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.
Take me to task? This is a blog folks! Nothing more, nothing less. This little two week diversion has been a stimulating experience, nothing more, nothing less. I scratch my chin with some amusement. The “rumblings” of a few attorneys with bloated heads, is hardly a cause for alarm. In point of fact, I am “flattered” you all try so hard to convince me of your brilliance and masterful grasp of the kings’ good English.
Anonymously Yours,
Sorry, I’m not a pharmacist. You’ll have to fend for yourself. Me? I think I’ll go pour myself a glass of wine instead.
Elaine M.
Can I have a months supply please?
Mike Appleton, et al.,
Gratias ago vos.
You wanted to argue.
That is the fact: The RCC is currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control.”
Don’t attack me. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you think about me nor does any one else. Attack the argument, Smart Guy.
Prove the above assertion wrong.
You can’t. But I’d sure like to see you try.
Elaine M.,
I think I need to know where to pick up the double dose of diazepam, sit back, and chill out.
Sign me up please.
That’s right billy, come back with some assertion about how smart you are instead of addressing the FACT that the RCC is currently engaged in a criminal endeavor and you endorse it.
billy,
How you spell “emotionally conflicted”?
Does the term “out of the closet” cause you excessive anger?
Do you find the A&F catalog a little TOO exciting?
Can you reconcile the hate you feel with the love that is supposed to be God?
Color me curious, troll. I’m interested in how you can reconcile all that conflicting crap inside your head.
I think I can safely assume that there is–at the very least–one individual contributing to this thread who needs to take a double dose of diazepam, sit back, and chill out.
You don’t ever have to impress me. I don’t impress easily, I have physicists and an astronomer in my family, who graduated from Cal-Tech. You claiming to be a skilled “wordsmith” ain’t all that compelling senor. I hold two masters degrees from two of the finest public universities in the land. I held a 3.90 GPA. I don’t suffer “wordsmiths” easily either. You made reference to “winning” a debate. What precisley do you win?
AY,
I hate to disappoint, but this one is a recurring pest. All I can do is spray. He’ll be back trolling for letting the Pope kiss boys and bashing homosexuals soon enough.
These are the kind of guys the Pope is protecting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17991902
buddha,
I need your help I have been a victim all day long. You can take over now. He is your troll, I tender him to you.
And you’re a name calling little troll, billy.
Thanks for proving my point, wayne.
Run along now.
Like I said in my post this morning buddha, you are a “bigot”, a “paranoid bigot”..
Mike Appleton,
Thank you and I agree with your post on this thread. What is the issues and your thoughts on the vow of poverty?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/schneider2002-06-25.htm
http://www.snapnetwork.org/
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/priests/
Wayne,
You got my attention well enough. When someone comes in trolling for the RCC and bashing homosexuals consistently, yeah, that kind of bad behavior attracts attention. Especially after they introduce themselves by acting like a stalker so badly they were the first person I ever saw banned here. So in that, yes, you made an impression. Impressed me though? Not a damn bit.
The Pope is the head of a criminal organization. They systematically help pedophiles escape justice and in that they are aiders and abettors and active participants in a conspiracy to avoid prosecution.
Those are the facts. Period. Nothing you say about the good some people in the RCC do will counter this.
And you haven’t laid out an argument for jack squat. You’ve engaged in the same kind of verbal circle jerk you always do where you can’t refute THE FACTS so you resort to name calling.
You made the impression you’re a troll, little billy can’t keep their nick straight. And now I’ll just treat you like one.