A Saint For Pedophiles ?

Today the Catholic Church performed an action that should be viewed as an abomination. They officially declared Pope John Paul II to be a saint of the Catholic Church.

You probably remember this pope. He 's the one that was in power when the pedophilia scandal among the priesthood was discovered. He's also the one that refused to take action for many years, and protected those priests by refusing to defrock them (and just moved them from parish to parish, so they could have new victims).

And when the scandal became so widely known that the church could no longer try to hide it, he instructed that homosexuals be discriminated against and not allowed to become priests (even though homosexuality and pedophilia have no connection). And even after the scandal was widely known, this pope continued to protect his pedophile friend, Marcial Maciel (one of the worst of the churches pedophiles, because of his high ranking in the church), ignoring the many accusations against him (which were proven to be true).

This man knew about pedophile priests for most of his papal reign, and did nothing about it. If there were a god, I can't believe he would want this man honored as a saint. His sin is too great. Frankly, I am shocked to see such a failure as a decent person honored in any way by people who call themselves christians.

More Of The Pope's Comments On Poverty

(The cartoon image above is by Bill Day at caglecartoons.com.)

Pope Francis shocked many right-wingers a few days ago by actually supporting the teachings of Jesus, and rejecting a so-called "prosperity gospel" based on capitalist philosophy rather than religious teachings. I found his views refreshing, and I included a few of them in a post on 11/27/2013. The Pope's remarks were in a 84-page exhortation (far too long to post in a blog), But Rep. Alan Grayson has published more of the Pope's compelling words -- and I post them below (since I think they are important, considering the number of catholics in this, and other, countries):

No to an economy of exclusion

Just as the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say "thou shalt not" to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a "throw-away" culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society's underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised - they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the "exploited" but the outcast, the "leftovers".

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people's pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else's responsibility, and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

No to the new idolatry of money

One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf.Exodus 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise, in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies, and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

No to a financial system which rules rather than serves

Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics - a non-ideological ethics - would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: "Not to share one's wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs". [Saint John Chrysostom, De Lazaro Concio, II, 6: PG 48, 992D.]

A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favors human beings.

No to the inequality which spawns violence . . . .

Today's economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. It serves only to offer false hopes to those clamoring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an "education" that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries - in their governments, businesses and institutions - whatever the political ideology of their leaders.

Is The Pope Now Fallible ?

The catholic church has created a rather interesting dilemma for itself. One of two basic doctrines of the church has to be wrong. The church has taught for more than a thousand years that a person cannot go to heaven unless they are a member of the "true" church (the catholic church), and it has also taught that the pope is infallible (since his words are deemed to have come straight from god) and cannot be wrong. This dilemma was created by words uttered by the pope on May 22nd as he spoke at a catholic mass.

The pope was trying to make a statement about good works -- and he said that it is good works that gets a person to heaven, even if they are not a member of the catholic church. Here are those words:

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!

We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.

That's a pretty clear statement. Even an atheist can get to heaven -- not by changing his/her views and joining the church, but by doing good in the world. Now this statement didn't mean much to atheists beyond being a bit amused by it. Atheists do good because it is the right and moral thing to do -- not because it might get them to a place after they die that they don't even believe exists. But it certainly upset a lot of catholics, especially high-ranking catholics whose existence depends on telling people they cannot go to heaven without paying the proper respect for the church (and its officials).

Now one of those two church beliefs is wrong. Either the pope is not fallible anymore (since he was wrong when he said atheists could get to heaven), or the church teaching that only members of the church can get to heaven is wrong. Both cannot be true now.

And it looks like the high officials in the Vatican have made their choice. Vatican spokesman Thomas Rosica the next day (May 23rd) "clarified" the issue. He said that anyone who knows of the catholic church "cannot be saved" if they "refuse to enter her or remain in her". In plain English, that means the pope was wrong and atheists cannot go to heaven. The pope, according to other high catholic officials, is no longer infallible.

Even though I'm an atheist, I find that very interesting. I'm just a bit amused that it took them over a thousand years to figure that out.

New Pope - Same As The Old Pope

The catholic cardinals had a tough decision to make. Should they choose another pope from the developed world and try to slow the disintegration of the church in that area, or should they choose the new pope from the third world, where the religion still has some vitality and relevance, and try to keep the first world problems from developing there. They chose the latter. The new pope is Jorge Mario Bergoglio (who chose to be called Pope Francis I) of Argentina -- the first pope to be chosen from the third world, or anywhere in the Americas.

The cardinals knew that choosing a pope from one of the developed nations would do them little good, because the only way that would have helped would be if they chose a young radical, who would alter church dogma and bring it in line with 21st century morality and ethics -- and the cardinals weren't about to do that. They don't want any changes to their 1st century dogma and rules, because that might lessen their own power base (something very few individuals and no groups have done of their own free will throughout history). So they chose to play to their base in the third world.

Will this mean any changes for the catholic church. Probably not. Pope Francis I has been known to speak out on behalf of the poor in the past, but not to the point of seriously calling out church and political leaders on the matter. He is generally regarded as a church conservative -- someone who will make third world catholics happy (because he is one of them), but who will not rock the boat by making significant changes.

We can expect the church to continue policies to keep women in a second-class status -- with no opportunity to enter the priesthood or the church hierarchy, a continuing attack on women having control over their own bodies, and a continuing attack on allowing women access to contraception. The patriarchy will continue to exclude women (and support the political war against women by right-wing politicians).

The church will continue to oppose same-sex marriage and equal rights for the LGBT community. Pope Francis I is an open and unrepentant homophobe. And don't expect the Vatican to admit its complicity in protecting pedophile priests, and hurting innocent children by shuffling those priests to new churches (where they had new and unsuspecting victims available). They will continue to ignore the problem, and punish any church official who tries to do anything about it.

This choice makes me think of the lyrics from The Who's song Won't Get Fooled Again, which says, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." I hope I'm wrong, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath waiting for any changes.

UPDATE -- Seems like this pope may have as sordid a past as the last one. Pope Francis I has been accused of being a tool of the brutal fascist military regime that used to rule Argentina (during the time when about 20,000 of Argentina's citizens just disappeared).

The inimitable Mrs. Betty Bowers (America's Best Christian) seems to have hit the nail on the head:

U.S. Catholic Leaders And Laity Disagree

(The picture above is of Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone.)

It has long been known that catholic leaders in the United States (and Rome) are struggling to keep their flock in line. This started with the general acceptance of contraception as an alternative, regardless of what the church's teaching was on the matter (as more than 96% of all American women who are sexually active have used some form of contraception -- including most catholic women). This disagreement over "required" church beliefs has now spread to other areas.

But in an amazing display of not caring what catholics (and Americans in general) want, several high-ranking U.S. catholic leaders have come out against the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). They are Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone (San Francisco), Archbishop William Lori (Baltimore), Archbishop Jose Gomez (Los Angeles), Bishop Kevin Rhoades (Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana), and Bishop Stephen Blaire (Stockton, California).

While an overwhelming portion of the American public (and U.S. catholics) support VAWA, these catholic leaders have decided to oppose it. They think the inclusion of the LGBT community into the protections of VAWA will somehow change gender and sexual identities and make same-sex marriage easier to become accepted. In other words, they are willing to allow the domestic abuse of women so they can protect their own particular brand of bigotry. What makes this particularly ridiculous is the fact that a clear majority of American catholics already support same-sex marriage.

That was shown by a recent survey done by the Quinnipiac University Poll (done between February 27th and March 4th of about 500 catholic adults in the United States -- with a margin of error of about 4.4 points). That poll showed that 54% of U.S. catholics support same-sex marriage, while only 38% now oppose it (clearly exceeding the margin of error of the poll). Like contraception and VAWA, most of the catholic laity is in opposition to the teachings of catholic leadership.

And those aren't the only areas. That same survey shows a difference between the people and their church leaders on several topics. Here are some other questions asked by the poll and their results:

ARE CHURCH LEADERS IN TOUCH OR OUT OF TOUCH WITH U.S. CATHOLICS?
In touch...............40%
Out of touch...............52%
Don't know...............9%

DO YOU THINK THE NEW POPE SHOULD MOVE THE CHURCH IN NEW DIRECTIONS OR MAINTAIN TRADITIONAL CHURCH POSITIONS?
New directions...............55%
Maintain traditions...............38%
Don't know...............7%

SHOULD THE NEW POPE SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ALLOWING PRIESTS TO MARRY?
Support...............62%
Oppose...............30%
Don't know...............8%

SHOULD THE NEW POPE SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ALLOWING WOMEN TO BECOME PRIESTS?
Support...............62%
Oppose...............27%
Don't know...............11%

SHOULD THE NEW POPE ALLOW THE CATHOLIC CLERGY TO RUN FOR AND SERVE IN PUBLIC OFFICE?
Yes...............35%
No...............59%
Don't know...............6%

SHOULD THE NEW POPE RELAX THE CHURCH BAN ON CONTRACEPTION?
Yes...............64%
No...............28%
Don't know...............8%

SHOULD THE NEW POPE DO MORE TO COMBAT SEXUAL ABUSE OF YOUTH BY PRIESTS, OR IS ENOUGH ALREADY BEING DONE?
Should do more...............81%
Doing enough now...............13%
Don't know...............6%

DO YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE REQUIRING INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PAY FOR CONTRACEPTION SERVICES, EVEN WHEN OPPOSED BY CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES AND HOSPITALS?
Support...............51%
Oppose...............41%
Don't know...............8%

As you can see, there is a significant difference between what catholic leaders support and what the American catholic laity supports. And it is unlikely that either of those groups will change anytime soon. In fact, I expect the number of catholic laity disagreeing with the teachings of church will only grow in the future (since they are having to choose between the equality guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the bigotry of archaic catholic doctrines).

The real question is how long this disconnect between clergy and laity can continue before it tears the church apart, or renders it superfluous in the developed world (with an ever decreasing membership)? Is it even possible for the catholic church to bring its teachings and doctrine to be more in line with 21st century thought, or is this the beginning of the end for the church?

Pedophile Protector To Resign As Pope

Some of  you may think that's a rather harsh headline, but it's very true. This pope protected pedophiles by not allowing them to be reported and prosecuted, and by shuffling them from church to church while he led the church in much of Germany. Then he was brought to Rome and placed in a position where all reports of pedophile priests went directly to his office. Did he report any of them to the police? No. Did he kick any of them out of the priesthood? No. Not even after becoming pope. He did just what his predecessor did and protected those priests, because he thought the church's reputation was more important than the lives of innocent children being abused.

If you've gotten the idea that I think the pope's resignation (effective on February 28) is more a cause for celebration than sadness, then you are right. He should never have been selected as pope, or indeed given any office that supposedly has any moral authority. He is a despicable human being.

Will the next pope be any better? Probably not. By the time these old men become a cardinal (and you must be a cardinal to be chosen pope), they are so invested in the church hierarchy that none of them are likely to make any real changes. The church has been protecting pedophiles since at least the 19th century (and probably even long before that). It is not an organization that easily accepts change.

But then that is true of all religions. They are all invested in protecting what has been built up rather than changing to meet the needs of the people they are supposed to be serving -- and pedophiles and other sexual deviants exist in all christian sects and all religions. That is because religious figures are put on a pedestal, and the religion's faithful don't want to believe in their fallacy. They forget they are just humans, and have the same faults and foibles as other humans have -- including pedophilia. That is not to be taken to mean that all religious figures are this way. But too many are, and their cloak of religious authority allows them to get away with their crimes and sins against ordinary people.

----------------------------------------

If there must be a new pope chosen, then I make the following suggestion:

If some of you younger readers are not familiar with Father Guido Sarducci, I suggest you watch some of the old Saturday Night Live shows. Very funny stuff.

The Light

Many fundamentalists would have us believe that science must be subjected to the "light" of the church. But they forget the last time that happened, when the church snuffed out the real light (science). It was called the Dark Ages -- and it was dark because the church considered knowledge and science to be dangerous heresy. That was the catholic church, but today in this country the protestant fundamentalists would like to do the very same thing. They refuse to learn from history.

Obama's Right About Contraception

As a part of the health care reform, the Obama administration has decided that all women in the United States should have free contraception available to them. Understand that the president is not saying that any women must use contraception -- only that every woman should have the choice of whether to use contraception or not. I agree with the president's action, but I have not said anything before now because I really considered this to be a women's issue -- an issue that concerns a woman's control over her own body, and an issue that men should have no say over.

But the men on the other side of this issue, the ones who want to keep women in a second-class status in our society, are whining loudly that the president is wrong. They don't want women to have easy and free access to contraception (and control over their own bodies). The two groups whining the loudest are the leadership of the catholic church and congressional Republicans, and naturally, both groups are predominantly composed of men.

And sadly, even the cable news networks are playing into this idea that men should have the most say about what women can do with their own bodies. About 146 pundits have appeared on the three networks (Fox, MSNBC, CNN) to discuss the contraception issue, and 91 of those have been men -- nearly a two-to-one ratio. Here is the breakdown by network:

FOX NEWS
men...............38
women...............16

MSNBC NEWS
men...............44
women...............31

CNN NEWS
men...............9
women...............8

Those are pathetic numbers, and all three networks should be ashamed of themselves. You can bet that if the issue was whether Viagra (which is covered by nearly all insurance programs) should be covered by employer insurance programs, they wouldn't be inviting a two-to-one majority of women to discuss it. Why then are they inviting so many men to discuss an issue that concerns only women?

But even more pathetic is the opposition of the catholic leaders in America to the president's plan. Clinging to outdated and archaic pronouncements from Rome, the American catholic leaders say the plan would force them to violate their religious beliefs. That is ridiculous for two reasons.

First the president has submitted a compromise proposal which says no religious organization would have to pay for the contraception being included in their employee insurance plan, but the insurer would offer free contraception directly to female employees free of charge (because paying for contraception is a lot cheaper for insurance companies than paying for pregnancies). Since they are not required to pay for the inclusion of contraception in their insurance program, that should satisfy religious institutions that say they should not be forced to include contraception.

Second, as the chart above shows, most catholics in the United States support the president's plan. And it is a fact that for the last 50 years or more most catholic women have ignored the church's ban on contraception. Over 90% of women in all religions (including all christian sects) have used contraception according to surveys. The American catholic leaders are trying to make an issue of something that their flock (especially the women) long ago discarded.

The Republicans are even more disingenuous in their opposition to the program. They know most Americans support the president in this effort, but they decided a couple of years ago that they must oppose everything the president supports -- regardless of whether it will help the American people or not. There opposition is not religious in nature, but political. They simply don't care whether women can get birth control or not -- as long as they can pervert the issue to oppose the president.

Finally, there is one more aspect to this issue that I don't understand. Those opposing the president's contraception plan, both the catholic leaders and the congressional Republicans, are also the leaders in the fight against legal abortions. Why then would they oppose the most effective measure for preventing abortions -- contraception? It makes no sense.

Hopefully, this is the last time I will speak on this issue. I believe it is time for men (on both sides) to shut up and let women decide what they want done. Since men can't get pregnant, it is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS! Period. End of discussion.  

Catholic Leaders Blast Gingrich & Santorum

Republican candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are catholics, but in their effort to appeal to the teabagger base of the party and win the presidential nomination they have abandoned some of the teachings of their own faith. Most egregious among these are an attack on poor people, and racist remarks that make it sound as though only minorities avail themselves of government programs. This has gotten some catholic leaders upset, and about 40 prominent American church leaders have written a open letter chastising both Santorum and Gingrich. Here is that letter:

An Open Letter to Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum

As Catholic leaders who recognize that the moral scandals of racism and poverty remain a blemish on the American soul, we challenge our fellow Catholics Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to stop perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes on the campaign trail. Mr. Gingrich has frequently attacked President Obama as a “food stamp president” and claimed that African Americans are content to collect welfare benefits rather than pursue employment. Campaigning in Iowa, Mr. Santorum remarked: “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.” Labeling our nation’s first African-American president with a title that evokes the past myth of “welfare queens” and inflaming other racist caricatures is irresponsible, immoral and unworthy of political leaders.

Some presidential candidates now courting “values voters” seem to have forgotten that defending human life and dignity does not stop with protecting the unborn. We remind Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum that Catholic bishops describe racism as an “intrinsic evil” and consistently defend vital government programs such as food stamps and unemployment benefits that help struggling Americans. At a time when nearly 1 in 6 Americans live in poverty, charities and the free market alone can’t address the urgent needs of our most vulnerable neighbors. And while jobseekers outnumber job openings 4-to-1, suggesting that the unemployed would rather collect benefits than work is misleading and insulting.

As the South Carolina primary approaches, we urge Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Santorum and all presidential candidates to reject the politics of racial division, refrain from offensive rhetoric and unite behind an agenda that promotes racial and economic justice.

I am not a catholic, or even a christian, but I have to agree with these church leaders that the actions of both Gingrich and Santorum have been "irresponsible, immoral and unworthy of political leaders." If you would like to know who the 40 catholic leaders are who signed this letter, you can go to this site.

A Patron Saint For Pedophiles

One of the most popular catholic religious leaders of modern times was Pope John Paul II. He headed the church from 1979 until his death in 2005. His popularity was such that almost immediately upon his death there were people demanding his promotion to sainthood. And the current Pope, Benedict XVI, responded by giving a special dispensation removing any time limits on the road to sainthood.

Still, a person (even a beloved pope) can't become a saint with performing some "miracles". And supposedly the dead pope has now done that. A French nun has credited John Paul II with curing her of Parkinson's Disease. That's good enough for John Paul II's beatification (a recognition by the church that he is "blessed"), and that was what happened this last weekend in front of over 1 million catholics in the Vatican. With one more miracle John Paul II can become a full-fledged saint -- and that will happen because the church wants it to happen.

But there are some who believe there is a rush to make John Paul II a saint to protect both his reputation and the reputation of the current pope. John Paul II presided over the church during a period when many hundreds (perhaps more) priests were molesting children. Instead of exposing and turning these priests over to law enforcement, as should have been done, the church just played their own version of "musical chairs" -- shifting the pedophile priests from one church to another to protect them and the reputation of the church.

This protection of the pedophile priests was directed from the Vatican (and overseen in Germany by the current pope while he was an archbishop). It is beyond believable that John Paul II did not know what was being done to protect the pedophiles (and the church) -- even though this just set up more children to be molested rather than solving any problem.

As Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society in Great Britain said, "This sprint to sainthood is to deflect examinations into JPII's unedifying record on clerical child abuse -- and, with it, Benedict's own role." Wood is right. The enormous amount of priestly child abuse could not have gone on for so long, become so widespread, and been hidden from the public so effectively without the participation of both John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

So a protector of pedophiles is on the way to becoming a saint in the catholic church. I guess it was bound to happen. All kinds of groups have their catholic patron saints (who intercedes on their behalf) -- Christopher (travelers), Crispin (shoemakers), Luke (doctors), Gabriel (broadcasters), Isidore (farmers), Matthew (tax collectors), Vitus (comedians), Yves (lawyers), and many more.

Since every other group has their own patron saint, I guess it is fitting that the world's pedophiles will now have their own patron saint -- someone to intercede on their behalf with the invisible sky fairy. And who could do that better than the person who protected them in this world -- John Paul II?

Proof That Vatican Protected Pedophile Priests

Many of you will recognize the picture above as being of former Pope John Paul II.   He was a much-beloved Pope and recently the Catholic church has taken steps toward making him an official "saint".   He doesn't deserve that honor (or any other).  

Irish journalists have uncovered a letter from Pope John Paul II's diplomat to Ireland -- Archbishop Luciano Storero.   The letter orders the church in Ireland to NOT report priests found to be pedophiles to the civilian authorities (so they could be tried, convicted and punished for their dastardly crimes).   The letter threatens to punish church officials that don't follow the edict of the Vatican to keep priestly child molestation a secret.

We have known for a while now that the current Pope actively hid and protected child molesting priests while a church official in Germany.   This letter shows that he probably did it on the explicit orders of the Vatican.   After all, what was ordered by the Vatican to be done in Ireland was surely ordered in all other countries also.   And it is beyond belief to think the orders were issued without the knowledge of Pope John Paul II.

There is no doubt any more that the Catholic Church, specifically the Vatican, considered the safety of children to be secondary to saving the church from bad publicity.   That is indefensible, and so is even thinking of making a protector of child molesters a "saint".

The Pope Is A Hypocrite

After covering up for church pedophile priests for many years, the Pope is again showing himself to be a hypocrite and unworthy of respect as a religious leader.   This time it involves blasphemy laws.

In a new year address, the Pope has called upon Pakistan to repeal its "blasphemy law" -- which has serious penalties for anyone blaspheming the prophet Mohammad.   I agree that the Pakistani law is wrong and an affront to religious freedom, but I have to wonder why the Pope has confined himself to that one law forbidding blasphemy toward the muslim religion.

This is certainly not the only blasphemy law in existence.   In fact, Ireland (a Catholic country) just passed a blasphemy law of its own.   I don't remember the Pope condemning that law.   Evidently he thinks it's OK to punish people with criminal penalties if they blaspheme against his own church, but it's wrong to punish them for blaspheming another religion.

How can anyone still listen to this hypocritical fool?   ALL blasphemy laws are wrong -- no matter what country or what religion.

Pope's New Guidelines Change Nothing

Once again the Pope and the Catholic Church are trying to paint a good face on the church scandal involving priests who sexually abuse children and the church hierarchy that protects them. The church has announced "new" rules which it says would make it easier to defrock priests convicted of child sexual abuse and would extend the canonical statute of limits in such crimes.

There is a slight problem with the scenario painted by the church with this announcement. It seems that these are not really new rules since the church is already operating under these "new" guidelines, and has been for a while now. This is little more than another feeble attempt at public relations. The church wants to be patted on the back for doing something it has been doing for a while (and should have been doing for many decades).

Worse still is the fact that the church's self-congratulatory new guidelines still don't include two real changes that are needed if the church is to get serious about eliminating child sexual abuse among priests. The guidelines still don't require the church to notify civil authorities of a sex abuse accusation against one of its priests. It only says notification must be made if civil law requires it. In areas where notification is not required by civil law, it is still perfectly OK for church authorities to keep the accusation a secret from the police and other civil authorities.

The guidelines also do not require that Bishops or other higher-ups in the church be punished for covering up and keeping secret the heinous crime of child sex abuse. This comes as no surprise since the Pope himself is guilty of covering for at least one German priest accused (and later convicted of) child sex abuse. Those who cover up these sort of crimes should be punished, but if they made that a policy then they would have to start the punishments with the Pope himself.

The church is trying to pass the new rules off as reform, but it isn't. It's just more of the same and falls far short of any real reform. I get the distinct feeling that the church hierarchy still doesn't think they have done anything wrong. They still think their efforts to protect the reputation of the church was more important than the children who were being sexually abused or punishing the criminals doing that abuse. That view robs them of any moral authority.

One of those left without any real moral authority is the Pope himself. If he was an honest person he would have resigned months ago.

The guidelines do one other thing. It makes the ordination of a woman as serious a crime according to canonical law as sexually abusing children. That is a slap in the face not only to Catholic women but to all women. The church is still willing to relegate over half the world's population to the status of second-class personhood.

Vatican Issues New Sex Abuse Rules

The Catholic Church's leadership has been getting a lot of bad publicity lately, ever since it was learned that the pedophilia of some of its priests was not restricted to the United States (where the scandal first became know). It seems that the same types of sexual crimes against children was also happening in Ireland, Germany, Switzerland and many other countries.

That would have been bad enough, but instead of reporting the pedophile priests to the proper law enforcement authorities, the church tried to hide the crimes. They did this by moving the priests to new dioceses. Of course this didn't solve the problem -- it just provided the pedophiles with a new start and a lot of fresh unsuspecting victims (and it made the church liable for the abuse of these new victims).

Sadly, this was not the work of one or two in the church hierarchy but the coverup involved many in the Vatican -- including the current Pope. Although his subordinates have tried to cover for the Pope by falling on the sword themselves, a letter uncovered by the AP containing the signature of Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) shows that he was directly involved in the cover-up of the pedophile priests.

But the church still won't admit its culpability in the cover-up. Instead, they are trying to float some counter-publicity to attempt to blunt the criticism of the Pope and the church. As part of that effort, they have released to the press some "new" rules regarding child abuse accusations against priests. Here they are:

1. The local diocese will "investigate every allegation of sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric."

2. If the allegation "has a semblance of truth" then the diocese will report it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the organization formerly headed by the current Pope that was guilty of covering up for pedophile priests).

3. The local diocese should report the allegation to local civil authorities if it is required by local law.

That sounds a lot better than it actually is. First of all, these are not new rules. They have been in effect for years (and obviously have not worked). All they did was gather these rules into one document and release it to the press in the hopes of making it look like they were actually doing something. How can the release of rules that have not worked in the past possibly solve the church's problems? It can't. This just shows that the church thinks its problem is just a public relations problem, and not a real problem of protecting and covering up for pedophile priests.

Secondly, ALL allegations of child abuse by clerics should be reported to law enforcement authorities -- not just in those localities where the law requires it. With its history of covering up for and protecting child abusers, the church simply cannot be trusted with these important investigations. All of the allegations must be investigated outside of the church by a law enforcement agency (just like it would be with any other organization).

Finally, the releasing of these "new" rules does nothing to absolve the Pope or any other church officials of their past crimes (and hiding allegations of child sexual abuse is a crime). The only way for the church to put these crimes behind it is for all those guilty of covering up the crimes to resign -- including the Pope.

Good publicity is not going to solve this problem. The resignations are an absolute must.

Pope's Letter Is Smoking Gun

As you must know by now, the Pope has been accused of trying to hide child abuse by pedophile priests rather then kicking those priests out of the church and turning them over to the proper authorities -- both as a Cardinal and later as head of the church's agency to discipline priests for unacceptable conduct. Until now, his underlings in the church have been trying to shield the Pope by claiming that he knew nothing and the wrongdoing was by those working for him.

That is an ridiculous argument since he should have known what his subordinates were doing if he was even mildly competent. Be that as it may, the AP has now come into possession of a letter from the Pope with his signature clearly on it, in which he comes down on the side of not firing a pedophile priest because it might mean bad publicity for the church. This is the smoking gun that proves his knowledge of and participation in the cover-up of pedophile priests.

In 1978, Priest Stephan Kiesle pled no contest to misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct and received three years probation. That was a good deal for the pedophile priest, because he had tied up two young boys and molested them in a San Francisco church rectory. When his probation was over in 1981, the diocese submitted papers to the Vatican to defrock the priest and kick him out of the priesthood.

Now this should have been a cut-and-dried case. The priest was known to be a pedophile and had already pled guilty and completed his sentence. I would think that common sense would dictate that the church would want to disassociate themselves from this criminal as soon as possible -- but that was not the Vatican's reaction.

It took the Vatican four years to respond to the diocese's request, and that response came in the form of a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope). That letter, written in Latin in 1985, did NOT give the diocese the authority to defrock the pedophile priest. Instead, the Cardinal outlined reasons why this should not happen.

The future pope said that although the arguments for removing the priest are of "grave significance", they must consider the "good of the universal church". He went on to say they must also consider the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ's faithful , particularly the young age (of the priest)." The priest was 38 years old at that time.

In plain language, Cardinal Ratzinger said the fear of bad publicity for the church was more important than kicking the pedophile out of the priesthood. That was an amazingly unethical and immoral decision for a high-ranking church official to make. It took another two years and repeated appeals from the American diocese before the priest was finally defrocked in 1987 -- after he had resumed duties as a youth minister.

This letter, which the Vatican admits bears the signature of Cardinal Ratzinger, should remove any doubt as to whether the current Pope was complicit in protecting pedophile priests to avoid bad publicity for the church. The attempted cover-up of the Pope's actions by his subordinates will no longer pass the smell test.

This Pope does not have the ethics or morality to be the moral guide for millions of christians. It is time for him to resign (and we know that is possible by canon law because two past Popes have resigned). Delaying his resignation any further is nothing short of a slap in the face to all the victims of the pedophile priests.

Church Puts Foot In Mouth

Someone needs to tell the Catholic Church that when you find yourself in a very deep hole, the best thing to do is stop digging! After years of allowing child abuse to thrive, protecting the abusers, blaming the victims, and then electing a Pope who was complicit in the cover-up, I didn't think the church could make things any worse. I was wrong.

The church seems to be incredibly talented at bad publicity, because they found a way to make the situation worse. What did they do? They compared the current criticism against the Vatican and the Pope to anti-Semitism. That's right. According to the Vatican's own preacher, Father Raniero Cantalamessa (pictured), criticizing the church reminds him of hundreds of years of anti-Semitism and pogroms (not to mention the murder of millions during the reign of Hitler).

I have to wonder what this idiot was thinking. Could he really be stupid enough to think that was a valid comparison? Well, others weren't buying it. A spokesman for SNAP, the Survivor's Network of those Abused by Priests, called the comparison "reckless and irresponsible" and "morally wrong".

Then Stephan Kramer, head of Germany's Central Council of Jews, called the comparison "repulsive, obscene and most of all offensive towards all abuse victims as well as to all the victims of the Holocaust."

In fact, the outrage was so strong and widespread that the Vatican is now backing away from the words of it's own preacher. Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said Cantalamessa's remarks do not represent the Vatican's official view and that his comparison "could lead to misunderstandings." You reckon?

Making matters even worse, the preacher's remarks came as the embattled Pope is trying to arrange a trip to Israel. I can't wait to see what the church will do next to dig that hole even deeper.

Pedophiles And The Irish Church

A few years ago, the American Catholic church went through a scandalous period in which it was discovered that the church covered up numerous incidents of child sexual abuse, and even protected the pedophile priests. Instead of turning these vile child abusers over to legal authorities, they just transferred them to another diocese (where many of them continued to commit their crimes).

Once the actions of the church was finally exposed, many priests were finally convicted, the reputation of the American church was severely damaged and millions were paid by the church to settle a large number of lawsuits. Now it looks like the Irish Catholic church is experiencing the same type of thing.

Recently, there have been accusations made by over 2,000 people who say they were abused either physically or sexually while in the care of Catholic-run schools, orphanages and other institutions. Recently the Irish Minister of Justice commissioned a report on the matter. The report was released late last month.

That report calls the matter "a scandal on an astonishing scale" and said "the welfare of children counted for nothing". The report went on to say, "The Dublin archdiocese's preoccupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid-1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the church, and the preservation of its assets."

In other words, the Irish church acted just like the American church. They acted to protect themselves -- regardless of what that meant for children. The report also faulted civil officials like the police, saying they gave the church too much respect and deferred to them too much. It was found that in many cases where a report of abuse was actually made, the police simply reported the accusation to the church and no investigation was conducted. The priest was then transferred and began to abuse a new set of kids.

Five Catholic Bishops were named in the report as being especially responsible for the cover-up. Four of those Bishops have now resigned. The last two resigned in a joint statement read at yesterday's midnight mass. That just leaves one Bishop, the current Bishop of Galway, and public pressure will probably force him from office soon.

I bring all this up just to point out the danger of giving a church or its officials, of any religion, too much respect. Far too often, we consider these church officials (priests, ministers, pastors, preachers, deacons, elders, etc.) to be "men of god" who can do no wrong. This gives them an almost free pass to commit crimes and abuse children and others, if they are so-inclined.

The fact is that all churches, temples, mosques, etc. are earthly organizations run by men -- men (and women) who are generally no better or worse than others. Some are good and some are not, but you cannot assume they are good just because of the religious title they may hold.

There are both good people and bad people in every profession, but some professions are given such respect that much of the bad is overlooked -- such as doctors and police. But no profession gets the benefit of the doubt (free ride) that those in religion get. Many consider these people to be "chosen of god" and therefore incapable of doing wrong. That's just rubbish.

Some religious officials are trying to do good and some are doing bad things (and some are even doing both). But they are all just human, and subject to the same foibles as other humans. We must never forget that.

Little Rock Catholic Diocese Backs Down

A little over a week ago, I told you about how Monsignor Hebert of the Catholic Church's Little Rock diocese was trying to get his parishoners to stop helping to fund the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation. He was upset because the Komen Foundation had partnered with Planned Parenthood to give breast exams and educate women about breast cancer.

Ignoring the fact that the Komen Foundation has nothing to do with abortion and has given over $1 billion for cancer research, Hebert heard the words "Planned Parenthood" and evidently lost his mind.

Well, it looks like someone has shaken some sense into the religious idiot. Yesterday, he said he was mistaken, and apologized to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation. The Komen Foundation has accepted his apology.

I guess the Monsignor's ridiculous stance generated a bit too much heat. I suspect his superiors in the church were not happy about this kind of negative publicity.

Church Opposes Breast Cancer Foundation

Sometimes religious nuts go off the deep end in their zeal to further their own political beliefs. That's what I believe is happening here. It just makes no sense to me that a church would come out in opposition to funding breast cancer research.

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation is a leading voice in the search for a cure to a devastating disease -- breast cancer. The foundation has invested $1 billion in cancer research and outreach. A reasonable person would think this is a good thing and applaud them for their wonderful work.

But not Monsignor J. Gaston Hebert of the Catholic Church's Little Rock diocese. He has sent a letter to the parishes and schools in the diocese asking them not to support or donate to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation. He is an anti-abortion nut (who evidently thinks he should have more say over a woman's body than the woman).

Hebert is angry because the Komen Foundation teamed up with Planned Parenthood to give breast exams and educate women about breast cancer. This partnership has nothing to do with abortion in any form, but has the exclusive purpose of fighting breast cancer and saving women's lives.

But rational thinking is obviously not in Hebert's repertoire. He heard the words "Planned Parenthood", and his Pavlovian response was to go off the deep end and try to hurt the Komen Foundation.

He should be ashamed of himself.