The Vatican appears in need of a serious media consultant. Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN, has issued a defense that boils down to insisting that implicated priests were not pedophiles but homosexuals who liked young boys — and besides no more than five percent of priests had sex with children . . . and Jews and Protestants do it more.
Tomasi made his confrontational statement following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, insisting only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse. Tomasi seems to think that the faithful can rest assured that the likelihood that the priest will sexually assault your child is only 5 out of every 100 priests. Those are odds that are viewed as more than adequate in Vegas.
He also insisted that it is more likely that your child will be abused by Protestant or Jewish religious leaders — making the Catholic Church a virtual safe zone if you are going on purely the average likelihood of a rape. That could lead to a new campaign: “Go Catholic: We are Statistically Less Likely to Rape Your Child.”
Besides, Tomasi insisted “[o]f all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17.” He insisted most of the accused priests are homosexuals who simply liked younger partners.
The angry response came after Keith Porteous Wood of the International Humanist and Ethical Union accused the Church of covering up child abuse and being in breach of several articles under the Convention on the Rights of the Child: “The many thousands of victims of abuse deserve the international community to hold the Vatican to account, something it has been unwilling to do, so far. Both states and children’s organizations must unite to pressure the Vatican to open its files, change its procedures worldwide, and report suspected abusers to civil authorities.”
For the full story, click here.
You must not not pay one hundred for using these types of services of dating.
In addition, the spectacular design properties are heart of points
of interest in this town, by way of example Street Peter’s
cathedral, E Peter’s rectangular. Want to go through it?
“Rabbis generally rape young peoples minds”
Commoner,
Care to back that up? After 390 comments, what is its’ relevance?
Rabbis generally rape young peoples minds not their rear ends.
billywayne:
didnt Sylvestor the cat use the word pusillanimous in a cartoon? Sufferin’ Succotash!
Jill, I agree with you. I do not believe that a healthy religious viewpoint rejects the beauty of the world or the duty to protect it.
Jill:
well said
Thanks Mike and hello!
From that perspective it makes sense. I hate to think of the world being rejected in favor of an afterlife. This is beautiful planet and friendships, kindness, creativity, and intelligence all abide here. It is difficult for me to understand why the world and the things of it are considered inadequate in many religious traditions. In fact, this ideology often seems destructive of human values, allowing us to treat both the earth and each other very poorly.
To be clear, I am not saying you treat others this way. In fact, I would say the opposite. I am talking about a general trend to devalue human/planetary existence, the hurrying along to the afterlife that animates so much cruelty in religion.
Hi, Jill. Traditional Catholic theology teaches that all persons are called to live sanctified lives, that we are in the world but not of it. In other words, life on earth is intended to be a spiritual journey toward a spiritual destination. Therefore, anything which diverts one’s mind or body from that goal is to be avoided. This belief mandates a rejection of materialism (in my opinion it also mandates a rejection of capitalism, but that is an issue for a different thread). This rejection is expressed in different ways. For example, persons living cloistered lives choose prayer and contemplation as their life’s work. Thomas a Kempis in his “Imitation of Christ” frequently mentions the joy he feels sitting in his cell and pondering the mystery of God. Mother Teresa believed that whatever she had or could acquire must be freely shared with the poorest of the poor because she saw the face of Christ in every human being. So a vow of poverty can be understood as a realization that nothing can be possessed in the sense in which that term is normally understood. Instead, whatever one receives is a gift to be returned. I lack the wisdom and understanding to explain it any better than that, but I hope it helps. BTW, I make no claims to have lived in accordance with these precepts.
Mike A,
Thank you. I am sure you made a much better choice. Considering.
Mike A.,
I have a question concerning the beautiful piece you wrote above. When you say: “At its heart, a commitment to poverty is a commitment to maintain a detachment from material things, recognizing that their value lies solely in the good purposes to which they may be applied. It is an acknowledgment of the belief that life on earth is not the end of existence…” I understand the first idea but not the last. How is a vow of poverty connected with life after death? To me, there isn’t any reason for that connection.