An oldie but a goodie that needs some more exposure given the latest birth control contraversy

[dsc]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4249705

In 1994 Archbishop William Levada was sued when one of his priests had an affair with a woman who became pregnant as a result of the affair. What was his response?

In 1994, then-Archbishop of Portland William Levada offered a simple answer for why the archdiocese shouldn't have been ordered to pay the costs of raising a child fathered by a church worker at a Portland, Ore., parish.

In her relationship with Arturo Uribe, then a seminarian and now a Whittier priest, the child's mother had engaged "in unprotected intercourse … when (she) should have known that could result in pregnancy," the church maintained in its answer to the lawsuit.

Later the woman went back to court seeking an increase in child support which is what caused this to become public. So what did the church say about this?

Levada was on vacation and unavailable to comment on the controversial legal stance, but the attorney who came up with it, Richard J. Kuhn, said he wrote Levada's answer to the complaint strictly from a "common sense" legal perspective, without regard to Catholic teachings.

However, Kuhn, an outside attorney who was hired by the archdiocese to handle the case, questions whether Levada ever saw the document. "I doubt that the archbishop would have gotten a copy of the pleading," he said.

snip

Kuhn said the defense he raised was probably based on his suspicion that Collopy got pregnant to keep Uribe out of the priesthood. "The archbishop shouldn't be criticized for something I did that didn't have anything to do with Catholic doctrine," Kuhn said. "It would be a different story if we sat down together and said, 'Let's do this.' "

The Portland archdiocese also doubts that Levada was closely involved. "We understand that the attorney handling the case did not speak with Archbishop Levada on this issue, and that the archbishop had no input," said Bud Bunce, the archdiocese's director of communication. But the fact that Levada may not have approved a legal argument filed under his name troubled some.

And what job does William Levada hold now?

That the "unprotected intercourse" argument was offered in Levada's name made it especially shocking to some Catholics. The former archbishop is now chief guardian of Catholic doctrine worldwide. The archbishop's new post as prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was last held by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI.

So why should I respect this church when they say I am intrinsicly evil and part of a plot to ruin the world eqivilent with Nazism? Evidently not because they actually believe in their supposedly infallible moral teachings. Surely not because they value those teachings above money. So just what is left?

I leave you with the words of another Catholic.

Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, a group that supports abortion rights, said Levada's defense was an example of how, "if something will cost the bishops money, they will use any argument whatsoever — like any other corporate entity — that will get them off the hook. It's a disgrace."

It is pretty disgraceful when even they don't believe they should have to sacrifice anything for those beliefs but want you and I to sacrifice.

All bold text is quoted from the following article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-me-lev...

free registration required.

I don't know if the link to the article is still good.

[rufus dog]

1. That is Classic!

All talk, no walk!

[Moonwalk]

2. I don't have an article to support this, so maybe it's not true, however....

I remember reading somewhere that Nuns in a war torn area in Africa were given birth control pills by the church so that they would not end up pregnant if they were raped, a distinct possibility in this terrible situation--this because the Nuns refused to leave said area where they felt they were needed. So they were not allowed by the church to even suggest such pills to the women they were helping and caring for, but they were encouraged by the church to take them and avoid embarrassing the church by becoming pregnant. The Nuns, sticking to their faith, rejected the pills.

[justiceischeap]

3. Found this

Don't know if it's the best "source" but it backs up your claim.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/sex_scandal.htm

VATICAN CITY, March 20, 2001 | Reuters

The Vatican acknowledged Tuesday a report alleging that some priests and missionaries were forcing nuns to have sex with them and in some cases forced their rape victims to have abortions.

Other nuns were forced to take birth control pills, according to the report cited in the Rome daily newspaper la Repubblica.

The Vatican said the issue was restricted to a certain geographical area, but the report cited cases in 23 countries, including the United States, Brazil, the Philippines, India, Ireland and Italy.

Found this as well:

...in the 1960s, nuns in Congo were permitted to use birth control pills to protect themselves from impregnation by rapist soldiers. Ordinary women, even in wartime, are out of luck.
http://www.thenation.com/article/156652/condoms-hope-pope

[dsc]

4. kick