Polish Catholic Magazine Ordered to Pay Damages to Abortion Woman

A Roman Catholic magazine by the name of Gosc Niedzielny, published by the Polish archdiocese of Katowice, was ordered on Wednesday to pay damages of 30,000 Zloties (approx. $11,000 US or 7,400 Euros) and issue a written apology to a woman who sought an abortion on medical grounds, after likening her to a child murderer and comparing abortion to Nazi war crimes.

Alicje Tysiac, now 38, was not allowed to abort her third child back in 2000 despite being told by doctors that giving birth could cost her her sight. Abortion is illegal in Poland except in extreme circumstances, such as if the life of the mother is threatened, or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and even then only up to the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.

As a result of the birth, Ms Tysiac suffered a retinal haemorraghe and her eyesight is now irreversibly damaged.

Ms Tysiac took her case to the European Court of Human Rights and in 2007 the Polish Government were ordered to pay her 25,000 Euros in compensation.

Following this ruling the magazine's editor, Father Marek Gancarczyk, wrote: "We live in a world where a mother receives an award for very much wanting to kill her child, but not being allowed to do so."

In a clear comparison between the acceptance of abortion and the Nazi extermination of Jews his article also stated that: "They had become accustomed to the murders being carried out behind the fence of the camp. And what is the case today? Different, but just as terrible."

Judge Ewa Solecka ruled that the article (whose text I am unfortunately unable to find; I'm sure its a delightful read) had shown "contempt, hostility and malice" toward Ms Tysiac and ordered the magazine to compensate her and issue an apology. The judge also said that Catholics have the right to express their disapproval of abortion, and to call it murder, but they do not have the right to vilify (IE libel) individuals.

The magazine is planning an appeal on grounds of "infringement of freedom of speech". The editor also denied comparing abortion to Nazi exterminations, as well he might, as I'll come to shortly.

OK, we all know that there are many good reasons for being opposed to abortion as simply a choice, fewer for being opposed to it in cases such as this where there are medical grounds for seeking one. I would state categorically that religious belief, and adherence to religious doctrine, do not count as legitimate reasons for anything at all. In any circumstances, for any reason, ever. If your opinion - no matter how deeply and passionately held, however genuinely and even well-intentioned it is - is based upon a belief; based upon what you have been told by an authority, whose own authority rests simply on belief and tradition; based upon a random interpretation of an old book (that you almost certainly have not read from cover to cover) that you believe to be the word of God, a God you cannot prove or in fact feel any need to prove because you know he exists, and you know your opinion comes from doing what he wants, then quite frankly, your opinion is worth about as much as one of my farts, so kindly keep it yourself.

I'll say it again - opinions derived from religion are worth nothing. Absolutely nothing at all, because they are based upon nothing. If you want to bring real morality to a discussion, to invoke (in this instance) science, medicine, or give a real reason why this lady should have been forced to have a child that could've blinded her, then I'm sure you could find lots of decent things to say and have a really good, mature discussion about it - perhaps even win the debate. If you want to say that you think abortion is simply murder, in any circumstances, but hide behind an invisible man in the sky (or all-too visible Nazi in the Vatican) rather than actually think (if you are capable of it) why you really hold this opinion, then you need to have your bible (large print, naturally) inserted width-ways into the aperture you normally use to speak out of. Alternatively, shut the fuck up until you have something constructive to bring to the discussion, you faith-obsessed simpleton.

OK, first rant over, and I know before you say it that I'm not being very constructive here either, and you will have noticed by now that I've not actually stated what I think about abortion as a whole, or this case in particular. Well sorry to disappoint, but my personal opinion on the subject is worth very little too, and will remain hidden unless you want to contact me and really find out. (Don't bother, it's almost certainly not worth it.)

Does this disqualify me from commenting on this case? I think not, because whilst my opinion on this particular case is largely worthless, the continuing damage done to all and sundry by the witless witterings of the Catholic clergy compels me to speak out, and roundly condemn the Church and all its minions and followers as deluded, dangerous and deeply damaging. (Yes, I am experimenting with alliteration, well spotted.)

In this instance you might have little or no sympathy for Ms Tysiac because she was told after the birth of her second child that having another could blind her. How foolish, you may say, to get pregnant again - she should have used contraceptives... No, of course not, that isn't allowed by the Catholic church either. Perhaps she should have abstained from sex, after all, if male priests can control all their sexual urges and remain celibate... Best not go there for now eh? There's a whole blogs-worth of comments on that score. No, of course the Church would not force her to abstain from sex; it doesn't deal in cruelty and misery, after all... they would probably recommend 'natural' methods of contraception such as hoping for the best and coitus interruptus, well known to work of course, and who better to advise you on this subject than an organisation entirely made up of men who have never had sex (well, consensual sex with an adult, anyway)?

I'm slightly puzzled as to why the Church does not allow contraception, and yet thinks that pulling your wang out before you ejaculate would not frustrate God's plans. Or why cunningly working out which days you'll (probably, unless your unlucky) be ovulating and not having sex on those days does not go against God's grand design of filling up the world with even more Catholics. I know I haven't been educated enough in the ways of divinity to understand the difference, so I apologise for being such an ignorant heathen, but it just seems a bit daft to me.

If you'll just indulge me a while: - pull out your head from your pious arsehole, wipe the excrement of papal dogma from your eyes and take a quick peak at the real World, allowing what you see to penetrate the mush of musty old stories gathering dust in what could have been your brain, now - see more clearly? Good... tell me what is the difference between not conceiving by wearing a johnny, and not conceiving by not having sex at every single opportunity? Why is it wrong in the Pope's eyes to crack one off, but OK to pull out at the last minute? Why do I produce enough sperm with each ejaculation to repopulate half of Europe? If each human embryo produced is a sacred and blessed life, a little miracle granted the gift of life by God, why do so many of them spontaneously abort? A few other questions spring to mind but you get my point. Can you answer me without saying 'God'? Can you? Can you give me an answer based in reality? I doubt it, but don't worry, it's OK, panic over, you may now replace your head... feel the walls of your religious rectum close over your eyes and ears... yes, that's better, isn't it? Now you can give me a really good, if slightly muffled, answer from the comfort of your own intestines, or perhaps even issue a challenge. Who am I to question Papal authority? To question the rulings of Christ's Vicar on Earth? Who indeed.

I said earlier that I would turn to Father Gancarczyk's comparison between abortion and the Holocaust, but actually I've decided to put that in a separate post. Many of you will be aware of the Church's almost gleeful collaboration with the Nazis, and why any Catholic figure should know better than ever to even allude to them, far less try to use them to further their cause, regardless of how far up their gastro-intestinal tract their head may be.

Comments and abuse welcome.

Pope - Pursuit of Wealth Wrong

A few days ago I wrote about the rampant hypocrisy spouted by the leaders of the Anglican church, in regard to the current financial crisis. Hypocrites? Of Course not, They're our Spiritual Leaders!

Not to be out-done, the Pope had a few things to say about the evils of wealth too.

Well, lets not kid ourselves here. We all pretty much know that every time the Catholic church says anything at all, it will include at least a smidgen of hypocrisy, but for that organisation to talk about the evils of wealth is going way beyond the pale.

The Pope said that the global financial crisis is proof that that the pursuit of money and success is pointless. He also said that the disappearance of money as banks collapsed showed that wealth meant nothing.

This is taking the argument a little too far, though I partly agree with the second statement. The pursuit of wealth can hardly be pointless, and worked a dream for the Catholic church. Irresponsible management and poor foresight have brought us to the current banking problems; a responsible pursuit of wealth and success would bring just that, in smaller quantities but more sustainably, surely.

He then went on to say that people should instead base their lives on God's word (as interpreted by yours truly, naturally).

So, people should give up all ambition, all desire to enrich themselves, and instead crawl at the feet of your merciful God.

Those who think that "concrete things we can touch are the surest reality" are deceiving themselves, said the holy one, clutching his golden, jewel encrusted and probably priceless staff.

In a strong field, that ranks as the most laughable thing I've heard a spiritual leader say for quite some time.

There is no reality other than the one spoken of in this collection of ancient stories, the interpretation of which we've altered down the centuries to suit political needs or the whimsy of popes; this truth, that we have moulded and remoulded as occasion demanded, is what you really need to live your life. All this stuff, this apparently 'real' stuff you see around you, is mere illusion, not real at all. The real world is the spiritual one, with a God who looks after us all, if you grovel before him. Now, I know you can't see him or talk to him, but don't worry, I can! And I'll always interpret his wishes for you. Oh, and if you believe, I mean really believe that God is there, you'll be able to feel him. Now, about our fee...

As for the evils of money, I was unable to find a reliable estimate of the Catholic church's wealth, but the value of its property holdings, in the US alone, is estimated to be larger than the net worth of the three largest US corporations combined (the estimate was made before the current financial crisis). With a worldwide reach, you can perhaps imagine how much cash it must have locked away in buildings. It has many billions of pounds worth of gold, both in ornamentation and ingot and bullion reserves. Unregulated by any secular government, This immensely wealthy organisation holds power over the thoughts and actions of over a billion people worldwide. Don't know about you but that scares the shit out of me.

So just how did the Pope become (possibly) the richest man in the world?

The Catholic church has operated for more than 1500 years as an extremely successful business. It has raised taxes, demanded contributions from peasants and nobles alike, offered indulgences (go on then, do something unholy if you must, just slip us a bit of gold and I'll get God to turn a blind eye), demanded tribute from Kings and Emperors, (give us gold, lots of gold, and I won't criticise your rule; refuse and I'll excommunicate you, leaving you vulnerable to invasion by the 'faithful'), sold 'relics' to gullible people (if all the 'splinters of the one true cross' are genuine, Jesus must have been crucified on a cross more than 30 feet high), and in an absolutely blinding moment of inspiration, invented purgatory. What a winner that was! As I mentioned in The Road to Rationalism Part 2 , this made them an absolute fortune. In hitting on the idea of calculating how long an individual would spend in purgatory, and offering to reduce that time for a healthy amount of gold (the more you pay, the quicker you can go to heaven, sucker!) the church hit on what I think has to be the greatest confidence trick in history. Until quite recently, the church had more wealth than all of the European empires, kingdoms and principalities combined.

Stalin once sarcastically asked of the Pope, in a typical example of his bullish stupidity, "How many divisions has he?" He completely underestimated the power of the church's wealth and influence over its followers.

So how has the church used its massive wealth and power for the good of the people its god loves so much?

By torturing and burning countless people who disagreed, by ordering and funding wars against 'infidels' and political rivals (using the trump card of excommunication) Seeking control and dominion over every person alive, and for all time after their death, sending out hordes of psychopathic inquisitors to root out 'heresy' and witchcraft, happily burning people for the merest whiff of non-conformity, demanding that everyone obeys its pathological rules and condemning all who don't, and generally making everyone know just what a load of worthless, miserable sinners they all are. Oh, and of course more recently exacerbating the population problem and spread of AIDS by refusing to allow the use of contraceptives.

So, Cardinal Joseph multi-billionaire Hitler-youth Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI, you delusional old hypocrite, how dare you lecture the world about the evils of wealth, when your organisation has used its fortune to cause misery and death to countless millions of people for more than 1500 years.