therevolutionweneed-deactivated asked:

"Aisha. Married her at 6 years old. Had sex with her at 9 years old." WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU HEAR THIS FROM? I'm a Muslim and your information is wrong. The prophet married her when Aisha was in her late 20s. You are an ignorant bastard. Learn Islam before you start bashing it, you fucking dumbass.

How sad. Muslims don’t know their own religion. Maybe if they did they wouldn’t be Muslims in the first place.

Here are some quotes from other fucking dumbasses, as described by shiawithin, that were closer to the events than me or anyone else today.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated ‘Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated ‘Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).” what you know of the Quran (by heart)’

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88 
Narrated ‘Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

9 years old /= late 20s. Simple.
Is it a surprise then that child brides are so prevalent in muslim societies? Of course not. Funny how the “misunderstanders” of Islam are those that know the source material more intimately than anyone else.

In reason:

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (CNN) - Three Philadelphia priests and a parochial school teacher were charged Thursday with raping and assaulting boys in their care, while a former official with the Philadelphia Archdiocese was accused of allowing the abusive priests to have access to children, the city’s district attorney’s office said.

Belief in god =/= morality. Hope they all rot in jail.

"Victims of sexual abuse by clergy may find this news deeply painful," Rigali said. "Our thoughts and prayers are with them."

Screw you.

The boy told his parents, who confronted Brennan. The priest denied the allegations, according to the grand jury report.

The boy “suffered depression, dramatic weight loss, and drug and alcohol addiction,” according to the grand jury report.

"Ultimately, he committed suicide," the report said.

The pope has the answer, and it’s not the priests. Can you guess whose fault it all is?

If you guessed godless secular society, you’d be right. It doesn’t count for much, though, because you know it was an easy question.

I’m not sure how it works, though. He claims that secular society was making excuses for pedophiles, promoting moral relativism, which I don’t think was at all true…but let’s pretend it was, just to give him the full benefit of the doubt. Then what? A priest sees George Carlin, Richard Nixon, and George Wallace all busily promoting a lifestyle of hedonism and disregard for others, so he is unable to resist buggering the choir boys? Hey, I saw KC and the Sunshine Band live once, so now I have a penchant for cannibalism? Westboro Baptist Church pickets against gays, so suddenly I want to have sex with chickens?

Catholic logic doesn’t seem to have much to do with real logic.

What a “non-surprise”. Apart from hard core catholic believers, did anyone else not see what has been patently obvious for years now? Of course not.

And then to read and hear the catholic clergy claim they represent god. Good thing there is no evidence to believe there is such a thing as a god to begin with. Since atheists have no need to attend the catholic nonsense that occurs every sunday in churches all around the globe, pedophile priests are low probability problem for them. Just another benefit of being skeptical, of not giving religion a free pass.

That being said it is important that citizens of all nations continue to put pressure on their respective governments to make sure that the catholic church does not get a free pass on this horrible issue. No one shold be above the law, especially those that claim to represent god on earth.


yourfaith-deactivated20101012 asked:

Thank you for the friendly gesture of leaving links in my ask box.

After I read, "Nobody should give a rat’s behind for “cannon law”. Who cares?" I realized that the discussion became a moot point.

My point remains that if you could legally prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Benedict XVI intended and acted to help criminals escape from justice, then you could convince any sound court, at least the Italian courts, to remove papal immunity in courts of law.

Anger, confusion, and frustration are also emotions shared with Catholics who have followed the abuse cases that almost made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Admittedly, the pace of implementation of canon law (which you cite as irrelevant) is unknown in other countries, but the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has enabled the immediate removal and arrest of priests who have merit-able allegations brought against them.

The primary problem in the U.S. Catholic Church at this point is that this zero-tolerance policy extends only to the priests; because bishops are the direct descendants of the Apostles, the conference is not so quick to give blessing to the arrest of bishops who were involved in past scandals (hence "resignations"), and this is a sore point with canon lawyers who recognize the ecclesiastical double standard.

In any event, you have made your disregard of canon law clear, so I must then note that nowhere (that I know of) is it stated that ecclesiastical rules supersede or have any greater value than the law of the state.

With finality, I recognize the facts for what they are: I repeat as above, if one can create a comprehensive legal case that, with its proofs, will be able to overturn papal immunity because of rationale beyond a shadow of a doubt that Benedict XVI was involved, then do so.

Since I have basically reiterated my position as before - that the cases you cite, however much circumstantial evidence is present, are obviously not enough at this point to warrant the attention of the secular courts nearest the Vatican, or lest it has not yet been presented to them in an effective manner - there is little need for you to post this on your blog, although as always you are free to.

If you are an American, then is your good conscience satisfied that our government is corruption-free? Whether a Catholic or not, there are at least a few lawyers dedicated to both the prosecution of abusers and the reform of the Church; likewise, whether I were a Catholic or not, as this is the largest religion in the world, if I cannot completely remove evil, then I must work to prevent it as much as possible. That cannot be done by conveniently, completely removing myself; I would rather stay and fight the corruption in powers that be.

I share with you my hope, prayer, and human efforts, that effective legal opposition may be brought against those who would shame the Church - no matter who they are, if the truth shows them wrong.

Again, thank you for your time.

I find it sad that like the pope, you hide the church and the leaders responsible for this whole situation behind a legal argument in support of a system of law that has no applicability outside the walls of Vatican city. That is shameful. It reminded me of the words of Jesus Mark 7:13.

Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition (cannon law?) that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.

As you might remember Jesus also said in Mark 9:42,

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea.

The “cannon law” issue is irrelevant even in the biblical sense. This is not a cannon law issue Ryan, it is a moral one. Precisley the thing the church and the Pope, based on the examples I provided and that you conveniently ignored, do not have.

In regards to removing papal immunity, there are many making the legal case for it. Sadly we both know how it is almost impossible to bring the powerful to account (See George W. Bush for example). But again that is beside the point. All people that appreciate and respect truth cannot, in any good conscience, support such an organization much less defend the crass negligence (at best) or the crimes (at worst) of the individual that leads it. The size of the church or how old is it makes no difference. The church has a long history of internal reformer failures (Luther anyone?). The past is the best indicator of future conduct. Why waste your time on something that has proven ineffective for a bit under 2,000 years? The way the system is set up (a priesthood of “celibate” males only) and the “authority” that supports it (papal infallibility) is an affront to common sense and moral reason. Things that go beyond the letter of the law. Just like Jesus said…

Take care.
In reason,

yourfaith-deactivated20101012 asked:

If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Benedict XVI intended and acted to help criminals escape from justice, then do so. I am a friend of the truth.

The disagreement between religious and non-religious cannot be used to marginalize the reality that abuse transcends a presence or lack of beliefs.

Indeed, let those who are best prepared to assist victims do so.

There can be no denial that those who receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders are under the same temptations and frailties as any other man. I simply believe that we were created for infinity; this includes dealing with those who would abuse others as if there were no tomorrow. This generation of Catholics must concretely work so that those individuals who have and would betray the priesthood are immediately removed, and receive just punishment from the state.

The fruit of this work can only come from further revision and correct implementation of canon law, and the efforts of the laity to serve as a watch-dog of even the national bishops conferences.

As an aspiring medical professional, canon lawyer, and possibly priest, thank you for your time.

Ryan brought the case to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who today is Pope Benedict XVI. Ryan asked Benedict to forcibly remove Campbell from the priesthood.

In a personally signed letter, Ratzinger, citing Canon law, said he couldn’t defrock Campbell without Campbell’s permission – and instead suggested a local church trial, which would have taken years. It would be three more years before Bishop Ryan could persuade Campbell to request his own defrocking.

McCormick was speechless when he read the letter that kept his abuser an ordained priest.

“I think common sense should supersede Canon law,” McCormick said.

I am not surprised. This is nothing new. Nobody should give a rat’s behind for “cannon law”. Who cares? Isn’t doing what is right the important thing here? (Hitler, for example, was never excommunicated. But if you are a women priest, summary excommunication.) Common sense is not common at all.

You said:

The disagreement between religious and non-religious cannot be used to marginalize the reality that abuse transcends a presence or lack of beliefs.

I never stated that child abuse was found only in the Catholic priesthood. Such a complaint is a straw man distraction. The point was that the leaders of the Catholic Church decided that the institution came before the victims. Both in words and in actions, starting with Mr. Ratzinger.

For example:

“The case then languished for four years at the Vatican before Ratzinger finally wrote to the Oakland bishop. It was two more years before Kiesle was removed; during that time he continued to do volunteer work with children through the church.”

Ratzinger also noted, says the report, that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the “good of the universal church” and the “detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ’s faithful, particularly considering the young age.” The priest was 38 at the time.

Read more:

Notice how the priest still had access to children FOR 2 MORE YEARS with the knowledge of the Church. With Ratzinger’s personal knowledge!!! His position in this debacle is morally indefensible. As a self proclaimed friend of truth you should recognize these facts for what they are.

You said:

The fruit of this work can only come from further revision and correct implementation of canon law, and the efforts of the laity to serve as a watch-dog of even the national bishops conferences.

What? The only way to actually protect children is to recognize that cannon law does not supersede secular law. Never has, never will. Cannon law is totally irrelevant (unless you live in the Vatican). It is not so much modification of cannon law that is needed. Again, who cares? What needed to be done was implement secular law. As in calling the Police. As in not moving pedophiles around parishes when they got caught. As in not letting them have access to children after knowing what evils have such pedophiles done. How hard can that be? Where is the supposed Christian morality of the self proclaimed vicars of Christ? Please…

If hiding crimes and exposing children to abuse (FOR 2 YEARS) for “the good of the universal church”, is excusable, then anything is.  And don’t get me started on how Cardinal Law was sheltered by the Vatican after the scandal, and how he covered for pedophile priests, was known in Boston.

I’m sorry but as a man of good conscience I could never have any association with such a corrupt institution. Much less admire leaders whose contrition only comes after they cannot hide the facts any more. I will never be able to do such and neither should anyone who actually cares for truth.

Please become a medical professional. It is truly an infinitely better choice.

In reason:

yourfaith-deactivated20101012 asked:

I make only a friendly suggestion: perhaps the most effective prevention of pedophilia in the Catholic Church would be a complete, comprehensive, constructive, and systematic critique of the official laws of the Church regarding child abuse (See "Normae de gravioribus delictis,"

Surely canon lawyers were involved in the recent modifications of the norms, but Church laws could be more effective if there were a concerted effort from respected secular lawyers to assist in further revision.

Such an effort would hopefully be brought on by the public, if criticism were more focused on improving efforts of current crime prevention.

In any case, thank you for reading, have a good day.


The best prevention would be to punish those responsible for molesting kids and the individuals that enabled/hid them. Actions usually carry more weight than words. Wouldn’t you agree?

Why would anyone trust an individual that claims to represent god on earth in spite of not having any evidence in favor of it? BTW, did you know that is just one of Pope’s official titles? Why would people still keep trusting and supporting such an institution when plenty evidence is available to the contrary? If anyone wants to stop pedophilia in the catholic church the first step would be to stop supporting the same church that enables it. Wouldn’t you agree? Isn’t it obvious?

Efforts right now are focused on where the church did not focus on for DECADES, on the victims. It is my opinion that in an ideal world the type of secular lawyers that would be involved in such cases would be known as prosecutors.

Remember, a mayor component of crime prevention is deterrence. The one thing that can only come by punishing those responsible. The second component is compensation to the victims. Just the thing that a literal army of catholic lawyers are fighting tooth and nail against at courts all over the world right now.

At the end of the day personal attachment to the particular myth and superstition of the catholic church should not overpower our sense of morality and shared humanity. History has shown the folly of such a blindly trusting, i.e. faithful, attitude.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Take care.
In reason:

By Scott Bronstein
CNN Special Investigations Unit

“I think what the Murphy case shows is the deference that Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Benedict would give to the priests,” said David Gibson, a pope biographer and author of “The Rule of Benedict.” Ratzinger, like other Vatican officials “would always accede to the priest’s wishes first, rather than the victim’s wishes, rather than justice for the victims. They were secondary to what the priest wanted and what he felt was best for keeping things quiet and taking care of the institutional church.”

In a rare interview, Monsignor Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s prosecutor, told CNN he understands the frustration and anger in the Murphy case.

Asked if the Murphy decision were a mistake, Monsignor Scicluna said, “No, I wouldn’t call it a mistake. I would call it a different take on a very difficult case.”

How can you say that you “understand the frustration and anger” but at the same time claim that how the church acted was not a mistake but a “different take on a very difficult case”? What was so “difficult” about it? Is it hard to figure out that children need to be protected from pedophiles? “Different take” as in more kids were allowed to be molested just so the church’s reputation did not suffer? How I wish all these lawsuits could bankrupt financially such a morally bankrupt institution. But remember, it is all the atheist’s fault.