Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New catholic scandal
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 75 (647568)
01-10-2012 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Parasomnium
01-08-2012 9:33 AM


Has anyone seen this already?
No.
A Spanish cleric says it's OK for women who have had an abortion to be raped. Here is the link.
Are you saying that this:
quote:
'a woman who has an abortion gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body without restrictions because she has committed a sin as if she had a right to do so'.
... is saying that its OK for women who have had an abortion to be raped?
While its a pretty fucked-up thing to say, it doesn't say to me that its OK for the woman to be raped.
I think what he was trying to say was: because she's acting as if she has a right to abuse her body without restriction, then she's allowing for others to do the same (not that I agree with that statement). But that doesn't mean that others doing that something would be OK. Rape would still be wrong, but since she's done something, that he feels is, so terrible, then she'd have no business complaining about something else, that he feels is, not so terrible. But I think he was trying to express how bad he thought abortion was, not how not-bad he thought rape was.
That being said, it was a bad thing to say and he should retract it and appologize. The phrase "gives a man absolute licence to abuse her body without restrictions" certainly sounds like rape, and he does seem to be legitimizing it a bit. I think he probably could have phrased it better, or maybe there's a lot lost in translation.
However, if he does think that its OK to rape women who've had an abortion, then he needs to be fired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Parasomnium, posted 01-08-2012 9:33 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by saab93f, posted 01-10-2012 11:31 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2012 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 75 (647574)
01-10-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by caffeine
01-10-2012 8:17 AM


Re: Abhorrent, but not incitement
"Go and rape women" - exhortation to commit a crime. This is illegal.
I think its a pretty big stretch to make this a statment that the men in the congregation should go out and rape the woman who have had abbortions.
I agree it's not a good analogy, but I'm having difficulty coming up with one.
How about this:
'a woman who drives 30 mph over the speed limit gives a man absolute licence to cut her off in traffic without restrictions because she has committed a sin as if she had a right to do so'.
Meh, I dunno.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by caffeine, posted 01-10-2012 8:17 AM caffeine has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 75 (647576)
01-10-2012 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by saab93f
01-10-2012 11:31 AM


While I kinda understand what you are saying I am baffled by the need to apologize on that monsters behalf or even to try and justify his train of thought.
Yeah, I wasn't going to say anything at all because anything besides "OMG! THIS FUCKER IS SOOO TERRIBLE!" would be responded to with detest. Upon submission, I fully expected to have people tell me that I'm a bad person for not jumping on the bandwagon and hating on this guy (not that you've done this).
But then I remembered that it doesn't really matter. I don't feel any need to apologize for this guy. I just don't think that what people think he was saying was what he was actually saying.
Clarity for clarity's sake. That is all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by saab93f, posted 01-10-2012 11:31 AM saab93f has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 75 (647583)
01-10-2012 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tangle
01-10-2012 11:44 AM


SC writes:
That being said, it was a bad thing to say and he should retract it and appologize.
Not good enough really is it?
Huh?
This wasn't an off the cuff remark in the pub, it was the Archbishop's Christmas message to his congregation. That's normally something you think about in advance and even write down. He obviously means what he says.
Sure, but did he mean what people are interpreting him as saying? Did he mean what he was translated as saying?
If the Vatican doesn't fire him, they're once again saying that they are not going to conform to the normal rules of decent society.
I could think up other reasons... but when have you ever gotten the sense from the Vatican that they think they should comform to the normal rules of decent society?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2012 11:44 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tangle, posted 01-10-2012 12:18 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 52 by frako, posted 01-10-2012 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 75 (647864)
01-11-2012 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by frako
01-10-2012 4:07 PM


Don't forget about them being the No-Fun Police....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by frako, posted 01-10-2012 4:07 PM frako has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024