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.
Gyges,
At the risk of not being misunderstood but what is this word you use call “Subtlety”? I have heard of it but, I profess I have no clue of its application. Its like a whole nother language!!!!!!
AY,
Subtlety isn’t really your bag is it?
Look, it’s a hamfisted segue.
Ok Gyges and Buddha,
You all ain’t playing fair. I want my share of the booty. I want my very own secret decoder ring or I am going to have to start telling you all about the virtues of the denial of the existence of the holism of the dolts. And if you don’t like that then about the people that are in denial of the existence of extra terrestrial life forms or the reasons why all RCC Priest should not be collectively elevated to sainthood through martyrdom for the existential adaptation of pedophilia and why its not a cardinal sin. Ya hear?
AY, I just realized that I did not respond to your question about the vow of poverty. As has been noted, that vow is not taken by diocesan priests, but is a requirement for all of the orders of which I am aware. Please keep in mind that my personal experience is limited to my time as a Jesuit novice directly out of high school.
On a spiritual level, the vow of poverty is a rejection of materialism, by which I mean the belief that the acquisition of wealth and its trappings represents the achievement of success as a human being (as often expressed in the familiar refrain of the ’80s and ’90s, “He who dies with the most toys, wins”). 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, but is intended to be preparation for an eternal life after death. A vow of poverty is a personal affirmation of one’s unity with all other persons within the single body of the Church. It is fundamentally a vow of spiritual freedom from whatever might interfere with doing God’s work on earth.
On a practical level, a vow of poverty enables a group of men or women to live their lives in common, each contributing his or her own gifts to the benefit of the whole community. In this sense, it is a prerequisite to life within the purest form of a communist society. (This also explains why communism does not work other than on a micro level; it can only function within relatively small groups of individuals who share the same goals and values, and all of whom are free to leave should they lose that commitment for any reason.)
In short, the vow of poverty provides both spiritual and physical freedom. It makes a great deal of sense in a religious community and it was not something that bothered me in the least (although I also have to admit that at the age of 17 I owned nothing anyway). In all candor my problem was that I concluded that I could not live a celibate existence, and so I left. After many years of marriage and three children, I believe that my decision was the correct one for me, but I still recall that time with great affection.
Gyges,
To quote Monty Burns, “Excellent.”
AY,
My apologies for walking your side of the street. Yes, yes I was trying to be annoying.
I’m terribly, terribly sorry.
Really I am.
Buddha,
As the leader, you get the secret CODER ring.
Do I get a secret decoder ring?
Yeah, I’m the ring leader against propaganda trolls! When did I get the job? Did I miss an election? Did I lose a bet? Was it the prize in the bottom of my cereal box? Yeah! It’s a good thing I wore green.
More importantly, when did I get cronies and can I claim them as dependents at tax time? Or are they a business expense like henchmen. Any tax law specialists out there that can tackle that one?
Well Bob Esq., et al,
You know, Buddha “lives to be of service” and I of course wake up in the mornings “just to annoy” people. I have not yet made it to “annoy chain.” I am sure I fairly close though.
Thanks Bob, I don’t get all the latin(never took it in school), but the response is appreciated, thankyou.
To be clear, JT was referring to ad hominem abusive and not ad hominem circumstantial or ad hominem tu quo que.
Your courtesies in connection with this matter are greatly appreciated.
Mr. Turley, I would like to express my feelings of some annoyance. Yes, I have gotten a bit “chippy” in my responses to my fellow-bloggers. Normally, this takes place after I am attacked by buddha, or one of his cronies. They may not agree philosophically or religiously with my position, but the name calling and personal attacks need to stop. Everyone time I get rolling on a thought, a personal attack assails me. I should not respond and move on, but I get sucked into the maladaptive cycle. I want to share” clean” thoughts and ideas with my fellow bloggers. The beauty of your “think tank” is it should have room for many ideas and thoughts from divergent sources. Thankyou for allowing me to dislcose my thoughts, As I don’t have your e-mail, I could not personally e-mail you. You obviously have mine because I use it to post with. Anyways, I want to proceed with maturity and clarity of thought. Thankyou JT, for giving me a forum to express my ideas..
Gyges,
Ah yes, the great relationship bridge. A female secretary in front as opposed in your rear. The cause of many a marriage migrations to go south, when the wife catches your secretary mouth near the South Pole.
Not everyone can say I was just getting a Billy.
Clinton that is.
That is funny, don’t you think?
I will refrain from personal attacks, sorry JT..
AY,
So in front of every great lawyer is a great secretary?
I keep encouraging “buddhapest” to enroll in a psych 101 course at his local community college. I hope he takes it under advisement. The only thing worse than an incompetent attorney, is an ignorant attorney. His inability to understand the clinical defintions and features that are associated with sociopathy and other personality disorders is quite apparent. His ignorance is only eclipsed by his arrogance. Yeah, quite the “wordsmith” that T-Rex…..
I can’t wait to go to the UCLA game at the Rose Bowl this weekend. The Ducks are in town for a beating. Go Bruins!
Before you answer, make sure you drink plenty of that high-octane kool-aid, buddhapest swears by it..
Asked your friend the “T-Rex”, maybe he can provide you with the answer…