Posted by Ed Brayton on December 26, 2006 “The child of Bethlehem directs our gaze toward all children who suffer and are abused in the world, the born and the unborn,” Benedict said in his homily, in a reference to the Vatican’s staunch opposition to abortion.
This concern not applicable in certain Catholic diocese where priests with a long history of sexually abusing children were moved and put back in positions of authority over more prospective victims rather than being reported to the police like any sane human being would do.
Pope Sturbanfuehrer says: “The child of Bethlehem directs our gaze toward all children who suffer and are abused in the world, the born and the unborn,”
Jeez! You wouldn’t think an (ex)-Nazi would really care all that much either! It must be a miracle!
Abused children are nothing more than Canon fodder.
Would it have been appropriate for the Rat to call attention to the Crimen Sollicitationis and how it was instumental in covering up improprieties of pervert priests?
Why haven’t you ripped a hole in the document EB?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_09_06_Crimen_english.pdf
Re J-Dog
Although I have no great affection for Dr. Ratizenger, there is no evidence that he was ever a member of the Nazi party (note: he was 16 years old at the time)so referring to him as an ex-Nazi is unfair and uncalled for.
This concern not applicable in certain Catholic diocese where priests with a long history of sexually abusing children were moved and put back in positions of authority over more prospective victims rather than being reported to the police like any sane human being would do.
Nor when these children are being raised by parents of the same sex.
Didn’t Jesus say something about a millstone around the neck in regards to hurting children? Does anyone perhaps think that there is a precedent here, and that the Pope should recognize it?
Skemono (aka Troll)
The children of gay parents are not equivalent to sexually abused children. If anything, they face inexcusable bigotry similar to that endured by biracial children in the 1950s from ignorant, hate filled people such as yourself.
Okay, I’ll stop feeding the professional troll.
I think you completely misread Skemono’s comment (which I agree wasn’t terribly clear, but he’s been commenting here long enough that I know he didn’t mean it in any anti-gay way).
That’s why it’s good to link to your own blog (unfortunately I’ve never gotten around to starting my own).
When I read Skemono’s comment, I too thought he said something demeaning. But after I skimmed through his blog a bit, I now think he just expressed his comment poorly.
While Ed has banned a few folks over the years, for some reason this blog has been relatively free of truly irritating trolls. I personally take this as proof of the existence of God, although I realize that Gretchen will disagree.
I expect to spend the next few days updating my CE credits. Blessings to all of you, and may we meet again in the coming year.
Isn’t it weird how, around Christmas, Jesus reverts to his “baby” (or in this case, “child of Bethlehem”) incarnation? Almost as though the Trinity has another component: Father, Infant Son, Adult Son, and Holy Whatever.
The election of Ratzinger as Pope pretty much eliminated any lingering doubts I’d had about possibly returning to the Catholic Church some day. But then I always did like learning about religion more than I did practicing it — it’s a fascinating subject, but inasmuch as I’m happy with my life at all (which is to say, really not that much), I’m much happier as a godless heathen than I was as a nice Catholic boy.
But I particularly don’t like Benedict. It’s all about circling the wagons in the 21st century RCC, and I think it’s only a matter of time until there’s a nasty schism in the church. (Isn’t it interesting how the natural tendency in religion is towards schism? Look at the ongoing disintegration of the Anglican Communion — a hundred years from now, the shattered remnants of the Church of England will remain as a monument towards people’s desire to put dogma and prejudice above mercy and mutual respect.)
No, you’re just not able to read and comprehend English. He quite clearly said that the Pope’s concern (that’s what Ed referred to) did not extend to children being raised by parents of the same sex. The statement “The children of gay parents are not equivalent to sexually abused children” is quite foolish — the subject was not sexually abused children generally, but only those particular sexually abused children Ed mentioned that the Pope isn’t concerned about. It’s quite pathetic when lazy sloppy conclusion-jumping readers attribute their own failures to the authors of what they misread.
The above was in reference to doctorgoo’s “I now think he just expressed his comment poorly.”
It might just be me, not being a catholic and so lacking all the bent up bile, but I think this is a wierd reaction to a religious leader’s comments. Honestly what do you expect him to say? or to do?
You must believe in the whole institution of the Church pretty strongly, or just be incredibly innocent, to expect anything other than double-speak and hypocrisy from the pontiff, at this point.
“We will consolidate our power and continue our millenia-long domination of the hearts and minds of the weak” doesn’t make for much of a Christmas message, so you get some vapid platitudes about how ‘Jesus was a baby at one point so we should all be nice to babies’.
I’m surprised your first reaction is to point out that representatives of the Church, and Benedict himself, have not always been nice to babies.
December 26, 2006
December 26, 2006
December 26, 2006
December 26, 2006
December 26, 2006
December 26, 2006
December 26, 2006
December 26, 2006
December 26, 2006
December 26, 2006
December 27, 2006
December 27, 2006
December 27, 2006