, if I recall correctly, there's a sign over there stating that whoever steals a book, is automatically excommunicated.

Bullshit, unless the library uses a very liberal interpretation of "violence against the Pope". There are 11 grounds for automatic excommunication -well, 10 and "being an accomplice" to any of those - and none of them mention books.

[Kanastrous]

Anybody who can turn bread and wine into flesh and blood, can turn books into the person of the Pope, or something.

Conbibliation, maybe; spirit immanent in the book.

[Simmon]

Well, the rules of Catholic excommunication (google fu) mention Heresy, but in light of Bounty's story, I guess the rules mean jack. You know, just like the rules on celibacy.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You're no longer Catholic? Or am I misreading your post?

I'm apologizing for being so public. As for being Catholic well a lot of my convos on Church issues tend to go like this

Church mate: You heard there legalizing gay marriage!?

Me: Yeah it's cool

CM: But that's against the church.

Me: So what? They don't gotta get married here. This is good for faiths allowing gay marriage and those not Catholic. We shouldn't force our faith into law.

CM: *Looks at me like I've sprouted horns*


I expect to be excommnicated sooner or later. Especally as I am affiliated with libera groups like the Secular Franciscans (most liberal lay order in the church), See Change (which wants the Vaticans position as a state revoked), Catholics for Choice (pro-choice) and Dignity USA (change the church teachings to allow gays and lesbians to have relations).

Ehh, if the Holy See lost its status at the UN, the Pope would just apply for the Vatican to become a member, which it would, and then it would have even more power.

[Darth Wong]

Do you have any idea what it takes to be excommunicated?

Stealing a book from the Vatican's library.

No, seriously, if I recall correctly, there's a sign over there stating that whoever steals a book, is automatically excommunicated.

Bullshit, unless the library uses a very liberal interpretation of "violence against the Pope". There are 11 grounds for automatic excommunication -well, 10 and "being an accomplice" to any of those - and none of them mention books.

Is the list from Wikipedia accurate?

1. Apostasy (canon 1364),
2. Heresy (canon 1364),
3. Schism (canon 1364),
4. Ordination of female priests (canon ),
5. Desecration of the Eucharist (canon 1367),
6. Physical violence against the Pope (canon 1370),
7. Attempted sacramental absolution of a partner in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue ("Thou shalt not commit adultery."), when that partner is not in danger of death. (canon 1378 §1),
8. Ordination of a bishop without papal mandate (canon 1382),
9. Direct violation of the sacramental seal of confession by a confessor (canon 1388),
10. Procurement of a completed abortion (canon 1398), or
11. Being a conspiring or necessary accomplice in any of the above (canon 1329).

It seems to me that if apostasy is grounds for excommunication, then it should be pretty easy to violate #1: just wear a T-shirt saying that the Pope is a fraud.

Some of the others sort of require you to be a priest in order to even commit the act in question. I'm not sure what the fuck #7 even means. And of course, there's the abortion one, #10.

Interesting that murder isn't on the list, nor is rape, torture, pedophilia, or even genocide. But if you help a woman get a "morning after" pill, then BOOM! Excommunication. I guess that's why Hitler never got excommunicated; he didn't break any rule that the Catholic Church thought was important.

[Sidewinder]

I'm not sure what the fuck #7 even means.

My guess is it's getting a divorce so one can marry someone else. (Funny thing: I read an article that said it was illegal to get a divorce in Spain during Francisco Franco's reign, and one of the Kennedys got bad publicity when he tried to annul his marriage so he could marry another woman, and his wife refused because she thought an annulment would illegitimize their children.)

[Bounty]

Is the list from Wikipedia accurate?

Seems to be, from what I remember from class.

. I'm not sure what the fuck #7 even means.

A priest can not absolve his sexual partners of sinning against the sixth commandment unless they're on death's doorstep. Which kinda makes sense, since otherwise a priest could absolve someone for a sin he himself is part of.

It seems to me that if apostasy is grounds for excommunication, then it should be pretty easy to violate #1: just wear a T-shirt saying that the Pope is a fraud.

It's easy to violate it technically, but the Church won't excommunicate you for it, since they'll refuse to believe you really mean it. There are provisions in canon 1323-1325 for persons who are acting without full knowledge of canon law, or who are impaired in their judgement. Since getting excommunicated is the worst thing that can happen to a catholic (it's not just getting kicked out of the church; it is, technically, the church acknowledging that you voluntarily abandoned it), it takes a grave crime against canon law to have it enacted this day and age.

A guy walking around in a "god sucks" shirt will either be said to be having "internal doubts", said to be unaware of the full extent of his crime (in canon law, genuine ignorance is excusatory), or said to be acting out of passion, not reason.

Interesting that murder isn't on the list, nor is rape, torture, pedophilia, or even genocide. But if you help a woman get a "morning after" pill, then BOOM! Excommunication. I guess that's why Hitler never got excommunicated; he didn't break any rule that the Catholic Church thought was important.

That's because excommunication is not a punishment for a crime against third parties, but a procedure to cut people loose from the church who are deliberately going against its authority and teachings. Perverse as it may sound, Hitler could still be absolved for his sins; there was no real need to excommunicate him. Canon law presupposes that god punishes those who sin against other humans, so excommunication doesn't have provisions for that.

[Metatwaddle]

That's because excommunication is not a punishment for a crime against third parties, but a procedure to cut people loose from the church who are deliberately going against its authority and teachings. Perverse as it may sound, Hitler could still be absolved for his sins; there was no real need to excommunicate him. Canon law presupposes that god punishes those who sin against other humans, so excommunication doesn't have provisions for that.

But Mike was using a comparison with abortion. If the Catholic Church believes that an embryo is a full human being with all the rights and privileges thereof, then abortion is just another sin against a human being - like everything that Hitler did. Why does abortion get singled out for excommunication?

[Bounty]

Why does abortion get singled out for excommunication?

I have no idea. You should probably ask a theologian.

[Metatwaddle]

Why does abortion get singled out for excommunication?

I have no idea. You should probably ask a theologian.

Yeah, because I love standing around for three hours waiting for apologists to finish up with their obscurantist sophistry.

[Darth Wong]

Why does abortion get singled out for excommunication?

I have no idea. You should probably ask a theologian.

You know it was a rhetorical question, right? The reason is obvious: Catholics are intellectually dishonest twats.

[Bounty]

Why does abortion get singled out for excommunication?

I have no idea. You should probably ask a theologian.

Yeah, because I love standing around for three hours waiting for apologists to finish up with their obscurantist sophistry.

Try taking a university theology class

If I were to *hazard a guess*, the abortion rule is probably to the foetus being completely innocent. If you kill someone, or even kill a million people, you can still technically have valid grounds to do so, no matter how absurdly remote the possibility is. That's not the case with an abortion - from a religious mindset, of course.

Interestingly, if the woman is genuinely not aware that abortion leads to excommunication, but her doctor, partner or parents are, it's they who get excommunicated, not the woman. Same for when she's pressured into undergoing one.

[Metatwaddle]

Try taking a university theology class

I can extrapolate based on the debates I've seen between our resident super-atheist and super-Catholic philosophy profs. The Catholic one is a nice woman, but I'd sleep through her class when I wasn't quietly fuming.

If I were to *hazard a guess*, the abortion rule is probably to the foetus being completely innocent. If you kill someone, or even kill a million people, you can still technically have valid grounds to do so, no matter how absurdly remote the possibility is. That's not the case with an abortion - from a religious mindset, of course.

Hmm. What about original sin, then? Wouldn't that make the fetus not completely innocent?

Interestingly, if the woman is genuinely not aware that abortion leads to excommunication, but her doctor, partner or parents are, it's they who get excommunicated, not the woman. Same for when she's pressured into undergoing one.

That sure is nice of them. Maybe next they'll start letting women be ordained. (Incidentally, I learned on Wikipedia today that a bunch of Episcopal and other Anglican churches split off from the Anglican Communion back in the 1970s because they were so butthurt that the Anglicans were going to start ordaining women as priests and bishops. Guess it isn't just Catholics who get really stupid and misogynistic about that one. Then again, I'd love it if more women stopped being interested in church, so...)

[Darth Wong]

If I were to *hazard a guess*, the abortion rule is probably to the foetus being completely innocent.

What does that have to do with the "excommunication is only for crimes against the church and not against third parties" rule?

[Bounty]

If I were to *hazard a guess*, the abortion rule is probably to the foetus being completely innocent.

What does that have to do with the "excommunication is only for crimes against the church and not against third parties" rule?

IIRC, believing that abortion is not at all times gravely immoral is considered heresy. Therefore, the act of abortion is both a sin (going against the fifth commandment) and a grounds for excommunication. Since there are no extenuating circumstances possible, you cannot commit an abortion for valid reasons; ergo, you automatically admit to being a heretic.

But again, you really need a real theologian to answer, my knowledge of the subject is limited and it's an obtuse enough subject as-is.

Hmm. What about original sin, then? Wouldn't that make the fetus not completely innocent?

Beats me.

[Darth Wong]

If I were to *hazard a guess*, the abortion rule is probably to the foetus being completely innocent.

What does that have to do with the "excommunication is only for crimes against the church and not against third parties" rule?

IIRC, believing that abortion is not at all times gravely immoral is considered heresy.

And this does not apply to genocide? It's heresy to think abortion is OK, but it's not heresy to think it's OK to butcher millions of people?

[Bounty]

Apparently. How the hell should I know? Like I've said twice before, I'm not a theologian. I know the basics, but you really need to find someone who knows his way around canon law to tell you just what kind of mental gymnastics are necessary for church doctrine to make sense, cause I can't help you any further.

[Darth Wong]

Apparently. How the hell should I know? Like I've said twice before, I'm not a theologian. I know the basics, but you really need to find someone who knows his way around canon law to tell you just what kind of mental gymnastics are necessary for church doctrine to make sense, cause I can't help you any further.

Frankly, I doubt there is any such thing as a way to make church doctrine make sense. The first law of church doctrine has always been that you're supposed to simply accept whatever doesn't make sense.