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.
Disprove my assertion.
Or be relegated to abandoning this fake ID to the woodpile because no one will take you seriously.
Prove that the RCC is NOT currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control.”
It’s a simply defined task.
If you can’t complete it, you don’t get to sit at the adult’s table for the holidays, trollboy.
In regards to your last question, it was answered, scroll up to find my response. Then run to buddha for validation..
Byron, what are people called who don’t like relationships? If they are not heterosexual in orientaion and not homosexual in orientation, enlighten me. Thrall me with your acumen. What would the “clinical name” be for just such a person? And stop sucking-up to buddha so shamelessly, it is embarassing man..
Gyges or anybody can somebody give me a step by step to get in the past posting? I a being blond.
billy:
“To further illustrate my point, a person is either heterosexual or homosexual. Pedophilia is classified as a form of sexual deviance or paraphilia. Therefore the perpetrator would either have to be a heterosexual or homosexual, when this “crime” is commited. When a person manifests “ephebiphilia”. He/she is still defined as hetero or homo in orientaion. The “pedo/ephebephilia” tag is used only to describe the act of sexual deviance or paraphilia. Their are not three kinds of sexual orientaion, homo, hetero and ephebiphilia…”
I disagree, there are some people that do not like adult relationships. Contrary to what you are saying I believe you can classify three ways. Please give your source for that statement.
Well Elaine M.,
I know you did your best, you probably instructed one or two of us in the past. SEE WHAT YOU CREATED.
Since I’m lacking a “y” chromosme, I’m partial to speaking the Queen’s English myself. Also, I’m not an attorney/lawyer/barrister–just a little ole retired schoolmarm.
AY,
JA is one of the many aliases used by a long time pest here. The first incarnation I ran into was called Cro Magnum Man although I understand he was here before that as Bartlebee. He became wayne to me because it was in one of his wayne incarnations (WayneBro) that he acted like a truly deranged stalker and wanted to meet me to fight. His M.O. is always the same. He’s childish and does a lot of taunting about sexuality indicating a great deal of personal insecurity on that front. I could tell you how he’s going to respond to THAT little bit, pardon the pun, but I don’t want to ruin the “surprise”. He also consistently stands up for the lunatic fringe of the RCC and simultaneously bashes homosexuals. But when confronted with logic, he’s pure troll. I’ve had run ins with him as have mespo, both the Mike’s and many others that are simply slipping my mind at the moment, but always to the same end and with the same M.O. If he’s not paid by Opus Dei or some other Papist wingnut outfit, he’s one of the most brainwashed people I have ever seen. He’s also quite possibly insane. You might not get that impression as heavily from his billy incarnation because he’s been very mild compared to previous intrusions, but it’s him all right. I had suspected for some time, but he gave himself away by using his Johnny Depp faux pirate “savvy”. He’s a weak writer and has lots of stylistic tells. I know that’s how Mike S. busted him before too if memory serves.
Ok Byron and Buddha,
For category name, who is Jon Abey? For extra points what is the story line?
Mr. Appleton,
I find your posts insightful and valuable. And I agree with you.
But.
When I make a mistake, I acknowledge it, ask for forgiveness, and then correct it to the best of my ability.
For such an institution to be engaged in such activities and neither ask for forgiveness nor correct it, leaves me speechless.
billy,
are you saying I am co-dependent? How did you know? I was trying to keep that a hidden secret. You know like Suzanne Summers “Keeping Secrets” now its out. I am embarrassed….
The one and the same, Byron. I had forgotten that nick.
Same old Rove tactic.
Answer the allegation. Refute my statement. Otherwise? You’re just admitting you’re a clown without a factual basis from which to argue. And everyone knows that kind of person shouldn’t be taken seriously. That is what you are trying to do, isn’t it Billy? Get people to take you seriously about the RCC being the bestest most wholesome organization in the great big child molesting world? Here’s your chance. Earn some credibility. Or keep being evasive because your a troll. Pointing that out has educational value too. Not to you, of course. But to others.
So please.
Give me a counter or go beat your Bishop. Or you can stay and keep acting trollish, which is also remarkably a lot like that semi-violent clerical sexual innuendo.
Stop “tooting” your horn AY, you reek of insecurity..
The definition of codependency is “two people” who have mutually compatible neurosis.
billy,
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.
********************
It is one thing to know the kings good English and whose the Irish. It is entirely another thing to know how to use it. Where do you fit in billy boy?
Jon Abey is that you? It’s been awhile.
Elaine M. 1, October 2, 2009 at 6:51 pm
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.
*********************
I am not a pharmacist either. But I did do my best to learn about the various compounds while in college. I did not go to an Ivy League school I am sure I was not good enough. But I did get into The University in Austin of what is affectionately referred to as the University of Texas, Accounting. Only school I applied to, I was stuck.
Wine now, that’s a good choice Merlot? Good for the soul.
Oh buddha, buddha, you must just be “flailing” inside..
Prove the assertion wrong.
We want a counter argument, not more self-laudatory horse crap.
Come on, Smart Guy.
Prove that the RCC is NOT currently engaged in helping felons escape justice as to avoid civil liability for crimes done by “employees under their control.”
Flattery has nothing to do with it. This is where the rubber meets the road. You claim to be some kind of logical bad ass. Prove it.
Or perhaps in a language you can more easily understand: Put up or shut up.