Student kidnaps Eucharist - commits mortal sin

[Irreligious]

You expect me to have something profound to say about a worldview that considers it a grave offense to "steal" a cracker? Why would I pretend to have that kind of respect for your religion, Lily? Instead, I am trying in vain to convey to you just how preposterous I think the whole thing is.

And I'm appalled, frankly, that the pope would, in any way, become involved in this silly contretemps, but take no positive action towards punishing clergy involved in the pedophile priest scandal. Those are pretty fucked up values, if you ask me.

Irreligious wrote

You expect me to have something profound to say about a worldview that considers it a grave offense to "steal" a cracker? Why would I pretend to have that kind of respect for your religion, Lily? Instead, I am trying in vain to convey to you just how preposterous I think the whole thing is.

And I'm appalled, frankly, that the pope would, in any way, become involved in this silly contretemps, but take no positive action towards punishing clergy involved in the pedophile priest scandal. Those are pretty fucked up values, if you ask me.

This is not the first time you have demonstrated a complete and utter lack of simple reading comprehension. How is the pope involved in this in any way, shape, or form? How? How? How? How? Nothing has been said to indicate that he is involved. Nothing.

You have not the slightest idea of how the Pope has handled the priest scandal. Not a clue but I am not going to go there for the 7504th time.

You still, after 35 pages, don't have a clue that none of us gives a damn, if you understand or respect our worldview. This is not even remotely the issue. How have you avoided learning *anything*, after all that has been written here? Only on the assumption that you are, in fact, functionally illiterate does it make any sense at all.

[ubs]

Lily wrote

You have not the slightest idea of how the Pope has handled the priest scandal. Not a clue but I am not going to go there for the 7504th time.

We know what he hasn't done. What he hasn't done is attone to the American public in which his pedophile employees were permitted to pray on American children while his organization took pains to protect the perps....for decades!

No one gives a shit about any personal anguish he experienced or strong words he may have used with his staff.

Lily wrote

You still, after 35 pages, don't have a clue that none of us gives a damn, if you understand or respect our worldview.

Lily, our interest in the Catholic Church's club house rules is a matter of armchair anthropological curiosity, not an endorsement of their importance.

The world is limping along as the worst US president in our nations history finishes out his term - a term that he gained, in part through poll shenanigans, and in part through the assistance of the deeply religious, such as yourself. People are angry at the religious and so religious people assume defensive positions that, I think, would see ridiculous to them in any other circumstance.

Suppose that instead of the Church we had the Lincoln Nebraska Kwanzaa Club, and this club has a regular ritual in which they smoke specially made cigars after each meeting. Within the group the cigars are thought to have special powers. They are legendary.

A reporter feigning sincerity infiltrates the club and nabs a cigar to have it analyzed. Now you would expect the group to be offended by this reporters dishonesty and his challenge to the groups romantic legend. You would expect them to kick him out.

However, you would find it both comical and alarming if the group felt themselves so important, that an offense directed at them put them beyond the law - entitled them, for instance, to egg the reporters house or hit him with their car.

It is precisely this situation that makes the Muslim comic fiasco both entertaining and eroding to the credibility of Islam. You are demanding that the church be given respect, but when has the church ever SHOWN respect for anyone but themselves?

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

This is not the first time you have demonstrated a complete and utter lack of simple reading comprehension. How is the pope involved in this in any way, shape, or form? How? How? How? How? Nothing has been said to indicate that he is involved. Nothing.

Lily wrote

The excommunication he pronounced on himself by his action can only be lifted by the Pope.

bolding, mine
In other words, if this kid is excommunicated by the bishop of his diocese (or whatever body in the R.C. church decides these things), the pope will have to intervene. That is, get involved if the kid wants back in. Those are your words above, so there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, nor am I imagining things that have not been posted in this thread.

Lily wrote

You have not the slightest idea of how the Pope has handled the priest scandal. Not a clue but I am not going to go there for the 7504th time.

Well, fortunately, I have your learned "expertise" on which to rely from the "Pope apologises for paediophile priests in Australia" thread:

Lily wrote

...Neither a priest nor a bishop can be fired in the sense that you mean. When a man is ordained, he is changed in his very being; he is "configured" to Christ. Even if he is removed from the priesthood, he remains a priest forever, sacramentally speaking.

Sounds to me like you were saying the pope is pretty powerless to get rid of the scoundrels who protected priests who raped minors in their parishes. A priest is a priest is a priest forever. Besides, as you went on to explain, it's not really in the pope's jurisdiction:

Lily wrote

The pope is not the head of a corporation who delegates his authority. Each bishop is head of the local Church, the diocese. A bishop’s authority within his diocese is not delegated authority the way a vice president's is or a dept. manager's is. Canon 381 of the Code of Canon Law states: "In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan bishop has all the ordinary, proper, and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office."

However, all it takes for the average Catholic plebe to be jettisoned from the fold is to "steal" a single magic cracker and only the power of the pope can bring him back, according to you in this thread:

Lily wrote

The excommunication [Webster Cook] pronounced on himself by his action can only be lifted by the Pope.

Again, that's fucked up in the scheme of things.

Lily wrote

You still, after 35 pages, don't have a clue that none of us gives a damn, if you understand or respect our worldview. This is not even remotely the issue. How have you avoided learning *anything*, after all that has been written here? Only on the assumption that you are, in fact, functionally illiterate does it make any sense at all.

Obviously, you do give a damn or you wouldn't be here trying to defend your worldview against the mockery that it is heir to here in this forum populated by folks who announce pretty loudly and often that they don't respect it.

And, obviously, I am not even functionally illiterate or it would be impossible for us to communicate the way we are. You simply refuse to understand that what you consider sacrosanct and laudable as it pertains to your religion, I find silly and laughable. Again, I am not unaware of how seriously you take all this, though I am nonplussed that you sincerely think I should.

ubs wrote

We know what he hasn't done. What he hasn't done is attone to the American public in which his pedophile employees were permitted to pray on American children while his organization took pains to protect the perps....for decades!

Comprehensive twaddle; refuted so many times that I can't even muster the energy to care that you don't have a clue.

Suppose that instead of the Church we had the Lincoln Nebraska Kwanzaa Club, and this club has a regular ritual in which they smoke specially made cigars after each meeting. Within the group the cigars are thought to have special powers. They are legendary.

A reporter feigning sincerity infiltrates the club and nabs a cigar to have it analyzed. Now you would expect the group to be offended by this reporters dishonesty and his challenge to the groups romantic legend. You would expect them to kick him out.

However, you would find it both comical and alarming if the group felt themselves so important, that an offense directed at them put them beyond the law - entitled them, for instance, to egg the reporters house or hit him with their car.

Again, you have completely missed the point. How is it possible? They would have every right to seek legal redress of the trespass and theft that took place.

No one, NOBODY, not the Pope, not the bishops, not the priests, not the deacons, not the subdeacons, NOBODY in the RCC hierarchy has indicated the slightest interest in harming anyone or, even, in prosecuting the thieves. NOBODY.

The actions of emotionally, over-wrought individuals are their responsibility alone. Just as Myers and any other intellectually and moral stunted human being is responsible for his actions.

It is precisely this situation that makes the Muslim comic fiasco both entertaining and eroding to the credibility of Islam.

*Comic fiasco*!! These people cut off heads as a matter of official policy! Even Myers is afraid to take them on, as well he should be. Do you think he would dare to desecrate the Host, except that he knows the Church will not retaliate or harm him?

You are demanding that the church be given respect, but when has the church ever SHOWN respect for anyone but themselves?

UBS, learn to fucking read. I have demanded no such thing. I have tried to explain why Catholics are so angry and why it was so extraordinarily stupid to offend people deliberately over something that could only arouse very deep emotions.

As far as when the Church has shown respect for anyone... Dear God!!! How ignorant is it possible to be? The Church shows respect every single day in every possible way. Where would I even begin to document that? In just the last 30 years we have seen a Pope meet publicly with the man who tried to murder him and forgive him. We have seen a Pope travel to a Muslim country and kiss the Koran as a sign of respect for their religion. We have seen the most vigorous attempts at ecumenism and outreach to the Jews in 2000 years.

There are missions all over the world that provide services to people in desperate need. A tiny RCC mission in Covina, So. Africa, truly the middle of nowhere, cares for 400 orphans, left behind after both parents died of AIDS. In this country the Church educates masses of minority children at no cost to them. It would educate many thousands more, if it had the means. It runs hospitals and charitable institutions that reach millions all over the world. This doesn't even begin to address the question.

It really is time to think before you spew.

[Irreligious]

Lily wrote

...Again, you have completely missed the point. How is it possible? They would have every right to seek legal redress of the trespass and theft that took place.

What law did this kid break, Lily? Is there a law on the books, anywhere in the whole United States of America outside of the Roman Catholic Church, that makes it a crime for someone to accept a host-- a wafer-- that was given to him or her and not eat it?

Would you like there to be?

Lily wrote

No one, NOBODY, not the Pope, not the bishops, not the priests, not the deacons, not the subdeacons, NOBODY in the RCC hierarchy has indicated the slightest interest in harming anyone or, even, in prosecuting the thieves. NOBODY.

That's because the kid's action, dumb as it may have been, is not a prosecutable offense in any court of law. The church would be exposing itself to some serious mockery if it tried to take this, er, case to court. The most the church leaders can do is to leave it up to the university to do their dirty work and see that Webster Cook is properly chastened. That, and bar the kid from ever setting foot in that particular Catholic church ever again.

Lily wrote

The actions of emotionally, over-wrought individuals are their responsibility alone. Just as Myers and any other intellectually and moral stunted human being is responsible for his actions.

You're two peas in a pod for all the emotion that you, yourself, have wrought over this ridiculous issue.

Lily wrote

*Comic fiasco*!! These people cut off heads as a matter of official policy! Even Myers is afraid to take them on, as well he should be. Do you think he would dare to desecrate the Host, except that he knows the Church will not retaliate or harm him?

Well, props to you all for not taking it that far. That makes you more reasonable than a raving mad radical Muslim. Mazel Tov.

Lily wrote

UBS, learn to fucking read. I have demanded no such thing. I have tried to explain why Catholics are so angry and why it was so extraordinarily stupid to offend people deliberately over something that could only arouse very deep emotions.

Wow!
*As an aside, Lily, isn't it liberating to just fling the F-word around like that? Seriously? It's fucking fun, huh?*

Anyway, Lily, why is it so hard for you to understand that we all understand that you guys take this stuff very seriously, but we find it bizarre that you do? That's always been the issue here. We know you take it seriously. Given that, young Webster Cook fucked with the wrong people and pissed you off something fierce. That couldn't be more apparent to anyone not in a coma. What's not so apparent to a lot of us is how otherwise sane, 21st century folk could even get worked up over what Cook did, all of your attempts at justification, notwithstanding.

Irreligious wrote

bolding, mine
In other words, if this kid is excommunicated by the bishop of his diocese (or whatever body in the R.C. church decides these things), the pope will have to intervene. That is, get involved if the kid wants back in. Those are your words above, so there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, nor am I imagining things that have not been posted in this thread.

Let me write in short simple sentences. I have no very great hope that you will understand but I do believe in miracles, after all.

1. The Bishop has not and will not excommunicate him. He has already accepted Cook's insincere apology.

2. Desecrating the Host automatically, with no human intervention at all, is an act of self-excommunication. Cook excommunicated himself, if he understood the gravity of his action.

3. Here are your exact words: the pope will have to intervene.

Will have to intervene= future tense. He is not now involved in this in any way, shape or form. He is very unlikely to have heard about the incident at all. It is a virtual certainty that he has never heard Cook's name.

4. If the Pope intervenes at all, it will happen only if Cook asks him to lift the excommunication.

You simply refuse to understand that what you consider sacrosanct and laudable as it pertains to your religion, I find silly and laughable. Again, I am not unaware of how seriously you take all this, though I am nonplussed that you sincerely think I should.

This is something I have explained to you too many times to have any great hope that further explanation will have any point. Yet, my belief in the light of natural reason, battered as it has been in this forum, still stands. So I will explain once more in the simplest words I can muster:

1. I know that you find laughable and silly what I consider sacred. So what? With a few honorable exceptions, I find atheism suited only to simpletons who are incapable of serious thought or else are so emotionally defective, they can't imagine anything more important than the state of their digestion and their need for orgasm, NOW.

2. I correct misstatements about what we believe. I attack statements that are factually wrong.

If you had any intellectual integrity, you would check what I say against any encyclopedia. But it is easier to attack me, as though that had the power to change the facts. It is ridiculous and, yet, hilarious at the same time. Go figure.

Irreligious wrote

What law did this kid break, Lily?

Well, there is disorderly conduct for one. There is interfering with our constitutional right to worship freely and without harassment, trespassers and the like. Since the Church is not trying to prosecute him just as it has rarely, if ever, prosecuted others who have pulled the same horseshit, your question is moot, isn't it?

The most the church leaders can do is to leave it up to the university to do their dirty work and see that Webster Cook is properly chastened. That, and bar the kid from ever setting foot in that particular Catholic church ever again.

No, that isn't the most the Church can do. It could proceed to prosecute on the grounds I indicated. It will not. Moreover, it is not a matter of the University doing their "dirty work" . The university has a code of student conduct which Cook violated in a number of ways. Given the uproar from other students, alumni, and towns people (the University admits to having received 500 emails on the subject), it could scarcely avoid looking at the matter, could it?

*As an aside, Lily, isn't it liberating to just fling the F-word around like that? Seriously? It's fucking fun, huh?*

No, it makes me feel ill. But I get your attention with it when I do.

What's not so apparent to a lot of us is how, otherwise, sane 21st century folk could even get worked up over what Cook did, all of your attempts at justification explanation, notwithstanding.

(sentence corrected and emphasis added)

[Irreligious]

Lily, my dear, you are spinning your wheels. You are not correcting me. You are insisting that I share your sensibilites. No can do.

Furthermore, I did not say that the pope was currently intervening on Cook's behalf. You said this kid's offense was grounds for excommunication and that only the pope could intervene to reverse it. I understood you perfectly, so you can stop patronizing with the staccato verses.

However this arcane process of excommunication works, the point is only the pope can reverse it, according to you. I find that bizarre in light of the pope's apparent powerlessness as it pertains to folks in his fold who have committed actual criminal offenses, such as the bishops who shielded pedophile priests from the long arm of the law for years and years.

And get off your high horse. Just because I find your silly ancient superstitions to be laughable does not mean I am concerned only about corporeal matters any more than your lack of reverence for what many nonChristian theists hold sancrosant implies that you are concerned only about engorging and relieving your body orifices.

Edited: Aww. If saying fuck makes you ill, please don't do it on our behalf. For good or ill, you command our attention without it, even if it is only to consistently disagree with you. And saying fuck when you don't really won't to is not going to change that. Only the copious application of common sense and logic on your part can do that.

[ubs]

Lily wrote

Comprehensive twaddle; refuted so many times that I can't even muster the energy to care that you don't have a clue.

Nope

Lily wrote

No one, NOBODY, not the Pope, not the bishops, not the priests, not the deacons, not the subdeacons, NOBODY in the RCC hierarchy has indicated the slightest interest in harming anyone or, even, in prosecuting the thieves. NOBODY.

The actions of emotionally, over-wrought individuals are their responsibility alone. Just as Myers and any other intellectually and moral stunted human being is responsible for his actions.

I think this raises an interesting issue. The 'Big C' Church is not only comprised of the Pope and his collared minions. There wouldn't BE the church without the teaming hordes. If someone has been baptized as a Catholic and has not been excommunicated, then are they not a part of the church? And don't their actions also represent the church?

If he disagrees with their actions, it's within the Pope's powers to remove them from the club.If one of us breaks the law using images on this site, Chris is liable, hence the presence of Eva. Why should the Catholic Church be any different?

As to addressing the virtues of apologies and mission work for people not permitted to wear condoms, I will leave that to sharper swords than my own.

[calpurnpiso]

lily wrote:

" Lily wrote View Post
No one, NOBODY, not the Pope, not the bishops, not the priests, not the deacons, not the subdeacons, NOBODY in the RCC hierarchy has indicated the slightest interest in harming anyone or, even, in prosecuting the thieves. NOBODY. "

Yes retard because we are in the 21st Century and they CAN NOT, just couple of centuries ago Mr Clarke would have been TORTURED or perhaps KILLED. You Lily are a Christ-psychosis infected imbecile. Get a new brain.

[ghoulslime]

Lily wrote

Let me write in short simple sentences. I have no very great hope that you will understand but I do believe in miracles, after all.

1. The Bishop has not and will not excommunicate him. He has already accepted Cook's insincere apology.

2. Desecrating the Host automatically, with no human intervention at all, is an act of self-excommunication. Cook excommunicated himself, if he understood the gravity of his action.

3. Here are your exact words: the pope will have to intervene.

Will have to intervene= future tense. He is not now involved in this in any way, shape or form. He is very unlikely to have heard about the incident at all. It is a virtual certainty that he has never heard Cook's name.

4. If the Pope intervenes at all, it will happen only if Cook asks him to lift the excommunication.



This is something I have explained to you too many times to have any great hope that further explanation will have any point. Yet, my belief in the light of natural reason, battered as it has been in this forum, still stands. So I will explain once more in the simplest words I can muster:

1. I know that you find laughable and silly what I consider sacred. So what? With a few honorable exceptions, I find atheism suited only to simpletons who are incapable of serious thought or else are so emotionally defective, they can't imagine anything more important than the state of their digestion and their need for orgasm, NOW.

2. I correct misstatements about what we believe. I attack statements that are factually wrong.

If you had any intellectual integrity, you would check what I say against any encyclopedia. But it is easier to attack me, as though that had the power to change the facts. It is ridiculous and, yet, hilarious at the same time. Go figure.

Define irony!

An emotionally-unbalanced old woman who uses words like “intellectual integrity”, “ridiculous”, and “hilarious” to defend her assertion that heavenly ghosts inhabit her snacks – it’s grade A fucking comedy!

[ghoulslime]

Irreligious wrote

...you are concerned only about engorging and relieving your body orifices.

I like this turn of phrase. It paints an accurate picture of this waste of organic matter, Lily, defender of Popes and pedophiles, protector of the magic biscuits of bullshit.

[ghoulslime]

ubs wrote

Nope



I think this raises an interesting issue. The 'Big C' Church is not only comprised of the Pope and his collared minions. There wouldn't BE the church without the teaming hordes. If someone has been baptized as a Catholic and has not been excommunicated, then are they not a part of the church? And don't their actions also represent the church?

If he disagrees with their actions, it's within the Pope's powers to remove them from the club.If one of us breaks the law using images on this site, Chris is liable, hence the presence of Eva. Why should the Catholic Church be any different?

As to addressing the virtues of apologies and mission work for people not permitted to wear condoms, I will leave that to sharper swords than my own.

Actually, the reality of Catholics “helping” victims of AIDS, many of whom they created by their divinely-wrought policies on the evils of condom use, is a steaming pile of disgust that I don’t have the inclination to poke at this morning.

ubs wrote

...
The 'Big C' Church is not only comprised of the Pope and his collared minions. There wouldn't BE the church without the teaming hordes.

Well, yes they would be but that is beyond outsiders to understand. Instead of wasting cyber ink on that, let's take your questions one by one.

1. If someone has been baptized as a Catholic and has not been excommunicated, then are they not a part of the church? If he has not excommunicated himself, yes he is part of the Church.

2. And don't their actions also represent the church? No. Do the actions of the KKK represent the United States? Does Josef Fritzl represent all Austrians? Does the action of any one person represent all the institutions of which he is a member?

3. If he disagrees with their actions, it's within the Pope's powers to remove them from the club. This fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the Church. The Church is the hospital for sinners who want to be healed. Sinners are her business. If God welcomes all, and He does, so must His Church which is His visible body on earth. The only crime that can get someone thrown out of the Church is an unrepented crime directly against God, i.e. desecration of the Host. If/when he is sorry and asks for forgiveness, he will be restored. (Yes, persistence in mortal sin can also incur excommunication but that is rare as we see by just looking at the so-called Catholics in the US Senate.)

The Church is not an arm of the state charged with finding or prosecuting criminals. I can't say with certainty but I should think that in 99% of cases, the only way a priest learns of a parishoner's crime(s) is in the confessional and the secrecy of the confessional is absolute. If the priest were to betray this sacred trust, he would automatically be excommunicated.

Here from a reliable source is some information about that:

Canon 983.1 of the Code of Canon Law, the Catechism states, "...It is a crime for a confessor in any way to betray a penitent by word or in any other manner or for any reason" (No. 2490). A priest, therefore, cannot break the seal to save his own life, to protect his good name, to refute a false accusation, to save the life of another, to aid the course of justice (like reporting a crime), or to avert a public calamity. ...

(Just as an aside, a great movie which deals with this very topic is Alfred Hitchcock's "I Confess," which deals with a priest who hears a murder confession and then is framed for the murder. As a priest, I was in agony during much of the movie.)
(http://www.catholicculture.org/libra...fm?recnum=1385)

As to addressing the virtues of apologies and mission work for people not permitted to wear condoms, I will leave that to sharper swords than my own.

As foolish a sentence as you have ever written and that is saying something.

They are permitted to wear condoms. The world ships them by the thousands. Those who listen to the Church on the subject of condoms, listen to the Church on the subject of sex and marriage. The idea that *anyone* would obey the Church in only this one matter is preposterous. Simply preposterous. It is not the thinking of someone who is able to think clearly on the matter.