Christ, this is pathetic
posted by bitchphd
I don't remember where I found this charming story about the former Archbishop of Portland--who is now, mind you, the prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith--making the argument that the diocese of Portland shouldn't have to pay child support for the child fathered by one of its priests when he was in seminary because, and I quote, the mother had "unprotected intercourse … when [she] should have known that could result in pregnancy."
That's right. The Catholic church, arguing that the woman oughta have used birth control.
Lots of Catholics, of course, are pissed off about it (and, in the end, the woman was awarded the increase in child support she was asking for). But the real problem with this argument isn't that the church is being hypocritical. That's old news, and hardly worth commenting on. The problem is the argument, of course, that the pregnancy was all the woman's fault, like the priest who fathered her child (haha, fathered, geddit?) just had nothing to do with it.
Hence the lawyer, trying to explain why he made an argument that, in theory, is contrary to the actual position of his client (i.e., birth control is evil), says that he
Yeah, that's how pregnancy works. You just wake up one morning and say, "I'm gonna get pregnant today in order to screw up some random guy's life" and you go and pick up the pregnancy at the local convenience store and then you file a child support suit against someone whose name you pick out of the phone book.
She didn't get pregnant to keep him out of the priesthood. She got pregnant because he was fucking her.
Unless, of course, the argument is that because he was a seminarian he didn't know how that all worked. Poor innocent lamb.
That's right. The Catholic church, arguing that the woman oughta have used birth control.
Lots of Catholics, of course, are pissed off about it (and, in the end, the woman was awarded the increase in child support she was asking for). But the real problem with this argument isn't that the church is being hypocritical. That's old news, and hardly worth commenting on. The problem is the argument, of course, that the pregnancy was all the woman's fault, like the priest who fathered her child (haha, fathered, geddit?) just had nothing to do with it.
Hence the lawyer, trying to explain why he made an argument that, in theory, is contrary to the actual position of his client (i.e., birth control is evil), says that he
brought up the lack of birth control for an entirely different reason — to allege that Collopy was trying to trap Uribe into a long-term relationship." . . . Kuhn said the defense he raised was probably based on his suspicion that Collopy got pregnant to keep Uribe out of the priesthood.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Yeah, that's how pregnancy works. You just wake up one morning and say, "I'm gonna get pregnant today in order to screw up some random guy's life" and you go and pick up the pregnancy at the local convenience store and then you file a child support suit against someone whose name you pick out of the phone book.
She didn't get pregnant to keep him out of the priesthood. She got pregnant because he was fucking her.
Unless, of course, the argument is that because he was a seminarian he didn't know how that all worked. Poor innocent lamb.
Posted at 9:39 PM
|
