Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Pope-o-phobia Hysteria

Photobucket

When I was a child we had a document that my grandmother had gotten in her youth (Dallas Texas around 1900--there were still gun fights and cowboys on the streets then in this town). The paper told of a secret ritual that all Catholic priests were charged to undergo (the news of this had been smuggled out of the Vatican by a run away priest) it was one of their top secrets they guard so carefully (so carefully my grandmother had a copy).  In this ritual the priest cut himself with his dagger (all priests carry daggers of course) and vowed to do what? I don't remember but something I doubt very much that anyone would put in a ritual of a chruch, something to lie cheat and steal and fool everyone with their insane papist idiocy.

The Pope o phobia hysteria now running rampant reminds me of this early ant-Catholic propaganda. 


The sharks smell blood and they are circling. On every message board every pimply faced atheist 18 year old is calling for the pope to be shot or put in prison and have the Vatican dismantled as though the Pope is a U.S. Citizen and under the jurisdiction of American jurisprudence. It's hard to access any real facts as most of the trumped up crap spouted about the issues reminds me of the kind of anti-Catholic hysteria my grand mother echoed from her girlhood in the 1890s.

Come one come all atheists, this is the final battler and let's get in there and give the Catholics as blood a nose as possible. This is the perfect opportunity to get your licks in. Let's just pause to look at some of the opportunists taking their turn at character assassination against a figure they usually can't get near.

There's the London Evening Standard. There's a paper you hear about a lot. I've never heard of it. It's hardly the Guardian. I wonder what's on their page 3 (page is where the Guardian and the Sun usually keep their photos of naked women--both papers are fringe, the London Times is the real major paper). What's interesting is what else si in the standard. They use a picture of the that could be on a Republican campaign commercial if the Pope was as democrat--borrowing a page from American dirty campaigning to put the "opponent" in the worst possible light.

Photobucket
The article asserts that as early as 2001 the Pope issued a edict to be kept as top secret and stored in the vault of Bishops at all times. This said to put the interest of the chruch ahead of those of the children. Odd that I can't find this story in any major main line publication. it reminds me of the dagger and pledge thing above.

there is a satanist blog that seeks to set the record straight, satanists never never never harm children, of course not, but the Catholics have always done it... yadda yadda yadda.

then of course there is the most prestigious news source of all, something called "Raw Story" that asserts a number of allegations. Raw Story also carried advertising from an organization to make Pot legal. But that wouldn't have anything to do with their biases would it now? There's one where the Title of the blog is The Catholic Cover up that wouldn't be a biased source would it now?

Vatican controled Catholic News Service reports that:

Vatican authorities emphasized that it was the pope who, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, pushed for harsher measures against abusers and made it easier for the church to defrock them.
But of cousre their biased, they are working for the Pope, they are probably abused themselves. Of cousre those sources that are out to get the Pope, they are objective, fair and reasonable.

here is probalby waht is closer to the truth on the 2001 document:

On March 27, the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, ran the full texts of two landmark documents that in 2001 placed the sexual abuse of minors by priests among the most grave sins, and established that allegations be handled by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Cardinal Ratzinger.

from the same source, Catholic News Service.


"What of the role of Pope Benedict? When he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith he led important changes made in church law: the inclusion in canon law of Internet offenses against children, the extension of child abuse offenses to include the sexual abuse of all under 18, the case by case waiving of the statute of limitations and the establishment of a fast-track dismissal from the clerical state for offenders," Archbishop Nichols wrote. (Ibid)

NY Times Report by Laurie Goodstein in March 24 2010 talks about issues from 1974 and the most serious thing she mentions for Ben 16 is his failure to step in a affirmatively report the offenders. That was 40 years ago. The document mentioned in connection with the case are written by Bishops in America it's not clear that Ben 16 even knew about the case. That is still true. There is no validation for this secret Child Abuse approval policy reported in the tabloids.


The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.
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.
The Wisconsin case involved an American priest, the Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy, who worked at a renowned school for deaf children from 1950 to 1974. But it is only one of thousands of cases forwarded over decades by bishops to the Vatican office called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led from 1981 to 2005 by Cardinal Ratzinger. It is still the office that decides whether accused priests should be given full canonical trials and defrocked.
In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger failed to respond to two letters about the case from Rembert G. Weakland, Milwaukee’s archbishop at the time. After eight months, the second in command at the doctrinal office, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, now the Vatican’s secretary of state, instructed the Wisconsin bishops to begin a secret canonical trial that could lead to Father Murphy’s dismissal.
But Cardinal Bertone halted the process after Father Murphy personally wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger
protesting that he should not be put on trial because he had already repented and was in poor health and that the case was beyond the church’s own statute of limitations.
These calls to arrest the Pope are so totally idiotic. The Pope is the head of a sovereign nation, Vatican city. He is not under the jurisdiction  of American law. Now this is hard because I applauded the arrest of Chilean Dictator Pinochet. But mass slaughter of 30,000 people just might be thought of as violation of International law, not reporting sexual molestation to the authorities in an American city might not be. In principle I oppose the move to try and arrest a leader of a foreign nation for violation of a local law or a national law of another country. How would it be if the Taliban tried arrest Obama (even though the Republicans would love it) or the Sandinista's tried arrest Regan (I would love it). It wouldn't work. We can't allow such goings on in the international community.

Another aspect of the problem is the hysterical people who are talking the opportunity to rail against Christianity on this count have exaggerated the reasons for Pope's sloth to act 40 years ago. The Pope-o-phobes put it bluntly, he wanted the chruche's interest to come before that of the children. I have seen atheists on message boards speak of "systematic molestation of Children by the institution" which is clearly a mountebank and a sham. In other words, to put it bluntly, it's an idiotic hysterical attitude. The reasons are not as simplistic as "we don't want negative publicity." The reasons sited from the actual documents involved (ala NY Times, see link above) have to do with the offenders age, poor health, state of repentance and rehabilitation.

I am the first to admit that the cove up stupid whatever it's reason. I agree that the crime of sexual molestation of child is hideous and evil, and even a total moral outrage when done by someone the child is told to trust. But these Pope-o-phoebes are working themselves into a frenzy. They are not using any sort of discretion, they are sharks at a feeding frenzy. Many seem to think that working up emotionalism about the crime justifies the extreme measure for which they call, with no reasoning about the length of time that passed, or the record of the Pope in the mean time.

15 comments:

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

The point I've made several times is what if the Catholic church was a major corporation and many of it's executives, including it's CEO had been actively involved in covering up child molestation committed by it's employees? Heads would roll. Clergy, regardless of faith or denomination, are just people and should be held just as accountable as you or I would.

The Catholic church has protected these monsters long enough.

Your post should have been about how calling for shooting the pope was going too far, but something has to be done. Yet, you chose to let your hatred of atheists get the better of you.

"trumped up crap"

Nice, blame the victim.

Metacrock said...

had been actively involved in covering up child molestation committed by it's employees? Heads would roll.

You mean they would literally cut off their heads?

Your post should have been about how calling for shooting the pope was going too far, but something has to be done. Yet, you chose to let your hatred of atheists get the better of you.

It's not a corporation. Corporations are under the jurisdiction of the authorities, the Pope is not.

Trying to compare the Pope's actions of 40 years ago (they never take into account how long ago it was) and the fact that he wasn't personally involved in any of the cases and may not have know about it never enters into their thinking.

I'm sure a lot of the hysterical Pope-0-phobes are not atheists. that doesn't matter, they are still hysterical.

The only thing he really did, that's proved, was not actively telling the Bishops to reprot to the police, 40 years ago.
Forth years Ago! Forty years ago! what's the statute of limitations? Child abuser himself would be beyond the statute by now.

these guys aer acting like the pope said "O get them more children to molest." He didn't. they took them out of the job, except for one guy who they stupidly thought was cured. But that's not anywhere near the same thing as saying "get him more kids to hurt."

stop thinking emotionally.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Stop thinking emotionally about child molestation? Wow. This isn't just about the cases currently in the news, this is about a long tradition of protecting molester priests.

If there was one person who I thought would stand against corruption in the church, it was you. I'm surprised to see you not doing so.

If I'm thinking emotionally, then I'm in good company.

Matthew 18:6

"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."

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

And seriously, you're telling me to stop thinking emotionally? I wonder what percentage of all your internet posts are barely coherent rants against atheism?

Metacrock said...

And seriously, you're telling me to stop thinking emotionally? I wonder what percentage of all your internet posts are barely coherent rants against atheism?

3%

Metacrock said...

Stop thinking emotionally about child molestation? Wow. This isn't just about the cases currently in the news, this is about a long tradition of protecting molester priests.

you know I'm not into disregarding feelings. I believe that there are times when feelings can be a valid form of knowing and of deicsion making. But this is not one of them.

the magnitude of the crime is not an excuse to become hysterical. I'm not saying you are hysterical but really, the evil of he crime does not warrant going off the deep end.


If there was one person who I thought would stand against corruption in the church, it was you. I'm surprised to see you not doing so.


You are almost red baiting. I am a protestant you know! My being a Protestant is a commentary on the whole process of having the Roman Catholic hierarchy. So I don't approve of the way they do business (so to speak) anyeay, see? To say that my attempt at level headed analysis of the problem is the same as condoning corruption, that's the kind of thing that hysteria leads people to say.

Of course I'm against corruption but I'm not even a Catholic. The Pople cannot be under the jurisdiction of American cities. The Pope can't be arrested by the police of the cities in which the priests were doing their abuse, nor should he be, any more than Obama should be arrested by the Taliban.


If I'm thinking emotionally, then I'm in good company.

Matthew 18:6

O yea bad analogies always justify everything.

"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."

see this is the kind of exaggeration that comes form letting rage guide your analysis.

the People didn't do anything to make any child "stumble." None of the children molested "stumbled." stumbling means someone gave up their fiat and sinned willingly. children influenced to have sex by trusted figures are not stumbling, they are not willingly choosing,t they are being hoodwinked, in a sense raped in a slow fashion. they are children it's not their fault.

"stumbling" means sin the children didnt' sin the asshole that hurt them sinned.

the Pope didn't do that. there's no indication or even a charge that the Pope screwed any kinds. That's NOT on the table.

maybe metaphorically he screwed them. that's wrong. but I'm mot a cathoic and the RCC has n provision for taking Pop's out.

that's one reason I'm not a Catholic.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

The issue for me regarding the church has never been the molestation it's self, it's the cover up and protection of the criminals.

Even priests are calling for the Pope to resign. Local Priest Calls For Pope To Resign

If speaking my mind is baiting, then I guess I'm baiting.

Metacrock said...

that is a serious issue and I'm angry at them for doing it. But it's more a matter of institutions rather than religion. Any institution seeks it's own survival.

It's wrong. It' blatantly wrong and I can understand people's anger.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

To me, this has nothing to do with religion, except in it's abuse of religion.

A Hermit said...

Read this:

The "Pedophile's Paradise"

For decades the Church used isolated native communities in Alaska as a dumping ground for known child rapers.

There's no rational defense for these people Joe, it's evil plain and simple and this Pope was part of covering up for and enabling at least some of these monsters.

I don't know about arresting him, but at the very least he should resign and take more than a few cardinals with him.

This is why I reject your non-humanist ethics, by the way. When the source of ethical concern is something beyond humanity then humanity becomes expendable as it did here; the reputation of the Church was more important than the suffering of the victims.

Metacrock said...

you Hermit found his little magic issue that's destroy Christianity now. He knows all about child abuse in the chruch he's a world expert on it.

There's no rational defense for these people Joe, it's evil plain and simple and this Pope was part of covering up for and enabling at least some of these monsters.


right, we should rape them with toilt plunger handles and pullthem through cactus by piono wire aroudn their balls. I know let's go to the Christain areas an djust start shooting hu?

why stop with priests? surely all Catholocs are eivl let just wipe them all out hu?

after all the crime so bad that suspending reason is justified hu?


I don't know about arresting him, but at the very least he should resign and take more than a few cardinals with him.

for an attitude he had 40 years ago that was jus like hte attitude in mosto f society and he's a lot to change sinc.e that's real smart.

you are on Christ hate carze you are not going to evaluate things rationally.
.

This is why I reject your non-humanist ethics, by the way.


because it's not irrational enough? Or because it's not hateful enough?

When the source of ethical concern is something beyond humanity then humanity becomes expendable as it did here; the reputation of the Church was more important than the suffering of the victims.

Its'so halrious how little self reigiouts politcally correct know alls can read into things people so much that they either fear or want to say themselves.

like Mike saying 'O so you now you support corruption." once you let in that irrational hysteria there' no end to it.

Metacrock said...

why don't I feel Hermit can say that himself?

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

Wow, Joe. Way to put words in our mouths. Grow up.

Metacrock said...

Washington post March 31, 2010

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/30/AR2010033002119.html

Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna, for instance, this week publicly countered accusations that Benedict turned a blind eye to abuse scandals when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed a powerful Vatican office in charge of disciplinary action of the clergy between 1981 and 2005. Schoenborn said that Ratzinger in 1995 pressed for a special investigation into the former archbishop of Vienna, Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer, for allegedly molesting young monks. That push, Schoenborn said, was blocked by aides to then-Pope John Paul II.



Benedict has nevertheless come under fire for mismanaging cases of accused pedophiles in the clergy. In 1980, when he was archbishop of Munich, Ratzinger approved the transfer of a German priest and sex offender for therapy. Despite promises to the victim's family that the priest would not work with children again, he was allowed to return to the ministry and molested more children. The Vatican has said Ratzinger was not aware that the priest returned to pastoral duties, a move approved by his then-deputy, Vicar General Gerhard Gruber.




I have no seen one single Pope-0-phobe quote a single fact about the issues. they are waving hysterically and talking like he raped children himself.

they are not even rationally evaluating the involvement he had. I've seen people say everything from "the systemic institutional molesting of Children" as though there's a creed commanding it "I believe in God the father, and molesting children..." all of you are talking like he was raping children. It's still not even clear that he knew about it when it was going on and he did policies in place to stop from 1980 to 2005.

please get over hysterical mob mentality.

A Hermit said...

"I have no seen one single Pope-0-phobe quote a single fact about the issues. they are waving hysterically and talking like he raped children himself."

No Joe, we're pointing out that there was a culture in the highest echelons of the Catholic Church that was more concerned with the Church's reputation than with the well being of the victims of abuse. Ratzinger actually appears to have been uncomfortable with that and may even have tried to get some of the abusers removed, but it's evident that he mostly went along with that culture of cover-up.

This is a guy who has also re-instated holocaust deniers and continues to push lies about the value of condoms in fighting AIDs...I'm honestly surprised to see you defending such a reactionary figure...