nekosensei (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
nekosensei) wrote2010-04-14 04:32 pm
nekosensei) wrote2010-04-14 04:32 pm
Entry tags:
And The Vatican Does It Again...
This is the reason why I'm now good and pissed off this afternoon. The Vatican is now trying to say that the reason priests are abusing children is because of homosexuality, not celibacy. And this excerpt really takes the cake:
"VATICAN CITY — The Vatican on Wednesday tried to defuse growing anger over remarks by the pope's top aide that the problem behind the pedophile priest scandals is homosexuality and not the church's celibacy requirement.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Holy See's secretary of state, outraged gay advocacy groups, politicians and even the French government with his remarks Monday in Chile.
'Many psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relation between celibacy and pedophilia,' the Italian cardinal said. 'But many others have demonstrated, I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true. That is the problem.'"
Um...no...in fact, most pedophiles are not homosexuals; the majority of them are heterosexuals. And it's a known fact that many pedophiles look for jobs where they can get easy access to children. What's one of those jobs? (ding! ding! ding!) You guessed it! The priesthood!
The Catholic Church not only needs to re-think the whole celibacy requirement, but they also need to consider letting women join the priesthood too. It may not solve the problem entirely, but it would most certainly help. Once you've got more priests who are parents themselves, you'll see a whole lot less of this turning a blind eye to what one's colleagues are doing / moving offending priests from parish to parish where they can re-offend again. But of course, they're never going to open up the priesthood to women and married people. And why is that? The institution is headed by old farts who are unwilling to change. Cardinal Bertone's remarks are proof that that's exactly the case.
Oh...and never mind that priests used to be allowed to marry until, I forget...when was it? The 1000s? The reason why they stipulated that they had to remain celibate? Money, land, and more importantly power. They didn't want the children of priests inheriting their father's assets, thereby removing them from Church hands.
So yeah...blame it on the gays. That's right. What ever happened to a little saying called, "Love thy neighbor?" I guess that doesn't apply if you so happen to be gay. The bigotry of some people who claim to call themselves Christian astounds me.
Sack them. Sack them all.
(wanders off to go break things)
"VATICAN CITY — The Vatican on Wednesday tried to defuse growing anger over remarks by the pope's top aide that the problem behind the pedophile priest scandals is homosexuality and not the church's celibacy requirement.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Holy See's secretary of state, outraged gay advocacy groups, politicians and even the French government with his remarks Monday in Chile.
'Many psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relation between celibacy and pedophilia,' the Italian cardinal said. 'But many others have demonstrated, I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true. That is the problem.'"
Um...no...in fact, most pedophiles are not homosexuals; the majority of them are heterosexuals. And it's a known fact that many pedophiles look for jobs where they can get easy access to children. What's one of those jobs? (ding! ding! ding!) You guessed it! The priesthood!
The Catholic Church not only needs to re-think the whole celibacy requirement, but they also need to consider letting women join the priesthood too. It may not solve the problem entirely, but it would most certainly help. Once you've got more priests who are parents themselves, you'll see a whole lot less of this turning a blind eye to what one's colleagues are doing / moving offending priests from parish to parish where they can re-offend again. But of course, they're never going to open up the priesthood to women and married people. And why is that? The institution is headed by old farts who are unwilling to change. Cardinal Bertone's remarks are proof that that's exactly the case.
Oh...and never mind that priests used to be allowed to marry until, I forget...when was it? The 1000s? The reason why they stipulated that they had to remain celibate? Money, land, and more importantly power. They didn't want the children of priests inheriting their father's assets, thereby removing them from Church hands.
So yeah...blame it on the gays. That's right. What ever happened to a little saying called, "Love thy neighbor?" I guess that doesn't apply if you so happen to be gay. The bigotry of some people who claim to call themselves Christian astounds me.
Sack them. Sack them all.
(wanders off to go break things)
no subject
no subject
Another Link
A bit more comprehensive with descriptions, but the thought is still the same. It was wrong. End of story.
no subject
And in case you don't know: A) if a priest finds celibacy unbearable, he can simply ask and legitimately leave and get married.
B) catholic priests of the Greek Catholic rite are allowed to marry and quite a few anglican married priests that came over to catholicism are still married and still priests.
BTW celibacy was strongly recommended from the 4th century, the First and Second Lateran Council (1123 and 1139) stongly acted in favor of it as part of the moralizing campaign put in place by the pope of that time and were about concubinage and marriage after ordination.
I hardly expect verifiable facts to change anyone's already determined views, though.
That said, I guess I'm as tired of pointing out data as you are of finding my comments on your LJ.
You have every right of writing whatever you want on your blog, of course, just as I have the right of not finding them on my friends' page. Nothing personal, Neko just fundamental disagreement on something that's important to me.
And I'd like to point out, anyway, that on the other side I totally agree with you on the fact that anyone proven responsible of abuses should rot in jail.
no subject
Or he can knock up his girlfriends (http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/how-fr-maciel-built-his-empire) and buy the Vatican's silence. Aren't we so flexible!
B) catholic priests of the Greek Catholic rite are allowed to marry and quite a few anglican married priests that came over to catholicism are still married and still priests.
That's very nice. And so helpful to priests in the other rites!
that is literally homo-sexual abuses.
So it's not really child abuse. Thanks for straightening us out on that!
no subject
As to the other, what else is new? There are always been scandals and power-hungry elements in the church as in any other institution composed by people, that is definitely wrong and must be curbed, but if you expect to find a perfect institution anywere, good luck to you.
And before anything I said got twisted again, no, corrupted priests, immoral priests and most definitely child abusers of any kind aren't remotely tolerable in my book, but I've known too many good priests in my life, people who took and take their call seriously and work towards the good of everyone to throw they all in the same heap.
And that's really all I've to say on this matter, take it or leave it.
no subject
Irrelevant.
but if you expect to find a perfect institution anywere, good luck to you.
I expect to find an institution working for perfection. Not covering up the most heinous crimes. I expect resignations, indictments, convictions, and incarcerations. If you're not calling for the same, you're part of the problem.
I also expect enabling apologists to go piss up a rope.
no subject
As to your point two I also wrote that cover-ups are a crime and proven abusers of any stripe should rot in jail, evidently that part escaped your notice.
as to working for perfection, this is what this pope is trying to do. and anyone who bothers to check can see it.
And last, you can, from now on, keep your vulgarity to yourself, I'll not bother to answer anymore.
no subject
no subject
"...but I've known too many good priests in my
life, people who took and take their call seriously and work towards the
good of everyone to throw they all in the same heap."
A) I didn't say I was laying blame on the good priests. I am, on the other hand, laying blame on the people who opted to cover up for the bad ones and tell their victims to keep quiet. What I'v been trying to attack here is the system, which is pretty damn fucked up.
B) Ah...so now I see what this is all about.
I'm really happy for you that you've had good experiences with priests, but unfortunately, not everybody has. I told you about my relative. We used to see this individual every Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter; he also attended our confirmations and graduations from school. It was odd how he took a great interest in my siblings and I when we were young. I remember him playing with us and telling us stories-- which, when I looked back on them, were kind of disturbing and wasn't something I would tell a young kid. Then, when we grew up, he suddenly seemed no longer interested in us. In fact, we used to refer to him as "the wine drinking rock" at family parties.
I am CONVINCED that he was trying to groom us, but the only reason he didn't try to pull any shit with us was because my parents, his sister, and my aunt were all there, so he never got much of a chance to get one of us alone. That, and if my dad found out, he would have put him in the hospital.
The first allegations that he was abusing kids came out in the eighties, WHEN WE WERE STILL KIDS!!! Was he prosecuted for what he did? No. Did any of those kids get justice? No. Were my parents informed that he was doing these things so that they knew to keep their kids away from him? No. The church merely moved him to a parish in another state where he could re-offend again. Am I pissed off about this? Yes, very much. Am I
pissed off now that the Vatican and the pope himself have been implicated in all of this? You bet!!! And you'd think that the pope, the man who is supposed to represent God on Earth, would be better than that! (And clearly he's not working towards perfection, as you just said in another comment. All he cares about is his own welfare because all I've seen him and his cronies do is shift the blame onto others-- ie the gays-- in order to avoid it falling upon himself. And personally, I think blaming the gays for this is tantamount to blaming the Jews for causing the Black Death by poisoning the wells. It has nothing to do with anything, but I guess everybody's got to have a scape goat though. But you don't believe me on any of what I'm saying so why do I bother trying to tell you all this?) And you'd think that I'm going to want to hop on LJ or another social media site to vent about what's going on currently? Hell yeah! It's what it's there for after all!
no subject
that that caused my family and I to find out PUBLICLY that the person that we loved and trusted was really a monster? Can you IMAGINE the vulnerably that we felt knowing that it could have been one of us? Can you IMAGINE how my parents must have felt knowing that they trusted this poor excuse of a human being with us kids??? I don't think you would really understand it unless you've been through it.
By the way, these aren't just allegations. He's admitted doing this in a conversation with my parents. I've also heard that the number of children he acted inappropriately with *far* exceeds the number of victims who have come forward. Worse, nobody can prosecute him criminally because the statute of limitations has expired. So…he's a free man unless someone comes forward with a more recent accusation. So very fucking sad.
And that brings me to another point. I think what you've done by huffing off and defriending me has been really shitty. Yes, people have written stuff that I haven't agreed with both in their journals and my personal journal. But that's what they believe. I might try to politely debate them, but I'm not rude and if they don't show any signs of changing their views, I stop. And I definitely don't go on their personal journals and tell them they're ignorant or don't have all the facts. If they've told me that it's a sensitive topic, I don't even bother. I just scroll by because: A) what's the point of causing unnecessary drama? and B) they're entitled to believe what they want to believe. You could have just shaken your head and said, "there goes
So yeah. You claim to be a good Christian, but in my book, you haven't acted like one. I guess the only thing left I have to say to you is GOOD-bye and GOOD-riddance.
no subject
I didn't tell you not to write about it, it is your right,I tried to point out a few elements, as it is my right too, since your entries are open to comments and I tried to be polite about it.
I realize that you are hurt and angry from what happened to your relative and I would be too, but going against the church en masse and throwing all of it in the same heap is something I'm very unconfortable with and makes *me* very angry, and I can't just ignore it.
Besides, in the time we have been on each other's friends list I realized we have very little in common.
Most thing you enjoy, I don't (and i suppose the same goes for you), most of your goals I don't share (and I suppose the same goes for you) I found myself more scrolling than reading.
The only entries of yours that jump out at me are your rants, to whom I can't help but react. Why should we keep pushing each other's buttons?
I'd rather leave you in peace and be let in peace myself.
no subject
no subject
no subject