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.
Accepted.
Sincerely, take some time to read up on the history of the development of the Church’s views of the morality of slavery; it is relevant because all conventional definitions of immorality and morality are far broader than mere sexual misconduct.
Today is the “Our Lady of the Rosarys” feast day. Oct. 7, in the General Roman Calendar.
Byron, I should not have called you a “suck-up”, or made the Kool-aid reference, I apologize….
billy:
I dont drink kool aid, it is not my cup of tea.
I wanted to also share with Dredd, if I wrote to you in a condescending tone I apologize. I was a little bit abrasive, that was not right..
I’m gonna change gears. I need a new post. Nobody is ever going to agree on this matter. I obviously have my viewpoint and Judge and Mike A., you have yours. Well, we can agree to disagree and still appreciate each other.
Federal FLEO, Thanks for the kind words. I am afraid to validate or express apprecaition to anyone, because I will look like a”suck-up”!I don’t care. I want you all to realize I appreciate your “well written” posts. Judge, FFLEO, Bob ESQ, Mike S., et al, you gentlemen give me a barrels worth of entertainment and help to “liberate” me as well. I have cause for reflection and derive genuine pleasure when reading your “absorbing insights” on a wide variety of subjects. As i have stated earlier I like the religion and science blogs. I steer clear of most of the heavy political stuff, because it is just not in my wheel-house. But still I am learning all the time from you clever “wordsmiths”. Thanks for letting me share, and I will try not to offend..
Carry On Billy. I have no quarrel with your ‘clean’ posts and someone is bound to reply to you.
Gee, I thought I was doin’ pretty well. Oh well, us ham and eggers’ just keep pluggin along..
Its’ a big crib, with lotsa room..
“…once he is let out of his cage…”
__________________________________
However, most here at the Turley blawg prefer to see billy’s mommy keep him in his crib (cage) whilst rattlin’ his baby rattle and not the big boy’s keyboard.
Thanks Byron/Bron I will, keep drinking that kool-aid…
Immorality by defintion: “To be sexually depraved or promiscuous”. I could go on and on, but what would be the point. Judge, I have asked you for an example of “sexual morality” and its’ decided “evolution” within the framework of the Church. I will be checking back periodically for my response..
billy:
how is it going? you sure do have a way with words, I am fascinated by your mastery of the English language and knowledge of RCC history.
Keep plugging away with your argument, in reading everyones posts I get the feeling that they are almost convinced. Just a little more and I think you will have them eating out of your hand on this issue.
Well anyway keep up the good work.
Immorality by definiton refers to “unchastity and vice”. These two words “imply a sexual connotaion”, or a habit or addiction. Your postion Dred, in light of the discussion, and by definiton is wrong and illogical..
Billy is like a “roaring apologist”, once he is let out of his cage, he can very ably defend himself and the Church..
Sorry Dred, we were talking about sexual morality and misconduct, you are decidedly off base. Good job though. Immorality refers to unchastity and vice, not slavery, not by a secualar definition or by the Churchs. Nice try though…
Billy asked for an example of the “evolution of morality”, within the Church.
The Church’s teaching on the morality of slavery has changed.
There is an example of the evolution of morality within the Church.
Google the writings of John T. Noonan and Charles Curran on the topic of changes in Catholic moral teaching on slavery.
End of visit.
I had no clue that Catholics had cornered the market on slavery.”Gosh Dredd”, maybe you can write some revisionist history..
Dredd, maybe you can also tell me what the Churchs’ official teaching is on abortion and homosexuality. Slavery is kind of a dead issue Dredd, but “abortion and sexual immorality” are going on as we speak. Maybe you can tell me how you feel about these two immoral acts?