The Catholic Church - Ideologically Consistent, and Still Evil

[Ming]

You just have to love the RCC on how they protect their own, but don't really care about their flock.

From a RCC site... the 5th of 12 crimes that can lead to excummunication.

(5) "All who kill, mutilate, strike, seize, incarcerate, detain or pursue with hostile intent, cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, legates or nuncios of the Holy See, or drive them from their dioceses, jurisdictions, estates, or domains, as also those who ratify these measures or further them by aid or countenance."

So... priests raping little children... OK
Strike a priest... excummunication.

It's only a sin if you murder or rape an innocent child... but hit a priest, you're toast.

It's obvious that the RCC considers themselves more important than those they are sworn to protect and nurture. So it's really no surprise that they would allow a nine year old rape victim to die, but protect priests who might get other nine year old girls pregnant.

Just think about it if it had been a priest instead of the step father. They would have moved the priest to a new location, and then condemed the victim to death.

[David Floyd]

It's only a sin if you murder or rape an innocent child... but hit a priest, you're toast.

What if you rape a priest, without hitting him?

Ben, your position is ridiculous as is that of the RCC. Evidence? Every single person on this board disagrees with you. That's a pretty good sign, I would have to say. While not overwhelming evidence that you're wrong, your position doesn't even pass the silly test.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, your position is ridiculous as is that of the RCC. Evidence? Every single person on this board disagrees with you. That's a pretty good sign, I would have to say. While not overwhelming evidence that you're wrong, your position doesn't even pass the silly test.

I'm a majority of one on quite a few topics. It's more a commentary on Apolyton than it is on me.

Doesn't faze me because I used to be on the other side, and I believe I was terribly, terribly, wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

Here is a question for you Ben... Why does the RCC excummunicate people involved in an abortion, while they forgive those that commit murder?

Excommunications can be forgiven with repentence. Same as with anything else. I'm not sure what question you ask here.

If there were a serial killer who openly proclaimed his Catholicism he'd be excommunicated as well.

Bigger question is why the small fish are excommunicated, and folks like Pelosi and Kerry have not been for publicly articulating the exact same argument.

If a person kills a one day old baby or rapes a 9 year old girl, the church doesn't excummunicate them, but allows them to forgive their sins and go to heaven.

You've misunderstood excommunication. All excommunication means is that the person is no longer permitted to partake of the sacraments until they have repented. It's the last step in church discipline for manifest mortal sinners.

Pretty sick if you ask me. So much for RCC ethics. But this comes as no surprise since they have a history of protecting those that rape children.

You don't understand Catholic ethics. Simple as that. Do you check for monsters under your bed too? This is entirely a creation of your own mind.

[loinburger]

I'm a majority of one on quite a few topics. It's more a commentary on Apolyton than it is on me.

I really don't understand why you persist in posting here. You obviously have no intention of trying to convert anybody to your side, otherwise you wouldn't engage in such dishonest discourse with everybody. The only explanation is that you're just trolling.

[Ming]

I'm a majority of one on quite a few topics. It's more a commentary on Apolyton than it is on me.

Yep... a simple commentary. You are a total moron, and the rest of us understand logic and reality.

But keep supporting how raping a child doesn't keep you from heaven, but saving a person's life is enough to get you excommunicated. The RCC... the haven for rapists and murderers.

[Ben Kenobi]

And where am I lying

Claiming that I support rape, and that I believe abortion to be more serious than rape because abortion results in the death of a child.

I'm really not sure you are reading what I'm posting here.

... in these cases, the attending doctors are of the opinion that the child will die either way.

And other qualified doctors are of the opinion that the child could have been saved without placing undo risks to the mother. This is the crux of the argument here. I believe that the child's live could have been spared, which is why I cannot support the abortion.

It's not because I believe that the child is more important, but because I have hope that both mother and child have a shot. You're welcome to believe otherwise.

You are the one lying by making outlandish claims that you KNOW that both could be saved.

Outlandish? I've posted a direct statement from a qualified doctor who explicitly says that the mother was in no imminent danger and that the abortion was completely unnecessary.

This is just another BAM.

You can argue that the position is wrong, but hardly outlandish.

You are making your position VERY CLEAR. You are claiming that the mother should die even if the the doctors can save her. You are the one supporting murder.

Where have I said the mother should die? I'm saying you should try to save the life of both the mother and the child, where feasible.

[Ben Kenobi]

I really don't understand why you persist in posting here.

I have friends here and this is a way for me to spend time with them. Is that so hard to understand?

I don't start threads to troll or convert. I'm just here to hang out.

[loinburger]

I'm just here to hang out.

What percentage of your off-topic posts are about your pet trolling topics, and what percentage are you "hanging out"? Offhand I'd say it's an 8:1 ratio, maybe higher. You're a troll.

[David Floyd]

BK,

Don't you think that the most relevant medical opinion is the one of the attending physician? Anyone can "Monday morning quarterback" any decision they want, but that doesn't make their judgment the right one.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yep... a simple commentary. You are a total moron, and the rest of us understand logic and reality.

You sincerely believe that all prolifers who do not support abortion are morons? Poly is a very closed and bubbled community compared with the real world.

But keep supporting how raping a child doesn't keep you from heaven

Where did I say that a person who raped another person shouldn't be excommunicated? I've never said that. If that's your understanding of my argument, then you've grossly misunderstood.

Both are mortal sins, both should result in excommunications if they are persistant (ie with child abuse), or manifest, (in that they publicly encourage others).

saving a person's life is enough to get you excommunicated. The RCC... the haven for rapists and murderers.

So you save a person's life by killing another? How many people's lives were at stake here Ming? One, or two?

[Ben Kenobi]

What percentage of your off-topic posts are about your pet trolling topics, and what percentage are you "hanging out"? Offhand I'd say it's an 8:1 ratio, maybe higher. You're a troll.

Umm, I didn't start this thread, and this thread was up for the weekend before my first post in it.

I personally think this is a worthwhile discussion, but if you don't feel capable of contributing, then go post elsewhere.

[David Floyd]

According to the doctor on the scene, only one life was actually at stake - the fetus was gone no matter what, the only question was whether or not to guarantee the survival of the mother.

[Ming]

Claiming that I support rape, and that I believe abortion to be more serious than rape because abortion results in the death of a child.

I'm really not sure you are reading what I'm posting here.

Sure I'm reading it. You want the woman dead even though the baby can't be saved. Murder!

And other qualified doctors are of the opinion that the child could have been saved without placing undo risks to the mother. This is the crux of the argument here. I believe that the child's live could have been spared, which is why I cannot support the abortion.

And those doctors aren't the attending... they are people who have no first hand experience with the case. They can say whatever they want, but in the end, they don't have the hands on experience with the actual case. They are just making assumptions.

It's not because I believe that the child is more important, but because I have hope that both mother and child have a shot. You're welcome to believe otherwise.

You don't seem to care about the mother as all... just a child who is doomed anyway.
And again... please explain why abortion deserves excummunication but killing a one day old child isn't?

Outlandish? I've posted a direct statement from a qualified doctor who explicitly says that the mother was in no imminent danger and that the abortion was completely unnecessary.

See earlier comments... your qualified doctor NEVER even examined the patient, so his opinion is just that... an opinion based on no examination. So he isn't qualified at all.

So Ben... what if it's a scientific fact that the mother will die if a pregnacy continues... should she be allowed to have an abortion to save herself, or should just die because of your beliefs?

[loinburger]

So you save a person's life by killing another? How many people's lives were at stake here Ming? One, or two?

It's called triage you numbskull. You're buying into the premise that if you do nothing then you're not morally responsible for your lack of action - if we wait and see what happens (even though there's an extremely high probability that both the mother and unborn will die if we do so) then we're in the clear.

I take it you also believe that conjoined twins should never be separated if doing so may cause the death of one (even though not separating them will almost certainly cause the death of both)? "If I sit back and condemn all others' actions then I'm morally in the clear."