The Catholic Church is getting desperate. All this evidence is turning up of priests physically and sexually abusing young people in their care, and of the church administration being more concerned with protecting pedophile priests and the reputation of their organization than protecting children, so someone has to be blamed. How about the damn dirty hippies and those pesky reporters?
"The so-called sexual revolution, in which some especially progressive moral critics supported the legalisation of sexual contact between adults and children, is certainly not innocent," he said, adding that the media was also at fault.
That was the excuse of a Catholic bishop to the ongoing discovery of a history of child abuse in Germany. The similar pattern of child abuse in Ireland prompted the Pope to dig up some excuses…in this case, because priests weren't devout enough.
The pontiff also noted "the more general crisis of faith affecting the Church," the statement said, adding Pope Benedict "also pointed to the more general crisis of faith affecting the Church and he linked that to the lack of respect for the human person and how the weakening of faith has been a significant contributing factor in the phenomenon of the sexual abuse of minors".
Who knew the whole Catholic church was infested with free-lovin' hippies and godless agnostics and atheists?
The way he'll fix the problem is by calling for "a deeper theological reflection" on child buggery. I really don't think it takes much deep thought to see that causing harm to children trusted to your care is a bad idea.
By the way, in an interesting side issue, the papal nuncio was asked to appear before an Irish committee on foreign affairs to talk about this problem. He haughtily replied that it was "not the practice of the Holy See that Apostolic Nuncios appear before Parliamentary Commissions", which is rather interesting. The Vatican has a rather interesting status as a sovereign, independent state with membership in the UN, and pretends to be a participating nation in the world community of states. But apparently they also feel that they are not bound by secular obligations.
- Log in to post comments
So the Pope and his Bishops are saying hundreds of their priests are No True Catholics?
They're completely not full of contrition anyway. Cardinal Law, who was the chief enabler of child sexual abuse here in Boston, was rewarded with a cozy sinecure as head of a church in the Vatican. He gets a fancy house with a bunch of servants, a nice salary, and all he has to do is show up every Sunday and say some mumbo jumbo.
That'll teach 'em.
So the only way a nun can get laid by a priest is to dress as an altar boy?
As long as the Roman Catholic Church hides evidence and protects co-conspirators, they are just another criminal organization that needs to be destroyed. Maybe some of our organized crime task forces could take them on.
Law is in the Vatican because the Vatican doesn't have an extradition agreement with the USA. Wouldn't want a capo going to prison.
Don't imagine that young girls were necessarily safe from these sex offenders - quite the opposite in many cases (at least in Ireland).
Oh, the Church is so victimized. The secular atmosphere of free love caused God's Holy Bride to stray. The evil media was a go-between. Oh, woe, woe, it's everyone's fault but the poor innocent priests'.
PLEASE.
It's funny, having been an altar boy, I never knew how 'russian roulette'-like it was to dress in a gown every Sunday.
The sexual revolution made it possible to talk about such things. So it is responsible for the scandal.
If nobody talks about it, there is no scandal. Right?
Actually,IaMoL, priests have helped themselves to them as well http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vatican-confirms-report-…
Now that first quote is an excellent defence. By that token I suppose I can start making my own Mickey Mouse cartoons since there are people who support the abolishment of intellectual property rights. I'm sure Disney won't sue. After all, it's not my fault, someone else suggested the hypothetical possibility of the law's non-existence.
Hee hee. Ah yes. "It's the media's fault."
Y'know, I need that on a t-shirt. It's just so incredibly all-purpose, y'know? Cut someone off in traffic, and they're yelling at you, you just point to the shirt...
Hell, somewhere in this world, I am almost sure, there's a man facing a judge for having consumed half a case of vodka, removing all his clothing, stealing a police car from the precinct after having shot the occupants in cold blood, driving it wildly through a crowded pedestrian mall thereby running down no fewer than fifty disabled senior citizens who--having been dependant on their walkers, were unable to flee his drunken, weaving, careening passage across the cobblestones... And it comes out in the trial they were only crippled in the first place because the defendant also happens to have been a con man running a phony internet pharmaceutical operation that sold 'em all sugar pills laced with antifreeze in place of their arthritis meds...
Needless to say, he will explain to the judge why this was all actually the media's fault.
Interestingly, along with the Vatican's unusual status as a state, they also have one of the lowest age of consent laws in the western world, if not the absolute lowest.
http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm
I'll save you the trouble of scrolling all the way to the bottom. IT'S 12 YEARS OLD! Of course there's no official age for male-male and female-female relations because that would be a sin.
Well this is definitely true. The last time I had my cock in a child whilst I was dressed as a priest I was absolutely thinking of hippies.*
Too far?
I think not!
We're discussing an organisation that not only has covered up institutional abuse of children and many instances of individual members sexually abusing children, they have engaged in collusion with local governments in the hiding of sexual abuse of children, they have also maintained a department with the express purpose of relocating members who have abused (or been alleged to have abused) children (sexually, mentally and physically). And that's just for starters.
So please, catholic apologists and pearl clutchers, let's not pretend any sick jokes I make are over the line.
Whatever happened to mea culpa I wonder?
Louis
*Do I really need to point out that none of this is true and is purely an instance of warped, black humour.
R.A. Wilson did. "Padre Pederaste," was it? That was 1975.
The Vatican age of consent is null because there are no children citizens.
Anyway, with that said, I'm pretty sure priests fucking children is a time-honored tradition going back well before the Sexual Revolution. It's just that in the middle ages, being 14 and getting knocked up by a priest was an excellent opportunity for social advancement. Also they still set people on fire for complaining about the church, so yeah.
The more I think about it, the more it makes a twisted kind of sense, from the perspective of the priest. The celibacy code means he can't get his rocks off like a normal person. Prostitutes? Maybe. But that's risky in a lot of ways. Other priests? Even riskier, assuming he's even interested in other dudes. But choir girls/altar boys? Physically weak, gullible, and socially powerless. Who's going to believe a complaining child over an authority figure like a priest? It's perfect. And they would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling atheists.
Sounds like we're coming to the end of a Scooby-Doo episode, but il Papa needs to get the excuse right "I'd have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those blasted kids and that dog!" or some minor variation.
Benedict is just protecting the organization and does not care what happens to the children who have been victimized by its decisions.
One other problem for this is the abuse at least in Ireland was going on well before Vatican 2 and the 'sexual revolution' (we probably should mention the Magdalene laundries also). It has probably gone on for centuries but Ireland deliberately looked.
Another is that many of the guilty priests and those that covered it up were quite conservative.
Remember the great crime of the Catholic Church is not the initial child abuse as any organization that size is bound to have a few people who do bad things but the cover up and the allowing them to continue to abuse. You'll note that the Pope has not apologized for helping the cover up or for Catholic bishops helping the cover up (though a few bishops have done so for their own deeds).
Look at the Pope! See how he points
Away from those whom he anoints
Each naughty bishop, wicked priest,
Cannot be faulted in the least—
It, rather, is the larger world
In which events have all unfurled
That is to blame for men of God
Who fail to keep to their façade,
Who yield to pleasures of the earth,
Where they have sinned since ere their birth.
In casting blame, and such devices,
Popes respond to moral crisis
Not as would their precious Jesus…
And when they do, you’ll know Hell freezus.
The Vatican sometimes points to data to indicate that Roman Catholic clergy are no more likely to molest children than Anglican priests or Baptist ministers, etc., etc., which may very well be true. (Not that that's a particularly compelling excuse.) However, the Church's authorities have an extremely well-documented penchant for protecting pedophile priests by quietly moving them from parish to parish and by providing refuge to miscreant like Cardinal Bernard Law, who has a nice job in Vatican City as a consolation prize for losing his position in Boston after being revealed as a diligent guardian of molesters. I guess he was just following orders (and I don't mean "holy" orders).
Ratzie earlier blamed "declining moral values" in the US for priestly abuse. I don't know what he's talking about; even in our prisons, child molesters are an outcast caste. Is he saying priests cannot be expected to live at the moral level of the average criminal?
The Pope and bishops are still actively involved in the coverup. Just look at the rearguard actions they have taken to do as little as possible to cooperate with criminal investigations. Sure, they are starting to throw the priests to the wolves, but the bishops who made it all possible? Nope.
Well, I agree with the sentiment that factors besides the individual priests are also to blame, but I happen to say that those factors are all related to the Vatican: the celibacy rule, the aura of unquestionable moral authority given to clergymen, etc.
And just to nitpick, I wouldn't call them "pedophile priests". Some of them probably are pedophiles, but most people who molest children do it situationally and not because their primary sexual interest is in children. Just call them "rapist priests"--it has more punch, and it's true, since modern Western society isn't structured in such a way that children can consent to sex with adults.
Frankly I'm surprised,Walter Mixa, the bishop in question, didn't actually blame the VICTIMS what with being raped by those poor priests was all their own fault.
That's what he (Mixa) usually does.
Didn't Bill Donohue blame the victims in Ireland for exaggerating and downplay anything but penile penetration as not that big a deal?
They should come out and just stay that there is no prohibition in the bible about abusing children who don't believe in Jesus. In fact, the bible says that unruly children should be put to death. These children obviously did not believe in Jesus or else He would not have allowed that to happen. It's all the children's fault for not believing strong enough. Or possibly the could follow church history and make evil priests wear a scarlet 'A', and burn them at the stake. I prefer the latter.
That is why the Pastafarians are so much better.
CreationHeaven.
I take this shit personally. I was a hippie. We screwed like bonobos. But we never molested chldren. And I never wore a dress - unless you count that way-cool tie-dyed thing.
Catholic Church authorities sent pedophile priests into an exile of sorts in Alaska. The pedophiles in Alaska were so numerous that indigenous children were molested in almost all rural villages where there was a Catholic or Jesuit priest. Decades of abuse by Roman Catholic priests and volunteers still taint Eskimo villagers in rural Alaska.
http://www.adn.com/life/religion/story/654654.html
AJ Milne @11
Would you settle for a beer stein?
Mr. Pope in his palace is far too important to mingle with the little people.
What a joke. What a rotten human being.
* note to self: don't assume the first search result is the only one *
Or an actual t-shirt?
@Valdir
It's worse than that. The logic goes thus:
Sinful sex for them is adultery, that is a major sin. Getting your rocks off with a child is only, in church parlance, a minor or venal sin largely because no issue can come from it and also because you can get away with not using contraception. Thus if your vow of chastity is chafing you harder than you can bear, kiddie fiddling is quite literally the lesser of two evils. IOW they do it to save their immortal souls (those that are not inherently pedophile anyway).
If anyone thought that the Catholics priests have a monopoly on this type of crime, we have something similar going on here in Israel with a Rabbi.
Top Zionist rabbi slams 'blood libel' accusing him of sex crimes:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1150174.html
I run a website and forum for daughters of narcissistic mothers, and have long believed that the Christian Churches fall into the category of narcissism. The traits of grandiosity, beliefs of great success, entitlement, lack of empathy, requiring excessive admiration, interpersonally exploitative and arrogance certainly apply.
The model of "I'm perfect, you're scum" is the message narcissists give every day, and that Christianity teaches at its very core.
And another element which anybody who has encountered narcissists will know: they accept responsibility for NOTHING. It's ALWAYS somebody else's fault. Always. Without exception. They won't admit to the action if possible, but if they are forced to they will jump through the most amazing hoops to blame others.
And here I see exactly this happening.
To blame hippies' free love (which never as a policy included children) and the media (wtf?) for their shortcomings is very, very narcissistic.
With Rabbis (or Baptist preachers), there no hierarchy to cover it up.
It really should tell people something when the very clergy that are supposedly the voice of God here on Earth are apparently finding it hard to continue to believe.
Why is it so hard for a high up within the Catholic Church to just come out and say 'Any such instances of child abuse are despicable acts, and any members of the church found to be complicit will face the full force of the law and be stripped of any standing within the church'.
It's not that difficult.
Unless you can't admit when you're wrong?
I'm holding a scale in hand. In one pan, I placed the Italian Mafia. In the other, I placed The Catholic Church.
I'm having difficulty determining which is heavier.
@Danu: Wow. That set of descriptions of narcissism could apply to Yahweh/Jehovah, too.
It has been quite some time since I considered myself a Christian (and when I did so, I was never Catholic-flavored), so I may be wrong in this, but...
Doesn't Christian doctrine teach that any crime, no matter how horrible, simply goes away when you silently ask god to forget about it? That from that point on, it is exactly as if it never happened at all?
Perhaps I am mistaken, but Catholics believe (I think) that you have to speak to a priest first, but that once you've done that, (and taken care of whatever "Bad dog! Bad bad!" slap on the wrist you're given by them), it's the same result?
I'd like to be corrected by a believer here if I am wrong, but isn't it the case that these people are, according to their own moral code, free of sin and therefore guilt as soon as they've gotten straight with god?
And if that's the case... is anyone really suprised at this sort of behavior?
To put it another way, isn't it simply consistent to say, in effect: "How dare you silly humans try to dunn me for this crime - god says it's all taken care of!"
Am I off base here?
@Darreth.
Well the Mafia does have an honor code...
I guess they should ask that not of an Apostolic Nuncio of the Holy See, but of an ambassador of the state of Vatican City.
It's rather fascinating that the pope has two distinct functions: 1) bishop of Rome, and therefore head of the Catholic Church and its "government", and 2) Sovereign of the state of Vatican City. And they (the RCC) keep insisting that the Holy See and the Vatican City are two different kettles of fish.
Religious activity is similar to many human activities that must be allowed within the confines of secular law to be produced (alcohol, cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, food, automobiles, etc.) or practiced (medicine, engineering, law, voodoo, etc.) and purchased or consumed by the public but it must be regulated and taxed. Decriminalization (or legalization), regulation, enforcement, taxation and education. We must have taxation to fund regulation/enforcement and education to insure that the newest and most vulnerable of our society have the tools to defend themselves and thrive. Prohibitions will not work - read the history of alcohol in this country.
Religion must be moved into the secular infrastructure or it will continue to poison everything, as Hitchens has said.
I guess Matthew 22:21 should read, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. (Except in matters of child buggery.)"...and Jesus winked.
Hat tip to Cuttlefish, as usual, but this time with bonus points for rhyming "God" with "façade".
We have a blog called The Mermaid's Tale, that viewers might want to know about at ecodevoevo.blogspot.com.
We don't blog on atheism, but we are biologists concerned with evolution and the potential for intimidation by religious fundamentalism. There is a tendency for biologists to circle their wagons and 'hide' behind a darwinian cartoon of evolution, that covers or minimizes the things we don't know or still argue about in terms of biological diversity.
One thing we write about is the current tendency to attribute so much to genetic determinism, in part as a reaction to arguments about concepts like free will.
As far as the Church and its love for little boys goes, we wonder when (or if) someone will now demand whole genome sequences from those applying to the priesthood, to see if they carry pedophile genes!
Of course, such genes, exercised in that way, would not be good for the genes' own evolutionary future.
You have to be genuinely sorry for committing the act. I get the sense that none of these bastards feels any remorse.
So the church (literally) screwed Irish kids systematically for 50 years, fought a 10 year legal battle to keep its reputation "clean", lost the legal battle, agreed to pay billions in reparations to the kids and the State, reneged on its payments and is now having its property seized and sold at auction because it won't pay up.
The HRCC has a very skewed definition of "cooperation".
My opinion that the catholic church starting at bishop and going up to pope is a bunch of scum bag hypocritical asswipes that wouldn't be able to find a job in the secular world remains solid.
ardispark beat me to it, so I'll just second the hat tip:
I'm confused...Who supported sexual conduct between adults and children. Is the "legislation" a reference to a law?
The entire Catholic Church needs be disbanded/imprisoned and the Vatican melted down and sold off to pay the victims.
The former Chaplain of Canada's military, a Brigadier-General, was charged yesterday for child molestation.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/766703--sex-charges-laid-aga…
It's become too much effort NOT to assume every priest is a pedophile. I personally know 6 that have been convicted. Rot in (figurative) hell, the lot of you.
This explains everything...
Louis CK learns about the Catholic Church...
And they (the RCC) keep insisting that the Holy See and the Vatican City are two different kettles of fish. Armand K.
Both of them stinking! But it facilitates the buck-passing.
What do you expect of an institution that values genocide and mass-murder as a sin fit for a priest or bishop to handle -- but "defiling" of a cracker is considered so vile it needs to have The Man With The Funniest Hat (aka The Pope) involved?
As someone who lives in England i fully support the petition that has been started regarding the cost of the popes visit,i also think another petition should be started. (i've mentioned this on a couple of other blog comments) A petition calling for the arrest of the pope as a paedophile enabler.
I know it's not going to happen but maybe it could remind the pope, his fans and sycophants that because they choose to skirt round the issue it doesn't mean it's forgotten.
I Don't know who originally said this but they hit the nail right on the head,"if the pope had been the head of a chain of nurseries he would not of just had to resign he would be in prison."
Like many people on here i cannot express in words how angry this makes me and what makes me almost as angry is the same people that would be shouting 'burn in hell' or 'prisons to good for these people' bend over backwards and make excuses or just change the subject just because he's the pope and not a ceo.
Handle? I'd say it's rather "endorse", in the light of the fact that among the ca. 6200 (!) officially recognized "saints" there's quite a respectable number of mass murderers... along with more modest killers of all sorts, Saul of Tars (a.k.a. "Saint" Paul) being the first in a long series.
You might be surprised to find out how many priests are agnostics and downright atheists. But yeah, pretty bloody pathetic.
Knockgoats, #52:
Indeed. I should have added the caveat that they only make the distinction when it suits them. As in this case: it's not the practice for papal nuncios to appear before parliamentary commissions (or respond/assume responsibility on any inconvenient matter), but nihil obstat when it's about signing treaties.
Anri and Ing,
I believe(without any super positive evidence) that the Mafia would deal with child molesters in their ranks quickly and simply - a bullet to the brain.
Ooops I meant Darreth and Ing
Of course the biggest cause of child-molestation is all those sexy kids.
Anri@ #39,
You're generally correct. Confession functions as a 'get out of consequences free' card, and the seal of the confessional is taken very seriously.
That's yet another reason why I left the Church (and eventually became atheist). I despise people who do not own their mistakes, and who fail to make reparations to those they injure. I see confession/altar calls/being born again as too much of an easy out for behavior that harms others.
As for child molestation - here I agree with the prison population's view of "chesters" (child molesters). It's the unforgivable sin.
I wish that more priests took Matthew 18:6 seriously: "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
More excuses from the peodphile enablers. Unbelievable! Now, they blame a microscopic minority of people who were furthering legislation that would allow sex between adults and children.
That contingent represented less than a fraction of a percent of our society. Those types had NO affect on our nation's morals, and their sick ideas were ostracized. Pedophiles are some of society's most hated. But we're supposed to believe that their twisted sickness caused the catholic church to employ pedophiles that they KNEW were hurting kids--and then hide the truth?
Once again, the catholic church behaves in an evil way. Similar to how pedophiles behave. It's always someone else's fault. Never their own.
The catholic church has it wrong. SILENCE enables pedophiles more than anything. The victims are silenced by pedophiles. Society shames the victims. SILENCE keeps the victims suffering. The catholic church created the biggest silence of all---covering for their own pedophile priests, keeping their crimes silent and knowingly placing these wolves with other innocent children who became victims.
The catholic church obviously has no shame, no morals and has been so sick for so long--that they have adopted their own line of pathological thinking. This institution has rotted from the inside, and I hope more catholics rid themselves of this sick, perverse, evil institution.
How can anyone be a part of this?
See, I'd laugh harder at this, 'cept I was just thinking how actually 'It's the media's fault' is, after all, somethin' of an improvement for these clowns...
... Insofar as: didn't they, more or less, say somethin' a lot like that, once, too? Some kind of 'you have no idea what foul temptresses them thar' eight year olds can be...' excuse?
(/I may have just imagined it, I guess. But then, we are talking about the Vatican, here, so it's hard for me to be sure...)
AJ Milne: If you imagined it, so did I...
@AnneH
There are any number of ways you can wriggle out of Matthew 18:6. For a start it is limited to 'those who believe in me' for another it speaks merely of 'harm' and it is not beyond the wit of man to decide that an action is not 'harmful' in any real sense.
I am not endorsing these btw, just pointing out that it is not as cut and dried as you might think when the right sort of minds get hold of it. Remember how into logic the Jesuits are supposed to be, self serving logic that is.
The courts of England and Wales do not respond to online petitions. You can't get someone arrested by voting on the internet. That is not how it works (nor should it).
No court in England and Wales would issue such a warrant, for three reasons. Firstly, there is no such crime in the law of England as "being a paedophile enabler", so you need to specify exactly what offence you are alleging the Pope to have committed. There is an offence of "conspiracy to commit" a criminal offence, and another offence of "aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring" the commission of a criminal offence. But if you are alleging that the Pope committed either of these offences in relation to acts of rape or indecent assault against children, you would need to establish that he was actually involved in some more direct way. Simply being the head of a worldwide organisation in which such acts occurred is not, in itself, a criminal offence. You would also need to establish that any such actions took place in England and Wales, since these are not crimes of universal jurisdiction, and therefore cannot be tried in England and Wales unless they actually occurred here.
Covering up an act of child molestation after the fact could, in theory, be charged as the offence of obstructing a police investigation. However, if the Pope personally did this, he did not do it in England and Wales, and it is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the English courts.
Furthermore, even ignoring all of the above, the Pope has sovereign immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, as an incumbent head of state, from the jurisdiction of the English courts. The fact that he was acting qua religious leader, rather than qua head of state, is irrelevant to this, since heads of state enjoy absolute personal immunity, extending to all their official and private acts, from the jurisdiction of foreign courts. (This would not be the case if he were a former head of state, in which case his immunity would be much more limited; but since the papacy is held for life, this is irrelevant here.)
Sorry to be pedantic: but I do think there's an important point here. However much you and I might dislike the Pope, creating an online petition calling for his arrest is a ridiculous waste of time. It is the job of the courts to apply the law fairly and impartially, not to respond to popular pressures. And I, for one, would not want to live in a world where people's online petitions could affect the outcome of court proceedings. Certainly, you can petition against his visit to the UK, since this is a political matter. But petitioning for him to be arrested is absurd.
This is simply the No True Scotsman fallacy, and they're not even trying to hide it. They're basically saying that abusive priests aren't true priests, or even true Catholics.
I think what's most appalling in this whole case is the fundamental refusal by the Holy See to even notice what people are most protesting to in this whole calvacade.
Child molesting priests are bad, not going to lower that crime in the slightest, but every organization that involves adults in positions of authority over children has this potential problem. They aren't under fire, because they try and protect kids. They keep a close eye, they remove authority figures who are trying to molest kids or have molested kids and turn them over to the authorities as soon as possible.
Instead, they decided to stake their entire organization on the premise that no priest could ever be corrupted and devote their entire organization in burying the evidence, shuffling the pieces, and keeping child molesters employed and shielded from justice. Like with Watergate, the crime is bad, but it's the cover-up that's toppling the edifice and will be the thing to end the Catholic Church or hopelessly cripple it.
That's what's being protested, that the Catholic Church decided to put the whole weight of the Church behind "we support our rapists" because they are wholly good, nyah, nyah, nyah.
What's almost darkly satirical about this whole evil affair is that this rolling ball of evil was started because they didn't want to admit to priestly fallability, that people of the cloth weren't magically holy with fancy robes and celibacy pledges and that really immoral sleazebags could turn up in the priesthood just as in life.
And now to defend themselves from what looks to be the constant attack of almost a nation a month uncovering decades of concentrted child abuse and cover ups, they've thrown that doctrine to the wolves.
Nope, our priests were infiltrated by atheists, hippies, and homosexuals. It's not our fault. But, that's what you could have done at the beginning. Hell, that's what they could do now, take these heathens out of here, I'm shocked to see this was allowed to occur, we must strengthen our godliness.
But now the protection of child rapists has pretty much literally become the point in and of itself. The Louis CK joke is appallingly accurate because even the reason that got them to this state of affairs is no longer compelling enough to focus on.
It's as much intriguing as it is disturbing and this tactic is really telling of how they may have fully begun grasping how their position in the world might be far more threatened by this coverup than admitting fallibility ever would have.
Why not just blame sexually abusive priests on Mary Taylor Moore and Elvis Presley?
Heads of state, irrespective of diplomatic immunity, may be tried by the U.N. (like Slobodan Milosevic) for things like "crimes against humanity."
Yeah, that'll happen.
Cuttlefish @ 19 : [golf clap] well done!
being cruder, I would have tried to rhyme God and Cod. (as in codpiece, codswallop)
chuckgoecke @58 : no, the mob would cut the offender's junk off and then slit his throat.
(they've done it before.)
Also : isn't it time we stopped giving this brozne-age con game a free pass ?
they do nothing different than the internet scammers who sell penis-enlarging cream or Nigerian bank bonds, and in fact have been shown to do more harm many times over.
As long as the Dope and his higher uppers are not brought to justice, how can the west point the finger at Islamic countries for being lawless and primitive? Here we are, supposedly civilized, and an European country will soon be hosting this criminal and paying for his expenses.
Other than some vocal pockets against the travesty of what the Catholic Church is, you have business as usual. You have Catholics buying the pathetic explanations given by their criminal hocho, you have apologists saying crap, like, oh well, Catholic Church, does accept evolution you know, and it is no way near as bad as the Islamic religion.
Wake up you apologists and smell the festering shit that is the Catholic Church. Just because there is a correlation between democratic governments and Catholics, does not mean that it is a causative relationship. It just speaks to the power of democracy, not to the goodness of that wretched organization called the Catholic Church.
Walton:
I think moving pedophilic priests to other parishes over and over after they've molested children, and covering up their crimes, rather than letting them be tried to the full extent of the law might fall under aiding and abetting criminal behavior. Darth Ratzi wasn't always Pope, you know. He was also the Inquisitor--er, the cardinal in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He was the one who determined how the Vatican would deal with the problem. All claims went through his office.
If you'd read the newspapers in your own country (like the Observer), you'd also know that Panzerfaust signed an order making the church's investigations of all sex abuse claims against priests confidential within the church--no outside agencies investigating. The order also forbid revealing the results of an investigation until 10 years after a victim had reached adulthood. Two kids here in Texas who had filed a claim of abuse learned of this in their trial.
I'm sure if you look hard enough, too, England has plenty of children molested by priests, so no fears there, either.
Ratfucker needs to be locked up, for a good, long time. If the UK can do it, good for them!
I think Pope Ratzi has it backwards. If there's a "general crisis of faith" affecting the Church, perhaps that's because their members don't like to see the higher-ups aid and abet child abusers?
@WALTON 66. I'm aware it doesn't count for anything legally and i did say in my comment that it wouldn't work. Its a way of bringing attention to the fact that whatever the laws of the land the pope is in principle a criminal and on his visit should be made to feel as embarrassed and uncomfortable as possible (although i doubt he's loosing any sleep)
But its also asking a question to his fans-why do you support this man when if he was anyone else you would be totally disgusted with him?
I just hope the press don't shy away from this and perhaps ask politicians-Why are you falling over yourselves to greet this man when if you had a meeting with him as head of a business when the scandal broke you would have cancelled it and be trying to distance yourself from him as much as possible?
But i won't hold my breath.
Furthermore, even ignoring all of the above, the Pope has sovereign immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, as an incumbent head of state, from the jurisdiction of the English courts. The fact that he was acting qua religious leader, rather than qua head of state, is irrelevant to this, since heads of state enjoy absolute personal immunity, extending to all their official and private acts, from the jurisdiction of foreign courts. (This would not be the case if he were a former head of state, in which case his immunity would be much more limited; but since the papacy is held for life, this is irrelevant here.) - Walton
So, as I suggested on an earlier thread, the only recourse is for the UK to declare war on Vatican City. Ratfinger has of course been interfering in our internal affairs, and has also been using WMDs - the policies and lies on contraception and abortion have killed millions. If we do it while Ratfinger is in the country, we can hold him as a PoW until the war ends - and of course, we should demand unconditional surrender.
I feel bad for the people who where molested by priests. Especially the altar boys, I used to be an altar boy and it was in reflection really fucking weird. I had to wear a gown over my clothes and do altar boy stuff at funerals for people I didn't know. Add a priests cock in your face to that equation and I don't know what I would have done.
This is not an adequate casus belli under international law. His lies about contraception and abortion have indeed killed millions, but are not considered WMDs by international law; there are various treaties outlawing chemical and biological weapons and restricting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but, last time I checked, there's no UN Convention on the Spreading of Negative Propaganda about Birth Control.
Although non-violent interference in another state's internal affairs is prohibited in many contexts by international law, it does not constitute a legal justification for war in and of itself. Under international law, there are only two legitimate bases for the use of force: self-defence against armed attack as defined by Art. 51 of the UN Charter, and enforcement of a UN Security Council resolution. Admittedly, these bases are often construed rather broadly by states - for instance, both Iraq Wars (1991 and 2003) were ostensibly justified on the grounds of enforcing various Security Council resolutions, but none of the resolutions actually authorised the use of force. But I am 100% sure that there has not been a Security Council resolution against the Vatican. I am equally sure that they have not launched an armed attack on the UK (I think we'd have noticed by now; the Swiss Guards aren't exactly difficult to spot from a distance).
I wish some judges in the US wrote as concisely as you did @66, Walton.
You are correct that "creating an online petition calling for [Ratzi's] arrest is a ridiculous waste of time" if the purpose of the petition would be to persuade authorities to actually arrest him.
But pipkin1972's larger point was that a petition could call additional attention to Ratzi's involvement in the RCC's responses to child abuse by priests.
Such attention is warranted.
Walton,
Do you ever wonder why people hold the law in such contempt ?
If someone can avoid being held accountable for crimes they may have committed by virtue of being a head of state, and that they will have such immunity for life then the law is failing to protect the people it should be protecting.
I would also suggest that the law granting a head of stare immunity may well conflict with human rights laws. Victims of sexual abuse carried out by priests are entitled to see those responsible held to account in courts of law.
There is clear evidence that the Pope instructed the Catholic Church to break UK law. If the law currently does not permit him to be called to account for that, then the law needs changing and quickly.
I wonder if Pope Panzerfaust and the rest of the clergy realize they're much more likely to protect the Church's reputation if they actually protected children!
Still learning,
Robert
If you look into the history of the Mafia you will find that the RCC has been their great enabler. The church valued the financial contributions the Mafia made to it higher than it was appalled by the Mafia's crimes, as they were not all that different from the church's practices in such matters.
Just that the RCC practised extortion in a slightly different, and more efficient manner. That because they had quite a head start.
And when it comes to spectacular torture, no institution even makes it to the first base in comparison to the RCC, - all others remain rank amateurs.
Sara, @49
DLC, @71:
You're saying that cream I ordered isn't going to work!?!
@Sanction,thanks for clarifying my point to Walton.I didn't do that in my original comment because i thought it was obvious.
Well said Aquaria and Knockgoat too,again whatever the law when someone dies unjustly they die unjustly whether it's on the receiving end of bombs,torture or deliberate misinformation about condoms.
Someone should tell him that even in a supposed war of ideas, actions speak louder than words.
I suppose it's too inconvenient for the Holy Father to notice that a lot of the evidence came from elderly people, whose tenure in those hell-holes 'way predates the so-called sexual revolution.
But what's really horrific is his disinclination to notice that most of the abuse wasn't sexual in nature. Beatings, starvation, torture and forced labor happened too--but the only thing he acknowledges is the boingy-boingy.
This is what happens to people who get it beaten into their heads that sex is immoral: at a certain point, not only does virtually their entire moral sense become triggered to sexual conformity, but their ability to react to any truly wrong thing--theft, fraud, deceit, violence, exploitation, injustice, whatever--barely works at all.
It's a diabolical form of social control.
Once you've got people focused (and guilt-ridden) on how awful they themselves are for having those thoughts, and on policing everyone else for doing those deeds, they'll scarcely notice you emptying their pockets, lying to their faces and sending their kids off to wars that benefit only yourself.
(Which is why the people who were so dazzled by Clinton's BJ have trouble understanding why Cheney/Bush lying us into a war was wrong, and why they didn't react to reports of torture until a soldier at Abu Ghraib produced nekkid pictures.)
Ah, justice. The law and justice overlap but not enough.
I would very much like it if the nations of Europe stopped letting stupid little fake countries thrive by giving elite groups a place to hide from the laws that govern the rest of us. The Holy See is an example; tax havens like Liechtenstein and the Channel Islands are some more.
No we can't invade or bring any sort of criminal charges, but we could make it hard for them to do their business. Ban any exports or imports between them and the EU; make as hard to travel between the Vatican and Italy as it is between Cuba and the US; let it be known that, if Somali pirates and SeaOrg want to join forces and attack Sark, then the Royal Navy won't cause them any trouble.
The Catholic Church never feels bound to secular pobligations because it is not in their interest, that is, it is not willing to face scrutiny.
This post might be of interest: http://tr.im/ODA7 and http://tr.im/ODAt
eNonsense, no that doesn't surprise me. How old do you think the "virgin" Mary was when God knocked her up? The Vatican can't have laws that would make their God a criminal now can they?
http://www.queerty.com/d-c-s-catholic-church-blames-the-gays-for-abando…
Yup, the Catholic Church is a haven for some very rotten human beings.
The "problem" here is international law. States can do what they want (generally speaking) to their own head of state but not to anyone elses. This actually makes a lot of sense - you don't want your PM/President/Leader getting arrested in another country if they go there for humanitarian work or talks or any other legitimate reason. It's also really important for leaders to not fear going to another country. Without these laws (although like most international "laws", it's really just convention), it would be virtually impossible for many heads of western nations to visit countries in the Middle East or parts of Africa without fear - so they wouldn't go.
Sure, it's got its downsides but generally speaking, making diplomats and sovereigns immune from the laws of other states just helps the wheels of diplomacy and inter-governmental discussion go round.
Oh, and it's not for life - it's just that in the case of the Pope (as with royalty), the position is for life. But, should the Pope stop being pope and all the stars aligned and a country decided to really, really annoy a bunch of Catholics, it's possible he could be charged.
Wiki is actually not completely bad on this topic: Immunity from prosecution (international law)
According to Wikipedia, Vatican City is in fact one of the few remaining nations which is not a member of the UN. The Holy See evidently has "permanent observer status," the same status held by the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.
Government of Vatican City
Off-topic, but I'm trying to imagine under what laws their god wouldn't be a criminal.
I mean, isn't this perp supposed to be omniscient? And omnipotent?
Seems to me, given this, under any number of Good Samaritan statutes, that guy would be in a whole lotta shit if he's ever stupid enough to show up where the cops can nab him... Insofar as, given those two properties, he's effectively aided and abetted every crime ever committed...
(/Grizzled detective to DA: 'Yeah, I figure this is our guy... Check it out--he's got like a dozen aliases, and a rap sheet as long as... umm... all of Shiva's arms put together.')
All this talk about trying to nail the Rat in the Hat gets me to wondering. From the discussion above, it seems that, whilst he might have acted in a despicable manner, he hasn't actually broken the law in Ireland, the UK etc.
But what about those in the heirachy below him, say, at a country level? Have they? And if they have not, maybe it is time to start petitioning to get parliaments to introduce laws that would penalise members of organisations who are aware of abuse and who do not alert the police.
Er?
CATHOLIC priests abusing children, CATHOLIC priest taking advantage of their position as priests to abuse children, a CATHOLIC heirarchy that has for decades colluded to protect them from the law ... is "not a Catholic Church problem"?
I beg your humble pardon?
#39
Tulse and others beat me to this point.
Confession requires contrition (honestly being sorry for the 'sin). Absolution is the result after penance (usually rosaries/our fathers/hail marys and acts of contrition - to show you are really sorry).
This would not be limited to the catlicks. Any xtian faith that believes in absolution. The 'born again' may not even need the contrition, which is worse in its own way.
I always loved it when I had a thumper tell me god was all loving and forgiving. I'd ask "So Adolf Hitler is in Heaven?" and watch their heads explode.
While none of this is inaccurate, it is misleading in context. People seem to be implying that priests cannot truly be sorry for their sin, because obviously they continue to molest children. This is overly simplistic. Catholics (hell, Christians in general, but there are degrees of emphasis in different doctrines) are taught that we are horribly flawed, imperfect beings by nature. They could submit to their baser "instincts" and truly regret it, and then continue to do it. I am no Catholic apologist, but religion fucks people's minds up in so many ways. Just wanting to make a nod to that fact.
While I was baptised Catholic, I was raised in an evangelical church. At least in that strain, you didn't even need to feel bad for sinning for salvation. It was all about "asking Jesus into your heart". While you had to "really mean it" when you did that, your status of "living in sin" or "living in a godly manner" meant fuck-all with regards to salvation.
You let them off too easily. It is better to make it explicit that under their soteriology, Hitler is in Heaven while the Jews he killed went to Hell. This is one reason why, prior to my deconversion, I came to the conclusion that Calvinism is the only Christianity that really made sense. Horrible as it is, omnipotent God surely must know ahead of time who would be saved and who would not. And it was completely up to his whim who became saved, otherwise God could not possibly act in a moral manner for an omnibenevolent, omnipotent deity (would an omnipotent being let their loved subject be tortured eternally for never hearing of them in life, for example).
This is the standard mindset of the religious and the followers of many kinds of woo. Follow this set of standard practices to be saved, enlightened, healed, etc. If it doesn't work, it was your fault because you weren't trying hard enough.
@20
The common refrain from church apologists is that the rate of pedophilia/abuse within the church is no higher than in general society. Yet I've never seen any empirical evidence to support this assertion. I wonder: Has this research been done? Has it been done and suppressed? Surely the statistics are out there . . .
V.infernalis:
Even though it might be true it kinda makes you wonder what happened to the "god makes you good"-creed doesn't it?
v.infernalis # 102
'The common refrain from church apologists is that the rate of pedophilia/abuse within the church is no higher than in general society. '
Which would suggest then that Catholic priests, as a group, are no better at avoiding sinning than their flocks. So why the hell should anyone give any of them credance or respect?
Surely, the Catholics church should be able to say that the rate of offending amongst it's clergy is a lot lower than the general population.
Paul:
Yes, I was simplistic. The jevies I had to deal with through High School used the Hitler in Heaven example to see how well we understood their catechism. They usually said that, while he could have sincerely asked for forgiveness from god for the evil he did, they doubted that Hitler would acknowledge and admit that what he had done (caused to be done) was actually wrong. It has been a LOOOONG time since I dealt with this line beyond the simplistic thumper thrashing, so I may not remember the whole apologetic reasoning. Part of the contrition was accepting that what you had done was, in fact, wrong. No kid level 'sorry I hit you' apology.
Actually, an all forgiving god would let the jews in as well -- if they let jebus in their hearts and were sincerely contrite for, I guess, the whole christ killing thing. Even though god required that to 'wash away the sins of mankind'.
I liked the thumper's response to the Hitler in Heaven proposition -- they almost always said: "No, he couldn't be." To which I respond: "Then god isn't all loving or all forgiving." Rinse-repeat until thumper's head explodes. Just a mind game with them.
#105
To be perfectly clear, I wasn't trying to take you to task or anything...I just wanted to make sure things were clear for people who perhaps are not as familiar with the faith.
I suppose it depends on the sect you interact with most. The vast majority of Christians I know would say that Hitler is in fact, in Heaven, if given the caveat that he accepted God and did the song and dance etc etc. They're pretty hardcore into the whole "anyone who asks for forgiveness/Jesus gets it/him" thing. Hitler would be a positive example for them, showing that God can redeem even the most wretched of us (that said, pastors have the good sense to not use the example for fear of backlash, when there are so many mundane but inspiring-if-framed-the-right-way examples).
That is why I'd feel the need to have the second prong on my stick if I'm going to use it to poke believers. But if they cannot accept that under their rules Hitler could be saved, I can see that the second prong being unnecessary
Paul:
I wasn't trying to be defensive/obstinate.
Yes, a second (third, fourth -- so many to choose from, actually) arrow in the quiver is always useful. I just never encountered the need for one. Like understanding Dianetics better than the sci's who might stop by. It may be cruel, but I love the sound eyeballs make when they roll up inside the head (sort of like a playing card in a bicycle's spokes).
I don't want to stray too far OT. The RCC's handling of pedo-priests (Zoing arrow loosed).
Pat Robertson (arrow storm).
As I said, so many to choose from.
Cactus Wren @ 98, Not to be pedantic but I believe this would be more properly written:"I beg your humble fucking pardon you despicable assholes!" Now doesn't that sound better?
Molly, NYC wrote:
And also why many were not offended by what they saw depicted in the pictures, but were instead offended by the fact pictures were taken of it.
It's Ash Wednesday and if I were still a practicing Catholic, I'd go have ashes marked on my forehead to remind me of my mortality.
Anyhow, I think the Roman Catholic Church will continue to be plagued by these scandals as long as celibacy is embraced by the church, but I wouldn't expect this pope to admit as much or push for this much needed change.
Yes, it's been done. The report was commissioned by the Catholic Conference of Bishops and is available online. The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests and Deacons, by Karen Terry et al. (2004), 2004
Section 2.2, Summary Results: Prevalence of Sexual Abuse of Youths Under 18 by Catholic Priests and Deacons, Page 25, next to last paragraph, gives a 4% priestly pedophile rate.
Of course, the real problem is hierarchy cover-up for those pedophiles. The rate is irrelevant compared to the purposeful cover-up.
I've been checking the 10 commandments, eh. Turns out there is no "Thou shalt not bugger children" so, technically, these pedophile priests are acting within the strictures of their faith. Maybe it didn't occur to God that failing to be more explicit on the subject would be taken as license, but even at that, why would God choose Haiti to hit with an earthquake instead of the Vatican if He didn't mean for His holy representatives to go around buggering children? Maybe we should consult Pat Robertson on that.
@IanM
See my previous comment, but you are right. Since kiddie fiddling is not Adultery it is not a major sin to do so, it is a simple venal sin. Which is the point, the priests can get their jollies without endangering their immortal souls too much. It's a moral decision.
I think there is another possibility, other than hippies and atheists infesting the church (because those are bloody unlikely).
They never seem to consider the possibility that god just plain old hates children. I mean, it stands to reason, he doesn't condemn paedophilia in the bible, he has some rules around selling your daughter into slavery, he asks a dude to sacrifice his kid.
God just doesn't like kids and so he doesn't protect them from the clergy.
The simplest explanation...
marcus @ #108
LOL, much better! Respect.
Well, that's halfway there. The previous section in that report report the incidence of victimization in the general public, but we still can't compare that to the prevalence of abuse figure for the Church. For an apples-to-apples comparison, we need the proportion of the general public that are (convicted) pedophiles and/or sexual abusers vs the same proportion of priests (Catholic or otherwise).
To follow up, another section of the bishop-accountability website gives abuse rates of between 5 and 10%, which, if we were to assume was the same as the rate for the general U.S. population, would mean that there are somewhere between 15 and 30 million pedophiles out there. That seems high.
The other option that the church tends to conveniently forget or ignore is that the position of village priest provides an unparallelled opportunity to abuse children, and therefore will have attracted applicants who are inclined to do so.