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.
Morality may evolve from a secular perspective. But from the Churchs’ position, uh-uh. Sin will always be sin. I will be waiting for those dates and encyclicals, that show an “evolution” of morality within the Catholic Church..
Coincidentally Mike, every, EVERY word I have posted comes from my mind. If I “quote” somedody I will use quotation marks and let you know. I stay away from “plagiarizing” other writers. I wish others’ on this blog would also follow suit. Coincidentally, you will notice when I quoted Father Fiore, I used quotaion marks, and I will state the person who articualted the thought or statement; when I use an external source of information.
The reason the Church used Latin in its’ liturgy was because the langauge has know “ambiguity”, it is “very precise”, latin means what latin says. Coincidentally, the sermon/homily was always in the vernacular and the missal has two sides one in the vernacular the other in latin. I never bought this argument. Also, the novus ordo mass is not being discontinued, because of the resurgence of the tridentine mass, only reinstated. A cleric also has the option now of even saying the “novus ordo missae in latin”.
The reason “they” are attracted to adolesect males is because these “homosexual priests” are trying to have a “sexual relationship with these “congregants” Mike. Before me, I have a copy of the “NEW 1962 Roman Missal”, complete with nihil obstat and Imprimatur from the Most Reverend Fabian Bruskewitz DD, STD Bishop of London which was given on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Sept. 14 2007.
The measure of “maturity” I was illustrating was to establish the fact that these priests are not attracted to 5,6, and 7 year olds! They are primarily attracted to YOUNG MEN, who are “adolescent”! Thet are attracted to them because they are homosexual in orientaion. Its’ funny, I have non-Catholic friends and “THEY” are even aware of this dynamic and scandal within the Church Mike, how come it eludes you?
Also, present to me “precisely” when in the history of the Church their is evidence of “evolution”, in regard to “sexual immorality” and the Ten Commandmants.. Dates of encyclicals would be most helpful..
Mike your “paranoid ideation” is only eclipsed by your weak argument. funny, how the tridentine mass benefited millions of the faithful for hundreds of years and even now millions around the world clamor for it. In fact the Pope has even recociled with the society of st. Pius the X and the use of the 1962 Missal has a new imprimatur and nihil obstat on it. You say you disagree with my analogy regarding homosexuality and its’ scandal within the ministerial priesthood, explain to me how my analogy is WRONG and my statistics are inaccurate.
billy, I agree that all normal people have control over their biological impulses, which is why the fact of a person’s homosexuality should not disqualify that person from any calling, whether religious or secular.
I disagree with your comment on morality. Of course it evolves; history tells us that. Regarding the Tridentine mass, its return will be of no particularly benefit to the health of the Church, although it does satisfy those who have labored mightily in opposition to the reforms of Pope John XXIII. (I can tell that you were not around in those days.) Frankly, I learned as a young altar boy in the ’50s that the only people in the congregation who ever understood any of the Latin were the priests and the altar boys.
I also disagree with your “analogy” on the issue of sexual abuse. The ability to impregnate a female is a wholly meaningless measure of maturity.
Finally, I note that a review of your posts shows striking similarities to those of another identity on this site, but whose name I do not recall. That individual had a habit of lifting quotes directly from various conservative Catholic sites. I do not know if you are the same individual, but I did do some checking and discovered that some of your statements are likewise taken verbatim from the words of others. If you wish to debate any issues, I would appreciate your using your own thoughts and words.
“Simple logic”, UCLA had nothing to do with that..
Also Mike, the garden variety pedophile cruises schoolyards, looking for pre-pubescent children, check out that statistic! The priests who have been “busted”, have primarily been “busted” with young men. Men who are adolescents, who have in fact gone through “puberty” and are capable of “siring” children of their own. Let me draw you an analogy. Look at all the women high school teachers that are “jumping” in the sack with the local high-school stud! They are on the news every night! They are “heterosexual” in orientaion, they are committing a “felony” because they are having sex with a MINOR. They are not true “pedophiles”, but are breaking the law for having an illicit sexual “fling” with a minor. Same holds true for the “homosexual” priest, they aren’t hitting on sixteen year old girls in the “Catholic high school”, uh-uh Mike, they are making “sexual advances” toward the young adolescent males, from between the ages of 12-18. This is “not” true pedophilia, but active and criminal homosexual acts with a minor! Does my analogy strike you right?
Yup, Tigers CHOKE! How do you blow a three game lead, with four to go. If I’m the GM for the Tigers, its’ “bye bye” Leyland. No excuse…. Oh well, I have the Angels to root for. I hope they win it all, like in 02′..
Morality does not evolve Mike. Sin is sin. Sodomy will never be condoned in the Church. Glaciation has nothing to do with it. Adultery, fornication, sodomy and other forms of immoral sexual activity will never be endorsed by the Church or condoned. These pedo/homo priests are the “cancer” in the Church and the homosexual bishops that have been ordaining these men are the “truest” form of cancer that the Church has “sired” in recent decades. The “pedophilia aberration” is a mere biproduct of the multiple abuses that have been overlooked and endorsed for so long. These “abuses” have slowly and inexorably caught up with the Church. I think it is wonderful that the Tridentine mass has returned under the Pontificate of Pope Benedict the XVI. The wheel has slowly begun to turn yet again, back to following the Church and “all” of Her teachings. I agree homosexuality may be a biological truism, but one has control over what they choose to do with that “biological urge”. Great graces are to be had by denying these impulses and seeking virtue through temperance and self denial..
billy, I have a practice of not engaging in ad hominem argument or the exchange of pointless accusations. There is no “terrible tangle” with which to be concerned. The Church’s official position is that homosexuality is a disorder and that homosexual acts are sinful. Given the glacial pace with which theology keeps up with science, however, it is to be expected that the Church’s position will evolve. My opinion is that homosexuality is not a matter of “choice,” but of biology. It is also my opinion that sexual predation is not some sort of byproduct of homosexuality any more than it is of heterosexuality. A gay man who chooses a life of celibacy is as capable of maintaining that commitment as is a heterosexual. Therefore, the proposals being debated to bar homosexuals from ordination are ill-informed and shortsighted. With respect to your query regarding “consensual affairs,” it is my view that no relationship is consensual if it results, wholly or partially, from either the real or perceived authority that one person has over another, or if it arises within the context of a relationship of trust. That is why there are ethical prohibitions against professionals engaging in sexual behavior with clients or patients. Thus, it is not purely a function of age as a moral matter. On the other hand, the law establishes age limitations based upon public policy determinations regarding emotional maturity. Actions taken in violation of the law or of the foregoing ethical prohibitions are presumptively wrong.
Billy,
You indeed are a troll.
I had a chance to read your first post Jill. You most certainly come across as “the sound voice of reason”. How come I never thought of that?
I would imagine the priest, who falls into the 90-95% of abusers,”not to mention vow breakers”, would really be a “heterosexual”, even when he is molesting an adolescent male. Is that what you are trying to articulate Jill?
Sadly Jill, your post is not only inaccurate, but not reflective of the statistics that are so prominently available on the internet. Check them out, it is sobering indeed..
Nums would work too, but I meant, nuns. I also meant the group MOST likely…
billy,
The group likely to rape a child is an heterosexual male. If the Church truly wanted to avoid sexual abuse of children they would immediately replace all priests with homosexual nums.
If you choose to travel down this road Mike, you are going to talk yourself into a “terrible” tangle..