09 August 2005

Once again, they want to lay it off on Eve

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, Oregon. 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.

The church — which considers birth control a sin — seemed to be arguing that the woman should have protected herself from pregnancy.

William Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights based in New York, said the legal language was "simply code for, 'What's wrong with you, honey, aren't you smart enough to make sure condoms were used?”

4 comments:

Cressida said...

I can't get started on the Catholic church. It gets me all hot and sweaty, and it would probably turn you on too much.

I will say this though: Webster is a bastard.

aoife said...

oh these men
the church encourages unprotected sex so much that most catholic aid agencies in africa cannot give out condomns
and what if she'd an abortion?

TinaPoPo said...

I just read about this in Time (they referenced it in the quotes section in the beginning). It's abominable and disgusting.

Ray said...

OR even if they ARE against birth control, even using THEIR twisted logic, my responce would be:

The child's father had engaged "in unprotected intercourse … when [he] should have known that could result in pregnancy," I maintained in the lawsuit against the church.