Vatican up to bat again

rabbitt

rabbitt

CAGiversary!
Feedback
7 (100%)
The Vatican continues its perpetual institutionalization of child rape and cover up, this time hitting a little closer to the Pope. The most incriminating excerpts I've laid out below, the rest is after the link.

Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

The documents emerge as Pope Benedict is facing other accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican’s chief doctrinal enforcer.
Click to expand...

“I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood,” Father Murphy wrote near the end of his life to Cardinal Ratzinger. “I ask your kind assistance in this matter.” The files contain no response from Cardinal Ratzinger.
Click to expand...

The Vatican’s inaction is not unusual. Only 20 percent of the 3,000 accused priests whose cases went to the church’s doctrinal office between 2001 and 2010 were given full church trials, and only some of those were defrocked, according to a recent interview in an Italian newspaper with Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna, the chief internal prosecutor at that office. An additional 10 percent were defrocked immediately. Ten percent left voluntarily. But a majority — 60 percent — faced other “administrative and disciplinary provisions,” Monsignor Scicluna said, like being prohibited from celebrating Mass.
Click to expand...

“In spite of these difficulties,” Archbishop Weakland wrote, “we are still hoping we can avoid undue publicity that would be negative toward the church.”
Click to expand...

This last quote is exemplary of the Church's main and only concern: public image.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?hpw
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']there isn't really anything controversial about this. its a fucked up situation, then end?[/QUOTE]

My god, you're right! Let's not discuss it!
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']there isn't really anything controversial about this.[/QUOTE]

You'd have had better luck telling me that these are not the droids I'm looking for.
 
[quote name='Strell']You'd have had better luck telling me that these are not the droids I'm looking for.[/QUOTE]

*waves hand*

These aren't the droids you are looking for. You will PayPal me $10 as a gift.
 
[quote name='Strell']You'd have had better luck telling me that these are not the droids I'm looking for.[/QUOTE]

lpjofw2u1i.jpg


Not much else going on in this thread after all. :D
 
well what did you think would happen in this thread? some random would come and start defending the vatican not punishing assholes for fucking with little kids?
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']there isn't really anything controversial about this.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='perdition(troy']well what did you think would happen in this thread? some random would come and start defending the vatican not punishing assholes for fucking with little kids?[/QUOTE]

lulz.gif
 
[quote name='Strell']You'd have had better luck telling me that these are not the droids I'm looking for.[/QUOTE]

They're not.
 
If these are the folks representing Christ, the whole concept of an "Anti-Christ" becomes a lot gentler, eh?

Really, now, if something's going to be antithetical to a bunch of child molesters, that's not really a threatening concept, is it?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If these are the folks representing Christ, the whole concept of an "Anti-Christ" becomes a lot gentler, eh?

Really, now, if something's going to be antithetical to a bunch of child molesters, that's not really a threatening concept, is it?[/QUOTE]

Would you rather your children be molested OR go to Hell and burn forever with the $$$$$$s and fornicators? Those are your ONLY options.
 
Myke, you're forgetting that catholics are in league with the devil and the pope might be the antichrist (or at least working with the antichrist obama).
 
I briefly looked but couldn't find anything. Does anyone know if the amount of altar boys has gone down over the past few years?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Would you rather your children be molested OR go to Hell and burn forever with the $$$$$$s and fornicators? Those are your ONLY options.[/QUOTE]
PROTIP: "$$$$$$s" gets censored. Next time, try something like "onanists".
 
[quote name='seanr1221']Does anyone know if the amount of altar boys has gone down over the past few years?[/QUOTE]

I'd say there's been a great amount of altar boys going down in the past few years.

07-groucho-marx-mustache.jpg
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This topics needs to be bumped, as the framing and arguments being made by Bill Donohue are fucking *appalling*.[/QUOTE]

You know, I was watching CNN earlier today and they were reporting on this. I kept thinking, "I wonder how ol' Bill Donohue is defending this." Good to see he's as predictable as ever.
 
Here's his argument: this is a problem due to homosexuality, not due to the church.

Let's ignore the problems of (1) cover ups, (2) failure to defrock, and (3) failure to press charges for just a moment.

Donohue cites a study that examined the victims of molestation, saying that 77% were male and over half were post-pubescent, therefore it was a problem of *homosexuality*. Which is a severe misrepresentation - Donohue has me ashamed to identify as a Catholic (though I'm not a good one, I admit). According to the same study, over 70% of the victims were under 14 years old - Donohue ignores that 50% were between 11 and 14, and moves on to point out that they were "post pubescent."

He is a shameful man. Certainly not a defender of the morals and values I expect of a man of Christ.
 
Donohue's statistical lying brings to the forefront a question I've wondered before: are homosexuals more likely to become Priests?

I mean this seriously - people raised in orthodox Catholic households, who consider the idea of becoming a priest, have to overcome the vow of celibacy. That's a *huge* thing (shut up, Strell). For heterosexuals, it's giving up something God approves of (fuckin' and having babies), so it's difficult to want to take that vow. For homosexuals who are orthodox Catholics, they'd be vowing to not engage in behavior the Church finds abhorrent (and, by virtue, is a trait they revile in themselves).

Short story: the sacrifice involved in the vow of celibacy is more difficult for heterosexual Catholic males than homosexual Catholic males, leading to a greater likelihood of a homosexual Catholic trying to become a Priest over a heterosexual.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Donohue's statistical lying brings to the forefront a question I've wondered before: are homosexuals more likely to become Priests?

I mean this seriously - people raised in orthodox Catholic households, who consider the idea of becoming a priest, have to overcome the vow of celibacy. That's a *huge* thing (shut up, Strell). For heterosexuals, it's giving up something God approves of (fuckin' and having babies), so it's difficult to want to take that vow. For homosexuals who are orthodox Catholics, they'd be vowing to not engage in behavior the Church finds abhorrent (and, by virtue, is a trait they revile in themselves).

Short story: the sacrifice involved in the vow of celibacy is more difficult for heterosexual Catholic males than homosexual Catholic males, leading to a greater likelihood of a homosexual Catholic trying to become a Priest over a heterosexual.[/QUOTE]
This is EXACTLY what my wife and I discussed yesterday. The thing that drives me wild is, I've never spoken to a Catholic who can back up the celibacy thing within the Scriptures. I have no idea where they are getting it.
Myke-I know you said you aren't a very good Catholic, but do you know where they are getting this idea from?
 
"Some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

/Benedict
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Donohue's statistical lying brings to the forefront a question I've wondered before: are homosexuals more likely to become Priests?

I mean this seriously - people raised in orthodox Catholic households, who consider the idea of becoming a priest, have to overcome the vow of celibacy. That's a *huge* thing (shut up, Strell). For heterosexuals, it's giving up something God approves of (fuckin' and having babies), so it's difficult to want to take that vow. For homosexuals who are orthodox Catholics, they'd be vowing to not engage in behavior the Church finds abhorrent (and, by virtue, is a trait they revile in themselves).

Short story: the sacrifice involved in the vow of celibacy is more difficult for heterosexual Catholic males than homosexual Catholic males, leading to a greater likelihood of a homosexual Catholic trying to become a Priest over a heterosexual.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, but men who molest boys are usually heterosexual anyway, of course.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Donohue's statistical lying brings to the forefront a question I've wondered before: are homosexuals more likely to become Priests?

I mean this seriously - people raised in orthodox Catholic households, who consider the idea of becoming a priest, have to overcome the vow of celibacy. That's a *huge* thing (shut up, Strell). For heterosexuals, it's giving up something God approves of (fuckin' and having babies), so it's difficult to want to take that vow. For homosexuals who are orthodox Catholics, they'd be vowing to not engage in behavior the Church finds abhorrent (and, by virtue, is a trait they revile in themselves).

Short story: the sacrifice involved in the vow of celibacy is more difficult for heterosexual Catholic males than homosexual Catholic males, leading to a greater likelihood of a homosexual Catholic trying to become a Priest over a heterosexual.[/QUOTE]

Interesting...
You are analyzing the situation only on the level of rationalizations produced by the cerebral cortex. And that certainly is a part of the story. For a homosexual distressed by his lifestyle, the line of thinking that you outlined may apply.

However, on a deeper level, the vow of celibacy is so diametrically opposed to our underlying instincts as to make it problematic. The Church really needs to reconsider this! If these desires are not fully sublimated into service to God and others, which is an extremely difficult thing to do, then it seems to come out in various perverse way. I would think that little kids become the victims most often because they are easy targets, who are available and are rather defenseless. Classically, I would have imagined that people either would not dare accuse a priest of such a transgression or would not be believe. Finally, on top of all of that, it seems like the Church was not to interested in punishing those who perpetrated these acts.

Thus: "divine" authority + unmet needs + easy targets + little fear of punishment = predation.

The average homosexual man is more promiscous than the average heterosexual man, mainly because his potential partners are more willing. So, I think that taking a vow of celibacy would be at least as difficult for a homosexual man. Of course, the homosexual who becomes a priest is probably not an "average" homosexual man.
 
[quote name='myl0r']This is EXACTLY what my wife and I discussed yesterday. The thing that drives me wild is, I've never spoken to a Catholic who can back up the celibacy thing within the Scriptures. I have no idea where they are getting it.
Myke-I know you said you aren't a very good Catholic, but do you know where they are getting this idea from?[/QUOTE]

Speculation, but I imagine it has to do with keeping up appearances and avoiding causing a scandal in the church.

Quick story: when I was in middle school, one of the new priests had an affair w/ a woman in the clergy, and a baby resulted (13th of 13! that's Catholic!). To his credit, he doesn't hide it, and he does attempt to be a father (no matter how horribly awkward for both him and his child) - even having gone so far as to try to take a second job to earn money to provide child support. So, not a bad dude, but a dude who made a major league mistake (at least it was a consensual one) and one he should have been defrocked for. Now he's the pastor of another parish in the same region, nearly 20 years later. He still carries the whispers and the stigma - and, ostensibly, the crises in faith that he causes. How can this person be a man of God when he made such a mistake?

I guess the purpose of celibacy/continence is geared towards avoiding those kinds of scandals. Is it in the scripture? Probably not - I'll take your word on it. But stained glass windows, crucifixes, and the 'stations of the cross' aren't in the scriptures either, yet they're all longstanding traditions/fixtures in the Catholic church that have a functional origin (those icons were ways of relaying stories of Jesus to people who weren't literate, which was a helluva lot until the development of mass education and the printing press in recent centuries).

Scriptural? Nah. But functional to some degree.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Donohue's statistical lying brings to the forefront a question I've wondered before: are homosexuals more likely to become Priests?

I mean this seriously - people raised in orthodox Catholic households, who consider the idea of becoming a priest, have to overcome the vow of celibacy. That's a *huge* thing (shut up, Strell). For heterosexuals, it's giving up something God approves of (fuckin' and having babies), so it's difficult to want to take that vow. For homosexuals who are orthodox Catholics, they'd be vowing to not engage in behavior the Church finds abhorrent (and, by virtue, is a trait they revile in themselves).

Short story: the sacrifice involved in the vow of celibacy is more difficult for heterosexual Catholic males than homosexual Catholic males, leading to a greater likelihood of a homosexual Catholic trying to become a Priest over a heterosexual.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you can simplify it like this. Even with the sacrifice in mind, it neglects the fact that the urges and attractions still exist. In the case of a homosexual, there is also the persistent guilt that accompanies those feelings, which doesn't really seem like it would make things easier.

As far as homosexuals being more likely to become priests, I really don't see why that would be the case. If someone is Catholic and a homosexual, I don't see why that would make them more likely to become a priest when leaving the church would be much easier. We're essentially talking about a gay Catholic who wants to avoid sinning in the eyes of the church. Considering homosexuality is already a minority in the population, and we're splitting that group into "gay Catholics", and then further splitting it into "devout gay Catholics", I would say the idea that homosexuals are more likely to become priest could be debunked just for the fact of how many priests there are in the world. Statistically speaking, it's most likely that a majority of priests are heterosexual.
 
[quote name='BigT']The average homosexual man is more promiscous than the average heterosexual man, mainly because his potential partners are more willing. So, I think that taking a vow of celibacy would be at least as difficult for a homosexual man. Of course, the homosexual who becomes a priest is probably not an "average" homosexual man.[/QUOTE]

If the average homosexual man is more promiscuous than the average heterosexual man (possible, though probably not by much) but it's due to more willing partners, then there wouldn't be any actual difference between them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I guess the purpose of celibacy/continence is geared towards avoiding those kinds of scandals. Is it in the scripture? Probably not - I'll take your word on it. But stained glass windows, crucifixes, and the 'stations of the cross' aren't in the scriptures either, yet they're all longstanding traditions/fixtures in the Catholic church that have a functional origin (those icons were ways of relaying stories of Jesus to people who weren't literate, which was a helluva lot until the development of mass education and the printing press in recent centuries).

Scriptural? Nah. But functional to some degree.[/QUOTE]

From my understanding, celibacy had to do more with property and church finances. If a man is celibate, the church only has to support the priest rather than the priest and his family. Him having no heirs also used to ensure that all his property would be transferred to the church upon his death rather than his wife and children.
 
^ Sensible. Fulfills the functional reasoning to boot.

[quote name='Cantatus']I don't think you can simplify it like this. Even with the sacrifice in mind, it neglects the fact that the urges and attractions still exist. In the case of a homosexual, there is also the persistent guilt that accompanies those feelings, which doesn't really seem like it would make things easier.[/quote]

That's my point. Remember, I'm starting from a point of comparing people who are deeply invested in their Catholic faith - after all, those are the folks that are likely to consider the Priesthood, let alone actually follow through.

For those folks, sexual attraction is considered a natural burden to be dealt with, if you're a heterosexual. For homosexuals, though, those sexual desires are the source of an internal conflict between your urges and desires and your faith. The can not live in consonance (if we can call it that) like heterosexual urges and a deep Catholic faith.

As far as homosexuals being more likely to become priests, I really don't see why that would be the case. If someone is Catholic and a homosexual, I don't see why that would make them more likely to become a priest when leaving the church would be much easier. We're essentially talking about a gay Catholic who wants to avoid sinning in the eyes of the church. Considering homosexuality is already a minority in the population, and we're splitting that group into "gay Catholics", and then further splitting it into "devout gay Catholics", I would say the idea that homosexuals are more likely to become priest could be debunked just for the fact of how many priests there are in the world. Statistically speaking, it's most likely that a majority of priests are heterosexual.
Click to expand...

Two things:
1) Again, I'm talking about people who are likely to consider the priesthood - for them, leaving the church isn't that easy a thing. It's an entrenched part of their belief system, part of their identity - it's their *faith* after all. It's not an article of clothing to be disbanded because it's not fashionable or it doesn't fit right. That's the very idea of faith. So "they could just leave" is a misunderstanding of my point as well as a gross simplification of the kinds of cognitive struggles someone who has a strong Catholic faith but is also a homosexual experiences.

2) I didn't say "majority" are homosexual. I said homosexuals are *more likely*. Those don't even remotely mean the same thing in statistical terms.

If 100% of X people do Y, and 50% of Z people do Y, then X people are "more likely" than Z people to do Y, no matter how many of them there are numerically. Likelihood and proportionality are two wholly different things.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This topics needs to be bumped, as the framing and arguments being made by Bill Donohue are fucking *appalling*.[/QUOTE]

He also worked the Irish and alcoholism in there as a metaphor for his arguements. The guy is a poor man's Don Rickles.
 
[quote name='SpazX']If the average homosexual man is more promiscuous than the average heterosexual man (possible, though probably not by much) but it's due to more willing partners, then there wouldn't be any actual difference between them.[/QUOTE]
Well, aside from the large difference in partner preference...

And, one must remember that when I write, I write about average trends. There certainly are heterosexual men who are more promiscuous than a given homosexual man. Just like there are certain women who are more promiscuous than certain men. It's the result of a complex interplay of one's underlying personality and the environment to which one is exposed.

The promiscuity in homosexuals is real:

*As an indirect measure, the percent of homosexuals in the US is something like 3 or 4%, but they account for >50% of all new HIV diagnoses. There's probably a reason for that...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf
 
homosexual males alone are >50%? Or homosexuals period?

We should legalize gay marriage in order to promote monogamy, then. You want to kill prop 8, don't you, BigT?
 
Homosexual males, according to the .pdf. Unsure about the "3 or 4%" figure; my understanding was that gay men made up about 5% of the population, but, hey, quibbling...
 
[quote name='BigT']Well, aside from the large difference in partner preference...

And, one must remember that when I write, I write about average trends. There certainly are heterosexual men who are more promiscuous than a given homosexual man. Just like there are certain women who are more promiscuous than certain men. It's the result of a complex interplay of one's underlying personality and the environment to which one is exposed.

The promiscuity in homosexuals is real:

*As an indirect measure, the percent of homosexuals in the US is something like 3 or 4%, but they account for >50% of all new HIV diagnoses. There's probably a reason for that...

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf[/QUOTE]


I don't think you can come to that conclusion simply from HIV rates. It's easier to get HIV through anal sex and gay men are probably less likely to use any protection. Along with many other factors. It's too complex to get derive it from that.

But you're missing my point - even if homosexual men are more promiscuous because of having more willing partners it's irrelevant to the difficulty of homosexuals vs heterosexuals being celibate. Heterosexuals and heterosexual sex are more socially accepted, which is what Myke was talking about.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']homosexual males alone are >50%? Or homosexuals period? [/quote]

Well, the politically correct medical term is MSM (men who have sex with men). Lesbians, are not at high risk for HIV. Anecdotally, the vast majority of people we see in Infectious Disease HIV clinics are MSMs (easily 2/3rds). At first, this really did surprise me, as I had expected there to be more heterosexual cases since heterosexuals are so much more common.

We should legalize gay marriage in order to promote monogamy, then. You want to kill prop 8, don't you, BigT?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that there is any evidence that gay marriage will reduce promiscuity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18686027?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_SingleItemSupl.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
(needs an institutional subscription to access)
It's actually a reasonably good article; small sample size though. Looks like there are broad definitions of monogamy in MSM relationships. Talks about contracts and how 56% of these are eventually broken, etc.


Here are some popular articles along the same lines:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gays-anatomy/200809/are-gay-male-couples-monogamous-ever-after

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
 
[quote name='Cantatus']From my understanding, celibacy had to do more with property and church finances. If a man is celibate, the church only has to support the priest rather than the priest and his family. Him having no heirs also used to ensure that all his property would be transferred to the church upon his death rather than his wife and children.[/QUOTE]

This was always my understanding. Hell, some (all?) of the apostles were married.

But then the reason why women can't be priests is great...none of the apostles were women :lol:
 
Even funnier, considering I know someone who belonged to the Hitlerjugend as a young Polish boy.

Lil' Joey Ratzinger, I think was his name.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Even funnier, considering I know someone who belonged to the Hitlerjugend as a young Polish boy.

Lil' Joey Ratzinger, I think was his name.[/QUOTE]

Um, Ratzinger's not Polish...

Review your history. Hitler and the Germans attacked the Poles and felt that Slavic people were inferior...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top