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.
Dredd, maybe you can tell me what the Churchs’ official teaching on slavery is? Please, thrall me with your acumen..
Dred Scott, “earth” to Dredd, You have come in on the subject a little late. We were discussing “sexual immorality” and its’ evolution throughout the ages. My contention is that sexual immorality has “never evolved”, others claim it has. You telling me that Catholics owned slaves is off topic and is somewhat irrelevant. Guess what? Catholics sin all the time, so I still am perplexed by your question in light of the topic..
Billy, what was the “official teaching” of the Catholic Church on slavery in the 19th century?
In the 1st Century?
Today?
Coincidentally Dred, I was discussing the issue of “sexual morality and immorality”, within the “teaching organ” of the Church, not the abuses of slavery in North America or abroad..
Dred Scott, what was the “official teaching” of the Catholic Church on slavery in the 19th century? The fact that Catholics owned slaves does not tell me what the Churchs’ official teaching was. Their are “baptized Catholics” who commit the crime and sin of “murder”, does that mean they are “reflective” of the teaching Church? The point I am trying to illustrate is simple. Because “bad people” with compromised consciences did bad things, does not make the Church bad. Maybe just some misguided, ignorant members were bad, because they chose to do things, “that were a little less than wonderful”…
Billy,
Your diatribes are getting nauseating. I wish that no one would respond to your BULLSHIT and maybe you’d go away.
Dred Scott,
So good of you to drop by. The profiteers on that front was the Catholic Church. They were slave runners. No Ship could sail under the Holy Roman empire unless it had the sanctification of the Church.
Slavery was perfectly ok for the Catholics until well after the Civil War.
They relied on the Bible, just like the southern Protestants.
There were lots of Catholic slaveowners.
Roger Brooke Taney was a Catholic.
Slavery moral?
Not any more.
Slavery has been a sin for Catholics since the late 19th Century.
I refuse to see your position as rational or logical Judge because it isn’t….
Judge, you are not answering my question. I asked for an example of the “evolution of morality”, within the Church. Your desire to discuss “fast and abstinence” is not a question of “morality”, by secular or Church definition. Disobeying a “fast and abstinence law” does not make me immoral! It makes me disobedient. I think your understanding of the word immoral is obviously quite different than mine as well as the Catholic Churchs.
That you refuse see the rational truth doesn’t prove it’s not there. I’ll leave it to the readers to decide if changing he violation of the Friday rule of abstinence from a mortal sin to a venial sin to no sin at all is a sign of moral evolution prompted by the foolishness of the dictum colliding with reason, or if the permitting of abortion in the past and the absolute ban today is de-evolution. What cannot be disputed is the utter banality of the defense you interpose for a system of belief that is based on neither reason nor prudence, but merely blind adherence to ancient thinking and fear of the unknown and unknowing. I think I question religion because its central tenet is that the sky is falling and some “Big Brother in the Sky” needs to help.
I am waiting for you to give me an example of the “evolution of morality” within the Church. The “fast and abstinence law” was not an example, nor was the abortion issue, that was debunked.
Coincidentally Judge, I was originally discussing “immorality”, not “adhering to a fast and abstinence” law within the Church. When discussing morality, I have stated that the Church has never taught that morality is “evolving”. The modification of a law on “fast and abstinence” is not a “question of morality” or immorality. It is a question of “obedience to the Church”. Immorality deals with “vice” and being “unchaste”. I think you are confusing the point I was trying to illustrate. Or is this another of your transparent smokescreens?
Does your deception have any limitaion? Precisely my point Judge. As usual your smokescreen is as obvious as ever! I have friends, like myself who are Catholic, but they are marginal at best, and only go to mass irregularly. They even eat hamburgers on fridays’ during Lent. Is it a sin? You betcha! Is it as grave as committing murder? Nope. Does the church teach that it is mortal sin, if a person blows it, and forgets its’a friday of Lent and eats a piece of bacon. OF COURSE NOT. Just don’t eat it later in the day, now that you have “caught on”, and remembered that it was a “friday of Lent”. I love your use of “google”, to gather data, that “you yourself were ignorant of” and than passing yourself off as a Catholic Historian, who “pretends” he has had these facts floating around in his head, just waiting to “pop out” at the opportune time, to educate some ignorant Catholic who forgot the “exact words” that Pope Alexander VII made in the 17th century. Your desire to convince me of your erudition, has only dropped a peg or two, but I still like you Judge. The Church teaches that, to not follow the fast and abstinence rule during Lent is a sin. I agree, and follow the rule of abstinence faithfully. If I make a mistake, I am sure God would understand if I forgot and still continue to work with me and love me. If I chose to “flippantly” disobey the Churchs’ teaching and consumed meat on a friday of Lent, due to apathy, I would indeed be incurring a “serious sin”. Only God knows the official gravity of it, but even than I could be reconciled by asking for forgiveness and abstaining from meat, for the remainder of Lent. The beauty is that I could be “reconciled”, not that I would be punished Judge..
billy:
“As a Cathoilic I do not eat meat on fridays during lent. When it was compulsory to not eat meat on all fridays of lent, it was never “taught” that it was a mortal sin if a person slipped and had a piece of bacon.”
*******************
Facts have a funny way of vaporizing your assertions:
“Explicit mention is made of the practice of abstaining on Fridays in a documents from the end of the first century (The Didache of the Apostles), as well as by St. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian in the 3rd century. It was the universal custom from the very beginning, and Friday was chosen in memory of the Passion of Our Lord, as a day on which we should make a special effort to practice penance. It is in recognition of the fact that Christ suffered and died, and gave up his human flesh and life for our sins on a Friday that Catholics do not eat flesh meat on Fridays. Pope Nicholas I made this a law of the Church in the ninth century. In the Latin Church, from the early middle ages this one day of abstinence was not considered enough, and Saturday abstinence was added, in honor of the burial of Christ and the mourning of the Blessed Mother and the holy woman on Holy Saturday. This was made a law of the Church by St. Gregory VII in the 11th century, but has since fallen out of custom, except by those who desire to profess their devotion to Our Lady in a special way. The Eastern rite Church also had strict rules for abstinence, given that it was binding for them on Wednesdays and Fridays.
…
“The abstinence from meat is an ecclesiastical law, but one which has long obliged under pain of mortal sin. Pope Innocent III made this very clear at the beginning of the 13th century, and in the 17th century Pope Alexander VII anathematized those who would minimize the character of this obligation and declared that transgressions against it were only venial sins.”
(SPX Seminary rector, Fr. Peter Scott)
You would think one would know the history of the delusion one practices, but whom am I to question the Defender of the Faith.
One other point of distinction Judge. A Pastoral statement and Pastoral Council is not the same thing as a “dogma of the Church”. We are only interested in “dogma”, not a “pastoral statement”. Dogmas are infallible teachings of the Church, that are not open to “revision” or interpretation. As I have stated earlier the Church is not a democracy, nor a republic..
I would like to amend my earlier post. Not eating meat on fridays’ of Lent is compulsory for the faithful as well as on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday. They are bound by this law of abstinence from their fourteenth birthday to their sixtieth birthday. It would be at the discretion of the churchmemeber if they choose to abstain on these fast days prior to fouteen and after the age of sixty. Please see Code of Canon law #1252.
Coincidentally Judge, I asked for an “encyclical teaching” on matters of “faith and morals” in regards to abortion which the Church has published complete with “nihil obstat and imprimatur”. Not a statement from the Pope, six-hundred years ago,”which he may or may not” have even been said.
Mans’ ignorance of conception in the fourteenth century is illustrative of his ignorance of science not morality. Also, the Church does not teach that all sins are “equal”. Where in the world did you get this piece of erroneous information from Judge? The Church teaches that some sins are more grave than others. Committing murder is a bit more deleterious to the life of the soul than committing the venial sin of “detraction”. Murder is a mortal sin, like adultery! They both are bad, but one could cost a person eternal life in heaven”. As a Cathoilic I do not eat meat on fridays during lent. When it was compulsory to not eat meat on all fridays of lent, it was never “taught” that it was a mortal sin if a person slipped and had a piece of bacon. This is “rubbish” and was never taught by the church. As I have illustrated, not all sins are equal in gravity, nor does the Church teach as such. Their is a distinction between mortal and venial sin. Even our sophiticated legal system, can make an obvious distinction between the crime of “armed robbery” and jaywalking. Both are criminal acts, one is particularly serious, with a much graver penalty. Please review this link judge: “Priest for Life, Teachings of the Catholic Church on Abortion”, excerpts from The Catechism of the Catholic Church on Life Abortion and Euthanasia (#2258-2262-,2268,2279. Review article 5, Fifth commandment”. The Church has never endorsed or condoned abortion. Not in any written “encyclical” has this been condoned or endorsed. When the Pope may/or may not have made this statement, he was not speaking “ex cathedra’ on Faith and Morals. Your farce is plane to see, as usual judge. But I do enjoy it when you attempt to wax theological.
“Sin will always be sin.”
*************
What happened to all those poor souls who were condemned to Hell for the “sin” of eating meat on Friday? Did they get amnesty? All sins are equal; but some sins are more equal than others.
On the evolution of Church “morality” on abortion see the following”
“Most Catholics are not aware that the infallible Church and popes have changed their minds several times on this topic–unthinkable from today’s perspective.
From the fifth century onward, Aristotle’s view that the embryo goes through stages from vegetable to animal to spiritual was accepted. Only in the final stage was it human. Thus Gregory VI (1045-6) said, “He is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.” Gregory XIII (1572-85) said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than 40 days since it wasn’t yet human. His successor, Sixtus V, who rewrote the Bible, disagreed. His Bull of 1588 made all abortions for any reason homicide and cause for excommunication. His successor, Gregory XIV, reversed that decree. In 1621 the Vatican issued another pastoral directive permitting abortion up to 40 days.”
(Hunt D. A Women Rides the BeastHarvest House Publishers, Eugene (OR), 1994, pp. 519-520).
and
“Most Catholics assume that the soul is infused at conception…For fourteen hundred years until the late nineteenth century, all Catholics, including the popes, took it for granted that the soul is not infused at conception…
From the fifth century, the church accepted without question, the primitive embryology of Aristotle. The embryo began as a non-human speck that was progressively animated.
In the fifteenth century, moralists began to ask whether it was not possible in certain circumstances to get rid of the foetus without fault…Some went further. They said it was permissable to save a mother’s life even after the foetus was humanized…
Gregory XIII (1572-85) said it was not homicide to kill an embryo of less than forty days since it was not human…His successor, the tempestuous Sixtus V, who rewrote the Bible, disagreed entirely. In his Bull Effraenatum of 1588, he said all abortions for whatever reason were homicide and were penalized by excommunication reserved to the Holy See. Immediately after Sixtus died, Gregory XIV realized that, in the current state of theological opinion, Sixtus’ view was too severe. In an almost unique decision, he said Sixtus’ censures were to be treated as if he had never issued them.”
(De Rosa, Peter. Vicars of Christ. Poolbeg Press, Dublin, 2000, p.p 374-375).