Holy crap

I don't normally engage in fights with ignorant shit heads, but this time I'm prepared to make an exception.

And as I like to say: "The Vatican doesn't issue fatwas."

Right. They just give them a different name.

The Roman Catholic Inquisition was one of the greatest disasters ever to befall mankind. In the name of Jesus Christ, Catholic priests mounted an enormous effort to kill all "heretics" in Europe and Britain. Heretics is defined whichever way Rome wanted it defined; it ranged from people who disagreed with official policy, to Hermetic Philosophers [Black Magick Practitioners], to Jews, to Witches, and to the Protestant reformers.

I know I'm going to get a "timeline" argument in rebuttal.

It ends right fucking here.

The Chris and Stephen Show . . . .

Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry fire shots across the bow at the catholic church.

These are two clips from the BBC's Intelligence Squared presentation of "The catholic church is a Force for Good." Hitchens is up first followed by Ann Widdecombe - a recent convert to catholocism - and Fry finishes up.





bennie and the jerks: 0

Our side: 1 . . . .


H/T BTO

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Donohue employs a violently deviated Clinton defence

Mr. Donohue, this is to you personally.

You have your own platform. Explain how any of this:

Regarding sexual abuse, “kissing,” and “non-contact including voyeurism” (e.g., what it labels as “inappropriate sexual talk”) make the grade as constituting sexual abuse. Moreover, one-third of the cases involved “inappropriate fondling and contact.” None of this is defensible, but none of it qualifies as rape. Rape, on the other hand, constituted 12 percent of the cases. As for the charge that “Irish Priests” were responsible, some of the abuse was carried out by lay persons, much of it was done by Brothers, and about 12 percent of the abusers were priests (most of whom were not rapists).

Qualifies as something acceptable from a person in a position of religious authority, regardless of their hierarchal status in your so-called Holy order.

Anyone!!!

You included, buckwheat!!!!!

Explain it, you sick sonofabitch!

In the name of the God you so claim to defend, (sorry, you only defend a "church"), you have just made the exploitation of children acceptable, priest or not, and you have ignored that it all happened in that same corrupt establishment you call a "church".

I hope Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan have the opportunity to watch your nuts fry on a barbeque.

New Church Window in Order* . . . .

Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words . . . .









H/T Olde Goat Patrick

*No pun intended

(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

With all the credibility of a ...

Well, you name it. Somehow, taking the advice of a Catholic bishop on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases doesn't rank much higher than asking a Golden Retriever how to prevent shedding.

Alberta's Catholic bishops are warning parents to think twice about letting their daughters be vaccinated against a cancer-causing, sexually transmitted virus.

But the bishops, in a joint statement issued Monday, stop well short of barring Catholic schools in Alberta from administering the vaccine, and acknowledge that parents are the "primary decision-makers" when it comes to their children's health.

That's right. And it might do well for these supposed celibates to keep their mouths as shut as their minds when it comes to the sex lives of others and the prevention of disease.

The bishops said the HPV vaccine has raised questions about whether it sends a message to girls that casual sex is acceptable.

"Catholic teaching is that sexuality is a God-given gift that should be reserved for marriage," the bishops wrote.

I'll give you good odds that if you conducted an honest survey of Catholics in Canada and the US, and received honest answers, that you'd find that "reservation for marriage" was regularly preempted in wholesale numbers.

And let's see what else the Roman Catholic clergy is up to. Oh yeah. They're a real prize lot alright.

(And, yes, we're all about looking things up for others. Google search: 3 seconds. Knowing another blogger is on it: 2 seconds. Adding Catholic hypocrisy: timeless.)

And speaking of the "Values"crowd...

One of the most prominent Roman Catholics in Britain is simply outraged over being called a hypocrite by the Daily Mail. In fact, he's so outraged that he's suing the Daily Mail for libel. (That's not a rare event for the Daily Mail).

The former spokesman for the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales was "robbed of his moral authority" by a newspaper article which accused him of hypocrisy over abortion, the high court heard yesterday.

Austen Ivereigh, 41, says that he lost his £46,000-a-year job as head of public affairs for Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor because of the June 2006 article in the Daily Mail.

His QC, Ronald Thwaites, told Mr Justice Eady and a jury at the high court in London that the article robbed Ivereigh, a Catholic, of all moral authority, destroyed his credibility and ruined his reputation.

The devil, so to speak, is in the details of course.

The article claimed that an ex-lover of Ivereigh's had accused him of hypocrisy over an abortion she had in 1989. It alleged that he had given her "no choice but to have a termination". Ivereigh told the court that the abortion had taken place against his will after he had got his then-girlfriend pregnant when they were both students at Oxford in 1989. Although brought up as a Catholic, he was not a practising Christian at the time, he said. He added that neither he, his mother nor his girlfriend wanted the pregnancy terminated, but her mother had overruled them. After the abortion he had paid half the costs of the operation to placate her mother, he said. The relationship ended soon afterwards.

I am not now, nor have I ever been a Catholic, but I wasn't aware that one could sort of... go on leave. I mean, I know people drop and adopt religion all the time... but anyway.

While working for Murphy-O'Connor, Ivereigh began a relationship with a divorced mother of two. When she became pregnant with twins in early 2006 Ivereigh told the court the couple agreed to have the babies and get married. But after relations between them deteriorated and he felt that they should not get married, she said she had been contemplating an abortion, which, he said, left him "completely gutted and devastated".

Hmmm. At the time of the second event, with a woman the court only identifies as "X", Ivereigh was working in the court of the Roman Catholic Cardinal of England and Wales. He was a practicing Roman Catholic. That means he kind of has to obey church law.

Anyone with an attention span longer than that of a dog in a Milkbone factory knows that, in the Roman Catholic church, sex outside of marriage is Mortal Sin 6.3. It says that everywhere you look.

Ivereigh can claim anything he wants, but if he got "Madame X" pregnant, and he wasn't married to her, he is, by Roman Catholic definition, a fornicator. A grave sinner who has engaged in a lustful carnal union with a woman who was not his wife.

At what point in the Roman Catholic church does hypocrisy kick in anyway?