Saturday, December 19, 2009

Benedict XVI has no power to say « Let there be God » in the Eucharist just like he has no power to say « Let there be light » in Genesis






Christmas time is here once again and we celebrate the birth of the Baby Jesus in the manger. The Vatican will place the largest crèche and largest Christmas tree at St. Peter’s Square. But what Catholics and the world fail to see is that Baby Jesus took 9 months of gestation in the womb of Mary …but in the Eucharist he INSTANTLY becomes flesh and blood through the formula of “transubstantiation” pronounced only by the ordained “powerful” pope and his priests. And the pope is now propagating Latin in the Mass because it is the “sacred language”. If Africa has black magic and voodoos, the Eucharist is the worst magic of its kind on this planet because the Pope and ordained priests claim they have the EXCLUSIVE power to “turn flour into God's flesh ”! If Benedict XVI and his priests cannot say ‘”Let there be light” and there is no light, neither can they turn the flour and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ that took 9-months of gestation in Mary’s womb. Who are they to be more powerful than Mary and the Holy Spirit?


Why is it that Benedict XVI has silenced the Jesuit Jon Sobrino for speaking about the poor of Christ but he has not silenced one single pedophile priests among the 6,000 John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army members? Benedict XVI spent so much time reading and rereading Jon Sobrino’s books and other Jesuits whom he has silenced, but he has not spent time with the victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army? Why has Benedict XVI not spend time to read SNAP, Abuse Tracker and Bishops Accountability websites so he can learn more about the reality of priest-pedophilia, a word which he refuses to use, because it will mar the reputation of the Sacrament of Holy Orders?

We have shown you that John Paul II, whose beatification is imminent, did not have the charity of Mother Teresa of Calcutta www.jp2m.blogspot.com and that he was nothing but a papal resounding gong of St. Paul. And Christmas time is here when Benedict XVI will also be nothing but a clashing cymbal of St. Paul and he’ll be practicing the black magic of the Eucharist, overpowering the Blessed Virgin Mary http://stella0maris.blogspot.com/ . The Eucharist was the biggest weapon of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army; because of it altars boys were sexually abused for decades and John Paul II covered-it – up for the sake of the Eucharist.

It was a vicious cycle – priests "created God" INSTANTLY in the Mass and with those same evil hands they sodomized little boys. Only in the Catholic Church can crime pay the criminal priests and then be rewarded with God’s own Body and Blood!


Last December 13, Pope Benedict XVI blessed hundreds of figures of the infant Jesus, to be placed in Christmas crèches in the homes and churches of Rome. He said, as the clashing papal cymbal, that a crèche can be “a school of life, where we can learn the secret of true joy.” But Benedict XVI ignores the true “joy” or living hell the victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army http://jp2army.blogspot.com/ which he directly aided and abetted.

In Genesis God created the world - by his words. Now Benedict XVI, John Paul II, the popes and priests claim to be “creating God” – by their words - daily in the Eucharist. This is the best deception of the Vatican Holy See and it is the 12,000 American victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army who are paying the price for this Catholic deception – a living hell legacy - left by John Paul II. So Venerable John Paul II was a liar and a con artist via the Eucharist and he has a big Millstone around his neck as he lay at the pit of Hell because the sins of his John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army resound and stench for eternity.

Benedict XVI is the living clashing cymbals of St. Paul just like John Paul II The Great clashing cymbal of St. Paul see the John Paul II Millstone http://jp2m.blogspot.com/ this Christmas “Benedict XVI will play God” even more deceiving the 1.2 Billion Catholics and the world. It is up to us to remind Benedict XVI that he is nothing but an ugly old despot clothed in white clothing who directly aided and abetted the most heinous crime against children in church history, the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army.


Merry Christmas to all our friends and readers!



Geneva Study Bible

And God said, Let there be light: and there was {e} light.
(e) The light was made before either Sun or Moon was created: therefore we must not attribute that to the creatures that are God's instruments, which only belong to God.

New American Standard Bible ©

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.


Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.

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

Psalm 33:9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.

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

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. (NASB )

Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.



ROME'S HISTORIC NATIVITY SCENES INCLUDING WORLD FAMOUS VATICAN NATIVITY SCENE
Life-size Vatican creche

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Benedict XVI to lead 'midnight' Christmas Mass at 10 p.m.

Benedict XVI does not give a hoot about the John Paul II Irish Pedophile Priests Army because he is busy preparing for his Christmas midnight Mass spectacle at the Vatican. He is busy conferring with Zeffirelli, his GAY make-up and event director on what to wear, what to say and how to fool the millions of Catholics and people who will be watching. To Benedict XVI, the victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army are nothing but “Dust in the Wind” soon to be forgotten. Look at his Hollywood production events this December. With all the pomp and money that surround him, he has no clue about the sufferings of thousands of children molested by pedophile priests. Benedict XVI should be rotting in jail instead of acting-in-glory in Rome.

But his physical demise is beginning to wear him down. No midnight mass this year, instead it will be at 10 pm. His death is imminent just like his predecessor when he couldn’t make it at midnight. “But as he aged and began suffering from Parkinson's disease, John Paul dropped the Dec. 25 Mass for the public while keeping to the "Urbi et Orbi" traditional and giving holiday greetings in dozens of languages.” Perhaps with the John Paul II Millstone also hanging around his neck, next year, Benedict XVI will also skip midnight mass altogether.

-----------

Pope to lead 'midnight' Christmas Mass at 10 p.m.


AP Mon., Dec . 7, 2009

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI will break with tradition this year and celebrate Christmas Eve Mass in St. Peter's Basilica at 10 p.m. instead of midnight, the Vatican said Monday.

Papal spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi told The Associated Press the decision to change the schedule was made two months ago to "ease the (pope's) fatigue at a time when there are many ceremonies and commitments" during Christmas holidays.

"There's no cause for worry about the health" of the 82-year-old Benedict, Lombardi said. Vatican aides decided to "stretch out" his strength and the pontiff agreed, the spokesman added.

On noon Christmas Day Benedict will read a traditional holiday message from the central balcony of the basilica as crowds gather in the square. The message "Urbi et Orbi" (Latin for to the City and to the World) usually contemplates the religious significance of Christmas and reflects on wars, disasters and other world events.

Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, celebrated Christmas Eve Mass at midnight in the basilica and then led a midmorning Mass for the faithful on Christmas Day at the start of his papacy in 1978. But as he aged and began suffering from Parkinson's disease, John Paul dropped the Dec. 25 Mass for the public while keeping to the "Urbi et Orbi" traditional and giving holiday greetings in dozens of languages.

Benedict will make has first main holiday appearance Tuesday in central Rome when he goes to the Spanish Steps to pray before a towering statue of the Virgin Mary on the Catholic feast day of the Immaculate Conception.

The pontiff will mark the year's end with a solemn Vespers service of thanksgiving at 6 p.m. Dec. 31 in the basilica. On New Year's Day he will return to the basilica to celebrate Mass at 10 a.m. He will lead a Mass at the same hour in St. Peter's on Jan. 6, the feast day of the Epiphany.

Despot Benedict XVI does not allow freedom of speech in the Catholic Church

Freedom of speech is one of our American basic human rights. Unfortunately under the totalitarian government of the Vatican, the despot Pope does not allow any form of freedom of speech. That is why Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei Bishop of El Salvador “silenced” our hero the Jesuit Jon Sobrino and forbid him to preach and teach in all Catholic venues.

We have featured in detail, see our earlier posts, why Jon Sobrino was silenced by Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei Bishop see also the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com. And ODAN explains it clearly that Opus Dei, who controls the papacy since John Paul II, do not allow freedom of speech.



http://www.odan.org/


Official Announcement of ICTOD, the International

Collaboration for Truth about Opus Dei
A collaboration of three separate groups who have experienced
firsthand the deceptive, manipulative and cult-like practices of Opus Dei
has been formed in response to Opus Dei's depiction of itself to the
media and the general public.

Note: Regrettably, it is our understanding that the domain name www.opuslivre.org has been purchased by Opus Dei and is no longer a source for information about Opus Dei. Nevertheless, concerned individuals and former Opus Dei members remain in Brazil. Please contact ODAN if you would like to be placed in contact with others from Brazil.

Reflecting on this action by Opus Dei, the question to ask is this: What does Opus Dei fear about the free flow of information that it would pursue shutting down those who have experienced firsthand Opus Dei's deception and manipulation? This is the type of action employed by extremist regimes, whether fascist or communist, where information is routinely stifled through control of all forms of media.
ODAN supporters and those familiar with cult information may remember the similar demise of the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) which was completely taken over by Scientology in 1997. Opus Dei's actions speak louder than its words...

OpusLivre, Opus Dei Awareness Network, Inc. and Opus Libros http://www.opuslibros.org/ have announced the formation of The International Collaboration for Truth about Opus Dei (ICTOD). The collaboration is the result of three separate groups of people who have had harmful experiences with Opus Dei in locations from all over the world wherever Opus Dei operates.

ICTOD was formed to challenge the statements made by Opus Dei in its recent media campaign to dispel the image depicted in the book and recent movie, The DaVinci Code.

The collaboration consists of Opuslivre, based in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Opus Dei Awareness Network, (ODAN) based in the United States, and Opus Libros, http://www.opuslibros.org/ based in Madrid, Spain.

ICTOD believes Opus Dei has focused on the extremes of the movie, such as bloody use of the discipline (whip) and the cilice (spiked chain) while saying nothing about how the organization takes away a person's freedom through a subtle indoctrination process consisting of aggressive recruiting techniques, the withholding of information necessary to make an informed choice and the use of subtle pressure, fear and guilt to exact blind obedience upon its members. ICTOD will focus its resources to educating the public about the absolute control and obedience that exists in Opus Dei along with deceptive and manipulative recruiting practices.

For more information about ICTOD, including contact information and a statement from the coordinator of Opus Libros: ICTOD http://www.odan.org/ictod.htm

Monday, December 14, 2009

Benedict XVI is an old God’s Rottweiler with old tricks

Well, well, Benedict XVI has been given all the chances (while he is still alive) to be a little bit different from John Paul II, but, unfortunately he fails to take the opportunity to repent and change his ways. He and his hypocritical apologies about priest pedophilia are like the little boy who cried “Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! In the end, no one believed him. And now, at the wake of the Irish revelations of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army www.jp2army.blogspot.com, Benedict XVI is crying Wolf! Wolf! Wolf! Again.


Most Catholics are outraged by Benedict‘s bland reaction to the Irish priest pedophilia scandal, but, it should not surprise us Catholics any longer. Benedict XVI directly led the cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army. He is a criminal who aided and abetted the thousands of Catholic pedophile priests and he will never change. He should be sitting in jail instead of the Chair of Peter.


You cannot teach old dogs new tricks. And God’s Rottweiler, Benedict XVI is an old dog with old tricks – he’ll go on supressing the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army like "Dust in the Wind" unto his papal grave. He’ll keep on acting as the Supreme Pontiff, carrying out his pompous daily papal show at the Vatican, dealing with royalties, world leaders and wealthy investors for the sake of the Vatican Bank. But now, Italy’s government is now investigating the Vatican bank for money-laundering. Benedict XVI’s papacy will be marked by the moral scandal of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army and the financial scandal of the Vatican Bank. These are the two scandals that dwell in his ugly racoon eyes.

In spite of his daily gay Zeffirelli make-up crew, Benedict XVI becomes uglier each day and he shall die ugly like his idol John Paul II.


Pope Benedict XVI from http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3665

----------
Vatican Bank investigated over 'money laundering'

The Vatican Bank is under investigation for alleged involvement in a money-laundering scheme.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/6746668/Vatican-Bank-investigated-over-money-laundering.html


Published: 7:00AM GMT 07 Dec 2009

Officials from the Bank of Italy's Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) have identified transactions worth up to 180 million (£160 million) in accounts held at a branch of one of Italy's largest banks that allegedly violated anti-money-laundering regulations.

Panorama, the weekly investigative magazine, reported that Prosecutors in Rome, led by Nello Rossi and Stefano Rocco Fava, were working with a special unit of the Italian tax police, to investigate a branch of UniCredit bank next to St Peter's Basilica. The bank was formerly known as the Institute for Religious Works (IOR).
The investigation centres on alleged breaches of financial regulations and disclosure obligations at the branch, but could broadened to include accounts held at other Italian banks. Investigators are examining every transaction in accounts held by the IOR from 2006 to 2008, the magazine reported. Some of the funds allegedly came from the sale and purchase of real estate.

In that period, it said that more than 180 million in cheques and transfers moved through the accounts. The magazine named a manager at the branch who it claimed had a close relationship with Lelio Scaletti, a former director of the IOR, who left the Vatican Bank in October 2007.

Prosecutors told the magazine that they would in the next few days to question Unicredit's senior management over the suspect operations.

This is the most serious investigation of the Vatican Bank since the 1982 collapse of Banco Ambrosiano, in which it was the major shareholder. Ambrosiano collapsed with the Vatican held partly responsible for $1.3 billion in bad debts. If the latest allegations are proved to be correct, they would be a blow for the new directors of the IOR, appointed two months ago by Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State.

Comments:
"The Vatican Bank may argue that they are outside the jurisdiction of Italian courts."

Just because you live in the Disney Land for pedophiles doesn't mean your property isn't part of the real world.
About a year I was at a dinner party in NJ where some dude mentioned that Anne Hathaway's boyfriend would be arrested soon and that the Vatican, Italian bank money laundering and Bill Clinton were all involved My eyes glazed over thinking this dude was nutso. But it turned out my dinner bore was working with the SEC, the FBI and the CIA and so far his whole story has turned out to be true.


-----------

Pope Benedict's lame response to Irish pedophile cases

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/6870
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00505/Cartoon_505242a.jpg


By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist

Pope Benedict XVI had the chance Friday to take aggressive action to punish Catholic archbishops and priests involved in disgusting pedophile cases in Ireland. But the Pope shamefully punted.

Oh, he apologized for the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, and for the decades-long cover-up by the archbishops.

Benedict said he "shares the outrage, betrayal and shame felt by so many of the faithful in Ireland." And he's praying for the victims.

That's fine as far as it goes.

However, the Pope failed to take concrete steps to show these victims the Catholic Church is serious about ridding itself of pedophiles and others who have allowed the molestation of boys and girls to occur for many years.

Demanding the resignations of four archbishops at the heart of the scandal would have been a good start.

Benedict's meeting Friday in Vatican City with Ireland's top two Catholic leaders came several weeks after a report was released. It said archbishops had concealed repeated abuse by priests over the years and never told police about the crimes.

Here's one heart-wrenching passage from the AFP News Service:
"One priest admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while another confessed that he had abused children on a fortnightly basis over 25 years."

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Benedict XVI to beatify John Paul II is “brought to nothing” by St. Paul



Benedict XVI declared the year of St. Paul from June 29, 2008 to June 28/29, 2009. The fact is, Benedict XVI and John Paul II are both the clashing cymbals of St. Paul

Benedict XVI's speedy beatification of John Paul II is “brought to nothing” by St. Paul. St. Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthian 13:1-13: “If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.” John Paul II the great with all his papal knowledge, Theology of the Body, countless letters, encyclicals, books and homilies is “brought to nothing” by St. Paul. No American child should ever call him ‘blessed’ or ‘saint’ out of deference to the 12,000 American victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army http://jp2army.blogspot.com/


It isn’t a surprise that Benedict XVI God’s Rottweiler is in a hurry to beatify John Paul II, after all he is made of the same cloth. As Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he ordered the cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army. Benedict XVI is also the clashing cymbal of St. Paul see John Paul II the Great clashing cymbal of St. Paul http://jp2m.blogspot.com/2009/11/john-paul-ii-great-clashing-cymbal-of.html Benedict XVI is the third member of the ‘Catholic Hall of Shame’ see John Paul II is the first member of the ‘Catholic Hall of Shame’ and Cardinal Bernard Law is the second member - in the John Paul II Millstone http://jp2m.blogspot.com/2009/11/john-paul-ii-is-first-member-of.html

St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13 (quoted from the USCCB, United States Catholic Conference of Bishops New American Bible)

1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues 2 but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.

2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.

3 If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.

9 For we know partially and we prophesy partially,

10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

13 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.


History has spoken and the fact will always remain - that John Paul II “had no love” for the American victims of priest-pedophilia, to other victims, the Irish children that are now in the media and the hundreds of thousands in Latin America who have no recourse to justice as we have in North America. Thanks to SNAP, Abuse Tracker and Bishops-Accountability for bringing us endless details of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army.


May the children of America always remember the victims like they do with Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center. Someday we shall have a SNAP memorial museum in every diocese where there was a victim of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army. www.jp2army.blogspot.com No American victim shall be left behind. See the John Paul II Millstone http://jp2m.blogspot.com/


Happy thanksgiving to all our friends and readers.

Saturday, November 07, 2009

Benedict XVI Harboring Sexual Predators in Scranton

Harboring Sexual Predators in Scranton?
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020130_Harboring_Sexual_Predators_in_Scranton.html

St. John the Evangelist

An open letter to Bishop James C. Timlin, Diocese of Scranton

January 27, 2002

Dear Bishop Timlin,

It has come to my attention that you have removed Fr. Carlos Urrutigoity and Fr. Eric Ensey from the Society of St. John (SSJ), and have relocated them in Scranton. Your action is long overdue, though it is hardly a sufficient remedy for the sexual offenses these priests have committed. The fact that you have not suspended these priests shows your continued negligence in this matter. Indeed, you are guilty of gross negligence, for your inaction over a period of years has allowed these priests to continue their immoral relations with boys. Your guilt is established by a brief review of what you knew about these priests, and when you knew it:

(1) YOUR KNOWLEDGE THAT SSJ PRIESTS PLIED BOYS WITH ALCOHOL

In March 1998, Fr. Paul Carr, then chaplain of St. Gregory’s Academy, an all-boys school run by the Fraternity of St. Peter, discovered boys in the dormitory in a state of extreme intoxication. Fr. Carr then discovered that members of the Society of St. John had provided these boys with alcohol. Given the severely drunken state of these boys, Fr. Carr called the police. The police arrived and issued warnings to members of the Society for serving alcohol to minors. Fr. Carr subsequently informed you of the situation.

Your response was to do nothing so that scandal might be avoided. You not only allowed the Society to continue to live at St. Gregory’s Academy, but you even permitted the Society priests to become the chaplains there during the following school year. As a result, Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey were free to continue to ply the boys at St. Gregory's Academy with alcohol and lure some of them into bed. Indeed, members of the Society again served alcohol to boys to the point of intoxication after the graduation ceremonies at St. Gregory’s Academy in June. Moreover, when the Society moved onto its own property in Shohola, PA, these priests continued to serve alcohol to boys and to lure them into bed.

(2) YOUR FAILURE TO DO ADEQUATE BACKGROUND CHECKS ON SSJ MEMBERS
In May 1998, you canonically established the Society of St. John in the Diocese of Scranton without having done adequate background checks on the clerics in this group. Prior to that event, when you permitted the priests of the Society to serve as the chaplains to the boys at St. Gregory’s Academy, you violated your own diocesan guidelines that require background checks for anyone working with youth. Had you followed your own diocesan guidelines in this matter, you would have learned from the authorities of the Society of St. Pius X that Fr. Urrutigoity had been dismissed from the seminary in La Reja, Argentina for homosexual molestation. The fact that you knew that Fr. Urrutigoity had also been dismissed from the St. Pius X seminary in Winona, MN, should have made you even more vigilant with respect to making proper background checks.

(3) YOUR DISMISSAL OF SERIOUS TESTIMONY OF HOMOSEXUAL MOLESTATION
In February 1999, Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of St. Pius X informed you by letter that a young seminarian from the seminary in Winona had accused Fr. Urrutigoity of molesting him. This charge was supported by the personal testimony of the seminarian in July 1999 before your auxiliary, Bishop Dougherty, who told the seminarian that he believed his testimony. That seminarian, at the conclusion of his testimony, warned Bishop Dougherty that if Fr. Urrutigoity were not stopped, others would be molested. Nonetheless, you dismissed the testimony as “inconclusive,” and allowed Fr. Urrutigoity to continue to serve as chaplain to the boys at St. Gregory's Academy. You even failed to warn the authorities at the Fraternity of St. Peter and at St. Gregory's Academy of the danger to the boys under the "spiritual direction" of Fr. Urrutigoity and other members of the Society.

(4) YOUR DISMISSAL OF ADDITIONAL INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AGAINST SSJ
In the fall and winter of 1999, the key members of the Board of Advisors to the Society of St. John resigned. These distinguished Catholic businessmen made serious allegations against the Society for gross financial mismanagement. At that time, it was also brought to your attention that Fr. Daniel Fullerton, one of the founding members of the Society, had encouraged young men to swim naked at the Society’s property in Shohola. Your response was to issue a formal statement in which you said that you were “morally certain” that the Society had committed no wrongdoing.

(5) YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF FR. URRUTIGOITY’S HABIT OF SLEEPING WITH BOYS
In the summer and fall of 2001, you were informed by at least three different sources that Fr. Urrutigoity had a habit of sleeping with boys and young men. One of these sources was Fr. Paul Carr, now District Superior of the Fraternity of St. Peter. Another source was an eyewitness to the fact that Fr. Urrutigoity plied boys on the Shohola property with alcohol, and then slept with them in his private chambers. I myself was the third source, who, in numerous face-to-face meetings with you and Bishop Dougherty, presented compelling evidence of serious immoral behavior on the part of Fr. Urrutigoity. Bishop Dougherty, who had already heard the testimony of the two above-mentioned sources, told me that Fr. Urrutigoity was a “cult leader” who was “capable of pederasty at any time.”

Each of the three sources approached you independently of the other two. Yet you ignored all of their dire warnings, including the judgment of your own auxiliary, Bishop Dougherty. And you did this knowing that Fr. Urrutigoity had been accused of homosexual molestation in 1999. In sum, you allowed a priest whom you knew was sleeping with boys, and who already had a history of sexual misconduct, to continue as Superior General of the Society of St. John.

(6) YOUR LIES AND YOUR COVER-UP OF THE SSJ FINANCE AND SEX SCANDAL

From our very first conversation concerning Fr. Urrutigoity’s habit of sleeping with boys, you vehemently insisted that this habit was not immoral. You repeatedly claimed to have thoroughly investigated the Society and cleared them of any immorality, a lie that was then repeated by the Society to its donors. You yourself contacted donors directly and lied to them by claiming that I had not accused Fr. Urrutigoity of any immorality. And yet Bishop Dougherty, who knew better, had admitted that Fr. Urrutigoity was “grooming” young men for future sexual encounters.
You also insisted that the College of St. Justin Martyr remain associated with the Society even though you knew that Society priests were sleeping with boys. When I was compelled, in order to protect the College’s reputation, to dissociate the College from the Society, you suppressed the College even though the College had done no wrong. Later, under the pressure of adverse publicity, you contacted friends of the College and told them that you would allow the College of St. Justin Martyr to be established in your Diocese if I stopped my public and private criticism of Fr. Urrutigoity and the Society. When I wrote to you to inform you that I would not trade my silence for your permission for the College, you wrote back and again lied by denying that you had ever made such an offer.

Although Bishop Dougherty stated that Fr. Urrutigoity should be deposed, and that “radical intervention” was necessary to correct the Society’s wayward conduct, you failed to intervene in a principled manner. Indeed, when the Society’s developer tried to present you with his studies that demonstrated that the development was infeasible, you indicated that it was not necessary to discuss this matter. Why? Because, as you explained at the time, you had already decided that the Society’s property would have to be sold. Nonetheless, you continued to allow the Society to solicit funds for a development project that you admitted was “dead.” When Bishop Dougherty was asked whether your failure to take disciplinary action indicated that you were held hostage by the Society’s huge debt, he answered “yes.”

In short, the above demonstrates a consistent and determined effort on your part to cover up the scandal surrounding the Society, and to protect yourself and priests who have abused their spiritual office.

(7) YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCUSATION OF MOLESTATION AGAINST FR. ENSEY
You learned from my e-mail of December 8, 2001 that a minor had accused Fr. Ensey of repeatedly molesting him. Yet you waited for well over a month before removing Fr. Ensey from pastoral activity on the Society’s property. Had you made a genuine investigation of the Society in 1999 when a similar accusation was made against Fr. Urrutigoity, you would have learned then that Fr. Ensey was also a sexual predator who was molesting at least one boy at St. Gregory’s Academy.

(8) YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SSJ PRIESTS SLEEPING WITH YOUNG MEN

Over the course of the last six months, you have told me and others on numerous occasions that you do not consider priests sleeping with young men to be immoral. This is why you have refused to take disciplinary action against Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey, and why these priests have been able to pursue their perverse ends over a period of years.

The above known facts establish your gross negligence, Bishop Timlin, the consequence of which is that faith and lives have been severely damaged.

Yet even now you continue to talk about giving Fr. Urrutigoity the "benefit of the doubt" and treating him with "charity." All who are Catholic agree that charity is the law that must govern all our actions, but how can it be charitable to allow a sexual predator to continue to prey upon boys? Yours is a false notion of charity, Bishop Timlin, for it shows love for neither the victims nor even the predator himself, who must be stopped for his own good as well as for the good of those whom he seeks to abuse. Real charity would lead you to take salutary disciplinary action against Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey.

You speak freely of charity for the accused priests, yet I have never yet heard you use the word "charity" in reference to the victims. In fact, you have still failed to contact the parents of the boys who were exposed to the priests of the Society of St. John. When recently asked why you had not informed the parents, you responded that you did not know their names. Are we to believe you could not have picked up the telephone to contact St. Gregory's Academy in order to find out who these boys were? Your lack of care for the victims is evident for all to see.

In addition to coddling the predators while ignoring the real needs of their victims, you have accused me and others of "attacking the Church" because we have sought to expose the wicked deeds of these priests. Turning a flashlight on the cockroaches in the Church can hardly be construed as an attack on the Church herself. It is rather you, and others in the hierarchy like you, who are destroying our beloved Church, for you have repeatedly sought to bury the truth of these ugly matters. You have sought to protect your own reputation and sympathies while invoking the authority of your office against those who are bringing the truth to light. You purport to be defending the Church against scandal, but fear of scandal is never an excuse for allowing harm to be done to souls. Pope St. Gregory the Great said it best: "It is better that scandals arise than that the truth be suppressed."

As an anointed of Christ, you are obliged to protect the souls of your flock, even if your attorneys and insurance agents instruct you otherwise. Who is running the Church, you or they? Your decision merely to relocate Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey to Scranton, without even suspending them, is more of the same pattern of behavior suitable to a corrupt politician rather than a bishop of the Catholic Church. You are merely hedging your bets: if the bad publicity increases, you will stress the fact that you have removed these priests from pastoral life; but if the bad publicity decreases, you will allow them to return to Shohola, or to some other parish, where they will begin anew the cycle of abuse and deception. In the meantime, you have allowed Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey to receive young men in their company while they are supposedly sequestered in Scranton. Have you no conscience?

Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey must be immediately suspended, and canonical proceedings for their laicization initiated. Fr. Urrutigoity and Fr. Ensey, as Superior General and Chancellor, respectively, are the leaders of the Society of St. John. To uncover the extent to which their moral corruption has infected the rest of the Society, a full and independent investigation of the other clerics in the Society must be undertaken. The investigation must determine if the other clerics have been complicit in the sexual abuse of boys and the cover-up of such blatantly immoral and criminal acts. These clerics are: Fr. Daniel Fullerton, Fr. Basel Sarweh, Fr. Dominic Carey, Fr. Dominic O’Connor, Fr. Marshall Roberts, Fr. Bernardo Terrera, Deacon Joseph Levine, and Deacon James Lane.

Finally, Bishop Timlin, I ask you to find the moral courage to acknowledge your responsibility for the grave harm that you have done, and to resign as Bishop of Scranton, for you have repeatedly shown yourself unwilling to protect the souls entrusted to you by our Lord.

Sincerely,
Dr. Jeffrey M. Bond
President
College of St. Justin Martyr
142 Market Road
Greeley, PA 18425
570-685-5945
jmb@csjm.org
www.csjm.org



MORE INFORMATION:
# Scranton Scandal - A Follow-up: The bishop speaks (National Review Online)
# Scranton Scandal: Traditional Catholics are not immune to sex scandals (National Review Online)
# A Catholic community is shaken to its core (TimesLeader.com)
# Two priests relieved of duties as name of alleged victim surfaces (TimesLeader.com)
# Harboring Catholic priests who are sexual predators (Roman Catholic Faithful)

Benedict XVI Church's idealisation of sexuality may be root of abuse

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Church's idealisation of sexuality may be root of abuse

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1103/1224257961990.html

Tina Beattie

RITE AND REASON: THE RECENT papal encyclical Caritas in Veritate is in many ways a wise and insightful reflection on the economic crisis. However, given the scandal created by the Ryan report, the people of Ireland may have good reasons for refusing to engage with a papal encyclical, even if it addresses a different scandal that has devastated so many of their lives.


But I wonder if Caritas in Veritate inadvertently reveals some of the problems inherent in the modern church’s teaching about human sexuality in a way that sheds some light on the conditions that allow a hidden culture of sexual abuse to take root. Caritas in Veritate risks presenting a utopian ideal in its representation of marriage and the family, and this is part of the problem we have to address if the church is to become more effective and trustworthy in its ministries and teachings.


For much of its history, Catholicism has viewed all human sexuality with suspicion, with sex in marriage being acceptable only if its main purpose was procreation.


That attitude changed in the mid-20th century and, although openness to conception remains a sine qua non of sexual love, modern papal teachings acknowledge that married sex is good even when it has no procreative capacity.


But the pendulum has swung so far that we are now confronted with a romantic fantasy about marriage and the family that results in a naive and, I believe, dangerous attitude to sexuality.


The problem with high ideals is that they often fail to distinguish between the good, the not so good and the downright bad, so that everything short of perfection stands equally condemned.


Consciences that have been shaped by such moral absolutism may be unable to differentiate between the ordinary muddle of more or less healthy sexuality, and levels of sexual dysfunction that result in abusive and predatory behaviour.


At the level of priestly formation, if priests are not helped to understand and accept the complexity of their own and other people’s sexuality, a minority may end up trapped in a culture of loathing and contempt for sexual bodies and, for some, it may be a small step to visiting ever more extreme abuses on bodies that arouse sexual desire.


Caritas in Veritate refers to “the beauty of marriage and the family”; it affirms Humanae Vitae and it repeatedly condemns abortion. When it discusses concerns on population growth, it does so by warning about the dangers of under-population.


It makes no mention of HIV/ Aids and it is silent on questions of maternal mortality and women’s reproductive health, despite the fact that an estimated 536,000 women die every year from causes relating to pregnancy and childbirth, 99 per cent of them in developing countries. These are startling omissions.


This apparent indifference to the suffering of sexual bodies (fertile women and those who have HIV/Aids) has deep roots, and there may be hidden connections between a culture of sexual abuse and a culture of sexual idealisation.


Pope Benedict fails to take seriously the complex realities and sometimes the tragic failures of marriage and family life, and he makes no acknowledgment of the difficult decisions that often confront us in the areas of reproduction and sexuality. I doubt if Josef Fritzl’s daughter would agree with his reference to “the primary competence of the family in the area of sexuality”.


If the church seeks to avoid further sex abuse scandals, then it urgently needs to reconsider its theology of human sexuality. “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” says St Paul. That may be true, but in the area of sexuality some sins are worse than others, and until the church acknowledges that, we shall remain trapped between the devil and the deep blue sea when it comes to Catholicism and sex.

Dr Tina Beattie is professor of Catholic Studies at Roehampton University, London, and director of the Catholic weekly, the Tablet. She will give a lecture on the subject of this article at St Mary’s Church, Haddington Road, in Dublin on Thursday, November 5th, at 8pm
This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Benedict XVI welcomes Anglicans and mauls Anglican assets

Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei are so hypocritical in silencing the Jesuits like Jon Sobrino who work with the poor and censoring his book Jesus the Librator. And

Benedict and the Opus Dei - who covered-up the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army have "embraced" the Anglicans in order to seize their financial and prime-land assets. Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei are the only Catholics who serve both God (Escriva) and mammon (money). The Vatican Trinity is at work again in their deceptive schemes to achieve the WORLD DOMINATION AGENDA of the Opus Dei.

Vatican’s Come-Hither to Anglicans: A Theological Scandal

By Mary E. Hunt
October 22, 2009

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/1936/vatican%E2%80%99s_come-hither_to_anglicans%3A_a_theological_scandal

While the Catholic Church is touting its warm welcome to conservative Anglicans, it’s also a simple union of those who reject gay and women’s ordination.



The Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams share a moment in spring of 2008. Photo: ACNS Rosenthal.

The Vatican’s new scheme to lure unhappy conservative Anglicans into the fold might have caught the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams off guard, but Catholics are not surprised by anything Rome does to shore up its market share. Conservative clergy, whose opposition to the ordination of women and LGBTQ people motivated them to split from the Anglican Communion, are now welcome to switch to Catholicism.

Let history record this theological scandal for what it is. Touted by Rome as a step forward in ecumenical relations with a cousin communion, it is in fact the joining of two camps united in their rejection of women and queer people as unworthy of religious leadership.

A forthcoming Apostolic Constitution will spell out the details: Anglicans against ordination of women and LGBTQ people (like Bishop Gene Robinson, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/us/03bishop.html?_r=2 for example) are in full communion with Rome. Why bother, then, with individual conversion requirements or superfluous paperwork? These Anglicans can even make the transition as congregations or whole dioceses if they choose. They will be Catholics, but like the Eastern Rite Catholics they will do it their way. They can bring their own smells and bells and their Book of Common Prayer; even their own priests and bishops who will head the “Personal Ordinariates” which will function like dioceses. Come as you are, welcome to discriminate to your heart’s content in the name of God.

Rome changes not one whit on the arrival of the dissident Anglicans. It keeps in place its celibate clergy while welcoming married Anglican men with gusto. I predict more than a little consternation in the Roman ranks on that score. Current policy allows Lutheran and Episcopal married priests to jump the fence with the family in tow. Yet Roman Catholic men who wish to marry, never mind Roman Catholic women who might even agree to celibacy, are prohibited from being ordained. No Roman Catholic official seems to be able to say in a straightforward way why this is the case. They mumble something about tradition and certain distinctions. But the rhetoric is increasingly thin as they defend the indefensible against their own practice. It is not pretty.

Rome maintains its liturgy and theology wholly intact. Theological education stays the same, with the addition of small formation groups for Anglican candidates for the priesthood who can appreciate their own “patrimony” while also getting a good dose of Roman thought. In no way does the Vatican engage the issues that led to the English Reformation in the sixteenth century. Rather, Rome pretends to be flexible and modern about all this, gracious and accommodating like a fox. When the property fights begin, I predict the niceties will give way to some serious struggles and we will see just how accommodating Rome can’t be.

Denominations are businesses, after all, and as such they pay as much attention to the bottom line as to their teachings. Maybe more so. In this case, the low-hanging fruit is British Anglicans who have not figured out how to reorganize themselves in light of their denomination’s changes. Early word from the US group led by the Rev. Martyn Minns of Virginia http://www.worldmag.com/webextra/14418 is that they are in fine shape, thank you, setting up their own structures so they will not need to convert.

One wonders how long they can resist Rome’s charms. Imagine the real estate opportunities as US Roman Catholic churches close and conservative Anglicans need buildings. Think of the brilliant solution to the priest shortage as guaranteed-to-toe-the-line Anglican priests replace the Roman boys as they die off and/or think for themselves. Conjure the sight of high mass with a raft of altar servers and incense so abundant it makes parishioners forget there ever was a Vatican II. For the more “Catholic” among the Anglican dissidents, it is a marriage made in heaven. But the more evangelical of the conservative Anglicans may well consider it their worst nightmare.

What is to prevent other denominations from following Rome’s lead? For example, what if the Anglican Communion set up a Catholic wing where those Roman Catholics who believe in the ordination of women and same-sex loving clergy could be Anglicans of the Roman Catholic Rite? The Mennonites might create a Catholic rite for those who follow them on peace issues, resulting in Catholic Mennonites. I doubt it. It is more likely that Rome might decide that one does not even have to be Christian; that discrimination against women and gays is enough of a common bond to create some Catholics of the Muslim rite, for example. The permutations are endless but the result is the same: a perversion of everything the ecumenical movement has stood for in the last hundred years. Ecumenical Christians have tried to learn about one another’s traditions and find positive places of agreement—not little pockets of shared prejudice.

I feel sorry for Rowan Williams if he did not know what he was up against when he engaged in bilateral relations with Rome, only to be subject to its treachery. Beleaguered on all sides in his own communion, he now presides over the potential exodus of some of his members who will find in the new dispensation a comfortable place to live out their outmoded ideas of humanity. I only hope Williams and company are consoled by the fact that they are in good company among ecumenical colleagues who respect one another’s traditions, understand the dynamics of internal struggles, and resist the temptation to profit from one another’s problems. Rome, on the other hand, is in a class—however low—by itself.


===

Vatican seeks to lure disaffected Anglicans have caught the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams off guard



by The Associated Press
3_Britain_Anglican_Catholic_Church.sff.jpg

Associated PressBritain's Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, left, from the Anglican church listens as Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols, unseen, from the Roman Catholic Church speaks during a news conference in London, held in reaction to the announcement of a new church structure for Anglicans who want to join the Catholic Church, Tuesday Oct. 20, 2009. Pope Benedict XVI has created a new church structure for Anglicans who want to join the Catholic Church, responding to the disillusionment of some Anglicans over the ordination of women and the election of openly gay bishops.


1_Vatican_Anglicans.sff.jpg
Associated Press

Cardinal William Levada, right, the Vatican's chief doctrinal official, flanked by Archbishop Joseph Augustine Di Noia, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, speaks at a news conference at the Vatican, Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2009. The Vatican has made it easier for Anglicans to join the Catholic Church, responding to the disillusionment of some Anglicans over the election of openly gay bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions. Pope Benedict XVI approved a new church provision that will allow Anglicans to convert while maintaining many of their distinctive spiritual and liturgical traditions, Cardinal William Levada, the Vatican's chief doctrinal official, told a news conference Tuesday.


2_Britain_Vatican_Anglicans.sff.jpg
Associated Press

Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams from the Anglican church speaks during a news conference in London, held in reaction to the announcement of a new church structure for Anglicans who want to join the Catholic Church, Tuesday Oct. 20, 2009.

Pope Benedict XVI has created a new church structure for Anglicans who want to join the Catholic Church, responding to the disillusionment of some Anglicans over the ordination of women and the election of openly gay bishops.


VATICAN CITY October 20, 2009, 09:31 pm ET

The Vatican announced Tuesday it was making it easier for Anglicans to convert to Roman Catholicism — a surprise move designed to entice traditionalists opposed to women priests, openly gay clergy and the blessing of same-sex unions.

The decision, reached in secret by a small cadre of Vatican officials, was sure to add to the problems of the 77-million-strong Anglican Communion as it seeks to deal with deep doctrinal divisions that threaten a permanent schism among its faithful.

The change means conservative Anglicans from around the world will be able to join the Catholic Church while retaining aspects of their Anglican liturgy and identity, including married priests. Until now, disaffected Anglicans had joined the church primarily on a case by case basis.

"The unity of the church does not require a uniformity that ignores cultural diversity, as the history of Christianity shows," said Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in announcing the decision.

The spiritual leader of the global Anglican church, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, was not consulted about the change and was informed only hours before the announcement. He nevertheless tried to downplay the significance and said it wasn't a Vatican commentary on Anglican problems.

"It has no negative impact on the relations of the communion as a whole to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole," he said in London.

The decision could undermine decades of talks between the Vatican and Anglican leaders over how they could possibly reunite. Although Levada insisted such discussions remain a priority, the Vatican move could be taken as a signal that the ultimate goal of ecumenical talks is to convert Anglicans to Catholicism.

Still, the decision confirmed Pope Benedict XVI's design of creating a unified, tradition-minded Catholic Church — a goal he outlined at the start of his pontificate and has been steadily implementing ever since.

This drive also involved a recent move to rehabilitate four excommunicated ultra-conservative bishops, including one who denied the full extent of the Holocaust, in a bid to bring their faithful back under the Vatican's wing.

Levada made the announcement hours after briefing Williams and Catholic bishops in London about the decision. Notably, no one from the Vatican's ecumenical office on relations with Anglicans attended; Levada said he had invited representatives but they said they were all away from Rome.

Austen Ivereigh, a former adviser to the Catholic archbishop of Westminster, called the Vatican announcement historic because it allowed for the "gradual absorption into the Catholic Church of huge numbers of Anglicans," who are conservative in their theology and liturgy.

Until now, Anglicans had been allowed to join the church primarily on an individual basis. With the new provision, groups of Anglicans from around the world will be able to join new parishes headed by former Anglican prelates, who will provide spiritual guidance to Anglicans who wish to be Catholic. Called personal ordinariates, they will be established within local Catholic dioceses.

The new provision also allows married Anglican priests and even seminarians to become ordained Catholic priests — much the same way that Eastern rite priests who are in communion with Rome are allowed to be married. However, married Anglicans cannot become Catholic bishops.

A model for the future exists in the United States, where a handful of such parishes function — including three in Texas — thanks to a 1980 Vatican decision to accommodate Episcopal faithful and priests who wanted to convert. These parishes use a Vatican-approved Book of Divine Worship, based on the Book of Common Prayer, that includes Catholic and Anglican rituals, said Monsignor William Stetson, who manages the initiative.

The new entity is also modeled on Catholic military ordinariates, special units of the church established in most countries to provide spiritual care for members of the armed forces and their dependents.

In addition, within the Catholic Church there are ancient communities in the Middle East and others in Eastern Europe that follow different rites and allow married priests while remaining loyal to the pope.

The new model doesn't create a new rite, but rather an Anglicanized liturgy within the Latin rite.

Levada said Tuesday's announcement was in response to many requests that have come to the Vatican over the years from Anglicans disillusioned with the progressive bent of the Anglican Communion. Some have already left and consider themselves Catholic but have not found an official home in the 1.1-billion strong Catholic Church.

Levada declined to give exact figures, though he said 30 to 40 bishops had been in touch, accounting for a few hundred would-be converts.

One group, known as the Traditional Anglican Communion, has publicly stated its desire to join the Catholic Church. The group, which split from the Anglican Communion in 1990, says it has 400,000 members in 41 countries, although only about half are regular churchgoers.

"This is a moment of grace, perhaps even a moment of history, not because the past is undone but because the past is transformed," the group's leader, Archbishop John Hepworth said in a statement welcoming the Vatican decision.

Anglicans split with Rome in 1534 when English King Henry VIII was refused a marriage annulment.

Since then, the Anglican Communion, which includes the Episcopalian Church in the United States, has fashioned itself as a kind of big tent of fellowship with a wide variety of worship styles and theological outlooks that include Anglo-Catholics.

It's not known how many Anglicans consider themselves Anglo-Catholic. However, the biggest impact of the Vatican announcement is likely to be felt in England, where the Church of England has been involved in a bitter battle over whether female priests can become bishops. British Anglicans opposed to the ordination of women simply leave and join the Catholic Church.

The announcement is likely to have far less impact in the U.S., where many Anglo-Catholics left the Episcopal Church more than a decade ago. More recently, four theologically conservative Episcopal dioceses and dozens of individual parishes broke away and formed a rival church in North America.

Still, no one expects a sudden mass exodus out of the Anglican Communion because of the Vatican announcement.

"We're not talking floodgates," said Paul Handley, editor of the Church Times a London-based weekly that covers Anglican affairs.
"There are a significant number of people who remain loyal Anglicans who will be seriously (tried) by this," he said, adding that they may want to remain part of the Church of England but will "feel increasingly exposed if their friends start disappearing to Rome."

Some Anglo-Catholics who have not yet left the Anglican fold could choose to stay for a variety of reasons, including a desire to avoid lengthy and expensive battles over parish property. Others may oppose the ruling that married Anglicans cannot become Catholic bishops.

The Rev. Christopher Stainbrook, pastor of St. Timothy's Episcopal Church, an Anglo-Catholic parish that is part of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, Texas, said it was far too soon to know the implications for his parish or others like it in the U.S.

Indeed, Levada made clear that the next step — publication of the pope's Apostolic Constitution outlining the new provision — would be the start of a lengthy process of consultation with Catholic bishops around the world about how to implement the change.

Still, Stainbrook and other traditionalist Anglican groups were elated by the Vatican announcement.

While some Anglicans will want to remain in the Anglican Communion, others "will begin to form a caravan, rather like the People of Israel crossing the desert in search of the Promised Land," said two traditionalist Anglican clerics in Britain, Bishop Andrew Burnham of Ebbsfleet and Bishop Keith Newton of Richborough.

The Anglican Communion has been divided for decades over interpreting the Bible on many issues, including ordaining women. But the rift blew wide open in 2003 when the Episcopal Church consecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.
Williams has struggled ever since to keep the church from splitting, frustrated by moves by churches in the United States, Canada and elsewhere to bless gay relationships.

At least four conservative U.S. dioceses and dozens of individual Episcopal parishes have voted to leave the national denomination, with many affiliating themselves with like-minded Anglican leaders in Africa and elsewhere.
———
Associated Press writers Rachel Zoll in New York and Gregory Katz and Robert Barr in London contributed to this report.



Friday, October 23, 2009

Mary Hunt on Vatican's Come-Hither to Anglicans: A Perversion of the Ecumenical Movement

I'd like to add another article to the list I compiled yesterday of valuable commentary about Benedict's embrace of Anglican dissidents. Mary Hunt published a brilliant statement yesterday at Religion Dispatches, entitled "Vatican's Come-Hither to Anglicans: A Theological Scandal."

Though lots of centrist types are trying to dance around the misogyny and homophobia that are driving Benedict's warm welcome of Anglican dissidents (and more on that below), Hunt is unambiguous about what this initiative is all about:

Let history record this theological scandal for what it is. Touted by Rome as a step forward in ecumenical relations with a cousin communion, it is in fact the joining of two camps united in their rejection of women and queer people as unworthy of religious leadership.

As she also notes, the way in which Rome has proceeded with this announcement is a betrayal of the Anglican communion and of ecumenism--a stab in the back to Rowan Williams and the worldwide Anglican communion, which does not place the Catholic church in an admirable moral light:

The permutations are endless but the result is the same: a perversion of everything the ecumenical movement has stood for in the last hundred years. Ecumenical Christians have tried to learn about one another’s traditions and find positive places of agreement -- not little pockets of shared prejudice.

I feel sorry for Rowan Williams if he did not know what he was up against when he engaged in bilateral relations with Rome, only to be subject to its treachery. Beleaguered on all sides in his own communion, he now presides over the potential exodus of some of his members who will find in the new dispensation a comfortable place to live out their outmoded ideas of humanity. I only hope Williams and company are consoled by the fact that they are in good company among ecumenical colleagues who respect one another’s traditions, understand the dynamics of internal struggles, and resist the temptation to profit from one another’s problems. Rome, on the other hand, is in a class, however low, by itself.


I highly recommend Mary Hunt's article, and encourage readers to read the entire text.

Meanwhile, I'd like to note that Jamie L. Manson, whose National Catholic Reporter piece about the recent Roman initiative I recommended yesterday, is under heavy attack at the NCR blogsite on which she published her fine statement. I have to say, I anticipated this attack.


I've noted a troubling tendency of male critics to pile on when a younger woman writer makes a courageous statement like this at the NCR site. Even one of the big names of American religious journalism, a figure not known for his sympathy for gay causes and gay rights, has logged in to question the credentials of Jamie L. Manson.


Which tells me that her truth-telling has hit a nerve--and I intend to try to contact her to tell her that and to offer her support. It's fascinating that many male religionists, including big-name and purportedly "objective" ones, seem unable to hear this kind of plain truth spoken by women, and, in particular, by younger women writers. The old boys' network is clearly rattled when women get out of their places.


I wonder why that is.

African nuns tell Vatican they want more influence: Shut-up Opus Dei-Pope!



To the Opus Dei, all nuns must submit to the authority of the Opus Dei-Pope and they must parrot the writings of John Paul II (whose books they authored). But nuns in Africa and elsewhere in the world do not live in the ivory towers and palace of the Vatican amidst luxury and pompous daily ceremonies. Benedict and the Opus Dei are so filthy rich that they are out-of-touch-with-reality and so they silence all the Jesuits and Jon Sobrino who speak for the poor. Now the nuns are also speaking out against the hypocritical and mythical infallibility of the Opus Dei Pope Benedict XVI.

African nuns tell Vatican they want more influence

By Nicole winfield (AP)

VATICAN CITY — African nuns told a Vatican meeting Friday they want more of a say in running the Catholic Church on the continent, saying they have special talents and shouldn't be left to clean churches and mend vestments.

Women also have an important role to play in forging reconciliation in Africa's many tribal and ethnic conflicts — the main focus of the 3-week-long Vatican meeting on Africa, said Sister Pauline Odia Bukasa of Congo.

"We, your mothers and religious sisters, ask you — our fathers and bishops in this church-family — to promote the dignity of women," she said, requesting in particular greater emphasis on educating young girls.

Sister Felicia Harry of Ghana was more blunt, saying African nuns didn't want to usurp priests' powers but wanted to be part of the church's decision-making process.
"As well as teach catechism to children, decorate parish churches, clean, mend and sew vestments, we religious women in Africa would like to be part of various parish councils," she said, according to a summary of her remarks to the closed meeting.


The role of women in the church has been a recurring topic of discussion among the 300 prelates at the meeting, which is hearing testimony from bishops around the continent about their particular problems and advice from colleagues and Vatican officials on how to deal with them.

Ghana Bishop Matthew Kwasi Gyamfi said the Vatican needed to address a particular issue that many African priests face concerning polygamous marriages: A woman who married a man who then took other wives isn't allowed to receive certain sacraments because she is in a marriage that the church cannot bless.

He said when the women have walked away from such marriages without the consent of their husbands, "the church has been cited for injustice, insecurity, breaking up families, fomenting disunity and destroying social cohesion," he told the synod in asking for some special exemptions from Rome so such women can participate fully in the sacramental life of the church.

In addition to the role of women, the synod has addressed issues that are increasingly of concern to the broader church: how to deal with the rapid spread of Islam and Pentecostal churches, which are increasingly drawing away many Catholics.

Bishop Alfred Adewale Martins of Nigeria said it seemed the aggressive proselytizing of many neo-Pentecostal communities "aims at bringing down the Catholic Church both in her influence as well as in the number of her faithful."

"This intention is captured in the way some of them refer to the Catholic Church as the dead church," he said, urging the Vatican to reach out in particular to young professional Africans who are increasingly targeted by the new churches.

While such problems are universal, a purely African problem has also been raised: tribal and ethnic conflicts within the African church hierarchy.

Bishop Albert Vanbuel of the Central African Republic said recent months have seen increasingly bitter divisions between priests, bishops and laymen fueled by tribal and ethnic divisions.

"Our church is called on to show a witness ... of reconciliation, justice and peace, and above all of communion," he said.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press.

Few US diocese willing to pay for Benedict XVI witch hunt on US nuns

So Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei want to seize the financial assets of the American nuns -- by ordering them to submit to them like parrots and slaves. To the Opus Dei, women are second class citizens. But the American nuns are too well educated to become subservient to those Latin black gowned Opus Dei eunuchs. Those American nuns fight for justice like the Jesuits and Jon Sobrino. And the Opus Dei have silenced Jon Sobrino, now it is the American nuns' turn to be investigated, notificated and silenced. The Opus Dei are the worst news in the Catholic Church.


Few dioceses admit willingness to pay for visitation

Oct. 26, 2009
By Judy Gross
http://ncronline.org/news/women/few-dioceses-admit-willingness-pay-visitation
* Women

© Joseph Cortes | Dreamstime.com

Just two of 61 U.S. archdioceses and dioceses contacted by NCR said they would dip into local church coffers to support the Vatican's controversial visitation of U.S. women religious congregations.

NCR called and e-mailed every archdiocese in the country, as well as a sampling of 29 dioceses across time zones. Twenty-two archdioceses responded to the inquiry, while only seven dioceses did. Many refused to comment, while others cited the difficult economy as a reason they would not contribute to the three-year visitation process, which the Vatican estimates will cost $1.1 million.

Cardinal Franc Rodé, head of the Vatican's Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, has asked the U.S. bishops to support the three-year study. "I am asking you, my brother bishops, for your help in offsetting the expenses which will be incurred by this work for the future of apostolic religious life in the United States," Rodé said in a July 14 letter to every U.S. bishop. If every one of the 178 Latin rite dioceses contributed equally, the tab would be nearly $6,200 each.

"There are several orders that have their roots in our archdiocese and the archbishop, Joseph Kurtz, has communicated his desire to cooperate with this visitation," said Cecelia Price, spokeswoman for the Louisville, Ky., archdiocese. In addition, said Price, "it is customary that expenses related to initiatives of the Holy See ... are shared by the U.S. diocese."

This sentiment was shared by Salt Lake City Bishop John Wester, according to spokeswoman Colleen Gudreau. "We cooperate with all church activities," she said.
Custom notwithstanding, several dioceses indicated they will pass on this collection. "We have no vested interest in this, as we have no institutes of religious in this diocese, so I see no reason to contribute," Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Ore., told NCR.

"We are not going to be able to contribute," said Los Angeles archdiocesan spokesperson Tod Tamberg. The archdiocese, he said, is facing tough financial times. "I'm calling from a cubicle in a rented warehouse the diocese used to own. We've had no pay raises for clergy or staff in two years."

Meanwhile, Deacon Jake Arellano of the Pueblo, Colo., diocese said, "We do not have the funds to support this. We are settling 26 clergy abuse cases and we are a mission diocese. We are hurting."

Others, such as Omaha, Neb., Archbishop George Lucas, are keeping their decisions private. "He hasn't made a decision and he won't discuss it when he does," said a spokesperson for Lucas.

Likewise, Jim Goodness, spokesman for Newark, N.J., Archbishop John Myers, said, "The archbishop makes these decisions privately."

In Chicago, archdiocesan spokesperson Colleen Dolan said, "Cardinal Francis George does not discuss his personal correspondence between the Vatican and himself."
Cincinnati Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk "has not responded to Cardinal Rodé," according to spokesperson Dan Andriacco.

No response or "no comment" came from the archdioceses of Washington; Denver; Hartford, Conn.; Santa Fe, N.M.; Oklahoma City, Okla.; Galveston-Houston; New Orleans; St. Paul-Minneapolis; Philadelphia; Boston; San Francisco; Anchorage, Alaska; and Indianapolis.

New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan's spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, said he asked three chancery staff about the Rodé letter, and "nobody knows what I am talking about."

In the Baltimore archdiocese, communications director Sean Caine sent a recent column by Archbishop Edwin O'Brien by way of response. "I cannot help but see some reactions on the sisters' part which were very similar to those on the part of formation and seminary personnel at the announcement of both prior visitations," wrote O'Brien. "Why us? Why now? Why the secrecy? Have we done something wrong?"

He continued, "In time, once the process gained momentum, most of the seminaries accepted the visitation and in the end even found it most beneficial. I hope and pray the same will be said about the current visitation."

Judy Gross writes from Tallahassee, Fla.
If and when pressed by Rome,

Submitted by John Chuchman (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.

If and when pressed by Rome, those wishing a red hat will, indeed, stuff the coffers.

* reply

So much for the touted
Submitted by John Boos (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
So much for the touted solidarity in the Church, even when some dioceses are "hurting".

* reply

Interesting how bishops
Submitted by Dr. Art C. Donart (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Interesting how bishops figure it is their decision alone whether or not to support this witch hunt withour money! My stance is: "No say; no pay."

* reply

I would also ask a simple
Submitted by Charles Bolser (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.

I would also ask a simple question. Seminaries, Womens Religious Congregations, and others have some obvious need for oversight and evaluation for the purposes of correction, renewal, etc. Who evaluates the Curia and the college of bishops, which includes the Pope? Checks and balances are seen as important and necessary, but why is this process always one way - and that is from the top. Good managerial practices include evaluation of the entire organization - even the Roman Catholic Church. When those on top of the pyramid forget to listen to the entire community and hold themselves accountable to the CHURCH - then we get into deep trouble. Why, for instance, have the bishops not been evaluated and held accountable for their responsibility for the expansion of the sexual abuse crisis? Why do the bishops hold themselves above and apart from the wider commuinity? They appear to act like the congressmen and senators who pass laws for everybody but themselves, but even these politicians have to place their names up for re-election on a regular basis. Unless of ccourse, they are acting as an oligarchy, choosing their own successors and beholden to no one.

* reply

I could not have said it
Submitted by Pat Joyce (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I could not have said it better. Coodos to the writer. Everyone, even the bishops should be held accountable to the people they serve..the other denominations do.11

* reply

I am informing my parish that
Submitted by Ron B. (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I am informing my parish that ALL monies donated by me are to remain within the parish for specific parish needs. Nothing to the bishop or Rome! Nothing until they rid themselves of their arrogance and insensitivity to our real needs - married clergy and openness to ordained women. Nothing! CRS and Covenant House certainly will get something when I have it. Nothing until this insulting "investigation" is cancelled!

* reply

Me too :)
Submitted by Marie N (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Me too :)

* reply

Good luck. The only way to
Submitted by nancy in fort worth (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Good luck. The only way to ensure that none of money goes to Rome is to not give the parish the money in the first place.

* reply

"Married clergy and openness
Submitted by Michael B (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
"Married clergy and openness to ordained women" constitute real needs? Apparently Ron B has decided what the Church's "real needs" are, and many Americans agree with him. On the other hand, many Americans, and most Africans, don't. Ron B complains about Rome's "arrogance." Well, his little letter sounds utterly arrogant to me.

* reply

Why would any diocese want to
Submitted by Ivan07 (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Why would any diocese want to pay for this 'visit?' If Rome feels as though it is needed, then let Rome pay for it!

* reply

STAY ON IT, NCR. Help us to
Submitted by Craig B. McKee, Hong Kong (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
STAY ON IT, NCR. Help us to FOLLOW THE MONEY!
"NCR called and e-mailed every archdiocese in the country, as well as a sampling of 29 dioceses across time zones."

* reply

Amen to that! and...please
Submitted by Lena (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Amen to that! and...please support NCR's work!

* reply

$1 million could feed a lot
Submitted by BronxLady (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
$1 million could feed a lot of hungry people; seems like they could do it for less. Also, the Vatican ought to have enough money to self-finance its studies.

* reply

"Also, the Vatican ought to
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
"Also, the Vatican ought to have enough money to self-finance its studies."
Ah, no, that's why they're so interested in those wealthy Anglicans!

* reply

a message should be sent,
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
a message should be sent, enthusiastically, telling the vatican the 'inquiry' is unnecessary, disrespectful, and seen by many laity as a witch hunt that will yield no Christ-like result either for the personnel that come from Rome or for the American religious who are so very deserving of every positive tribute that can come from the vatican.....further, to the 'vatican'... : if you want the trip, break open your own copious piggy bank and pay for it....... -

* reply

The "Private" decicions and
Submitted by Googie (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
The "Private" decicions and "no comment" responses to the individual dioceses is exactly what I'm doing when I hear any further requests for donations of any kind from my parish that may find their way into the coffers supporting the visitation. More accurately, I won't participate further in this closed, secretive "pay, pray and obey" mentality.
Where do these bishops think the money comes from other than from contributions? Any money they EVER receive isn't theirs to cloak in secrecy. It is generously given to them. They have an obligation to disclose where every penny goes. I've said it before, I'm done, put a fork in me. Ludicrous...

* reply

One reason the Bishops may
Submitted by Stevie (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
One reason the Bishops may not have paid is because the have not had time to consider it. They are too busy completing a SECRET questionnaire about women religious sent to them by the Vatican. This is to be a confidential matter but several good bishops let the cat out of the bag.

* reply

Stevie: Is the bishops
Submitted by dennism (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Stevie: Is the bishops questionairre different from the one that went to the Sisters? If so, can you share it?

* reply

I think that we have much in
Submitted by essay writers (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I think that we have much in common with O'Brien

* reply

I have two thoughts on this.
Submitted by Pat Mertz (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I have two thoughts on this. 1)This would be a great chance for dioceses and archdioceses to publicly stand up for the sisters who work in their diocese (which apparently is not happening anywehre), and 2)$1.1 million could go a long way in works of justice.

* reply

2 very good thoughts--I
Submitted by sr. ellen zak (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
2 very good thoughts--I agree!

* reply

Dear Pat Metz, I doubt that
Submitted by Stevie (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Dear Pat Metz,
I doubt that bishops will stand in solidarity with women religious since some of the bishops called for this visitation/inquisition. Naturally, we won't know who they are because everything surrounding the visitation is SECRET, SECRET, SECRET. Those who have no personal power use SECRECY...this power is an illusion but don't tell those in authority they might cry...in SECRET of course.

* reply

Let us hope that when the
Submitted by Sheila Croke (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Let us hope that when the Vatican officials discern the lack of interest and support for this "visitation", they will permanently retire this suggestion that reflects poorly on the source.

* reply

Why should a very small
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Why should a very small diocese be billed the same amount as a HUGE ARCHDIOCESE? It is like a man who has a large flock of sheep taking a lamb from the table of a poor man. It is an unwelcome charge for an unwelcome process. At least be fair in assessing charges.

* reply

Rome has never been on the
Submitted by nancy in fort worth (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Rome has never been on the side of fairness when it comes to internal matters. They really don't practice what they preach.

* reply

The only way to ensure the
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
The only way to ensure the bishops do not contribute to the fund is for us to withhold all contributions to our churches until the bishops unequivocally state they will not contribute to this witch hunt. Money is the only weapon we have and money is what is most important to the hierarchy, just behind power. There are many woman's religious orders that could use our money toward their retirement funds.

* reply

As for bishops keeping their
Submitted by Rachel (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
As for bishops keeping their decision to fund or not to fund secret, they owe transparency to ALL the people of their diocese...afterall, it's the people's money, not the bishop's.
The secrecy just oozes and drips from this entire "visitation".

* reply

Of course, the diocese should
Submitted by patricia p. normile (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Of course, the diocese should not pay for this inquisition! Good for the
decision makers in this cause.

* reply

"There are several orders
Submitted by Joseph Jaglowicz (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
"There are several orders that have their roots in our archdiocese and the archbishop, Joseph Kurtz, has communicated his desire to cooperate with this visitation," says a spokeswoman for the Louisville archdiocese.
I'm not surprised.
Kurtz chairs the U.S. bishops' marriage committee, and, if the draft "pastoral" letter on this subject is any indication, he shares the general ignorance of his fellow hierarchs on the subject.
About a year after his arrival in Louisville, he told all parishes to install (or reinstall) kneelers.
Kurtz also was scheduled to speak before the Opus Dei regional meeting in Chicago earlier this year (this trip was discreetly mentioned in the archdiocesan paper). So far as I know, we've learned nothing of his remarks, etc. at this event.
It would seem that Kurtz is like virtually all of his fellow hierarchs: not from the local see he manages, an ecclesial "suckup" to Rome, ad nauseum.
And the institutional crap continues......

* reply

My understanding is that, if
Submitted by Sam Weller (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
My understanding is that, if the bishops do not help to underwrite the cost of this debacle, then the entire cost will somehow be charged to the religious congregations. Have I missed something? I have never read anything indicating that the Vatican has any intention of paying for this witch hunt.

* reply

Just because a diocese didn't
Submitted by TNCath (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Just because a diocese didn't respond to your request or is not contributing does not necessarily mean that the bishop of that diocese does not support the Apostolic Visitation. Whether or not diocese contribute or not, the Apostolic Visitation will take place. Sorry. This is a non-story.
I can't wait for your next attempt at sabotaging the process. Maybe your next story's headline will be "Nun Bites Bishop as Bishop Writes Check for Apostolic Visitation"?

* reply

Follow the money: No
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Follow the money: No funding; no visitation.

* reply

Praise God! The Spirit is,
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Praise God! The Spirit is, indeed, moving throughout our land.

* reply

Wow! Will the hierarchy of
Submitted by Gabrielle Azzaro (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Wow! Will the hierarchy of the Catholic church never cease to amaze us? How dare the Vatican ask dioceses to pay for the visitation when it is the Vatican that has asked for the inquisition?! Diocese have nothing to do with religious women! Some diocese probably don't even have any congregations left in them any more! These men really are brazen in carrying their power - not true authority, but power - to the limit! I hope all the bishops tell them to find another source of income for this lame excuse of an inquiry to find out about the "quality of life" of religious women.

* reply

I completely concur wih
Submitted by Elizabeth Fitting (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I completely concur wih "anonymous" who said: "The only way to ensure the bishops do not contribute to the fund is for us to withhold all contributions to our churches until the bishops unequivocally state they will not contribute to this witch hunt. Money is the only weapon we have and money is what is most important to the hierarchy, just behind power. There are many woman's religious orders that could use our money toward their retirement funds."
In addition, I would add that this is a wonderful opportunity to let the Vatican know where we, the laity, stand on how their assumption that we shouldn't have a voice in decisions or the direction of the Church. Maybe they will finally begin to listen to what we want in our church besides a return to a pre-Vatican mentality with its rules,regulations, censures and secret investigations. Money talks.

* reply

Does any one else find this a
Submitted by JH (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Does any one else find this a strange line:
-Meanwhile, Deacon Jake Arellano of the Pueblo, Colo., diocese said, "We do not have the funds to support this. We are settling 26 clergy abuse cases and we are a mission diocese. We are hurting."-
And it is the sisters who are being investigated? Huh?

* reply

I just sent in my check!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I just sent in my check!

* reply

I would like to see NCR do
Submitted by Rev. Louis Arceneaux, c.m. (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I would like to see NCR do some exploring about this "confidential" questionnaire sent to bishops about religious women. What is this all about?

* reply

I suspect the money will be
Submitted by Northcountry1 (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I suspect the money will be coming--secretly. Notice the conservatives in Chicago and Newark don't discuss anything when it comes to money. They live a life of secrets. Rode must be regretting his announcement of asking for the money. This won't happen again. Back to the secrets. And to complete the circle of secrecy---the report will be secret. Kafka where are you now that we need you? So some day something will happen to the nuns. But they will be sworn to secrecy.

* reply

I'm sure I speak for many
Submitted by Chris Cudmore (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I'm sure I speak for many Australian Catholics who are similarly offended by the "visitation" and the request for alms to fund the unwanted intervention.

* reply

Oh Lord that the arrogant
Submitted by Edie HuntAnonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Oh Lord that the arrogant hierarchy living in luxury on yhe backs of the faithful, rich and poor, would only follow in Christs Footsteps and not that of the greedy, worldly, selfish, profligates that abound everywhere.

* reply

How much money are Catholics
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
How much money are Catholics wasting by supporting the livelihoods of worldly-minded women's religious whose loyalties to the Church and belief in Jesus have been replaced by pure ideology? The Catholic faithful trust women religious as representatives of the Catholic Church, but it seems that nothing could be farther from the truth. The only reason, no doubt, that many women religious remain Catholic in name is so that they can suck their livelihood from the ever-trusting faithful.

* reply

Yes, WITHHOLD ALL MONEY, not
Submitted by Chris Smith (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Yes, WITHHOLD ALL MONEY, not one penny should go for this degrading and humiliating witch hunt of our women Religious. It would be like funding a far right political group like the" BIrchers" because this entire campaign is nothing but a political witch hunt and a very shameful one at that. This really needs to receive as much attention in the media as possible. Follow the money, NCR and you will find more than you expect.

* reply

Being a Chicago Catholic, I'm
Submitted by Kathmary (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Being a Chicago Catholic, I'm not at all surprised by the comment
"In Chicago, archdiocesan spokesperson Colleen Dolan said, "Cardinal Francis George does not discuss his personal correspondence between the Vatican and himself."
However, I think that since monies sent from the archdiocese to the Vatican would be coming from the parish collections, he needs to be a little less arrogant and a little more open.

* reply

I once attended a parish
Submitted by Victoria Martin (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
I once attended a parish meeting in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, where the pastor put the question to the Laity as to whether their parish should contribute to the appeal by Cardinal Roger Mahony to donate to cover the costs of the clergy sexual abuse lawsuits. I'm very proud to say those good people voted, "NO".
Now we have the Vatican City State asking the "People in the Pews" to pay for an investigation of, probably, the hardest working people in the Catholic Church; our Women Religious. It is an insult to these Good Women of the Church who, through their self sacrifice and devotion, are the only thing left that is good about our church.
I agree that the male Clergy, the Bishops and the Cardinals of the Church are more in need of a "cleansing" than the Roman Catholic Women Religious.

* reply

Where's the TRANSPARENCY with
Submitted by Dr. Dale (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
Where's the TRANSPARENCY with OUR money Archbishop John Myers?? Please respond. Here's your opportunity to catechize. Are you truly a shepherd of your flock or a wolf in sheep's clothing? I'm not holding my breath and your silence will speak volumes.

* reply

For once some bishops are
Submitted by jakecarm (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
For once some bishops are responding to Rome the way they should. It's the Vatican's idea to do this idiotic "investigation"; let them pay for it.

* reply

No money for Rome's witch
Submitted by Paula Nettleship (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
No money for Rome's witch hunt. The $1.1 million would be better spent on the nuns who have served us selflessly, working for pittance.

* reply

The bishop brothers have been
Submitted by Augusta Wynn (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
The bishop brothers have been asked to pay for the investigation of their religious sisters by the very men who have led us into the clergy sex abuse crisis, and Bishop Wester thinks it appropriate.
Too bad Bishop Wester doesn't send the money directly to the nuns themselves, to help them in the care of their elderly. Too bad all the bishops don't do the same.
Too bad Bishop Wester "cooperates with all church activities." You think there might be some he'd be ashamed of.
AW

* reply

What a sad day it is when the
Submitted by Elizabeth A. (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
What a sad day it is when the Church, the clergy in Rome, does not know when to honor the ones who have done so much work for the church, the women religious congregations, and now are after the money of the poorest of the poor, the ones who still feel that the church needs to be supported in order to get the benefits from the faith they hold dear. I do not get it.

* reply

It is revelatory that our
Submitted by outsidethebox (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
It is revelatory that our fearless leaders have nothing to say beyond "No comment".

* reply

There are enough ultra
Submitted by Eddie (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
There are enough ultra conservative, one issue, folks in the pews to finance the whole damn inquisition. Let them pay for it.
Where are the Bishops going to get the $$$$'s to cover the cost of this travesty? 'Right out of the collection basket.
Whatever I contribute goes directly to help schools, soup kitchens and struggling parishes run by Good Sisters and several wonderful Priests and Brothers in destitute parishes.

* reply

As a chapter leader for CTA
Submitted by Pete Anderson (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
As a chapter leader for CTA Columbus, OH, we have been looking for another place to meet after our local Bishop (Fredrick Campbell), deprived us of our previous meeting space at the Ohio State University's St Thomas More Newman Center, and I am finding a tremendous feeling of reluctance from the Catholic community in the mid-Ohio region. I guess I can sum up my sense that 'It is very difficult to be a Progressive Catholic these days.'
I agree with what one person wrote "No say, No pay".

* reply

History finally brought an
Submitted by Denis Quinlan (not verified) on Oct. 27, 2009.
History finally brought an end to the era of the divine right of kings - or so we thought. What can be said with regard to the arrogant and demeaning response of the bishops when people raise honest and proper inquiries about the expenditure of church funds? After all the money came from the people, did it not? Yes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What happened to the ideal of servant leadership? It was to have been one of the legacies of Vatican II, or so we thought.

* reply

Saturday, October 24, 2009

Benedict XVI Bigot-rustling is the Pope’s latest insult to Rowan Williams

Bigot-rustling is the Pope’s latest insult to Rowan Williams

http://www.secularism.org.uk/114838.html

By Terry Sanderson

Of course, in a strictly secularist sense, the NSS should not concern itself with the internal machinations of religious organisations. If the Pope wishes to stab the Archbishop of Canterbury in the back (in a wholly ecumenical sense, of course) then that’s nothing to do with us. If the Pope wants to change the rules of his club so that he can steal personnel from the opposition, that’s his business. Let them slug it out, betray each other, lie and steal from each other. Or, as Canada’s Globe and Mail newspaper put it “The Vatican’s welcome ... is a Trojan horse. It appears to enhance Christian goodwill while inflaming the doctrinal battles between and within the two churches.” As long as they don’t try to involve the state in their hostilities, they can rip each other to shreds as far as we are concerned.

But wait a minute. The state is involved in this. We have an Established Church, the head of which is also the head of the State. So when the Roman Rat plays such a comprehensively dirty trick on Rowan Williams, we all have to consider whether there are constitutional implications.

Since the Holy See is at once both the government of the Catholic Church and also of the State of the Vatican City, any bishops who sit in the House of Lords who decided to opt for Rome would owe allegiance to the Holy See, which, when wearing one of its hats, is a foreign government.

In other words, because there’s an established church at this end and a church-state at the other, the constitutional implications could be enormous. If half of the Church of England is going to end up under the Vatican umbrella, then can it really remain “by law established”?

After all, the Church of England was created with the sole purpose of thwarting the authority of the Pope. Now that the Pope has moved his tanks on to the lawn of Lambeth Palace, it is time for the whole constitutional arrangement to be urgently rethought.

The Church of England must now be disestablished – and soon. If it is not, there could be a constitutional crisis that may bring the whole shambolic house of cards tumbling down. This week’s events have left it in tatters under the leadership of a man who is clearly incapable of the job.

In his anxiety to keep the “Anglican Communion” intact, Rowan Williams abandoned his own humane, liberal instincts and threw in his lot with the worst elements of bigotry within his flock. They have now rewarded him by conniving with the “Holy Father” to pile on the humiliation. The fact that the Vatican didn’t tell the Archbishop about its plans until a week before they were announced indicates just how irrelevant they consider him to be. Or, as one commentator put it: “The faces of many Church of England bishops have turned as purple as their cassocks.”

But let’s step away from this nasty piece of Machiavellian cunning and take a look at the bigger picture.

The Catholic Church in Britain is dying on its feet. And rightly so. The Church of England is already on life support, but it continues to twitch. Both institutions provide a playground for some of the most gruesome and horrible people you could ever wish to meet (particularly if you are a child).

They argue endlessly and violently over which bell to ring and which language to say their prayers in. They spend their lives bowing down to the bones of a dead girl and pretending that a biscuit is actual flesh and that wine is really (that is, literally) blood. They swan about in their ridiculous costumes, which were originally designed to intimidate simpletons, a trick that still seems to work among politicians.

The Catholic priesthood claims to disown its own erotic nature in order to remain “pure” – and yet endless court cases show many of the “fathers” to have been wallowing in a pit of unimaginable sexual depravity. They concoct elaborate lies to sustain their “teachings” (“There are tiny holes in condoms through which HIV can pass”), they care little for the death, destruction and suffering their senseless dogmas create in the developing world. They are more concerned about the damage the child abuse crisis has done to the Church than about what it has done to the people they tortured. As Matthew Parris said in The Times: “The more reactionaries Pope Benedict can gather around himself and his Church, the faster the whole thing will sink under the weight of its own weirdness.”

And yet, throughout history, the Vatican has managed to convince those in highest authority that it is entitled to unique and unquestioned respect. Politicians and diplomats bow down to these monsters and let them get away with murder (quite literally sometimes). Whatever corruption the Vatican is involved in (and it has been involved in every conceivable immorality in its time) no-one in high secular authority (the UN, for instance) dare point the finger and ask for an explanation.

Through forming alliances with some of the worst dictators and tyrants the world has ever seen, the Vatican has managed to gain for itself a small patch of land where no international law can intrude, where no inspections take place, where no questions have to be answered. And from that protected base it stretches its poisonous tentacles around the world.

We need to ensure that the bigots and reactionaries that infest those few acres in Rome do not get a grip on Britain. We can begin by disestablishing the now-defunct Church of England and establishing a secular constitution that will put an end to the Vatican’s political ambitions once and for all.

See also:
Oliver Kamm on Divisions of the Pope

And the Daily Mash puts the whole thing in perspective
Fri, 23 Oct 2009

========

Divisions of the Pope


Oliver Kamm is a leader writer at The Times. Subscribe to a feed of this blog at: http://timesonline.typepad.com/oliver_kamm/rss.xml

« Race and reaction | All Posts | Griffin and Nuremberg »

October 21, 2009

Divisions of the Pope

Benedict
The Times leads today on an extraordinary piece of diplomacy by the papacy:

"As many as 1,000 priests could quit the Church of England and thousands more may leave churches in America and Australia under bold proposals to welcome Anglicans to Rome. Entire parishes and even dioceses could be tempted to defect after Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to offer a legal structure to Anglicans joining the Roman Catholic Church."

I'm an outsider on this, and I'm unmoved by the observation in our leading article that the position of the Church of England has been dangerously weakened. But it is interesting that the position of the Roman Catholic Church in Britain is as confident and assertive as I can recall. The Church was in a deep malaise in the 1970s, under Cardinal Heenan and some mediocre lieutenants. Very little of the reforming ideas of the Second Vatican Council permeated British Catholicism. Things are different now, when the ethos of the papacy is different. Catholicism has reversed its steady decline, and the influx of traditionalist Anglicans is plainly designed to hasten that revival.

Not just an outsider: I'm a non-combatant. I wish to see moderate religion, which makes its accommodation with science and secular education, supersede absolutist forms of it. But my position is that of the fine American social critic Susan Jacoby: "I do not regard 'moderate religion' as a threat to freedom of thought, but that does not make moderate religion rational."

One of our guest columnists today regrets the "weaken[ing of] the Church of England, at a time of real embattlement with radically secularist agendas now under way".
Secularism is the separation of civic and religious authority, and the consignment of religious beliefs to the realm of private conscience rather than public policy. I strongly favour it, and therefore am entirely unfazed by the declining authority of the Established Church. Bring it on.

And that leads me to the humiliation of Catholics by Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry. The description is not mine but that of Andrew M. Brown, a Catholic columnist for the Telegraph, who writes:

"I have just witnessed a rout – tonight’s Intelligence Squared debate. It considered the motion “The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world”. Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, opposing the motion, comprehensively trounced Archbishop Onaiyekan (of Abuja, Nigeria) and Ann Widdecombe, who spoke for it. The archbishop in particular was hopeless.

"The voting gives a good idea of how it went. Before the debate, for the motion: 678. Against: 1102. Don’t know: 346. This is how it changed after the debate. For: 268. Against: 1876. Don’t know: 34. In other words, after hearing the speakers, the number of people in the audience who opposed the motion increased by 774. My friend Simon, who’s a season ticket holder, said it was the most decisive swing against a motion that he could remember."

I was there too, and it was as Brown describes it (though he misremembers the disastrously evasive words used by the Archbishop, on being asked a tough question: "that's the wrong question"). If you read on, you'll see that he refers to the Archbishop's being "discomfited", a word that is often misused but is right in this case - it means "routed", not merely "rendered uncomfortable". It will be broadcast at some point on BBC World, and is worth watching for the most unequal rhetorical contest I've ever seen. I have to feel sorry for Ann Widdecombe, whom I disagree with on almost everything apart from her defence of Classics but whose willingness to speak her mind merits respect.

But Brown's honest account veers into futile lament at the end:

"It was a gripping evening’s entertainment but a little discouraging for those of us who are Catholics. I found myself wishing, one, that the Catholic debaters would for once not content themselves with offering pettifogging excuses but instead actually own up to some of the charges, and, two, I wished that there still existed a great Catholic apologist like Chesterton or Belloc, someone who was not only brave and prepared to square up to the Hitch, but was his intellectual equal. Surely there is someone today who could do that?"

Hitch is a great guy, but Brown has severely underestimated the problem here. It's the intellectual paucity of the case not of the people. I'm a great admirer of Chesterton: I have a signed photograph of him above my desk, and treasure a signed edition of his collected poetry. But he would have been hopeless too in this debate. At the height of his prowess as a Catholic apologist, the Catholic Church ensured the triumph of fascism. As the late Adrian Hastings, a Roman Catholic priest and theologian, noted in his History of English Christianity, 1920-2000, 2001, pp. 168-9:

"So Mussolini got his way. Italian democracy disappeared under the pressure of murder, the administration of castor oil and the Vatican's decision to back him. It is clear in retrospect that the only force strong enough to have held Fascism in check would have been whole hearted Catholic commitment to democracy, including a willingness to co-operate with Socialists. Pius XI was interested in neither."

Chesterton was unconcerned. He wrote a terrible book, The Resurrection of Rome, recounting how impressed he was on meeting Mussolini. And as another admirer of Chesterton (unlike me, a theist), Martin Gardner, has written (The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener, 1985, p. 348): "Whenever he touched on science (as in his essays deriding evolution), he revealed an ignorance exceeded only by that of his faithful friend Hilaire Belloc."

Posted at 12:50 PM in Religion | Permalink | Post to Twitter Bookmark and Share
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451586c69e20120a663049f970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Divisions of the Pope:

Comments
That's OK, Oliver. Continue on your happy secularist way.
Islam is about to give the spiritual waste land that is modern hedonist Britain, a rude shock. Fry, Hitchens and other Catholic haters will long for the day when they could take cheap pot shots at Catholicism.
If only these fools knew that Christianity is their only hope against the coming onslaught.

Posted by: Brendan Marshall | 21 Oct 2009 16:40:54
That's OK Brendan. Continue on your happy christian way while Hitchens et al denounce Islam even more than popery.
We secularists believe in freedom of religion, does catholicism now support that? Maybe, but when Iran demanded Rushdie's muder the pope condemned... Rushdie!
Hindus, Pagans, Zoroastrians, yes even Christians can be fine. But please, no more immune from criticism than Atheists.

Posted by: Christopher | 21 Oct 2009 17:49:47
Those who engage in the contests about which religion is ‘better’ always puzzled me.
Are they so stupid that not to notice that they undermine one of the main arguments regularly advanced in support of religion, namely that religion is the depository of morality?
If you must decide which religion is better, you obviously must use a moral standard that is extraneous to (any) religion. But by doing so, you contradict your basic premise.

Posted by: Consider | 21 Oct 2009 18:12:01
It is, I think, worth noting that Brown, whatever his denominational affiliation of origin, is in fact agnostic verging on atheist (or possibly vice versa) in his present actual thinking. He is, however, consistently unpersuaded that the rhetoric of many of his fellow non-believers is as rational or as rigorous as it is presented to be either by its advocates or their camp-followers.

Posted by: Doug Chaplin | 21 Oct 2009 23:48:56
Confusion of Browns here. The one who writes for the telegraph is Andrew M. Brown. He is indeed a catholic, or at least a protege of Damian Thompson's. I am neither, and don't use any of my middle initials. I edit, and blog at, the Guardian's religious web site.

Posted by: Andrew Brown | 22 Oct 2009 11:08:18
Thanks for that. I wasn't confused between you and your namesake, but by dropping his middle initial I have inadvertently caused it. I shall restore it in the text.

Posted by: Oliver Kamm | 22 Oct 2009 11:25:57
If Chris Hitchens is said to have dominated the debate, we can conclude one fact: the opposition wasn't very good. One question emerges: If Catholicism is so intellectually vacant, as Oliver claims, then why are atheists, such as Dawkins totally reliant upon Catholic theology for their intellectual conclusions?

Posted by: Tony Francis | 22 Oct 2009 16:50:25
Oh Lord, Francis is resurrected.

Posted by: peteralexander | 23 Oct 2009 09:28:35


=======

POPE IN BOLD TRANSFER SWOOP FOR EIGHT MILLION ANGLICANS
22-10-09

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/pope-in-bold-transfer-swoop-for-eight-million-anglicans-200910222160/

THE Pope has made an audacious bid for eight million worshippers in a move that has infuriated Anglican manager Rowan Williams.

Image

Experts say the transition should be easy as they all believe in the same impossible shit

Pope Benedict has promised the incoming flock greater freedom to oppress anyone that confuses or frightens them and will unveil his multitude of new signings in St Peter's Square next month.

The Pontiff said: "They are a great bunch of guys and it will be a real boost to have them on the team. They bring with them years of experience in arranging jumble sales and hating science.

"And now they have the opportunity to not only help us pay off all the people we abused, but they'll also get access to our state-of-the-art range of pointy hats."

The new flock will begin training with head liturgical coach Archbishop Charlie Reeves once their applications for worship permits have been approved by the International Tribunal Of Churches.

Reeves said: "I'll be getting the cones of incense out and then we'll do some work on the basic sacraments, followed by half an hour of chin-ups and a quick game of leapfrog."

Anglican boss Williams has hit back by offering an undisclosed sum for millions of Muslims disaffected by 'racist beatings, constant explosions and the exquisite agony of denying yourself a bacon sandwich'.

But Pope Benedict feels his expanded crop of worshippers will see the church triumphant when the two denominations meet at the Last Judgement.

He added: "Unlike other religions, we can offer the best facilities for fidgety Anglicans who love to obsess over where people put their cocks."

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Why Is Benedict XVI in Rome Investigating U.S. Nuns? (Sister X's Letter) Part 1 & 2

Benedict XVI investigted Jon Sobrino and then silenced him. Now he is doing it to the nuns -- in order to silence them and then seized their properties -- which Opus Dei will use for its WORLD DOMINATION Agenda.

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/132124.html
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/132166.html#

Why Is Rome Investigating U.S. Nuns? (Sister X's Letter) Pt.1


By BirchBricker

"I have been a religious sister for more than thirty years, part of a community that has been active in this country for over a century, and whose work centers on teaching and health care. Our order belongs to an umbrella organization, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), which represents 95 percent of U.S. Catholic women’s congregations.


Thanks to recent Vatican actions, the LCWR has garnered a few headlines. In February the Vatican announced it would conduct a three-year “visitation” to assess the “quality of life” of American sisters. A month later, the president of LCWR received a letter from Cardinal William Levada, formerly archbishop of San Francisco and now head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), informing her that there would also be an investigation, or “doctrinal assessment,” of the Leadership Conference itself. Certain problems, Levada explained, needed to be addressed. As it turns out, these have to do with the LCWR’s alleged failure to express sufficiently rigorous doctrinal compliance with several recent church documents. Evidently, the Vatican is concerned that the LCWR has not been forthcoming about the magisterium’s teachings regarding the ordination of women, the relation of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions, and the “intrinsically disordered” nature of homosexual acts.


The Vatican’s visitation—conducted under the auspices of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (CICLSAL)—does not assess the “quality of life” of cloistered orders of Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, or other communities devoted to the monastic contemplative life. Neither does it assess international congregations with members working in the United States whose central motherhouses are outside this country. Rather, the visitation exclusively targets active women religious whose centers and houses of formation are in the United States—women educated here and trained for religious life here, women who work with major health-care and educational institutions in this country, and who collaborate with one another financially on ministerial projects such as peace and justice ministries.

Why are American sisters being singled out? One widely shared area of concern, of course, is the dramatic drop in vocations in recent decades. Forty years ago, there were 180,000 vowed sisters across the country; today there are fewer than 60,000. Yet the number of priests has also dropped precipitously during the same period, leaving more than 10 percent of parishes without resident pastors. Why isn’t the priest shortage the subject of a visitation? And during the same period U.S. bishops have presided over a sexual-abuse scandal that has cost the Catholic community more than $2 billion and the episcopacy much of its moral credibility. So why no visitation for the bishops?


I want to offer my own view, as an ordinary member of a congregation that belongs to the LCWR, of what is happening to American sisters.


Let me begin by saying that I want to believe in the good will of the institutional church. An essential part of my commitment to Christ is a belief in the holiness of the church; that is what I professed when I took my vows. For me, religious life outside the structure of the institutional church is hardly imaginable. I love the church. I love its vision of God, its Scriptures and sacraments, its heritage, its tradition of faithful change, its saints and thinkers. I believe in its mission and future.


Yet my reaction to the visitation, and especially to the prospect of “doctrinal assessment,” contains more than a little skepticism. While I’m glad for a chance to “let Rome know the truth” about our lives and our devotion to Christ, I can’t help suspecting that those behind these initiatives are not primarily interested in the quality of my spiritual life. To put it bluntly, I feel that American women religious are being bullied. The fact that the visitation is apparently being paid for by anonymous donors, and that the leaders of our communities will not be permitted to see the investigative reports that issue from it, does not engender trust. And indeed, the dynamics of the visitation and investigation so far have been experienced by women religious as secretive, unfriendly, and one-sided.

The implicit accusation underlying the doctrinal assessment of the LCWR is that its leaders are not Catholic enough in the church’s eyes. Having lived, worked, and prayed with these women for decades, I find this suggestion both insulting and absurd—so absurd, in fact, that one wonders whether the investigation is actually meant to undermine confidence in women’s leadership of their own congregations. Canon law, as well as the constitutions of our congregations, ensures that vowed members can freely elect our own leaders, rather than have them imposed on the community by a bishop. Like those in other vowed religious congregations, I have acted on the belief that democratic governance of my community is ultimately guided by the Holy Spirit. In helping me choose our leadership, I have relied on my knowledge of my sisters’ gifts and my history of prayer and dependence on the Holy Spirit. Yet Cardinal Levada now informs me that the doctrinal integrity of those leaders is questionable...."

Part 2

"... The threat of disciplinary action makes it difficult for women religious to speak out on this topic. That is why I am writing anonymously. I happen to trust my local bishop and thank my lucky stars for him. But what if a bishop from some other diocese, or an American cleric at the Vatican—or a bishop on a USCCB committee who wanted to make a show of doctrinal orthodoxy-decided to target me for what I have written? This has happened to other sisters. In the current climate, would my bishop be willing to violate the tacit norm that bishops “don’t criticize one another in public” by intervening to defend me? I don’t want to put him in such a position.


And that’s not the only worry. When a bishop wants to go after an individual sister—to “make an example of that nun”—he often has some Vatican office write a letter to the superior or the president of her congregation, pressuring the leadership to “do something.” The rule is judgment first, evidence later; and if the women in leadership don’t do something to punish the allegedly wayward sister, the Vatican will move against them. It’s a form of collective punishment, and the threat keeps rank-and-file women religious silent on controversial topics—such as the visitation. And so with a few notable exceptions, such as Sisters Joan Chittister, OSB, and Sandra Schneiders, IHM, the rank and file has been silent about the visitation since it began nine months ago. Members don’t want to say anything that will draw down the Vatican’s wrath on their leadership.


Cardinal Levada has delegated the work of doctrinal assessment of the LCWR to Bishop Leonard Blair of Toledo, Ohio. Bishop Blair seems a genial man; yet his dissertation for his doctorate at the Angelicum in Rome was titled “Masculine and Feminine Symbolism in the Church: A Reappreciation of the Marian/Feminine Dimension.” I’m sorry, but I tend to get nervous when bishops start expatiating on the symbolism of the eternal feminine. Bishop Blair was also a member of a bishops’ committee that was scheduled to meet at the University of Notre Dame last year, but moved the meeting off campus to protest a performance of The Vagina Monologues. Suffice it to say, most bishops are good and well-meaning men; still, it is the rare bishop who has any real understanding of the lives women actually lead.


Let’s back up a bit and ask: Where did the impetus for the visitation and investigation originate? During a visit to Rome last April, several officers of the Leadership Conference put this question to Cardinal Franc Rodé, head of CICLSAL, and were informed that the initiative had been suggested by American members of the curia, some U.S. bishops, and some members of religious communities. Cardinal Rodé told LCWR officers that “concerns” had been expressed on issues ranging from living arrangements to the lack of new vocations to the public positions some women religious take on topics such as women’s ordination, homosexuality, and abortion.


In early August, the Vatican made available the twelve-page Instrumentum laboris that outlined the visitation process. The document’s provisions are not reassuring. For instance, no women representatives of American congregations are slated to speak to Cardinal Rodé; nor will any be allowed to read a draft of the report submitted to him by the appointed “visitator,” Mother Mary Clare Millea, ACSJ. Thus, no congregational president will have the chance to qualify the report’s evaluation or dispute its conclusions—or even to see a list of the American cardinals and bishops who recommended the study in the first place. Such secrecy does not create a climate in which the church’s pastoral outreach can be effectively communicated; and one suspects that Rome’s interventions will hardly promote vocations to women’s religious communities.

There are other concerns. Being a pontifical institute, rather than a diocesan congregation, carries the privilege of self-governance, which protects women religious from a local bishop’s intrusion into their internal life and governance. Or, it’s supposed to. Ominously, the visitation initiative calls for a willingness on the part of visitation team members to make a public profession of faith and take an oath of fidelity to the Apostolic See. The visitation decree instructs the apostolic visitator to “seek information from those diocesan bishops” where the sisters’ “general houses, provincial houses, and centers of initial formation are located.” That reinforces the suspicion that some diocesan bishops, still trying to reclaim the moral authority lost in the sexual-abuse scandals, want to assert personal and jurisdictional authority over women religious. Some women’s communities, to be honest, also worry about designs bishops might have on appropriating their properties..."

Benedict XVI can sell Vatican to end world hunger: Comedian

comedian Silverman suggests selling the Vatican to end world hunger

Thu Oct 15, 8:12 AM
The Associated Press


ROME - Comedian Sarah Silverman has a new proposal for ending world hunger: Sell the Vatican.

In a new profanity-laced monologue making the rounds on YouTube in time for UN World Food Day on Friday, Silverman suggests that it's time for the pope to "move out of your house that is a city" and use the proceeds to feed the world's poor.


"On an ego level alone you will be the biggest hero in the history of ever!" she exclaimed. "Sell the Vatican. Feed the world."


The Vatican clearly has no plans to follow suit. On Thursday, a spokesman declined to comment. But the Catholic League, the U.S. Catholic civil rights organization, denounced Silverman and cable broadcaster HBO for her "obscene" and "filthy diatribe."


In a statement, it noted that such an attack would never have been levelled against, say, the chief rabbi of Jerusalem or the state of Israel and added that the "Catholic Church operates more hospitals and feeds more of the poor than any private institution in the world."


Yet the Rev. James Martin, culture editor of the Jesuit magazine America, says Silverman may be onto something. In an online article, Martin noted that Jesus himself told his followers to sell what they had and give it to the poor.


"Of course Pope Benedict XVI could not 'sell' any of the treasures of the Vatican, the same way that your local archbishop couldn't sell off the cathedral at a whim; they are not his, they are the church's," Martin wrote. "And the church is not simply the hierarchy but the entire people of God."


But he added: "Still, perhaps Ms. Silverman, in her postmodern, potty-mouthed way is on to something. Like Jesus was. Sell the Vatican? Well, maybe not everything but perhaps a statue or two?"


For the record, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, which just released its annual report on the state of world hunger, says global food output will have to increase by 70 per cent to feed a projected population of 9.1 billion in 2050.


To achieve that, poor countries will need $44 billion in annual agricultural aid, compared with the current $7.9 billion, the Rome-based FAO said. Overall, an annual net investment in agriculture of $83 billion is needed to feed the world.
Even if the pope were to sell the Vatican, it wouldn't be enough.


In 2004, the Vatican disclosed that the Holy See's real estate was worth 700 million euros, or about $908 million at the time. That doesn't include St. Peter's Basilica and the Sistine Chapel, which the Vatican termed priceless and valued at a symbolic 1 euro.

While the Vatican's artistic holdings are obviously worth millions, the institution itself doesn't bring in a lot of cash. In 2008, it ran a C0.9 million ($1.28 million) deficit, the second year of losses. Revenues were C253.9 million and expenses C254.8 million.


The Vatican began publishing its finances in 1981, when Pope John Paul II ordered financial disclosure to debunk the idea that the Vatican was rich.


Silverman, who is no stranger to religiously and racially charged slurs, gained international attention with her 2008 "The Great Schlep" campaign in which she exhorted Jews to go to Florida to convince their grandparents to vote for Barack Obama.

Saturday, October 03, 2009

Benedict XVI and Roman Polanski and clergy abuse

Benedict XVI and Roman Polanski have 3 things in common: fame, fortune and lots of famous supporters. Benedict XVI has the Opus Dei supporting him and his crime of cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army www.jp2army.blogspot.com and Roman Polanski has the Hollywood celebrities like Whoopi Goldberg supporting him in The View.

Roman Polanski and clergy sexual abuse

Andrew Hamilton October 02, 2009

http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=16816

Roman PolanskiWhen I see media headlines about child abuse, my response is like that of a family I know, where one of the siblings is a publicly notorious criminal. When his crimes or even similar ones receive publicity, they feel humiliated. They accept the humiliation, as the price you pay even for indirect association with villainy, but they do not welcome it. That is how I, as a priest and so part of a group that has been identified with the abuse of children, react when there are more headlines about abuse: in weary resignation. If you do the crime, you — and those associated with you — do the time. I simply hope that the news item that reminds me of my humiliation might help someone, somewhere, who has been abused.

So it was in the last few days that I read of the reaction to Roman Polanski's detention and possible extradition to the United States to face an old charge of sexual abuse of a minor.

As the Polanski case was unfolding this week, Vatican United Nations Observer Archbishop Silvano Tomasi was reported to have claimed that few Catholic priests had abused children, that these were mainly gay, that there was as much abuse in other religious groups as there was among Catholics, that the vast majority of children were abused by relatives, and that there was as much abuse of children in other churches as by Catholic clergy.

Furthermore, he said, the Catholic Church had put its house in order. The implication was that the focus on child abuse in the Catholic Church was disproportionate and discriminatory.

Assuming the Vatican official was rightly reported (something not to be taken for granted), I believe he missed all the things that matter. The consistent spirit of anything we write about sexual abuse must surely be one of compassion for the human beings who are affected by it. Those who are abused, primarily, but then those who are wounded through their relationships with the victims of abuse: their family, friends, wives, husbands, children and — if our compassion stretches so far — the abusers, so often themselves once victims of abuse.

They are the people who matter, and what matters is that they are recognised and that others do not suffer as they did. This must be the focus of those who speak on behalf of groups among whom abuse has taken place.

The focus of Archbishop Tomasi's reported remarks was not on the human reality of abuse, nor on its direct and indirect victims. The comments seemed directed at saving the reputation of the Church as a public institution. And their spirit was less one of compassion than one of judgment. They asked who was to blame for abuse, both within the ranks of Catholic clergy and in the wider world.

It was an exercise in the transfer of blame, and one potentially damaging to priests who are homosexual. Certainly the remarks did not highlight what matters — the humanity of those affected, and compassion.

Nor are they likely to be effective. I doubt whether Catholics by their own words can redress the damage done to their reputation or establish that they have set their house in order. The only effective words will be spoken by those whose lives have been hurt by abuse. When they speak in gratitude and affection for the way in which they have been heard, compassionately received and healed by representative Catholics, their words will count.

All that said, the arguments made by Archbishop Tomasi are important, provided our focus remains on attending to the victims of abuse, and not on transferring blame.

To understand abuse and the experience of those who have been abused we must understand its extent and causes.

Tomasi's own account does not seem internally coherent. If he is right in claiming that abuse is common in many churches and religious groups, and most common in families, it seems highly unlikely that the sexual orientation of abusers is a determining factor. Abuse is likely to have more to do with abusive experience, sexual immaturity and with attitudes to power. But these are all opinions that call for methodical investigation.

His criticism of the focus on the Catholic Church also raises interesting questions. But the central question is not about how fair media coverage has been to the Catholic Church, but how helpful it is to those intimately and indirectly affected by abuse.

In my opinion the public reporting of abuse committed by religious officials has been necessary and helpful in changing attitudes to the abuse of children. I am less convinced, however, that the focus on monsters and punishment, and the repetitive treatment of abuse exposed and dealt with in the courts is helpful. It focuses on blame rather than on compassion, and hinders understanding.

In this respect the story of Polanski is telling. The case for his avoiding extradition has generally received a sympathetic hearing despite the seriousness of his admitted crime. The same sympathy is not generally shown to religious officials who have been tried for less serious acts committed just as many years ago.

I do not say this to complain about double standards, still less to argue that Polanski should be pardoned. What is significant in his case is that there is space to ask difficult questions about whether it is in the public interest to pursue and publicise crimes committed long ago. But the public conversation about sexual abuse in churches has been focused on blame and punishment and had been more resistant to inquiry.

The compassionate are often criticised for being out of touch with reality. In these questions, as elsewhere, they may actually be more in touch than their critics with what matters.


Andrew Hamilton is the consulting editor for Eureka Street. He also teaches at the United Faculty of Theology in Melbourne.

======


Roman Polanski rape case: Child abuse activists call for boycott, quick extradition


http://www.examiner.com/x-264-Celebrity-News-Examiner~y2009m9d30-Roman-Polanski-rape-case-Child-abuse-activists-call-for-boycott-quick-extradition

Child-abuse activists are calling for the quick extradition of film director Roman Polanski so he can be held accountable for the rape he committed more than 30 years ago.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Joelle Castrix, a regional director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP), held a press conference outside the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office to show support for Polanski's extradition and to urge people to boycott movies and TV shows made by Polanski and those who back him, namely Martin Scorcese and Woody Allen.

Castrix said Polanksi is getting special treatment because of his position in the film industry:

Child molesters can be rich and famous, but they also need to be held accountable.”

--------

Victims group boycotting against Roman Polanski and supporters


http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_13459434

Daily News Wire Services
Updated: 10/01/2009 08:29:29 AM PDT

Roman Polanski
The organization that champions victims of predatory priests staged a demonstration in downtown Los Angeles on Wednesday and announced a boycott of the work of Roman Polanski and those who support his bid to avoid extradition to the United States.

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, best known as SNAP, charged that entertainment industry figures speaking out for Polanski since his arrest in Switzerland Saturday are helping to enable the crimes of current child predators.

The 76-year-old Polish-French director was arrested by Swiss gendarmes at Zurich Airport as he flew in to attend the Zurich Film Festival, where he was to have received a lifetime achievement award.

The arrest came in response to a warrant issued by U.S. federal authorities at the request of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office.

In 1977, when Polanski was 44, he lured a 13-year-old girl to actor Jack Nicholson's home on Mulholland Drive, saying he wanted to take photographs of her for the French edition of Vogue. He gave her champagne and part of a Quaalude and forced her to have sex.

After he spent 42 days in a prison hospital ward for a mental evaluation, a deal was worked out for him to plead guilty and be sentenced to time served. Polanski pleaded guilty, but, fearing that a judge was going to reject the deal and send him to prison for 50 years, he fled the country.

U.S. authorities have 60 days to file a formal request for extradition with Swiss authorities.

Polanski's lawyers have vowed to oppose it.

Dozens in the film industry have called for Polanski's immediate release, including directors Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Woody Allen, Costa- Gavras, Pedro Almodovar, Fatih Akin, Walter Salles and Wong Kar Wai, actress Debra Winger and producer Harvey Weinstein, founder of Miramax Films and now head of The Weinstein Co.

"Since his arrest and the announcement that he will be extradited to the U.S., some entertainment figures have expressed sympathy for him," SNAP said in a statement.

"These public statements of support ... makes teenagers who are being victimized now feel intimidated and hopeless, thus staying silent and enabling their predators to keep hurting them and others."

SNAP said three or four victims of abuse by Catholic priests will take part in the demonstration, joined by relatives and other members of SNAP, which describes itself as a self-help organization.

Many of Polanski's backers, including French government ministers, have pointed to the suffering in his life, including his family's persecution by the Nazis and the slaying of his wife, actress Sharon Tate, and her fetus in the Manson Family murders.

"While sympathetic to Polanski's painful childhood and his wife's murder, SNAP feels that's irrelevant, as is his victim's personal decision to forgive him," the SNAP statement said.

"What matters most, SNAP feels, is that a child predator is kept away from kids and that criminals learn they can't simply hire smart lawyers, make themselves popular, flee the country and get off scot-free."

Polanski lawyers Tuesday filed papers with the Swiss Federal Criminal Court seeking his release, and the court said it would make a decision in the next few weeks. If it rules against him, he will have the option of asking Switzerland's highest court, the Federal Tribunal, to overturn the decision.

To date, the support for Polanski appears to have been more widespread in Europe than in the United States, where at least one entertainment industry figure has spoken out against him.

"Thirty years have not dimmed my memory of the crime for which this man was convicted," Paul Petersen, the former "Donna Reed Show" star and now president of A Minor Consideration, a nonprofit watchdog group for child performers, said in remarks published in the Daily News Tuesday.

"Hollywood may have forgiven Mr. Polanski," Peterson said. "I have not."

===

French govt drops public support for Polanski

FRANCE
oneindia

London (ANI): The French government has withdrawn its support to film director Roman Polanski, who is currently held in Switzerland, after a campaign for his release was shunned by many leading European political and cultural figures. The foreign minister of France had asked the Swiss government to free the 76-year-old director, who was arrested in Zurich last Saturday, on a US arrest warrant for having unlawful sex with a teenaged girl in the late 1970s.

!France had made the appeal because Polanski holds a hold a duel citizenship of France and Poland. However, the French government has changed its stance now. "We have a judicial procedure under way, for a serious affair, the rape of a minor, on which the American and Swiss legal systems are doing their job," government spokesman Luc Chatel was quoted by the BBC, as saying.

====

Roman Polanski and His Supporters No Better than OC Pedo-Priests and their Apologists


By Gustavo Arellano in Ex Cathedra
Thu., Oct. 1 2009 @ 8:17AM

I'm glad to see that prominent Catholic church sex-abuse victims advocate and Orange County resident/native Joelle Casteix is publicly criticizing the perverted director Roman Polanski and his apologists.They remind me of those ghouls, many Mater Dei High graduates, who offer every sort of excuse for an admitted rapist, who say forced sodomy was just a misunderstanding, who throw going-away parties for pedophiles, who prop up molesters with cushy jobs, who say the victim wanted it so that makes schtupping an underage teen okay, who give standing ovations to kiddie fiddlers. Wait a minute: did Polanski ever work for the Diocese of Orange?

Straight up, folks: fuck Roman Polanski. Fuck his supporters. May they get the karmic equivalent of what Polanski's character did to Jake Gittes in Chinatown Yeah, Chinatown! It was a cool movie, right? That makes everything okay!.

See trailer of Chinatown http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/ex-cathedra/roman-polanski-and-his-support/

Comment

Albino Luciani says:

First of all, I have to agree, as a MURDERED POPE, that the WAY to get at rape and sodomy supporters of Roman Polanski is hit them where it hurts, their pocket-book$.

Whoopi Goldberg, formerly welfare mom 'Carolyn Johnson', is a prime example of the double standard HOLLYWOOD TRASH crowd.

Just yesterday, 9/30/09, yet again, on The View, to grab ratings, Whoopi was saying Roman's child rape and assault, that he fully admitted to, was "different" than than of child rape and sodomy from others, like the 140,000 documented sexual assaults on kids in less than 30 years, just in the USA, Rog "Mahal" Mahony, Tod 'Gay Boy' Brown, and the USCCB (Unremoved Sexual Criminal Cabal Bishops), as well as Beppe 'Red Shoes' Ratzinger, Bill 'Darth' Leveda, Bernie Law (less), Christian 'Kiddie Porn' Schonborn, Noberto 'Kidnap & Kill Them At The Airport' Rivera, Claudio 'Lie With Statitics' Hummes, Tarscio 'Rump Ranger' Bertone, Ray 'Han'M High' Burke, etc., and the Roman "La Cosa Nostra" Pedo Curia have and continue to cause.

OK, Polanski, did not cause at least $4.5 BILLION in stolen laity offetory plate dollars, just in the USA, to cover up the curia caused crime sprees, thus far, that remain ongoing and unprosecuted, but let's call a SPADE A SPADE please (no racism intended Ms. Goldberg - funny you don't look Jewish?).

The common foundation is MONEY & POWER.

Want to hurt these 'holier than thou' criminals in Hollywood (Goldberg or Mahony), cut off their revenue (if not their heads, figuratively or literally).

www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker for other daily verified & vetted reporting on the pedo curia cult in the entertainment business (religious or useless celebriety unwashed tripe).

Just today, 10/1/09, at this above suggested empirical web site, is a most interesting article on the IOR (aka VATICAN BANK).

Do not be fooled loyal Naval Gazing Readership, this is about MONEY & POWER....your money for their power.

Cut off their money, or as St. Peter Damien correctly asserted: "STOP DONATING LAITY", and they FALL from power, back to the scum pool they emerged from in HELL.


There is no middle ground, you are either financially contributing to proven and documented global criminal degenerates, or you are not.

HOW WILL YOU ANSWER YOUR MAKER?!

Fiat Lux & Veritas!

Albino Luciani,
MURDERED POPE

Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 1 2009 @ 8:28AM

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish says:

I agree with Joelle Casteix and other spokespersons from the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

There should be a total boycott of Roman Polanski films as well as a boycott of his apologists in the entertainment industry and anyone else who support him.

As far as Whoopi Goldberg is concerned, she has lost all credibility and is a disgrace with her comment that Polanski's actions "weren't rape-rape." She is sexist and does nothing much for her race either.

I wonder how Whoopi Goldberg would view Polanski and what she would be saying if the raped and sodomized young girl was a black child?

Boycott every single one of them.

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 1 2009 @ 9:15AM

Albino Luciani says:

"sux2bu" (Short we suspect for 'SUCKS TO BE YOU') apparently, you are trying to chum the race card, when the issue REMAINS the criminal activity that goes unpunished of Hollywood degenerates, of all shapes, ages, sexes, creeds, races, colors, etc., as well as the Pedo Curia pretending to be the solution, when they are the PRIMARY CAUSE!

Over 15% of the Roman Catholic Clergy globally (documented) are/were child abusers domestically and globally (not the .5% to 1.5% touted by the pathologicall lying curia).

The pedo curia's racketeering, kidnapping, deliquenting, obstructing justice, embezzlements, endangering, defrauding, aid & abetting, enabling, extorting, murdering of hundreds of thousands of children, with no punishment to themselves, at laity cost in the tens of billions of documented dollars, domestically and globally, remains among the top crime sprees of the past millenia, right up there with The Inquisition, Nazi Genocide, Communist Purges, and other demonic acts against humanity, including the noise and visual pollution daily churned-out by the defenders of self admitted criminals like Roman Polanski.

Until heads roll, literaly or figuratively, like overtly guilty Mahony, Brom, Brown, Barnes, Leveda, Cummins, Steinbock, Ryan, Quinn, McGrath, Garcia, Curry, Rivera, Soto, Walsh, Blaire, etc., in California, Roman Catholic Pedo Curia Central, nothing will improve or change for the better.

Ergo, the laity are leaving in documented droves, parishes closing locally and nationally in massive record numbers, while revenues plummet...maybe this a a good coming from the incarnate unchecked EVIL?

Who need cross-dressing pedo demons in self-made buildings of Mammon, falsely representing The Almighty, when "God Is Everywhere", expect the long ago sold off souls, to The Devil, of the above names?!

As a MURDERED POPE, I would like to say I will pray for your soul 'sux2bu', but somehow I do not think it will help, I hope I am wrong on this last point.

Ciao,

Albino Luciani
Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 1 2009 @ 4:07PM

truths says:

The Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley has sent a message to all children and young adults that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW! Thank you to team of investigators and prosecutors in Los Angeles.

Polanski has been arrested based on his plea of having sex with a minor child back in 1977. Imagine how many Catholic priests and employees of religious institutions also confessed to sexual misconduct with minor children, BUT, in the name of God and freedom of religion, these individuals will never have to face arrest and incarceration. Where are these sexual monsters today? Mexico, Switzerland, Italy, Thailand, Europe, France, Australia, South Africa, etc. etc.

One has to wonder if Cardinals Bernard Law and William Levada will ever face extradition to the United States based on failures to report crimes relating to sex abuse, conspiracy and RICO statutes. Extraditing employees of religious institutions to the United States would set a valuable and life-long precedent, but most important, our children could witness history in the making... that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!!!!

Posted On: Thursday, Oct. 1 2009 @ 9:16AM

Benedict XVI and the Vatican hits out at other faiths over child abuse

Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei silenced Jon Sobrino because his belief of the Christ-of-the-poor is not the correct one compared to the Christ of Benedict XVI -- see our earlier postings on Jon Sobrino. Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei are responsible of the cover-up of the greatest crime of the Catholic Church in the 20th century and now they are speaking at the United Nations and putting the focus out on themselves and blaming other faiths. The hypocrisy of Benedict and the Opus Dei are so evident they couldn't hide it amidst their Latin Mass and daily rosaries. They are demons in priestly black cossacks and the white papal robe.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/10328

Vatican hits out at other faiths over child abuse

The Vatican's representative at the United Nations has shocked listeners with a defensive speech suggesting that there could be more child abuse within Protestant and Jewish communities than in the Roman Catholic Church.


Archbishop Silvano Tomasi insisted that the Catholic Church was “busy cleaning its own house” and added that “it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it."

Tomasi's decision to single out Protestants and Jews may harm the Vatican's relations with these groups.


"Comparative tragedy is a dangerous path on which to travel” said Rabbi Joseph Potasnik of the New York Board of Rabbis, “All of us need to look within our own communities. Child abuse is sinful and shameful”.


However, Tomasi admitted that between 1.5 per cent and 5 per cent of Catholic priests were involved in child sexual abuse. This appears to be a higher number than the Vatican has previously accepted.

The Archbishop argued that the word “paedophile” was incorrectly applied in the majority of cases, on the grounds that most priests involved in abuse were attracted to adolescents rather than pre-pubescent children.


He triggered an angry response from equality campaigners by suggesting that the vast majority of abusive priests were homosexual.

“The Catholic Church has been trying to blame its sex abuse problems on gay men since day one, in order to avoid its own responsibility for ordaining and protecting paedophiles” said the American activist, Melissa McEwan.


She insisted that “The Catholic Church has a problem with priests who rape children below the age of consent. That is a fact which is not changed by what name it's

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Pope Benedict's visit to Britain is nothing to celebrate

Those Opus Dei papal controllers at the Vatican are making sure that Benedict XVI travel to the major cities in the world so that someday they can plant his statues there like they did with John Paul II. The Opus Dei are so obssessed in silencing the Jesuits like Jon Sobrino that they silence or expel the Jesuits wherever and whenever they can - like those Jesuits were expelled from the Vatican Radio. The Opus Dei tie up the Jesuits and force them to be parrots of papal writings - which are Opus Dei writings to begin with. But there is Divine Justice and the Opus dei shall sink into the mire with the mammoth-money worshipping Vatican as predicted by the Third Secret of Fatima.


Pope Benedict XVI. Photograph: Bela Szandelszky/AP

Ignore the bells and the smells and the lovely Raphaels, the Pope's visit to Britain is nothing to celebrate

Gordon Brown is 'delighted', David Cameron is 'delighted'. I am 'repelled'.

Comments (632)
o Tanya Gold
o The Guardian, Tuesday 29 September 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/29/the-pope-visit

Save us, O Lord, save us all. Save us from the Pope. Joseph Ratzinger is coming to Britain. Gordon Brown is "delighted". David Cameron is "delighted". I am "repelled". Let him come; I applaud freedom of speech. But no red carpets, please. No biscuits. No Queen.


In his actions on child abuse and Aids, Joseph Ratzinger has colluded in the protection of paedophiles and the deaths of millions of Africans. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Pope John Paul II's chief enforcer), it was Ratzinger's job to investigate the child abuse scandal that plagued the Catholic church for decades. And how did he do it? In May 2001 he wrote a confidential letter to Catholic bishops, ordering them not to notify the police – or anyone else – about the allegations, on pain of excommunication. He referred to a previous (confidential) Vatican document that ordered that investigations should be handled "in the most secretive way . . . restrained by a perpetual silence". Excommunication is a joke to me, perhaps to you, but to a Catholic it means exclusion and perhaps hellfire – for trying to protect a child. Well, God is love. (see the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army www.jp2army.blogspot.com)


He also waved aside calls to discipline Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Mexican founder of the global Legion of Christ movement. Allegations of child abuse have stalked Maciel since the 1970s. His victims petitioned Ratzinger, only for his secretary to inform them the matter was closed. "One can't put on trial such a close friend of the Pope as Marcial Maciel," Ratzinger said. Two abuse victims sued him personally for obstruction of justice, but he claimed diplomatic immunity.


Eventually, when the allegations could no longer be denied, Ratzinger apologised, and sent Maciel off "to a life of prayer and penitence". Why not prison? He didn't say. "It is a great suffering for the church . . . and for me personally," was Ratzinger's comment about the wider child abuse scandal. Great suffering? I thought to be raped as a child was great suffering. To be exposed as complicit in a cover-up is surely merely . . . embarrassing?


Ratzinger added that he believed the Catholic church had been the victim of a "planned" media campaign. By whom? By gays? By Jews? By Jedi? He instructed that prayers be said in perpetuity for the victims – thanks, I feel better now! – along with a push to ensure that men "with deep-seated homosexual tendencies" do not enter the priesthood, thereby turning all responsibility for the scandal into – the laps of the evil gays!


Ratzinger is also active in the suppression of Liberation Theology, a Latin American movement that insists that social justice is the central purpose of Christianity; that good Catholics should also be political activists who fight for the rights of the slum-living poor. Ratzinger was repelled, and dismissed it as "a fundamental threat to the faith of the Church".


And so to the church's own holocaust – in Africa. Condoms can protect Africans from Aids. But who can protect them from Ratzinger? The Catholic church has long pursued a no-condoms policy. In El Salvador the church got a law passed, ensuring that condoms were only sold with a warning stating they did not protect the user from Aids. In Kenya, Cardinal Maurice Otunga staged public burnings of condoms. The former Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Mwana a'Nzeki told his flock that condoms, far from protecting them, contribute to the spread of the disease. Well, God is love.


Some local priests in Africa counsel contraception, because they care about their parishioners. But the Vatican, on its Roman cloud, disagrees. Aids, Ratzinger says, "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". That is a lie. Not a fantasy, like the virgin birth and all the other magical, mystical nonsense, but a dangerous lie. There are, Your Holiness, more than 12 million Aids orphans in Africa. Twenty-two million Africans have Aids and the UN fears that eventually 90 million could die.


Ratzinger presides over a church that calls homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound". Catholic reformers have tried to liberalise this view but Ratzinger slapped them down. In a 1986 letter, he complained that, "Even within the Church, [people] are bringing enormous pressure to bear . . . to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered." He added that homosexuality is "an intrinsic moral evil".


Care to know the suicide statistics for teenage gays, Your Holiness? They are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual fellows. In 1998, a 39-year-old gay man called Alfredo Ormando set fire to himself in St Peter's Square, in protest at your policies. He died.


Ratzinger is no better on women; he opposes women priests, of course, and demands the criminilisation of abortion even for women who have been raped or are very sick; gin and wire coathangers, anyone? His friend, the theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg, has said that Ratzinger sees the push for female priests as driven by "spokeswomen for radical feminists, especially lesbians".


So this is the man who is coming to lecture us about morality. Welcome, Benedict XVI, Episcopus Romae, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God. Don't tread on the corpses.

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

War tactics should be applied to Benedict XVI and lying schmucks who covered up the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army

Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei led the cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army for over a quarter of a century. Their victims surpass those of SEptember 11 and World Trade Center attacks.


Compare the CRIMES and their VICTIMS in America



Victims - Attackers - Responsible Leader


Pearl Harbor - 3,000 victims - 170 planes - Admiral Yamamoto

WTC & 9/11 attacks - 5,000 victims - 19 Muslims - Osama bin Laden

USA Priest Pedophilia - 12,000 victims - 5,478 priests - John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Opus Dei - the Vatican Trinity

See the John Paul II MIllstone for details www.jp2m.blogspot.com

War tactics should be applied to abusers and lying schmucks who covered up

September 6, 12:04 PM
Pittsburgh Independent Examiner
Mike Ference

http://www.examiner.com/x-12613-Pittsburgh-Independent-Examiner~y2009m9d6-War-tactics-should-be-applied-to-abusers-and-lying-schmucks-who-covered-up

Every day brings new evidence that we no longer live in a civilized and principled society. The worst part, it usually concerns another case of sexual misconduct involving a Catholic priest, young children and a church hierarchy that helped to cover up the case.
The recent revelations of Bishop Ray Goedert’s, a former vicar of priest, who knew that at least 25 priests had sexually molested children and did nothing. His rationale, as one fellow bishop admitted, that at the time , “he was not a mandated reporter.” In other words, like so many other bishops, cardinals and popes – better to protect dysfunctional sex freaks than God’s most precious commodity – innocent children.

Bishop Ray Goedert’s link to his deposition: http://www.archstreaming.us/Deposition072109/BishopGoedertDeposition.pdf

To be sure, media pressure and public outrage have inspired displays of contrition from members of the church hierarchy. But as more and more cases of abuse — and cover-up — come to light, one begins to wonder whether such displays should be considered any more trustworthy than those of, say, Saddam Hussein.

So — what is to be done? Given the level of wreckage and anguish caused in the lives of so many people, it seems appropriate to look to the war on terror for a model strategy.

A first prong of attack might involve a Special Forces unit made up of highly skilled and trained military personnel capable of tracking down and obtaining confessions from any priest accused of acts of sexual abuse against children. If rights are violated, if military personnel sometimes go a little too far, so be it. The Catholic Church had ample opportunity to fess up and repent. Those incapable of civilized behavior shouldn’t expect the rights and privileges of civilization.

A deck of cards can be created to help identify hard-to-find priests as well as the disgraceful church leaders who permitted, and in essence, condoned the sexual abuse of young children. Photos of the most deviant and reprehensible church officials accompanied by a list of their offenses will encourage us all to do our patriotic duty in helping the authorities track down suspected priest-terrorists or at least be able to identify the culprits as they come and go freely because their sins where covered up and the time to criminally prosecute has expired.

Another option would be to divide the nation into territories. A color-code warning system would be established, alerting parents about abusive priests being transferred into their respective regions. Depending on the designated color for a particular region, parents would know whether their children should serve at Mass, go on field trips, or even attend Catholic school that day.

To aid this unique war on terror, a pool of money should be collected, not involuntarily from taxpayers, but voluntarily from those decent human beings who believe crimes committed against our children are sins that God takes very seriously. Some of the funds raised could then be turned into outrageously tempting reward sums for information leading to the capture of our targeted criminals. Once the rogue clerics have been imprisoned and forced to talk, I recommend that their confessions be given to someone like Steven Spielberg or George Romero. Hollywood writers and producers could create a blockbuster movie like Roots or Schindler’s List to serve as a bitter reminder that these crimes should never again be permitted to occur. Tom Savini could be hired to recreate the horror on the faces of child actors chosen to play parts.

Proceeds from the movie could go to victims of abuse and their families. And no matter how old the crime, compensation would be available. There should be no statute of limitations when the rights of children have been violated by those who lived much of their adult lives perched on a pedestal heightened by the trust of innocent and vulnerable believers. In fact, I would extend compensation to the second and perhaps even third generation of sufferers. It would certainly include siblings denied the experience of growing up with a brother or sister untraumatized by such abuse. And since crimes of abuse tend to echo, it would extend to the victims of the victims as well.

If all else fails, is it any less rational to declare war on the Catholic Church as part of a war on child abuse than it was to declare war on Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda and apparently had no weapons of mass destruction) as part of a war on terror? How many innocent children have been verifiably lost to this menace — and how many more will be lost if we don’t make a preemptive strike?

As horrific as sexual abuse by priests may be, the perpetrators might merit a more forgiving place if only their superiors had the courage to do the right thing. For a few, counseling and close supervision might have been enough to prevent future abuses. Others clearly required something more intensive — a mental hospital or a prison.

But repeated abuse, as well as willfully hiding the crimes and the criminals — as far as I can see, this brings us much closer to the realm of mortal sin. And the sinners include not just the church hierarchy, but also attorneys who ill-advised parents not to buck the system and take on the Catholic Church, or may even have provided inside information to thwart legitimate cases against the church, law enforcement officials who may have thought it best to warn church officials of pending investigations, and janitors, housekeepers, teachers, and employees of the Catholic Church who kept silent because of concerns about a paycheck, a 401K, a pension, or a fear of standing up to church authorities. God has a place for everyone — and if you abuse children or protect the abusers of children, we can only hope that your place is called hell.

Anyone with additional information to this story or similar events please feel free to send a message to my email address is Ference@icubed.com or drop a dime at 412-233-5491.

Reporting live from Pittsburgh’s Golden Triangle – where the confluence of the Sicilian mob and the Democratic Party meet to form the deMOBocrats.

Saturday, September 05, 2009

Benedict XVI's victims number more than September 11

This Benedict XVI and the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com web/blogs were inspired by a vision of St. Michael the Archangel in July 2002 when the late John Paul II came to America for his last WYD World Youth Day.

It is now 2009 and after 7 years and the Catholic Church in the USA has paid more than 2 billion dollars to vicitms, Ireland is now erupting with its own share of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army www.jp2army.blogspot.com the "great" John Paul II left behind -- through the great cover-up by Benedict XVI www.pope-ratz.blogspot.com and the Opus Dei who controlled his 26 years papacy!

Our mission is to be in solidarity with the victims of the 26 years papacy of John Paul II -- by showing to America and the world why John Paul II must never be called a "saint" in American lips, in American soil and in every nation where his army, the JPIIPPA John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army www.jp2army.blogspot.com reigned in secrecy and cover-up under his Holy See......


Compare the CRIMES and their VICTIMS in America


Victims - Attackers - Responsible Leaders


Pearl Harbor - 3,000 victims - 170 planes - Admiral Yamamoto

WTC & 9/11 attacks - 5,000 victims - 19 Muslims - Osama bin Laden

USA Priest Pedophilia - 12,000 victims - 5,478 priests - John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Opus Dei - the Vatican trinity

There are now new victims being unraveled in Ireland. There are hundreds of thousands of victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army in the poor countries of Latin America unaccounted for.

Excuses like "I was not aware", "the dog ate my homework", " I spoke out" are not going to cut it with Christ who has been reported by Gospel writers to have said: "Woe to whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea......" The John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Benedict XVI & Opus Dei are the master minds of the cover-up of pedophile priests

Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei are the master minds of the cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army www.jp2army.blogspot.com and now they are at it again through the Opus Dei Supreme Court justice Scalia who will influence the other judges to keep the documents of the pedophile priests sealed.


The Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport must not be allowed to hide behind the First Amendment

September 1, 6:24 PMChurch & State ExaminerMiranda Hale

Accusations, revelations, lawsuits, legal battles, and settlements have, in recent years, finally brought to light some of the long-hidden instances of clergy sexual abuse in the American Catholic Church. Well-publicized cases have raised the public's awareness of just how widespread this abuse was and how utterly thorough and entrenched the institutional cover-up had been.

It quickly became apparent that this was not a situation that could be dismissed as a case of a few malignant individuals in a large, benign organization; on the contrary, the malignancy permeated the Church. The extent of the abuse and the pervasiveness of the institutionally enforced secrecy is staggering. Perhaps the most disturbing and telling revelation of all was that various Church officials had reassigned to other parishes priests who had allegedly committed sexual abuse against children (in most cases with very good evidence to back up those allegations), thereby willfully ignoring both the priests' alleged prior victims and knowingly placing even more children in potential danger.

The abuse was rampant and the cover-up was endemic. This scandal involved both the violation of children and an organizationally enforced blatant refusal to admit culpability or to properly atone for the crimes. This institutional denial of guilt demonstrates a particularly powerful type of contempt for victims. Because the Church has frequently shown that it perceives itself to be above the law, and because Church officials repeatedly display a galling sense of entitlement and an expectation of special treatment that most other institutional perpetrators of sexual abuse do not, it has become the institution that is currently most closely associated with child sexual abuse in the United States. Despite many Church officials' claims that this is an unfair association that has been created and disseminated by biased, anti-Catholic forces, the Church itself is to blame for this association and for its perpetuation.

Clearly, the Church's primary concern in these cases, and regarding the issue as a whole, is to protect its reputation, resources, power, and level of influence. Despite the Church's very well-publicized assertions to the contrary, they are not concerned with helping victims to heal, providing them with appropriate restitution, or protecting their rights. From an institutional perspective, the victims have been both a threat and a nuisance for the Church, primarily because the Church's power and reputation depended to a large extent on the victims' willingness or lack thereof to keep secret the abuse they suffered.

The actions that the Church is currently taking in order to protect itself have the same motivations and intentions that priest reassignment did. The Church is desperate to avoid dealing with the problem and will go to extremes to shelter itself and its reputation, in the process disregarding both victims and potential victims. The Church has been and is still willing to disregard and demean victims of alleged clergy abuse if and when these victims threaten the privilege and the power of the Church. The many instances of priest reassignment, each of which involved knowingly exposing children to alleged pedophiles, illustrates the Church's willingness to do almost anything in order to protect itself and its interests.

The Church has devoted much of its substantial power and resources to keeping its secrets concealed. In some cases, this has involved Church officials attempting to prevent the release of documents that would shed light on the true extent of both the abuse and the cover-ups. This blatant refusal to be open and transparent is not only unethical. In some cases, it is also in violation of the law.

Last week, in one such case, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut, was dealt a major setback in its ongoing attempts to prevent the unsealing of documents detailing clergy sexual abuse lawsuits.

On August 27th, United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a ruling that denied the diocese's emergency request to keep the documents under seal until the Court decides whether or not to hear the case of Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. et al.

The more than 12,600 judicial documents in question detail sexual abuse lawsuits filed against six Bridgeport diocese priests. The majority of these lawsuits were filed in the mid-1990s, regard abuse that allegedly occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, and were settled out of court in 2001 for undisclosed amounts and with the agreement that the content of the settlements and documents relating to it would remain permanently sealed.

The documents include three depositions given by Edward Egan, who was Bishop of Bridgeport from 1988 to 2000, when the majority of the lawsuits against the priests in his diocese were filed. Egan recently retired as the Archbishop of New York. These documents would likely provide specific information regarding how Egan dealt with the allegations and may reveal the extent of his culpability in the matter. Such disclosures could greatly damage the reputation of both Egan and of the diocese as a whole.

In 2002, after it was discovered that the documents had not been destroyed, four newspapers filed a lawsuit in an attempt to have them unsealed. A 2009 decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld a 2006 Waterbury Superior Court's ruling that the newspapers must be allowed access to the documents. The state Court also rejected diocesan officials' assertions that the documents had constitutional privileges, specifically relating to the diocese's claim that unsealing the documents would violate the diocese's rights under the First Amendment's religious clauses. The diocese is now appealing to the United States Supreme Court to consider the case (Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. et al.) and to overturn the state Court's decision.

Their request for appeal is based upon two legal issues. The first regards the state Court's definition of “judicial documents” and the second arises from the diocese's argument that the decision to unseal the documents violates their First Amendment rights, as they claim that they offered these documents with the understanding that they would never be unsealed. However, the state Court ruled that the diocese waived the right to keep the documents perpetually sealed and protected under the First Amendment when they did not, at the time of the ruling, protest on First Amendment grounds.

The diocese argues that the Supreme Court should hear the case because the First Amendment prohibits civil authorities from involving themselves in internal Church decisions regarding priest assignments. Attorneys for the diocese have also argued that because state and federal courts have differed on their definitions of "judicial documents," the Supreme Court should use this case as an opportunity to set a clear legal definition.

In the clergy abuse lawsuits, the diocese was blamed for reassigning six priests who had a history of alleged sexual abuse. The diocese has argued that it cannot be sued for this practice because such choices are private church decisions. It also asserts that any document dealing with such decisions is protected by the the religious clauses of the First Amendment, saying in a recent writ that:

Because courts lack a legitimate role under the First Amendment to examine a church’s employment decisions regarding its ministers, the courts similarly lack constitutional authority to require a church to produce and publicly disclose confidential internal documents or testimony that would be germane only to second-guessing those decisions.

But decisions that may have led to the sexual abuse of children need to and deserve to be second-guessed. If the documents contain nothing implicating either the diocese or specific individuals in the knowing perpetuation of alleged sexual abuse, then the diocese wouldn't be fighting so vociferously and persistently to prevent their release.

Just as a secular counselor or therapist is legally required to report to law enforcement when a patient makes threats of violence against their self or others, the diocese should be compelled to act in a similar manner and should be prohibited from invoking religious privilege in order to keep hidden their protection of alleged pedophiles.

Legal precedent doesn't bode well for the diocese: in 2003, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney denied the Archdiocese of Boston's request to dismiss claims from hundreds of alleged clergy sexual abuse victims. As in the Bridgeport case, the archdiocese argued that its religious freedom would be violated if civil courts intervened in its decisions regarding priest assignments.

The Bridgeport diocese believes that because they are a religious institution, the government shouldn't have any say in which priests they choose, how they choose them, and what decisions they make regarding the placement of the priests. However, individual rights, especially the rights of children who have allegedly been sexually abused, must always take precedence over religious rights. The diocese, both in the past and today, is misusing and abusing the First Amendment in order to harbor known alleged child abusers and to protect those who willfully chose to put children in harm's way. The diocese knowingly reassigned and failed to remove priests who were accused of sexual misconduct and now assert that the decisions and practices of their Church, even when those decisions and practices cause, perpetuate, or defend child sexual abuse, are above the law.

Until the Court decides whether or not to consider their case, the diocese wants the documents in question kept sealed and thus filed the emergency request in an attempt to maintain the stay on their release. Justice Ginsburg denied their request, ruling that only 15 documents of the more than 12,600 in the 23 separate files (one for each lawsuit filed against six separate priests) can be kept from the public record. Of those 15 documents, at least two are depositions.

After Ginsburg's decision, the diocese said that it was disappointed but that it would continue with its fight to prevent the release of the documents, saying in a statement that it:

[I]ntends to proceed with its announced determination to ask the full U.S. Supreme Court to review the important constitutional issues that this case presents.

Notice here that the statement is focused on “constitutional issues.” The diocese and its attorneys in this case have repeatedly maintained that their primary concern is with protecting and defending First Amendment rights. By falsely insisting that this is the case, they are attempting to reframe the issue and to shift attention away from their actual motives.

Jonathan Albano, an attorney representing three of the newspapers that have asked to have the documents unsealed (The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and The Washington Post), argues that Ginsburg's refusal to maintain the seal obligates the diocese to release the documents and that the case involves previously resolved state law, saying that:

It's somewhat disappointing that the diocese continues to approach the litigation in a way that delays the public's right to see these documents. There's been seven years of litigation.

He acknowledges the diocese's right to ask the full Court to review Ginsburg's decision, saying:

At the end of the day, the diocese will be able to say they were heard before every court that was available to them.

Indeed. The diocese will eventually have exhausted every possible legal option. They are running out of chances.

All of these frantic maneuvers by the diocese demonstrate an immense fear of the documents becoming public. Despite a number of defeats in various courts, the diocese still refuses to abide by any of these rulings. Of course they have the right to keep appealing as long as it is legal to do so. However, their dogged insistence on pursuing the case until they get the answer they want indicates that they feel entitled to receive special treatment from the judicial system.

The diocese was so unhappy with Ginsburg's decision that on August 28th, attorneys for the diocese specifically asked United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative Catholic and the father of a priest, to look at their case and to reconsider their request to have the stay continued.

The amount of arrogance on display here is shocking and disturbing.

The diocese seems to think that because they didn't like Ginsburg's decision, they now have the right to not only have the decision reviewed, but to also choose the Justice who will review it. They've obviously chosen Scalia under the assumption that he, as a conservative Catholic, will rule in their favor, once again indicating that the diocese will not stop until they get the answer that they want.

Since when does anyone, be it an individual or an organization, have the right to decide which Justice considers their case?

The source of this arrogance and of the massive sense of entitlement on display here is no mystery. The Church is accustomed to having things their way and is used to making their own rules, and they resent when the legal system “intrudes” into their selfish, secretive world. Church officials have shown a willingness to protect each other at any cost and clearly expect the outside world to bend to their beliefs, expectations, and practices, citing “religious privilege” whenever they are asked to justify their expectations or behavior.

In addition to demonstrating a staggering sense of entitlement, this move also displays the diocese's desperation. They know that they have almost exhausted their legal options and see Scalia as a last-ditch hope.

This arrogance, dishonesty, and desperation was made manifest last weekend in a letter from the diocese's Bishop William E. Lori that was distributed to all 87 parishes in the diocese. In the letter, Lori explained the diocese's reasons for opposing Ginsburg's ruling and for deciding to continue with their legal fight. And, in a discussion of the diocese's current actions and the recent decisions in this case, Lori had the gall to say that:

[I]t is important to note that the Diocese has not pursued this matter in an effort to cover up the issue of sexual abuse.

That's not only blatantly dishonest. It's also a slap in the face to the victims who not only had to allegedly endure horrible sexual abuse, but have also had to watch the diocese spend many years waging expensive legal battles in an attempt to protect itself from having to take responsibility for its actions and inaction. The diocese is clearly engaged in an effort to prevent the release of information that would harm the reputations of itself and of many of its officials. The victims know this, and the bishop's dishonest denial of the diocese's true motives both insults their intelligence and opens their wounds anew.

The Church's rampant dishonesty regarding this issue is nothing new. They've repeatedly promised to be open and honest regarding their past and present mistakes, but have broken this promise time and time again.

In 2002's Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, American Catholic bishops pledged openness and transparency, promising that dioceses would be:

[O]pen and transparent in communicating with the public about sexual abuse of minors by clergy within the confines of respect for the privacy and the reputation of the individuals involved.

Yet openness and honesty do not exist in the Bridgeport diocese, and Church officials and their lawyers are working diligently to make sure that remains the case.

The Supreme Court most likely will not make a decision regarding whether or not to take up their case until this fall.

New Jersey attorney Stephen Rubino, who has previously represented sexual abuse victims, does not believe that the Court will decide to hear the case, arguing that:

There's no First Amendment protection to keep secret records of criminal activity.

That sums it up perfectly. The diocese can insist all they like that this case is about “religious privilege” and constitutional protections. It's not. It's about protecting themselves and their reputations, covering up past crimes, and a refusal to take responsibility or to properly atone for their misdeeds.

The diocese is solely concerned with its own self-interest and is cowardly hiding behind its mistaken interpretation of the religious clauses of the First Amendment.

They cannot be allowed to hide any longer. A bright light must be shone on them, on their criminal activities, and on the true extent of the cover-ups. They must not be allowed to continue avoiding the consequences of their actions and inaction.

In order to send a clear message to the diocese and to the Church as a whole, the Supreme Court must refuse to hear this case.

Let these documents be inspected by anyone who wishes to do so. If the diocese has nothing to hide, then they shouldn't be afraid to make the information a part of the public record.

The Church must act on their promises to be open and transparent and must not be allowed to abuse the First Amendment in this way. Their pervasive institutional corruption cannot continue. It is essential that victims' rights take precedence over the Church's religious rights. Justice must be served.

Let's shine that bright light on the darkest, dankest, and most disturbing aspects of the Church. For too long, they've been allowed to hide behind the First Amendment and to choose which aspects of their institution they want on display, and which aspects they want kept secret. When it comes to the sexual abuse of children, the most disturbing of acts, the Church must not be allowed to make that choice.

It is never acceptable for an individual or an organization to protect or defend allegedly abusive individuals. This includes religious institutions. An institution must not be allowed to invoke “religious privilege” in order to protect itself from scrutiny in these matters and it is reprehensible that the Bridgeport Diocese is currently doing just that.

The Church's secrets must be brought to light so that the Church and its officials can be held fully responsible for their misdeeds. The Church's dishonesty and secrecy must not be allowed to proceed unchecked. The First Amendment does not protect their criminal acts.

Let's train the bright light of the public eye on the darkest secrets of the Church. It's long past due.



Sources:

1. "Diocese takes abuse case to parishes" 08/28/09
2. "Bridgeport Diocese Appeals To U.S. Supreme Court In Clergy Sex Abuse Cases" 08/28/09
3. "Conn. diocese asks Supreme Court to intervene in release of records" 07/18/09
4. "Justice Ginsburg refuses to halt release of Conn. diocese documents" 08/26/09
5. "Conn. diocese to ask U.S. high court to block records release" 07/29/09
6. "Conn. diocese wants Scalia to look at case" 08/28/09
7. "A Letter to the Catholic Faithfulof the Diocese of Bridgeport from Bishop William E. Lori" 08/29/09
8. "Diocese appears to break pledge, Fights order to disclose sexual abuse records" 08/29/09


More About: establishment clause · the supreme court · the catholic church · clergy sex abuse · free exercise clause · the first amendment
ShareThis
Related Articles:
Top ten books on near-death experiences (NDEs): Don Piper's 90 Minutes in Heaven
Ben Barnes: "pitched battles" in Dawn Treader?
Central Ohio Ghost Squad (COGS) raises hell during investigation of Bobby Mackey's Music World
Sex and the Christian
Mindful path to quitting smoking
Your Ad Here
Comments
Hope Rice says:
According to the Scriptures, the people are the church. Where are the people and why are they not protesting in the streets, demanding that their leaders release the court records they have been hiding that pertain to sexual abuse lawsuits? The Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport denied the reports of this evil as long as it could. Now it wishes that it would just go away.This is another example of "protecting" the problem instead of protecting the children, all for the sake of false pride and image. It appears they are more concerned about this becoming public knowledge than the fact that it happened in the first place. Would they teach that a lie becomes a truth only when people find out about it? How cowardly.
Let the sunshine in. Sunshine is a powerful disinfectant.
September 3, 12:27 PM
T42 says:
Why are some afraid to say who they are, or who they work for when meeting for a group session? are they trying to hide something? or throw out a line to fish for something? no matter how one properly eats , nor being in such calmness & control of conversation is an act of luring!, and that's cultic antics.... how ever do you sleep @ night pancake girl?.
Did you find what you were seeking?. oh, that's right, of course...I couldn't hear your knock of a pounding of hammer through all of that silence!

Oh, Step-Dad had a knack for spotting robotic clones, good thing "Rafael Angelo" passed that knack on to me.
Thanks Ralph!
:)
How is everything up there anyway these days?
September 3, 10:14 AM
T42 says:
Get the Point?
September 3, 9:18 AM
T42 says:
There was such a diversity in the people that would come over to our house who were on welfare. From Jew to Gentile, from Atheist to Agnostic, from Mobsters to Millionaires, from Politicians to Priests, FBI's to Police Officers, Artists, Musicians, Beauticians, Madams,..... oh the list is endless..but you get the idea.
What were they all coming over to welfare recipients house for safety?.
September 3, 9:17 AM
Ralph Angelo Carsello says:
Is there an honor among thieves? believe it or not, my syndicate couldn't stand pedophiles, even in prison among the most considered evil of convicts. They just wouldn't last long in prison, there still is a pecking order, I guess.
"I question if my life could have been different if I took up a different but similar career to lived up to my name Ralph Angelo?". Both careers live like caged animals.
----------------------------------------------------------
****************************Contemplate************************************
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
September 3, 8:47 AM
Kevin says:
For the countless boys who had their innocence and lives destroyed, you can take what Jesus said to his disciples in Luke 12:2-3 to your hearts. "But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be made known. Accordinly, whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms shall be proclaimed upon the mountaintops."
September 3, 5:03 AM
Ralph Carcello says:
I still don't know why a murdered Pope ( JPI) doesn't turn more heads, ring more bells, blow more whistles about what kind of Institution the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church is running?.
I know I can't be the only one who thinks about this, that would be vain.
How can the sheep in trust to turning one's soul, or their childrens souls over to this sinful man made
institution in a blink of an eye?.
What is the difference in made men of the Mafia, & the Roman Curia?
They both swear to oaths to this new family with some kind of "holy" article of faith, they both have Dons to answer to, they both seek their funds illegally, but the Mafia gets caught like
I did, & spent 36 yrs. for circumstantial evidence.
September 3, 4:40 AM
Albino Luciani says:
www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker for DAILY verified & vetted reporting on the USCCB (Unremoved Sexual Criminal Cabal Bishops) & Roman "La Cosa Nostra" Pedo Curia.

THE SOLUTION? "STOP DONATING LAITY" as St. Peter Damien correctly asserted & was, in part, canonized for.

"The only condition for the triumph of evil is for good men (or women) to do nothing" as Edmund Burke reminds each of us.

There is no middle ground here laity, you are either financially contributing to a proven and pervasive CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER racketeering curia caused pedo cult, or you are not.

HOW WILL YOU ANSWER YOUR MAKER?!

Fiat Lux & Veritas!

Albino Luciani,
MURDERED POPE
September 2, 11:31 PM
Ace of Hearts says:
how much does it cost the RCC when they are Contempt of the courts orders to produce their files?
September 2, 9:43 PM
Ace of Hearts says:
There is a Fungus Among U.S. the Catholic Fungi hides behind the spores of Biological dispersal, and ask for aka donations to fund their mushroom population! :)
ShameM
September 2, 9:40 PM
Glorybe1929 says:
Sister Maureen,
You write so well and are so informed. You could be a paid columnist for any news organization in this country. I wish you and Fr. Tom Doyle would leave this sicko church and "really " make a statement!
September 2, 7:45 PM
Glorybe1929 says:
This column is magnificent! Please pass it on to as many news org's as possible. The people in the pews must find out about their chuch, whether they want to or not.. They need to make a Christian decision as to what Christ would do and do it.
September 2, 7:41 PM
maggie says:
Justice Scalia's son was seduced by ,"The poster child organization of Catholic corruption", The Legion of Christ,
according to the expose' film, "Vows of Silence". He just
might not be as well desposed to their cause as one might think.
September 2, 7:00 PM
gabe says:
Thank you so very much for having the nerve to print this. It is about time that the Catholic church is not able to get away with hiding its crimes and actually being held responsible for them. I am appalled by the bishop's repeated attempts to conceal sexually predatory priests and the cardinals and bishops who covered up for them. I hope they remember that they will have to meet their Maker just like the rest of us, and although God is merciful, God is a just God.
September 2, 4:20 PM
annaleon says:
Why doesn't this church of God want to reveal pertinent files that pertain to the welfare of those whom they are intrusted to while under their care for direction in Faith?. If they have nothing to hide and want to show the world that they are mis understood, or misrepresented than what's the harm in turning over the files? Is this church trying to vie over the U.S. Laws when it comes to crimes commited under one nation & one God?. Why are they trying to hang a Rainbow over their head or around their neck to claim that they are heaven sent? and cannot be touch by any law other than their own in which they still do not abide by. As long as this church gets free reign to run, victims will constantly be in crisis! Whom does the victim go to for protection?
b
September 2, 1:31 PM
Kurt Gladsky says:
Thank goodness for Sister Maureen. In Maryland we need to enact the same legislation that Delaware has enacted to protect children and hold those who prey on them to account. If nothing changes,nothing changes. Kurt Gladsky Towson Maryland.
September 2, 12:43 PM
Little John says:
1 Peter 2.13-14(RSV): "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right"
September 2, 11:30 AM
SISTER MAUREEN PAUL TURLISH says:
I am grateful to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg for her ruling that denies the diocese's request that the documents remain sealed until the high court decides whether to take up the case in the fall.

Secrecy and the abuse of power have brought the institutional Roman Catholic Church to this point and only truth, justice, and the ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY the the U.S. bishops promised in 2002 will begin to turn it around.

There should be no accomodation in law that gives more protection to sexual predators and any accompanying enablers, individuals, religious denominations or public entities then to the very real victims of childhood sexual abuse.

Churches should and must follow the laws everyone in society has to.

This is a step in the right direction and the Bridgepost Diocese should abide by it ASAP.

Making these documents available for study should give some sense, context and an understanding of what led to leadership's failure to do the morally right thing.
September 2, 8:57 AM
SISTER MAUREEN PAUL TURLISH says:

A further step would be to remove all criminal and civil statutes of limitation regarding the sexual abuse of children in all states as has been done in Delaware.

Moreover, laws in all states that exempt any group, from mainline religious denominations or institutions down to the seemingly most benign local cult, from the laws that the rest of society are required to observe should be struck down. In this particular case the Supreme Courth has already ordered the release of those files. Church leaders should comply.

In all likelihood that material will shed light on the history of this horrific abuse of power and authority by bishops that resulted in untold thousands of children being sexually abused who would not have been had the bishops dealt with these predators when they became aware of their criminal and mortally sinful behavior.

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
September 2, 8:53 AM
Norma Villarreal says:
The diocese will not stop until it gets the answer it wants...by deciding which Justice considers their case. Here is an opportunity for the Catholic Church to be transparent, open and honest, but once again they are covering up past crimes and avoiding the consequences of their actions and inactions.
September 2, 7:55 AM

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Benedict XVI wrong to honor Ted Kennedy





Benedict XVI his clone cardinals and Bishops and the Opus Dei are obsessed with fame, fortune and political powers that 7 of them had to preside Ted Kennedy's funeral mass. The Opus Dei has many members in the Supreme Court and state courts and has many lawyers working against the victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army www.jp2army.blogspot.com. So of course they had to give the most pompous Mass for Ted Kennedy…apparently a very anti-Catholic guy according to this priest Euteneuer. 7 priests officiated at the funeral of Ted Kennedy while the Jesuit Jon Sobrino cannot preach and speak in public because he criticised the theatrical papacy of the Opus Dei-run papacy of John Paul II see the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com for details.

Imagine none of the thousands of pedophile priests have been excommunicated while the Jesuits who work with the poorest are being silenced and suppressed by Benedict XVI and the Octopus Dei hierarchy at the Vatican who live in the lap of luxury and are out-of-touch with reality. Note: this priest who defies Kennedy's pompous Catholic funeral Mass studied at the Jesuit-run Gergorian University in Rome which the Opus Dei are so obssessed to shut-down. He also works with the poorest in South America like the Jesuits especially Jon Sobrino do.


Group questions Catholic funeral for Kennedy

Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow - 8/29/2009 4:40:00 AM

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)A Catholic pro-life leader has some scathing words concerning Senator Ted Kennedy's Catholic funeral.

Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, released this statement concerning Senator Kennedy. "We must, as a matter of precept, pray for the salvation of heretical Catholics like Senator Edward Kennedy, but we do not have to praise him, let alone extol him with the full honors of a public Catholic funeral and all the adulation that attends such an event."

He adds that while Senator Kennedy called himself Catholic, like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Joe Biden, they are actually wolves in sheep's clothing.

"They do not hold to the teaching of the church. They, in fact, take every opportunity seemingly to contradict the teaching of our church," Euteneuer says. "So in the case of Senator Edward Kennedy, he was not only against his church's teaching on the issue of abortion, but the same with embryonic stem cell research, the same with gay marriage andThomas Euteneuer (Human Life International) various other issues which set him in diametric opposition to his church's very well-defined and clearly articulated teaching."

Euteneuer says he is speaking out now to remind everyone that Catholics cannot honor a person with a full and public Catholic funeral when, like Senator Kennedy, he really was not.


.................................................................................. http://www.hli.org/

Human Life International's Statement on the Passing of Senator Edward Kennedy

We must, as a matter of precept, pray for the salvation of heretical Catholics like Senator Edward Kennedy, but we do not have to praise him let alone extol him with the full honors of a public Catholic funeral and all the adulation that attends such an event. There was very little about Ted Kennedy's life that deserves admiration from a spiritual or moral point of view. He was probably the worst example of a Catholic statesman that one can think of. When all is said and done, he has distorted the concept of what it means to be a Catholic in public life more than anyone else in leadership today.

Obviously we don't know the state of Senator Edward Kennedy's soul upon death. We don't pretend to. We are told by the family that he had the opportunity to confess his sins before a priest, and his priest has said publicly he was "at peace" when he died. For that we are grateful. But it is one thing to confess one's sins and for these matters to be kept, rightfully, private. It is another thing entirely for one who so consistently and publicly advocated for the destruction of unborn human beings to depart the stage without a public repudiation of these views, a public confession, as it were.

It is up to God to judge Senator Kennedy's soul. We, as rational persons, must judge his actions, and his actions were not at all in line with one who values and carefully applies Church teaching on weighty matters. Ted Kennedy's positions on a variety of issues have been a grave scandal for decades, and to honor this "catholic" champion of the culture of death with a Catholic funeral is unjust to those who have actually paid the price of fidelity. We now find out that President Obama will eulogize the Senator at his funeral, an indignity which, following on the heels of the Notre Dame fiasco, leaves faithful Catholics feeling sullied, desecrated and dehumanized by men who seem to look for opportunities to slap the Church in the face and do so with impunity simply because they have positions of power.

It is not enough for Kennedy to have been a "great guy behind the scenes" as we have seen him referred to even by his political opponents. It is also not praiseworthy to put a Catholic rhetorical veneer on his leftist politics that did nothing to advance true justice as the Church sees it or to advance the peace of Christ in this world. Every indication of Senator Kennedy's career, every public appearance, every sound bite showed an acerbic, divisive and partisan political hack for whom party politics were much more infallible than Church doctrines. Whatever one's political affiliation, if one is only "Catholic" to the extent that his faith rhymes with his party line, then his Catholicism is a fraud.

As the Scriptures remind us, there is a time for everything under the sun. This, now, is the time for honesty about our Faith and about those who are called to express it in the public forum. If we do not remind ourselves of the necessity of public confession for public sins such as Senator Kennedy was guilty of, then we are negligent in our embrace of the Faith and we are part of the problem. As Pope Benedict has reminded us recently, charity without truth can easily become mere sentimentality, and we must not fall into that error. A Catholic show of charity for the family must not eclipse the truth that is required of all with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Senator Kennedy needs to be sent to the afterlife with a private, family-only funeral and the prayers of the Church for the salvation of his immortal soul. He will not be missed by the unborn who he betrayed time and time again, nor by the rest of us who are laboring to undo the scandalous example of Catholicism that he gave to three generations of Americans.

Sincerely,


Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International

===
Spirit & Life®
"The words I spoke to you are spirit and life." (Jn 6:63)
Human Life International e-Newsletter
Volume 04, Number 28 | Friday, September 4, 2009

.................................................................................. www.hli.org

The Passing of a Real Hero

Today the pro-life movement mourns the loss of Mr. Robert Schindler, Sr., the father of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, whose fight for life captured the heart of the pro-life community in 2005. Mr. Schindler is being buried in Philadelphia today without the fanfare or accolades that are due a real champion who fought one of the most insidious evils of modern society - the legalized murder of the innocent. His funeral will not be televised on all the cable news networks, no cardinals will attend it, and the President of the United States will not deliver the eulogy - thank God. Mr. Schindler, however, is promised a better send-off than that. God Himself will him speak to him words spoken to all the suffering righteous: "Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Master."


It is hard not to notice the contrast between the funerals of Senator Edward Kennedy and Bob Schindler. The secular, brash and privileged "Lion of the Senate" had everything that the world had to offer, including comprehensive political protection from his Waterloo; the Chappaquiddick incident in 1969. He walked away from that one scot-free, and the country ever after that conveniently pretended it didn't happen because no one would want to tarnish the image of a famous political family. Americans find it just too messy to honestly address casual killing.

Ted Kennedy went on to continue his murderous rampage in his political career through his contemptible advocacy of legalized killing through abortion and the farcical defense of Roe by vetoing potential Supreme Court judges who might have rectified that terrible injustice in our country. Among the many sins he will have to account for before the Throne of Grace, his criminally buffoonish and cowardly causing of Mary Jo Kopechne's death and its subsequent cover-up were perhaps the least. Ted Kennedy had a lot of innocent blood on his hands as he went to his judgment, as do all people who advocate or stand aside in silence at the destruction of the innocents.


Bob Schindler, in contrast, was not endowed with the privileges of wealth and social status, nor the political machine that could protect his back side in times of trouble. His family was ravaged by aggressive euthanasia activist lawyers who decided that his daughter was just not worthy of life because she was brain-damaged. He had to fight the son-in-law from hell who, despite a father's unconditional offer to care for his own daughter, rammed the euthanasia agenda home viciously, even triumphantly. Bob had to endure the agony of three separate court-ordered starvations of his daughter, the third of which took her life in a brutal act of gloating evil that many compared to the Passion of Christ. Bob was the faithful father standing at the foot of the Cross and his vigils took place without the companionship of any cardinal or bishop there to rally the saints in defense of his daughter. His greatest sorrow was indeed that the very leadership of his Church, like the apostles in the Garden of Gethsemane, should have abandoned his family in their hour of need. Indeed, his local bishop somehow found more pressing needs in Asia and was AWOL in defense of Terri the week she was murdered. But despite the failings of the men who are given earthly powers to guide the Church, God never abandons his children. Bob was always in the company of the very best, sent from Heaven, and it is our firm belief that the angels are welcoming him home today as he meets the glory of God and at long last, is reunited with the daughter he loves so much.


No one deserves the kind of treatment meted out to him and his family, but Bob did not take it sitting down. He stood up and fought long and hard for what was right and showed us how to persevere in all our bitter battles. His heroism was humble and virtuous; despite opposition from all sides, despite being abandoned by churchmen, despite the slander his family endured, he held himself up and never faltered. He never "ran from the scene" as Kennedy did at Chappaquiddick; he stood his ground and faced the battle and then he did not let the story end there. If there was anyone whose suffering gave him a right to bitterly blame others and withdraw from the rest of the world's problems, it was Bob Schindler. But he did not go that route. He was too much of a man of faith for that. Rather, he and his family set up the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation to assist all others who have are increasingly thrust into that same fight and need someone who has "been there" to stand against the powerful perpetrators of crimes against humanity who sit in our political culture arrogating to themselves the power of life and death, a power that has not been given to them.


Since Terri's Fight in 2005 I have had the supreme privilege of standing next to Bob and the Schindler family on the front lines in the battle against the culture of death and its champions; but I know a real champion when I see one. Bob Schindler certainly paid a martyr's price for his fidelity to the enduring values of faith and family and was a hero in every sense of the word. I will miss him! Indeed, we all will miss him, but we know that his spirit lives on in all those who patiently suffer injustice and in those who fight for life against the lions who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.


Sincerely,


Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Benedict XVI is the chutzpah of the Catholic Church‏ and should be ashamed of himself

Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei covered-up the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army www.jp2army.blogspot.com for more than 26 years. They were too obssessed with silencing the Jesuits who work with the poorest of Christ see John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogpsot.com for details.

The chutzpah of the Catholic Church

The Catholic Church should be ashamed of itself after the exposure of its tolerance of pedophile priests.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9322&page=0

In the State of New York the Catholic Church has been fighting against the passage of the Child Victims Act of Assemblywoman Margaret Markey “with all their hearts, with all their souls and with all their might”. The proposed legislation extends the statute of limitations on sex crimes against children and opens a one-year window for adult victims to sue their childhood perpetrators with no statute of limitation at all. Aside from granting the victims the opportunity to receive justice and some level of compensation for their suffering, similar window legislation has proven to be the best way to help identify scores of sexual predators that were unknown to law enforcement in both California and Delaware.


The Church has postulated a conspiracy theory that sees the sole purpose of allowing adult survivors of child sexual abuse to sue their molesters as a way for enemies of the Church to do it harm.


The Church should be ashamed of itself after the publicly humiliating exposure of its tolerance of perverted behaviour by pedophile priests, and its cynical cover up and intimidation of victims it has perpetrated on a system-wide level. It truly gives a new definition to the word “Chutzpah”, for the Catholic Church to speak out in any but a humble and apologetic tone.

A grand jury in Long Island, New York, for example charged the Archdiocese there of stalling victims of abuse from pressing charges until the statute of limitations was up, so that the Church would not have to answer for the molestation perpetrated by their priests. In Los Angeles, Archbishop Mahony is being investigated by the FBI for the crime of placing priests who were known to have molested children in the past in positions of authority over children without notifying the children’s parents.


Aside from the audacity of an organisation claiming to speak for God placing their financial concerns over the welfare of victims, the tactics used in defending their “assets” by the Church have been extremely “un-Christian”. In Brooklyn, Bishop Nicholas Dimarzio has, in a Machiavellian threat, warned legislators that if the Child Victims Act passes, he will shut down churches in the precincts of those who voted against it.


Ironically, given the Church’s record of aiding and abetting pedophile priests, legislators who care for the safety of the children in their precinct would do well to view this outcome as a positive promise and not as an unwanted threat.


Child sexual abuse, however, knows no religion and is certainly not a plague that is limited to the Catholic Church, and therefore the Church is hurting children of all faiths when they use their considerable political power in New York to deny justice to survivors who have been abused. While the bill was in fact never intended originally by anyone to be “anti-Catholic”, once the Catholic Church has shamefully turned anti-children, they have made it so, because they have once again become actively pro-molesters and the bill is most definitely anti-molesters.


As a Jew, I cannot say I am totally shocked at the lack of concern by representatives of the Catholic Church over the past several decades (and indeed centuries) about the brutalising of innocent children by adults in power.


After all, this is a religious institution that only 60 years ago turned a blind eye to the wanton murder of one million innocent Jewish children in countries that were mostly dominated by practitioners of the Catholic religion.

Although the last Pope did “apologise” to Jewish survivors (the children are not with us to have heard it), not so much has really changed in the Church's sense of morality or sensitivity for child victims. This was recently on display by Pope Benedict’s appointing as a bishop a priest who openly denies that the Holocaust even happened and that Jewish children were gassed to death, and by his pursuing “sainthood” for Pope Pius XII, labeled by historians as “Hitler’s Pope”.


For those children who survived the death camps to have the Church once again treat their feelings like so much political nuisance, reminds them of how little they can trust their Catholic “friends” at a time of need.


But adding insult to injury, in New York, home to many Jewish children as well as Catholic, the Church now seeks to deny all children the right to their day in court when they suffer their own private Holocaust-like trauma of rape, sodomy and sexual molestation. It has been shown repeatedly by psychologists that for many victims of childhood sexual trauma, it often takes growing up into adulthood to even remember, yet alone understand the nature of the harm inflicted on them. Sometimes symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are only manifested once the victim has children of his or her own. And even for those who have suffered from symptoms for years and have had their lives forever damaged, many need years of professional help to regain the emotional strength it takes to confront their victimisers.


To withhold access to restitution for their medical treatment as well as for emotional pain and suffering, is to tell victims of all faiths and ethnicities that their pain is not our concern and their cries will continue to fall on deaf ears. All this from the "religion of love". Apparently the Church, once again, demands from its victims that they "turn the other cheek", while the Church itself aggressively continues to protect itself from being exposed for the destruction of lives that it has caused.


Unfortunately, as a Jew, I am also ashamed at witnessing history repeating itself with the neglectful behaviour of many of my own people. While almost all mainstream Orthodox Jewish groups such as the Rabbinical Council of America, The Rabbinical Alliance of America, The Jewish Board of Advocates for Children, the Orthodox Union, and Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services, and our two Orthodox Assemblymen Dov Hikind and Speaker Sheldon Silver have joined Protestant groups, Catholic victims advocacy groups such as the Survivor Network of those Abused by Priests and Voices of the Faithful, and other non-denominational child advocate groups in lobbying for the Markey bill, our brothers and sisters of the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist branches of Judaism have been deafeningly silent about the spiritual holocaust for children in New York, much as they were during the Holocaust of Jews in Europe. While these branches of Judaism have impressive records in America of social activism, when it comes to standing up for victims of abuse their voices have not been heard.


To be clear, in traditional Torah Judaism, based on halachic law, there is no legal precedent for statutes of limitations on crimes of violence or harming another, neither in civil nor in criminal law. While not speaking directly to the issue of time constraints on claims of damages, one of the most famous dictums in the tort laws of the Talmud states "Adam Muad Le'olam". A person is always responsible (for the damage he/she does). Furthermore, every Jewish person has a biblical obligation to speak out for children’s safety: “Thou shall not stand by idly thy neighbour’s blood.”


Legislators of all religious backgrounds would be wise remember that one out of five or your constituents has been the victim of sexual abuse before the age of 18, although many have not been vocal about it. When facing your own conscience and being tempted to play politics with the lives of innocent children, remember that NO God, not the God believed in by Jews, Christians or Muslims, (and not even the God that atheists reject), could possibly countenance the violation of innocent children. We must all come together in support of our children and pray that the One Merciful God, will in His infinite wisdom, truth and justice, grant our legislature the common sense and the courage needed to enact both the Child Victims Act and other legislation to protect the children He has entrusted to us.


To withhold access to restitution for their medical treatment as well as for emotional pain and suffering, is to tell victims of all faiths and ethnicities that their pain is not our concern and their cries will continue to fall on deaf ears. All this from the "religion of love". Apparently the Church, once again, demands from its victims that they "turn the other cheek", while the Church itself aggressively continues to protect itself from being exposed for the destruction of lives that it has caused.


Unfortunately, as a Jew, I am also ashamed at witnessing history repeating itself with the neglectful behaviour of many of my own people. While almost all mainstream Orthodox Jewish groups such as the Rabbinical Council of America, The Rabbinical Alliance of America, The Jewish Board of Advocates for Children, the Orthodox Union, and Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services, and our two Orthodox Assemblymen Dov Hikind and Speaker Sheldon Silver have joined Protestant groups, Catholic victims advocacy groups such as the Survivor Network of those Abused by Priests and Voices of the Faithful, and other non-denominational child advocate groups in lobbying for the Markey bill, our brothers and sisters of the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist branches of Judaism have been deafeningly silent about the spiritual holocaust for children in New York, much as they were during the Holocaust of Jews in Europe. While these branches of Judaism have impressive records in America of social activism, when it comes to standing up for victims of abuse their voices have not been heard.


To be clear, in traditional Torah Judaism, based on halachic law, there is no legal precedent for statutes of limitations on crimes of violence or harming another, neither in civil nor in criminal law. While not speaking directly to the issue of time constraints on claims of damages, one of the most famous dictums in the tort laws of the Talmud states "Adam Muad Le'olam". A person is always responsible (for the damage he/she does). Furthermore, every Jewish person has a biblical obligation to speak out for children’s safety: “Thou shall not stand by idly thy neighbour’s blood.”


Legislators of all religious backgrounds would be wise remember that one out of five or your constituents has been the victim of sexual abuse before the age of 18, although many have not been vocal about it. When facing your own conscience and being tempted to play politics with the lives of innocent children, remember that NO God, not the God believed in by Jews, Christians or Muslims, (and not even the God that atheists reject), could possibly countenance the violation of innocent children. We must all come together in support of our children and pray that the One Merciful God, will in His infinite wisdom, truth and justice, grant our legislature the common sense and the courage needed to enact both the Child Victims Act and other legislation to protect the children He has entrusted to us.


About the Author

Rabbi Dr Asher Lipner, PhD is an ordained Orthodox Rabbi with a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology. He is the Vice President of the Jewish Board of Advocates for Children. The opinions expressed in the article are those of the author only, and do not necessarily reflect the position of any organisation.


Firstly, the author of this 'attack' should get his facts right. Pope Benedict did not appoint Bishop Williamson who denies the Holocaust.
The Bishop was appointed by the schismatic Society of Pius X.
Secondly, whilst the German and other Nazis operated in Catholic countries, just what could the local priests do ?they did not collaborate and in most cases assisted as far as they were able without losin thier own heads which would serve no purpose.
Thirdly, for a people who were persecuted themselves and clandestinly took physical refuge in a country belonging NOT to them, the Israeli Jews are no example of moral living in regard to their neighbours whose lands they appropriated in the name of money.
Posted by wubble you, Friday, 21 August 2009 11:20:11 AM


In view of the on-going stream of revelations re catholic (and indeed other christian denominations) priests and pedophilia, it is a complete mystery to me as to why any conscientious parent would let their children anywhere near a faith-based school or a church of any denomination whatsoever. As if the mental abuse is not bad enough without added physical brutality as well, if indeed there is any real difference between the two.

Clerical pedophilia has been going on for years and will continue as long as the clergy maintain a totally unnatural lifestyle, and are supported in their irrational self-proclaimed position as 'keepers of the public morality', whilst enjoying unfettered access to children.

Posted by GYM-FISH, Friday, 21 August 2009 1:23:54 PM


Looking at histories of the Catholic Church in Australia and around the world, it looks as though paedophilia has been treated as a company perk.

The only comandment they have paid attention to is the eleventh:

"Thou shalt not get caught."

Who else would want to join a men's club where you can't have relations with a woman and dress up in frocks?

When I see a catholic priest, the first question that springs to mind is "Is he bent?"
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 21 August 2009 1:42:27 PM


There seems a lot of emotional manipulation in this article. It seems to me that the author is using the plight of child abuse victims to promote his own agenda against the Catholic Church in particular and in favour of Jewish ‘victimhood’ in general.

This is just another type of abuse.

If the author is concerned about child abuse he would keep a sense of proportion about his criticisms. Child sexual abuse, as he says is not the sole domain of the Catholic clergy. He acknowledges it in other churches as well. It is rife throughout society. It happens in private homes a lot more than it does in church situations. The most common perpetrator is the father of the victim. If he is really concerned about child sexual abuse he should focus his attention where most of it takes place.

Why does he feel the need to draw parallels with the Holocaust? Is it not a bad enough thing in its own right or is it his real aim to keep the holocaust before people’s attention.

“Furthermore, every Jewish person has a biblical obligation to speak out for children’s safety.”

If that is the reason why he speaks out then it is the wrong reason. He speaks out not because of a genuine sense of justice and concern for children but because of an obligation. Many other people fight for the rights of children because it is natural to do so. They do not need to be told. People who act out of religious motivation must always have suspicion cast upon their motives. When they write articles like these which single out a particular group one must question their real motive. It does nothing to fix the problem and tells us nothing new. Everyone who abuses a child should be dealt with by the law and a great deal is being done for victims of abuse. To use the issue for nothing else than promoting your own personal agenda makes you a perpetrator of taking advantage of other people’s suffering.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 21 August 2009 2:37:45 PM



Phanto,
I doubt anyone would disagree with your assertion and the author's about child sexual abuse not being the sole preserve of RC priests.

However, Priests especially RC priests are held out as Jesus' representatives by the RC church to their flocks. That is where the difference and I mean huge difference lies.

Their resposibility to protect the most vulnerable in society is well recorded in scripture with Jesus' most severe words of warning to anyone who hurts a child.
Posted by Ninja, Friday, 21 August 2009 3:23:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a 'religious' man and child 'advocate' perhaps you should be more concerned with children like Mohammed al-Dura being shot dead in cold blood by Jewish soldiers rather than preaching to us about the Catholic church.

And if you want to play that game where you pretend to have higher morals than the rest of us because of the holocaust then perhaps you could start by telling us what Jews have done for non-Jewish victims of child abuse, or non-Jewish victims of anything for that matter. Christians have a proud history of helping people in need; Jews, it seems, have a proud history of helping Jews.

Hey, but at least you got in a mention of Jewish victimhood.
Posted by dane, Friday, 21 August 2009 6:10:18 PM



It seems to me that the point about criticizing the "catholic" church re its child abuse and sexuality problems, and its collective inability to be staight about pedophile priests is that the church claims to be the only source of truth in the world--even ABSOLUTE truth.

Plus it claims to be the only bastion against the alleged rot of "relativism", especially in relation to sexual morality. The right-wing catholic blogo-sphere is full of this pretentious righteous posturing

It is thus quite rightly hoisted on the petard of its own pretentious hypocritical double-mindedness.

Yes members of other organizations, both religious and secular have their sexual exploiters and abusers too.

But they generally do not pretend to be the only source of truth, even absolute truth, in the world.
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 21 August 2009 6:11:49 PM



"When facing your own conscience and being tempted to play politics with the lives of innocent children, remember that NO God, not the God believed in by Jews, Christians or Muslims, (and not even the God that atheists reject), could possibly countenance the violation of innocent children."

Very true Asher. I don't believe that if there was a higher being in charge of the earths morality, they would allow such evil to happen.
Therefore I find it easy not to believe in a God at all.
In my view, paedophile religious leaders should be even more strenuously punished than the other scum paedophiles.

Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 21 August 2009 8:43:48 PM



Just because the church says that priests are special and even priests themselves say they are special it does not make it true. They should be criticised for their sexual abuse and not for their self-delusions. They should be treated like anyone else who commits the crime of sexual abuse. You cannot add years to their punishment because they have been deluded by their own hype. If being deluded was a crime we’d all be in strife. They are just human beings and are entitled to the same justice as any other human being.

People act outraged because priests do not do live up to the image that they and others project of them. They only have that image because some have put them on a pedestal for their own needs. A big part of the problem is the failure of some parents to respond appropriately when children report sexual abuse at the hands of clergy. The parents do not want to believe it to be true because it threatens their dependence on religion. Children do not put themselves in danger – their parents do. It is not only a question of child abuse for the parents it is also a question of why people need religion.

Having an exalted view of any human being is very unhealthy. No one is better than anyone else by virtue of their public role. Being more outraged at the behaviour of priests as compared to other citizens says more about the outraged person than the priest. Many people who have resentment towards the church for other reasons often jump on the bandwagon and love to point out the failure of priests to live up to an image that they no longer even subscribe to.

Conversely you could argue the duty of care that a father has towards his daughter may be much more serious than the duty of care of a priest towards that same daughter. Why are we not equally outraged by incest? It does not diminish the crime just because a father does not promote himself as a bastion of virtue
Posted by phanto, Friday, 21 August 2009 9:44:14 PM



Dear phanto, The stats on sexual abuse of children by their fathers is 1%. Why are you suggesting that fathers are responsible for most it, when the evidence, is, that somebody else is responsible, 99% of the time? One, common, problem is the new, "bad boy", BF, that many deadbeat, single, mothers, take up with, after, leaving a perfectly good father, because they were a little bored, and too lazy or stupid to do some couples counselling.

All posters, so far, why have none of you, (feminists especially) mentioned the plight of girls, in catholic, all girl schools, which are run by nuns? Are you seriously, suggesting that, no, equally frustrated, celibate nun, has never, ever, been involved in lesbian sex with other nuns or girls at a catholic girls school, anywhere in the world?

Are you seriously suggesting that no nuns have ever been responsible for physical abuse or cruelty?

I personally have met and spoken with survivors of both genders who were beaten by nuns, or, the gardener, following orders, from the senior nun.

phanto, "methinks, the pot, is calling the kettle, black" and you, may be pursuing an agenda, of your own, to, blame all abuse of children, on men, and completely ignore the abuse of children, by women. Do you support, the rights, of every deadbeat, single, mother to neglect and abuse her children?
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 22 August 2009 12:08:08 PM



The eloquent Rabbi Ashar Lipner has been misinterpreted and critically maligned by readers of OLO. Seems critics are more intent on discrediting the Author, then evaluating the gist of his article.

The appointment of pro-Nazi Bishop Williamson may not have been physically appointed by Pope Benedict, but to be sure, everything emanating from the Vatican must be sanctioned by His Holiness's imprimatur. Thousands of priest ( all religions ) monks, nuns were purged, incarcerated, and sent to the gas chambers. Those evading prosecution practiced a pseudo religion, and at the time, were assidiously careful to preach anything but the Nazi propaganda. Some call them collaborators. Pope Pius XII.

The diasporas Catholic Church is suffering for the sins of a few paedophilic priest, just like any giant Corporation with hundreds and thousands of employees. Today, every parish in Oz,is operating below par - given the seminaries are bereft of zealous recruits. More lay members are ursurping the duties performed by priest. Eventually, their numbers will cease. Priest are being imported from Poland, Nigeria, and Vietnam to mitigate the scarcity.

Many priest,particularly in the USA, have been prosecuted, defrocked and goaled for their sexuality. In Ireland, South America, Mexico and the Phillippines, priest are venerated, and their sexual proclivities, abuse, etc are tolerated, even condoned. Some, lead a double life, supported by their parish, to the extent of rearing their offspring. In Ireland, the Government supports the clergy to rear orphans, unwanted children etc.

The Holocaust should be remembered, as a reminder of man's inhumanity to his siblings. The " master race " is a myth, and no one is more superior than his neighbour. The Jewish, " final solution " liquidation was only a side show. Academics, gypsies, foreigners, deviates, collaborators etc made up 60/70 per cent of the inmates at Auschwitz, Belsen etc.

Well done Rabbi.
Posted by dalma, Saturday, 22 August 2009 12:15:15 PM


Formersnag, yes I spent 12 years in a Catholic girls college and yes some of the nuns were cruel to us. They doled out physical punishment to us, but at no stage did I ever hear of a nun committing sexual abuse on children.
There probably are some twisted nuns somewhere who may have done this, but if so, then I am sure there would have been plenty about it in the press!

>"One, common, problem is the new, "bad boy", BF, that many deadbeat, single, mothers, take up with, after, leaving a perfectly good father, because they were a little bored, and too lazy or stupid to do some couples counselling."

Hey what about the single mothers left holding the baby when fathers have run off in fright at the responsibility? What about the fathers running off with another woman? Many of these men are quite happy to have sex with these women, but don't deal with the results very well. You can't lump all single mothers in the same basket Formersnag.

I do agree though that many paedophiles prey on single, vulnerable mothers to get access to their children, just as they become Priests or teachers to get close to children.

This does NOT mean that all men are potential child-abusers, just that most of those convicted of the crime have been men. This fact cannot be disputed
Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 22 August 2009 6:19:18 PM



Formersnag - The stats on sexual abuse of children by their fathers is 1%. Why are you suggesting that fathers are responsible for most it, when the evidence, is, that somebody else is responsible, 99% of the time?

Just because there is no evidence for something doesn’t mean it is not true. Until recent years there was no evidence of sexual abuse among the clergy but now we know it has existed for decades. I suggest it is much more difficult to admit that you have been abused by your father than by your local priest. It would be even harder to bring criminal proceedings against your father.

This discussion is about sexual abuse and not about other types of abuse. No one is saying that there are not other types of abuse perpetrated by both men and women
Posted by phanto, Saturday, 22 August 2009 8:02:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dalma,

The fact the holocaust was even brought up in an article about Catholic priets and child abuse shows how politicised and meaningless it has become. Where is the connection?

Jews have long used the holocaust to claim some sort of moral superiority over the rest of us - even condescending to designate some people during the second world war as 'righteous gentiles' for helping Jews. This, of course, implies the other millions who didn't help Jews were somehow immoral. This includes the 15 million Russians who perished and the millions from other countries who gave their lives to stop Hitler. A continent destroyed, 25 million dead and hundreds of millions homeless and destitute. But they weren't Jewish so we don't hear about them.

And as for your canard about not forgetting so its not repeated. Well, it has been repeated. In Cambodia, in Bosnia and in Rwanda. But again, these victims weren't Jewish so I guess they don't count.

Perhaps you could ask your 'eloquent' Rabbi what Jews did to help the Cambodians during Pol Pot's reign of terror, or how much aid he sent to victims of Rwanda's violent genocide?
Posted by dane, Saturday, 22 August 2009 8:04:03 PM


Thank You Rabbi Dr Asher Lipner,

From the Almighty's lips to your ears!.
May the Loving Creator of the Universe forever shine abundent Blessings upon you
and yours! :)

May the Spirit of Truth & Wisdom live in the mind & hearts of all men like a bell
for the sound of echoing Justice to reign!

:)
Posted by Deanna Leonti, Sunday, 23 August 2009 12:13:24 AM



As a devout atheist and practicing " love-thy-neighbour " schism, this debate appears to have been hijacked and derailed.

One of the fundamentals of robust semantics is to adhere to the script. Citing " red-herrings " and weasel words to divert attention is strictly verboten. Personality vilification is another. Some of the more recent luminaries of OLO stultify healthy discussion, never read the ' script ' and go off in a tangent out of synch, pursuing some miasmic agenda !

So much for our lauded Universities, and Julia Gillard's much vaunted Educational system.

Rabbi Ashar Lipner - you have my undying gratitude in bringing revelancy to the debate.

Feel free to visit us. You are always welcome in our humble abode.

Shalom
Posted by shellback, Monday, 24 August 2009 7:44:01 AM



Shellback – The debate has not been hi-jacked it has exposed the article for what it is. It is one person’s personal grievance masquerading as concern for victims of child sexual abuse. Anyone who abuses these forums for their own personal agenda should be exposed in the hope that they do not do it again.

If the author was genuinely concerned about the victims he could have written a perfectly reasoned argument about the mismanagement of the Catholic Church. It has been done many times before. It just needs to be reasonable and logical. It does not need to include any of his personal information. We did not even need to know that he was Jewish.

What more needs to be said about the situation anyway? Any sexual abuse is wrong and covering it up is wrong. How many ways are there to say the same thing? A lot needs to be done to help and support victims and to obtain justice where possible. This is practical help. If the author is so concerned perhaps he should use his energy to set up counselling services or help with legal expenses.

It seems to me that he is more concerned that the Catholic Church has brought religious groups into disrepute and that he is afraid that some of the mud may stick on the synagogue. If he was really secure in his righteousness then he should not be so worried.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 24 August 2009 11:40:02 AM


All:

Without belabouring the point and sounding repetitive, the article by Rabbi Lipner was selected ( as I understand it ) by the Editorial staff of OLO, from a multutude of modern, contentious essayist.

His cv dwarfs many Academics, Political identities and celebrities. His work is known throughout Europe, Israel and abroad. He is widely read, and is credited with numerous Books, journals, essays etc. The New York Times, Guardian, Economist, Times etc publishes his works regularly. He is widely sought after, and in great demand.

As for his philanthropy, community works and tireless energies for directing welfare groups, migrants, displaced persons, refugees etc - He is the recipient of countless Awards and accolades.

Finally, what is your claim to fame ?
Posted by shellback, Monday, 24 August 2009 3:26:55 PM


shellback - we don't need a claim to fame. Our arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Just because someone has a string of credentials doesn't mean he is incapable of abusing his power to promote his own personal agenda.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 24 August 2009 5:20:28 PM




phanto, Radical, extremist, loony, left wing, femanazis have been desperately looking for, all cases of, all forms of, child abuse by fathers for several decades now in all western, English speaking democracies. As you well know, and 1% of sexual abuse was all they could find. I personally have met hundreds of people, who were sexually abused as children and only 2 of whom, by their biological father, and in both cases, those individuals had no problem telling anybody who would listen, about what their fathers had done to them.

Child sexual abuse has been known about for thousands of years. Extensive debauchery of all kinds, including child sexual abuse, in the catholic church, during the first millennium, is, why, the policy of celibacy was started in the first place. The writing of Charles Dickens and Oscar Wilde, also cover all forms of child abuse.

suzeonline, i am sure, that there would NOT, have been anything, about it in the press, as we both know, that the mass media, is chock a block full of female journalists, who assiduously avoid, all mention, of any child abuse, by women. As do all DOCS staff in all states and territories, avoid investigating abuse of children by women. Which is why not many women have been caught so far.

I was not, and never have, lumped all, single mothers in the same basket, but the type of "good" single mothers you mention are in the minority, like the "allegedly" bad men, also in the minority.

So YES, the under reporting, and conviction, of females for child sexual abuse, (as well as all other, forms of abuse) can, be, disputed.

BTW, shellback was quite right about author and article.
Posted by Formersnag, Monday, 24 August 2009 5:34:49 PM

It seems to me that the point about criticizing the "catholic" church re its child abuse and sexuality problems, and its collective inability to be staight about pedophile priests is that the church claims to be the only source of truth in the world--even ABSOLUTE truth.

Plus it claims to be the only bastion against the alleged rot of "relativism", especially in relation to sexual morality. The right-wing catholic blogo-sphere is full of this pretentious righteous posturing

It is thus quite rightly hoisted on the petard of its own pretentious hypocritical double-mindedness.

Yes members of other organizations, both religious and secular have their sexual exploiters and abusers too.

But they generally do not pretend to be the only source of truth, even absolute truth, in the world.
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 21 August 2009 6:11:49 PM



"When facing your own conscience and being tempted to play politics with the lives of innocent children, remember that NO God, not the God believed in by Jews, Christians or Muslims, (and not even the God that atheists reject), could possibly countenance the violation of innocent children."

Very true Asher. I don't believe that if there was a higher being in charge of the earths morality, they would allow such evil to happen.
Therefore I find it easy not to believe in a God at all.
In my view, paedophile religious leaders should be even more strenuously punished than the other scum paedophiles.
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 21 August 2009 8:43:48 PM



Just because the church says that priests are special and even priests themselves say they are special it does not make it true. They should be criticised for their sexual abuse and not for their self-delusions. They should be treated like anyone else who commits the crime of sexual abuse. You cannot add years to their punishment because they have been deluded by their own hype. If being deluded was a crime we’d all be in strife. They are just human beings and are entitled to the same justice as any other human being.

People act outraged because priests do not do live up to the image that they and others project of them. They only have that image because some have put them on a pedestal for their own needs. A big part of the problem is the failure of some parents to respond appropriately when children report sexual abuse at the hands of clergy. The parents do not want to believe it to be true because it threatens their dependence on religion. Children do not put themselves in danger – their parents do. It is not only a question of child abuse for the parents it is also a question of why people need religion.

Having an exalted view of any human being is very unhealthy. No one is better than anyone else by virtue of their public role. Being more outraged at the behaviour of priests as compared to other citizens says more about the outraged person than the priest. Many people who have resentment towards the church for other reasons often jump on the bandwagon and love to point out the failure of priests to live up to an image that they no longer even subscribe to.

Conversely you could argue the duty of care that a father has towards his daughter may be much more serious than the duty of care of a priest towards that same daughter. Why are we not equally outraged by incest? It does not diminish the crime just because a father does not promote himself as a bastion of virtue
Posted by phanto, Friday, 21 August 2009 9:44:14 PM

Dear phanto, The stats on sexual abuse of children by their fathers is 1%. Why are you suggesting that fathers are responsible for most it, when the evidence, is, that somebody else is responsible, 99% of the time? One, common, problem is the new, "bad boy", BF, that many deadbeat, single, mothers, take up with, after, leaving a perfectly good father, because they were a little bored, and too lazy or stupid to do some couples counselling.

All posters, so far, why have none of you, (feminists especially) mentioned the plight of girls, in catholic, all girl schools, which are run by nuns? Are you seriously, suggesting that, no, equally frustrated, celibate nun, has never, ever, been involved in lesbian sex with other nuns or girls at a catholic girls school, anywhere in the world?

Are you seriously suggesting that no nuns have ever been responsible for physical abuse or cruelty?

I personally have met and spoken with survivors of both genders who were beaten by nuns, or, the gardener, following orders, from the senior nun.

phanto, "methinks, the pot, is calling the kettle, black" and you, may be pursuing an agenda, of your own, to, blame all abuse of children, on men, and completely ignore the abuse of children, by women. Do you support, the rights, of every deadbeat, single, mother to neglect and abuse her children?
Posted by Formersnag, Saturday, 22 August 2009 12:08:08 PM

The eloquent Rabbi Ashar Lipner has been misinterpreted and critically maligned by readers of OLO. Seems critics are more intent on discrediting the Author, then evaluating the gist of his article.

The appointment of pro-Nazi Bishop Williamson may not have been physically appointed by Pope Benedict, but to be sure, everything emanating from the Vatican must be sanctioned by His Holiness's imprimatur. Thousands of priest ( all religions ) monks, nuns were purged, incarcerated, and sent to the gas chambers. Those evading prosecution practiced a pseudo religion, and at the time, were assidiously careful to preach anything but the Nazi propaganda. Some call them collaborators. Pope Pius XII.

The diasporas Catholic Church is suffering for the sins of a few paedophilic priest, just like any giant Corporation with hundreds and thousands of employees. Today, every parish in Oz,is operating below par - given the seminaries are bereft of zealous recruits. More lay members are ursurping the duties performed by priest. Eventually, their numbers will cease. Priest are being imported from Poland, Nigeria, and Vietnam to mitigate the scarcity.

Many priest,particularly in the USA, have been prosecuted, defrocked and goaled for their sexuality. In Ireland, South America, Mexico and the Phillippines, priest are venerated, and their sexual proclivities, abuse, etc are tolerated, even condoned. Some, lead a double life, supported by their parish, to the extent of rearing their offspring. In Ireland, the Government supports the clergy to rear orphans, unwanted children etc.

The Holocaust should be remembered, as a reminder of man's inhumanity to his siblings. The " master race " is a myth, and no one is more superior than his neighbour. The Jewish, " final solution " liquidation was only a side show. Academics, gypsies, foreigners, deviates, collaborators etc made up 60/70 per cent of the inmates at Auschwitz, Belsen etc.

Well done Rabbi.
Posted by dalma, Saturday, 22 August 2009 12:15:15 PM

Formersnag, yes I spent 12 years in a Catholic girls college and yes some of the nuns were cruel to us. They doled out physical punishment to us, but at no stage did I ever hear of a nun committing sexual abuse on children.
There probably are some twisted nuns somewhere who may have done this, but if so, then I am sure there would have been plenty about it in the press!

>"One, common, problem is the new, "bad boy", BF, that many deadbeat, single, mothers, take up with, after, leaving a perfectly good father, because they were a little bored, and too lazy or stupid to do some couples counselling."

Hey what about the single mothers left holding the baby when fathers have run off in fright at the responsibility? What about the fathers running off with another woman? Many of these men are quite happy to have sex with these women, but don't deal with the results very well. You can't lump all single mothers in the same basket Formersnag.

I do agree though that many paedophiles prey on single, vulnerable mothers to get access to their children, just as they become Priests or teachers to get close to children.

This does NOT mean that all men are potential child-abusers, just that most of those convicted of the crime have been men. This fact cannot be disputed
Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 22 August 2009 6:19:18 PM


Formersnag - The stats on sexual abuse of children by their fathers is 1%. Why are you suggesting that fathers are responsible for most it, when the evidence, is, that somebody else is responsible, 99% of the time?

Just because there is no evidence for something doesn’t mean it is not true. Until recent years there was no evidence of sexual abuse among the clergy but now we know it has existed for decades. I suggest it is much more difficult to admit that you have been abused by your father than by your local priest. It would be even harder to bring criminal proceedings against your father.

This discussion is about sexual abuse and not about other types of abuse. No one is saying that there are not other types of abuse perpetrated by both men and women
Posted by phanto, Saturday, 22 August 2009 8:02:02 PM


dalma,

The fact the holocaust was even brought up in an article about Catholic priets and child abuse shows how politicised and meaningless it has become. Where is the connection?

Jews have long used the holocaust to claim some sort of moral superiority over the rest of us - even condescending to designate some people during the second world war as 'righteous gentiles' for helping Jews. This, of course, implies the other millions who didn't help Jews were somehow immoral. This includes the 15 million Russians who perished and the millions from other countries who gave their lives to stop Hitler. A continent destroyed, 25 million dead and hundreds of millions homeless and destitute. But they weren't Jewish so we don't hear about them.

And as for your canard about not forgetting so its not repeated. Well, it has been repeated. In Cambodia, in Bosnia and in Rwanda. But again, these victims weren't Jewish so I guess they don't count.

Perhaps you could ask your 'eloquent' Rabbi what Jews did to help the Cambodians during Pol Pot's reign of terror, or how much aid he sent to victims of Rwanda's violent genocide?
Posted by dane, Saturday, 22 August 2009 8:04:03 PM



Thank You Rabbi Dr Asher Lipner,

From the Almighty's lips to your ears!.
May the Loving Creator of the Universe forever shine abundent Blessings upon you
and yours! :)

May the Spirit of Truth & Wisdom live in the mind & hearts of all men like a bell
for the sound of echoing Justice to reign!

:)
Posted by Deanna Leonti, Sunday, 23 August 2009 12:13:24 AM


As a devout atheist and practicing " love-thy-neighbour " schism, this debate appears to have been hijacked and derailed.

One of the fundamentals of robust semantics is to adhere to the script. Citing " red-herrings " and weasel words to divert attention is strictly verboten. Personality vilification is another. Some of the more recent luminaries of OLO stultify healthy discussion, never read the ' script ' and go off in a tangent out of synch, pursuing some miasmic agenda !

So much for our lauded Universities, and Julia Gillard's much vaunted Educational system.

Rabbi Ashar Lipner - you have my undying gratitude in bringing revelancy to the debate.

Feel free to visit us. You are always welcome in our humble abode.

Shalom
Posted by shellback, Monday, 24 August 2009 7:44:01 AM



Shellback – The debate has not been hi-jacked it has exposed the article for what it is. It is one person’s personal grievance masquerading as concern for victims of child sexual abuse. Anyone who abuses these forums for their own personal agenda should be exposed in the hope that they do not do it again.

If the author was genuinely concerned about the victims he could have written a perfectly reasoned argument about the mismanagement of the Catholic Church. It has been done many times before. It just needs to be reasonable and logical. It does not need to include any of his personal information. We did not even need to know that he was Jewish.

What more needs to be said about the situation anyway? Any sexual abuse is wrong and covering it up is wrong. How many ways are there to say the same thing? A lot needs to be done to help and support victims and to obtain justice where possible. This is practical help. If the author is so concerned perhaps he should use his energy to set up counselling services or help with legal expenses.

It seems to me that he is more concerned that the Catholic Church has brought religious groups into disrepute and that he is afraid that some of the mud may stick on the synagogue. If he was really secure in his righteousness then he should not be so worried.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 24 August 2009 11:40:02 AM



All:

Without belabouring the point and sounding repetitive, the article by Rabbi Lipner was selected ( as I understand it ) by the Editorial staff of OLO, from a multutude of modern, contentious essayist.

His cv dwarfs many Academics, Political identities and celebrities. His work is known throughout Europe, Israel and abroad. He is widely read, and is credited with numerous Books, journals, essays etc. The New York Times, Guardian, Economist, Times etc publishes his works regularly. He is widely sought after, and in great demand.

As for his philanthropy, community works and tireless energies for directing welfare groups, migrants, displaced persons, refugees etc - He is the recipient of countless Awards and accolades.

Finally, what is your claim to fame ?
Posted by shellback, Monday, 24 August 2009 3:26:55 PM

shellback - we don't need a claim to fame. Our arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Just because someone has a string of credentials doesn't mean he is incapable of abusing his power to promote his own personal agenda.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 24 August 2009 5:20:28 PM



phanto, Radical, extremist, loony, left wing, femanazis have been desperately looking for, all cases of, all forms of, child abuse by fathers for several decades now in all western, English speaking democracies. As you well know, and 1% of sexual abuse was all they could find. I personally have met hundreds of people, who were sexually abused as children and only 2 of whom, by their biological father, and in both cases, those individuals had no problem telling anybody who would listen, about what their fathers had done to them.

Child sexual abuse has been known about for thousands of years. Extensive debauchery of all kinds, including child sexual abuse, in the catholic church, during the first millennium, is, why, the policy of celibacy was started in the first place. The writing of Charles Dickens and Oscar Wilde, also cover all forms of child abuse.

suzeonline, i am sure, that there would NOT, have been anything, about it in the press, as we both know, that the mass media, is chock a block full of female journalists, who assiduously avoid, all mention, of any child abuse, by women. As do all DOCS staff in all states and territories, avoid investigating abuse of children by women. Which is why not many women have been caught so far.

I was not, and never have, lumped all, single mothers in the same basket, but the type of "good" single mothers you mention are in the minority, like the "allegedly" bad men, also in the minority.

So YES, the under reporting, and conviction, of females for child sexual abuse, (as well as all other, forms of abuse) can, be, disputed.

BTW, shellback was quite right about author and article.
Posted by Formersnag, Monday, 24 August 2009 5:34:49 PM

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Benedict XVI investigates American nuns

The Opus Dei puts women inferior in their Opus caste system and therefore they do not tolerate Catholic religious nuns very well – unless these women become parrots of John Paul II writings and Benedict XVI writings (which are all written by Opus Dei ghost writers).


Because Opus Dei cannot control these American nuns who refuse to be ruled by Octopus Dei tentacles they are being “investigated” which is a warning they could face closure like the Jesuits were expelled from the Vatican Observatory (closed on the eve of the Jesuit General Congregation in Rome) and the Vatican Radio (even if the Jesuits founded these institutions and served the popes for more than 400 years. The Opus Dei NOW controls the papacy and the Vatican and anyone who do not obey them, in their totalitarian ways will be shut down…see what happened to the Jesuit Jon Sobrino in the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com


Aug 17, 3:55 PM EDT

Catholic sisters under Vatican review want answers

By Rachel Zoll
AP Religion Writer


NEW YORK (AP) -- An association of U.S. Roman Catholic sisters raised questions Monday about why they are the target of, and who is paying for, a Vatican investigation that is shaping up to be a tough review of whether sisters have strayed from church teaching.

The Leadership Conference of Women Religious, representing about 800 heads of religious orders, said there was a "lack of full disclosure about the motivation and funding sources" for the inquiry. The group also said it objects to the Vatican plan to keep private the reports that will be submitted to the Holy See.

"There's no transparency there," said Sister Annmarie Sanders, a conference spokeswoman.

The investigation, announced earlier this year, will examine the practices of the roughly 59,000 Catholic sisters working in the United States. Some sisters have privately expressed anger over the assessment, which they say unfairly questions their commitment to church teaching. However, in public they have remained largely circumspect in their comments.

At the conference's assembly last week in New Orleans, the outgoing president of the group, Sister J. Lora Dambroski, described the investigation as a challenge to creatively live out the Gospel and said it could be "another definining moment" for Catholic sisters.

A Vatican working paper delivered recently to leaders of 341 U.S. religious congregations said that the review "is intended as a constructive assessment and an expression of genuine concern for the quality of the life" of the religious communities.

But the nature of some questions seems to validate concerns that they are suspected of being unfaithful to the church.

Among the requested information are details of "the process for responding to sisters who dissent publicly or privately from the authoritative teaching of the Church."

Separately, the Vatican has opened a "doctrinal assessment" of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which is based in Silver Spring, Md.

The Connecticut office of Mother Clare Millea, who is overseeing the investigation of the U.S. sisters, did not respond to a request for comment Monday.

In a July 31 interview with Catholic News Service, Millea said "we are welcoming the support of individual dioceses, individuals or groups who would be willing to help defray the expenses" of the study, called an apostolic visitation. It could take up to three years.

The Vatican ordered a similar investigation of U.S. Catholic seminaries in 2002, at the height of the clergy sex abuse crisis. Vatican leaders did not publicly disclose the information that the investigators filed to Rome and did not provide specifics on funding for the inquiry. However, the Vatican did eventually release its own report on the state of the schools.

"That's just the typical Vatican approach to these things," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University.

The Vatican often relies on the U.S. church, among the wealthiest Catholic communities in the world, to fund church work, even an unwelcome inquiry. In the working paper for the religious orders' review is a request for the women to cover travel costs for the investigators.

If Millea is still seeking donations now that the study is under way, Reese said, "then it hasn't been bankrolled" by any lay person or group hoping to influence the study.

----

On the Net:

Apostolic Visitation, http://apostolicvisitation.org

Leadership Conference of Women Religious: http://www.lcwr.org/

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Benedict XVI says Medjugorje is a sham‏

Well, Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei who control the Vatican say that Medjugorje, a shrine to the Virgin Mary isr a sham . Why the true reason is the Opus Dei priests are not welcome there and the people refuse to pray in Latin. The Opus Dei now control the Lourdes shrine in France as daily tour bus are connected from Lourdes to the biggest basilica of Opus Dei in Torreciudad.

But Medjugorje cannot be connected to the Opus Dei as the Franciscans have served there for years. And whatever the Opus Dei cannot control, they shut down – through the Pope – and call it “work of the Devil”.

Just like the Vatican Observatory, the Jesuit astronomers built it and worked there for over centuries and because there are no Opus Dei astronomers (they are too stupid to be one) they shut down the Vatican Observatory and converted it into a museum.

Imagine in this new age of space, they shut down the Vatican Observatory. The Opus Dei are trying to annihilate the Jesuits, slowly but surely, and they have board members in all the Jesuit universities in the USA and others in the world. The Opus Dei are parrots of John Paul II and his writings and they silence the Jesuit Jon Sobrino who criticised John Paul II.

The Opus Dei are the new dictators in the Catholic Church…but their days and the Vatican days are numbered because the Third Secret of Fatima predicted the entire demise of the Vatican – that have covered-up the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army for over a quarter of a century – see the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com

Medjugorje - a shrine to the Virgin Mary or a sham?

Belfast Telegraph (Northern Ireland)

By Eamonn McCann

Thursday, 6 August 2009

Will the real Prince of Darkness please stand up? Are you Pope Benedict XVI or the spitting image of the Mother of God?

Benedict says that the Blessed Virgin Mary (BVM) allegedly making daily appearances in the village of Medjugorje in Herzegovina is a fraud designed by the Devil to lure Catholics from the path of righteousness. Vatican officials have admitted that the apparition is virtually indistinguishable from, so to speak, the real |thing — as one would expect from such a cunning falsifier of truth |as Beelzebub.

Indeed, speaking last year, senior Vatican cleric and former top exorcist Bishop Andrea Gemma pointed out that it is the very plausibility of the Medjugorje BVM which most strongly suggests she is a fake. “The whole sham is the work of the Devil.”

On the other hand, defiant devotees of the Medjugorje BVM are adamant that it’s those who deny her authenticity who must be accounted diabolical.

Said Philip Wallace of the National Medjugorje Council of Ireland last week: “We accept that Medjugorje is constantly under attack and we view that as a sign of the authenticity of the visions and of the powerful graces which are flowing. If Satan wasn’t attacking this great work, it would be surprising.”

He was commenting on news that Benedict had finally lost the bap and ended any official ambiguity about the status of Medjugorje by defrocking Fr. Tomislav Vlasic, original “spiritual father” of the six children, now adults, visited by the Medjugorje BVM at 6.40pm local time every evening for the past 28 years, not to mention biological father of a child of his own, the fruit of communion with a nun.
It was just Fr. Vlasic’s luck that Benedict won the vote to be Pope in 2005. Back in 1976, letters the priest had written to the woman, then pregnant with his child instructing her to “imitate Mary” and stay schtum about the baby, fell into her landlady’s hands, who sent them to the Vatican.

But little enough happened as a result. Fr. Vlasic was at hand to take spiritual control at the first sighting of the Medjugorje Virgin in 1981. He wasn’t to know that the official on whose desk the letters had landed, and who had a famously vivid memory for this sort of thing, would rise through the ranks of the velvet bureaucracy and eventually be selected to succeed John Paul II.

John Paul had not endorsed, but neither had he explicitly denounced, the Medjugorje phenomenon, which by the end of his papacy had drawn 30m pilgrims from all parts of the world, including tens of thousands from Ireland.

Benedict clearly took a sterner view. The charge sheet drawn up against Fr. Vlasic at Benedict’s instruction last year accuses him of heresy, schism, sexual immorality “aggravated by mystical motivations” and “the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspect mysticism and disobedience towards legitimately issued orders.”

Benedict — supposing he isn’t acting as an agent of the Devil — may now feel that he is clearing up business which ought to have been gotten out of the way long ago.
The parish of Medjugorje is run by Franciscans at the Church of St James.

In the early 1940s, priests from the church had operated locally as the spiritual wing of the Ustashe, the Croatian Nationalist movement aligned with the Nazis which slaughtered 250,000 Orthodox Serbs in its effort to create a Catholic State for Catholic people.

Through all the change and tumult in the region since, the Franciscans of Medjugorje have resisted control by the Diocese of Mostar. Since the early 1980s, their “possession” of the Virgin, and their brilliant success in marketing her to the world, has been a trump card.

The political background isn’t remote. The Franciscans’ website, medjugorjepilgrim.com, currently provides intending pilgrims with a potted history of the district since the seventh century.

The early 40s are covered thus: “1941: During World War II, German and Italian forces |under Communist Tito (!) occupy Yugoslavia.

“1945: The Communists kill 69 people from the Franciscans community in Herzegovina in February and May.
“In the village of Siroki Brijeg on February 7, 1945, the Communists kill 760 parishioners and 30 Franciscan priests and brothers. They burn the school, library, archives and church records.” And that’s it. Croatian Holocaust denial.

Pilgrimages leave Ireland every week for Medjugorje. Joe Walsh Tours advertises a service which guarantees each pilgrim a personal meeting with a visionary.

The website of Knock airport tells that, “Uniquely special pilgrimage experiences are offered to Fatima, Lourdes and Medjugorje. Enjoy a relaxing holiday with a spiritual focus...” (We might wonder why Knock, with its offically endorsed BVM, would plug these counter-attractions. You scratch my back, perhaps?)

Whether or not the Devil is at work in all of this, and if he is, what side he’s on, there’s a whiff of sulphur in the air around Medjugorje that Benedict, understandably wants dispersed.

So what’s to become now of all the Medjugorje Prayer Groups across Ireland, including the North, many of which meet on Church premises?

And will we have a statement from the Northern Bishop who has personally led a pilgrimage to what he is now required to believe is a shrine to Satan?

Sunday, August 02, 2009

Benedict XVI declares 'Year for Priests'

So Benedict XVI and those Latin Opus Dei priests wizards (worst black magicians - transforming the wafer into the REAL body and blood of GOD - than fictitious Harry Potter) have declared June 19, 2009 to June 19, 2010 as the year of priests. Of course, from the Inquisition brutal treatment of women, the Vatican continues to put women as lower-class citizens in the church. John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com shows the male clones of John Paul II with the only female Sr. Angelica of EWTN at her $50 Million dollars diamond studded chapel where priests hocus-pocus the wafer into the imaginary body and blood of Christ -- wow overpowering the 9-months pregnancy of Mary...... see Stella Maris http://stella0maris.blogspot.com/.. no wonder those John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army succeeded in sexually abusing thousands of American altar boys because they have enchanted Catholic to believe that "priests are representatives of Christ -- yeah BALONEY representatives...liars and deceivers Opus Dei clones!

======
WWW.WOMENPRIESTS.ORG

Year For Priests

From June 19 of this year to June 19, 2010, a worldwide celebration to mark a 'Year for Priests began with Pope Benedict XVI choosing to start the year on the feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, a day of prayer for the sanctification of all priests. The pope also designated St. John Vianney as the universal patron of all priests on the 150th anniversary of the saint's death. What most stands out in the life of this saint, said Benedict XVI, "is his complete identification with his ministry. He used to say that a good pastor, a pastor after God's heart, is the greatest treasure the good Lord can give a parish". Most Catholics would absolutely agree with this and do support and respect their priests however there are some misgivings over the philosophical underpinning of the Year for Priests.



Special interest...

CIRCLES post 2144 - discussion on Year for Priests
Summary of the debate regarding women priests
Does a woman's vocation come less from God than a man's?

How do you know you are called.

Deacons

The case is closed.

One reaction to the announcement has been a feeling of dismay at the insensitivity of the Vatican in ignoring the vocations of other orders in particular those of deacons and women. Would it not have been less offensive to dedicate a Year of Priests and Religious?

Whilst we are profoundly grateful for priest's wonderful gift of themselves to God and God's people perhaps we should ask for the Pope and our Bishops that in the light of what women have achieved in other fields, to look afresh at the question of whether women might be allowed to offer the same gift.

What qualities, virtues and aspirations are essential or desirable in a seminarian? The only question I have ever heard asked of a seminarian was 'Have you ever been in love?' He was told afterwards that he would not have been accepted if he had said 'No'.

The Pope has said 'Motivating seminarians and priests to develop virtue, elevate the intellect and will in communion with Jesus, and participate in his mission is essential in the life of the Church and requires faith-filled human formation.' Does the Pope truly believe that these characteristics are purely male and necessarily exclude women?

Women and men share a common humanity, are equally capable of being loving ministers of God's word - what is the logic of banning one sex completely from the priesthood.

We appeal to readers of this newsletter to seize the opportunity of this Year for Priests to make an effort of writing individually to Pope Benedict and to his/her own bishop and ask for the question of women's vocation to the diaconate or priesthood to be discussed with openness and directed by the Holy Spirit.

Leonie Russell Editor

Joanna Dixon Producer

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Benedict XVI does not practise what he preaches.

Benedict XVI does not practise what he preaches. He has no charity for Jesuit Jon Sobrino because he and the Opus Dei Bishop of El Salvador has silenced Sobrino and prohibited him from teaching and preaching in all Catholic universities and venues. The main reason: Sobrino's Jesus the Liberator could mislead the readers from the TRUE Christ of Ratzinger God's Rottweiler...who said that "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation". So in true Opus Dei fashion, Benedict XVI make the Jesuits fight each other in the most subtle way like snakes, the Escriva-python way. Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei are totalitarians and dictators at the Vatican who will silence any critics they have and it is a matter of time that they infiltrate Googles and delete all blogs like ours who expose the TRUTH about Benedict XVI and the hypocrisy of the Opus Dei.

This article is Fr. Fessio kissing the holy-butts of Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei ghost writers. It is a pity that the smart Jesuits are tied-up to act like elephant circus to the barkings of Ratzinger God's Rottweiler.


8-July-2009 -- ZENIT.org News Agency

Father Fessio: A New Framework for Social Justice, Pope Places Charity and Truth at Heart of Debate
By Father Joseph Fessio, SJ
NAPLES, Florida, JULY 7, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI has something for everyone in "Caritas in Veritate" -- from praising profit (21) to defending the environment (48). But in these cases, as in all the others, he calls for a discernment and a purification by faith and reason (56) that should temper immoderate and one-sided enthusiasms.
Once again, Pope Benedict shows himself to be a theologian of synthesis and fundamental principles. In the titles of his three encyclicals he has used only five nouns: God, Love, Hope, Salvation, and Truth -- the most fundamental of realities. And in the opening greeting of this encyclical he succinctly describes the contents: "on integral human development in charity and truth."
Note that from this very greeting Pope Benedict has changed the whole framework of the debate on "the social question." This was expected to be -- and is -- his encyclical on "social justice." And indeed "justice" and "rights" find their proper place in a larger synthesis. But the priority is established from the outset, the foundation is laid, with "charity" and "truth." "Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine" (2). "Without truth, without trust and love for what is true, there is no social conscience and responsibility, and social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power" (5).
Another fundamental principle, and a central theme of this pontificate, is the continuity of the Church and her teaching. Surprisingly, the central ecclesiastical text from the past is Pope Paul VI's "Populorum Progressio," and Pope Benedict makes it clear that we do not have "two typologies of social doctrine, one pre-conciliar and one post-conciliar, differing from one another: On the contrary, there is a single teaching, consistent and at the same time ever new" (12). This principle of continuity was expressed centrally in Benedict's first address as Pope on April 20, 2005, and again to the Roman curial cardinals on Dec. 22 of that year.
Within this fundamental material context of charity and truth, and the fundamental formal context of the continuity of the Church's teaching, Pope Benedict situates the centerpiece of the Church's social teaching: "integral human development." And by "integral" he means "it has to promote the good of every man and of the whole man" (18, quoting Paul VI). Among the important dimensions of this wholeness, he notes that integral human development must be open to the transcendent (11: "authentic human development concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension. Without the perspective of eternal life, human progress in this world is denied breathing-space.") and it must be open to life (28: "Openness to life is at the center of true development").
The inclusiveness of this integration is emphatically and perhaps surprisingly exemplified in paragraph 39. There, the Pope states that the "logic of the market and the logic of the state," i.e., free economic exchange with political oversight and restraint, are not enough to secure human flourishing. There must also be "solidarity in relations between citizens, participation and adherence, actions of gratuitousness" or, as he says in summary, "increasing openness, in a world context, to forms of economic activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion." Pope Benedict insists on a "third economic factor" in addition to the market and the state: gratuitousness.
Here is a radiant example of the fundamental, synthetic, and discerning character of Pope Benedict's formulation of the Church's social teaching, one which for me is worth the whole encyclical for its clarity, depth, and common sense: "If there is lack of respect for the right to life and a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational system and laws do not help them to respect themselves" (51).
There are times when one is especially proud of the blessing of the Catholic faith. This is one of them.
* * *
Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio is the editor of Ignatius Press and theologian in residence at Ave Maria University. Father Fessio is also a former student of Joseph Ratzinger and belongs to Ratzinger's "Schülerkreis."

Monday, July 20, 2009

Abuse report no surprise to Pope Benedict XVI

Abuse report no surprise to Pope

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/abuse-report-no-surprise-to-pope-1765328.html

Monday June 08 2009

I read with interest the timely report and analysis from John Cooney on last week's Vatican meeting between Cardinal Brady, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin and the Holy Father (Irish Independent, June 6).

"Abuse report rocks the Vatican," it read. Come now folks. It's hardly a shock to them at this point. They are well informed about it and have been for some time.

Dr Martin himself was aware of abuse during his schooldays in Dublin some 50 years ago, according to statements he made recently.

Perhaps the shock for the inscrutable members of the Roman Curia is the dawning reality that the Irish people, taken for granted for so long by the Church, are finally stirring from their slumber of clerical deference and financial gullibility.

On this point, it might also be appropriate to ask that the Irish Independent report in less deferential language on these matters.

Terms such as "exceptional access" to papal discussions on a matter of this magnitude are surely overblown. It is the Pope's business to deal directly with such an abominable issue as institutional child abuse, starvation and torture by religious congregations.

So Pope Benedict has now relayed his determination via Giuseppi Leandra of his intention to "rid the Catholic Church of paedophile priests".

It's a bit late in the day for relaying second-hand comment, Holiness.

This message he should have addressed to the Irish people personally. It is still widely anticipated, and obviously necessary.

Monsignor Lombardi's initial comments on the report beggar belief. All bishops report directly to the Holy Father.

If he had instructed them clearly in 2002 (when he was the senior cardinal in the Curia) or in 2006, the reform would now be in operation here, as it is in England and Wales and the US.

In Ireland, of course, our deferential Government has betrayed our children once again rather than discommode the Irish Catholic episcopate.

I would like to reiterate my previous request to this newspaper to give us a series of articles outlining the corporate, administrative and financial structure of this foreign-based Church which even yet maintains such an inordinate degree of control of the taxpayer-financed education, social welfare and medical services in this country. It would lend informative context to these reports.

Joseph A Geoghegan
Brisbane, Australia

Benedict XVI ignores women abused by clergy in church

Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei are too busy figuring out what Latin words to say during their daily eucharistic black magic and what to wear at their photo-ops with dignitaries at the Vatican that they continue to suppress the Jesuits and women in the Catholic church. Opus Dei have silenced many Jesuits especially the Jesuit Jon Sobrino in El Salvador and the Jesuit astronomers at the Vatican Observatory see the John Paul II Millstone for details www.jp2m.blogspot.com Opus Dei treat women as inferiors and so direct the papacy to suppress women's voice in the Catholic Chruch.

CALL TO CRIMINALIZE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN BY CLERGY

http://www.now.org/organization/conference/resolutions/2009.html#call


WHEREAS, the National Organization for Women (NOW) has fought hard to shatter societal silence regarding all forms of sexual violence; and

WHEREAS, public misunderstanding and lack of knowledge regarding adult victims of sexual exploitation by clergy have contributed to silencing the voices of these victims; and

WHEREAS, the overwhelming majority of victims of sexual exploitation by clergy are adults, predominately female congregants victimized by male clergy; and

WHEREAS, adult victims of clergy sexual exploitation are routinely blamed for this abuse and revictimized by the public, severely ostracized by their own congregations, and disbelieved by religious authority figures from whom they seek solace and protection, resulting in devastating social isolation and confusion; and

WHEREAS, in addition to coping with the physical and emotional impacts of sexual violation, victims of sexual exploitation by clergy often also suffer loss of faith, loss of religious tradition, loss of spouse, loss of employment within religious organizations or with faith-affiliated educational institutions, self-blame by the victim, and loss of support from family, congregation, and community;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW chapters be encouraged to participate in educational and advocacy campaigns to increase public awareness that the majority of victims of clergy sexual exploitation are adult women and that sexual violation by a spiritual leader has profound life-altering impacts; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NOW entities be encouraged to support state legislative campaigns for statutory reform, in particular to add clergy to the enumerated categories of professionals covered in fiduciary-duty laws in states having such laws, and for criminalization of sexual relations between similarly enumerated categories of professionals in states not having fiduciary-duty laws; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that NOW disseminate information on the extent and impacts of clergy sexual exploitation of adult women, including legal avenues of redress and model legislation, on the NOW website and via other media outlets that NOW regularly utilizes for its advocacy campaigns.

Benedict XVI's diocese loses insurance coverage for hiding crimes

One by one the wealthy Catholic diocese who covered-up the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army must be penalized.

For hiding crimes, Catholic diocese loses insurance; SNAP responds

For immediate release: Thursday, July 16, 2009

Statement by Barbara Dorris of St. Louis, Outreach Director of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (314 862 7688 home, 314 503 0003 cell)
This judge has found what victims and Catholics have known for years: Catholic officials knowingly, repeatedly concealed clergy child sex crimes. These weren't 'accidents' or 'mistakes' or 'misjudgments.' Top church staffers deliberately hid felonies and endangered kids. Why should insurance companies financially reward such inexcusable criminal conduct?

Let's hope this ruling prompts others who saw, suspected or suffered crimes by clerics to come forward, call police, protect others and start healing.

(SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is the nation’s oldest and largest support group for clergy abuse victims. We’ve been around for 21 years and have more than 9,000 members across the country. Despite the word “priest” in our title, we have members who were molested by religious figures of all denominations, including nuns, rabbis, bishops, and Protestant ministers. Our website is SNAPnetwork.org)

Contact David Clohessy (314-566-9790 cell, 314-645-5915 home), Peter Isely (414-429-7259) Barbara Blaine (312-399-4747), Barbara Dorris (314-862-7688)

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/news_local_wluk_Diocese_loses_insurance_coverage_in_priest_case_200907161105_rev1

Diocese loses insurance coverage

The Catholic Diocese of Green Bay has lost its insurance coverage in a civil suit alleging fraud related to sexual assaults by a priest.

Troy and Todd Merryfield sued the Catholic Diocese for fraud, alleging fraud and fraudulent non-disclosure regarding sexual misconduct by Fr. Patrick Feeney.
Feeney, since defrocked, was convicted in 2004 of assaulting the brothers in 1978. He is serving a 15-year prison sentence.

After the suit was filed, the Diocese's insurance company, Indiana Insurance, asked to be dismissed from the case, claiming since the Diocese's actions were intentional, the policy didn't cover the case.

In a ruling signed Wednesday, Outagamie County Judge Nancy Krueger agreed and dismissed the insurance company.

"The Plantiffs allege the Diocese acted with an intent to keep knowledge of Father Feeney's past actions from the parishes to which it sent him and by extension from the Plantiffs. As the policy specifically excludes coverage for intentional acts, Indiana has no obligation under this policy to defend and indemnify the Diocese in this matter," Krueger wrote.

Jeff Anderson, who represents the Merryfields, said he is not concerned with the lack of insurance coverage for the Diocese, saying it has adequate resources to pay whatever damages award a jury makes.

"We want the children to be protected and we want those who have been wounded to be compensated," Anderson said. "And it's the Diocese of Green Bay's corporate officers that need to he held, ultimately, to account for the misdeeds of the past so it doesn't get repeated in the future."

The Diocese issued the following the statement:
"The Diocese of Green Bay is disappointed with the courts’ ruling that Indiana Insurance Company does not have to provide insurance coverage for two civil lawsuits filed against the Diocese – one in Outagamie County and one in Clark County, Nevada. The Diocese of Green Bay is adamant that it did not willfully commit fraud in the assignment of former priest, John Feeney. Because these matters are still in litigation, the Diocese will have no further comment at this time."

The Diocese's statement also made reference to its website's section on abuse issues. http://www.gbdioc.org/protectingourchildren.html

To read the full decision, click here. http://media2.fox11online.com/pdfs/Feeny-Insurance-Decision.pdf

Benedict XVI and Georg his GAY Private Secretary are GAYS.!. see more photos at http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2007/06/benedict-xvis-handsome-private.html




Oh Georg, Georg, my handsome husband, come and pick me up for I fell and broke my wrist!


javascript:void(0)


Pope Benedict XVI is pictured as he blesses pilgrims gathered for the Sunday Angelus prayer in Romano Canavese, near Ivrea, in north-western Italy. The Popeurged the unemployed not to lose hope in the midst of the global economic downturn, in his first Sunday sermon since breaking a wrist.


Pope gives first Sunday sermon since wrist mishap

1 hour, 25 minutes ago

ROMANO CANAVESE, Italy (AFP) - Pope Benedict XVI urged the unemployed not to lose hope in the midst of the global economic downturn, in his first Sunday sermon since breaking a wrist.

The leader of the Roman Catholic Church smiled and looked at ease as he acknowledged worshippers near his holiday home in the north of Italy with raised arms, then blessed them with his cast-enclosed right hand.

"I know that here, too, in the Ivera region, many families are facing economic hard times due to a lack of work," he said, alluding to the now-defunct Olivetti typewriter manufacturer that was founded in the area.

"Dear friend, do not be discouraged," he added.

"Providence always helps those who do the right thing and seek justice; it also helps those who think not only of themselves, but also think of those in worse situations than their own."

The German-born pope had two metal pins inserted into his broken wrist in what doctors called a "routine" operation under local anaesthetic in hospital on Friday, after he slipped and fell in his bedroom during the night.
One of his close aides, Federico Lombardi, told AFP on Saturday that, due to the cast, the pontiff is bemoaning the inability to write and to clasp his hands in prayer.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Benedict XVI the Pope of INJUSTICE

Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger together with the Opus Dei covered-up the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army for more than 26 years and they silenced the Jesuit Jon Sobrino for crticizing the hypocritical and theatrical papacy of John Paul II see details in www.jp2army.blogspot.com and the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com.

To see the Opus Dei brillant cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priest Army read the book Justice Denied, What America Must Do to Protect its Children, by Marci Hamilton. (Cambridge University Press, April 2008) ISBN: 052188621X. Recent events such as the clergy abuse scandal in the Catholic Church have brought the once-taboo subject of childhood sexual abuse to the forefront. But despite increasing awareness of the problem, the United States has not succeeded in establishing effective means of deterring and preventing it, leaving the children of today and tomorrow vulnerable.

Hamilton proposes a comprehensive yet simple solution: eliminate the arbitrary statutes of limitation for childhood sexual abuse so that survivors past and present can get into court. Removing this merely procedural barrier permits thousands of survivors to make public the identities of their perpetrators and to receive justice and much-deserved compensation.

Standing in the way, however, are formidable opponents such as the insurance industry and the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.

In Justice Denied, Hamilton predicts a coming civil rights movement for children and explains why it is in the interest of all Americans to allow victims of childhood sexual abuse this chance to seek justice when they are ready.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Benedict XVI and Harry Potter are both wizards

With the Eucharist as the strongest black magic on the Planet Earth -- Catholic priests commanding Christ's flesh to come down into the wafer host and his Blood into man-made wine -- Benedict XVI and the Vatican has joined the Harry Potter wizardry. If you can't beat them, join them.


Benedict XVI wants to join-in the millions of Harry Potter fan so Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei have lost their Christian integrity and joined into the secular wizardry of the world.


Those Opus Dei eunuchs are so dumb they cannot be astronomers and so they shut down the Jesuit’s Vatican Observatory. They’d rather be practising Eucharistic-wizardry with Harry Potter than allowing the good Jesuits their scientific job.


The Opus Dei live only in millionaires’ row and so they silenced the Jesuit Jon Sobrino from speaking up for the poor. Benedict XVI said “Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Jon Sobrino says: Outside the poor there is no salvation.


Jon Sobrino tickles the consciences of filthy-rich Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei and so they silenced him, see the John Paul II Millstone also for details www.jp2m.blogspot.com

===

VATICAN CITY — The Vatican lauded the latest Harry Potter film on Monday, saying "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" made the age-old debate over good vs. evil crystal clear.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano even gave two thumbs up to the film's treatment of adolescent love, saying it achieved the "correct balance" and made the stars more credible to the general audience.

The newspaper said the film, which opens Wednesday, was the best adaptation yet of the J.K. Rowling series about the adventures of the bespectacled child wizard Harry Potter and his Hogwarts chums as they battle Harry's nemesis, the evil sorcerer Voldemort.

While criticizing Rowling for omitting any explicit "reference to the transcendent" in her books, L'Osservatore said the latest installment nevertheless makes clear that good should overcome evil "and that sometimes this requires costs and sacrifice."

"In addition, the spastic search for immortality epitomized by Voldemort is stigmatized," the review said.

The Vatican's praise follows the sharp criticism of the Harry Potter series by a conservative Austrian priest at the center of a church crisis earlier this year.

The Rev. Gerhard Maria Wagner had characterized Harry Potter novels as Satanism, while also suggesting Hurricane Katrina, which ravaged New Orleans and surrounding areas, was provoked by sin.

Pope Benedict XVI promoted Wager to the post of auxiliary bishop in Linz, Austria's third largest city, in January. But amid an outcry among Austrian Catholics over his comments, Wagner eventually gave up the promotion.

Benedict and the G8 leaders in italy‏

Benedict XVI is so busy figuring out what outfit to wear for his photo-op with world leaders at the G-8 in Italy that he does not give a care to the thousands of victims of the John Paul II pedophile Priests Army he covered-up as Cardinal Ratzinger.

With his effeminate gay-voice to his mystical wife and private secretary Bishop Georg, all he is obsessed about is his looks and clothes and what kind of things to give and to say to the royalties that come to his palace daily.

In this photo, Benedict XVI and Georg Gaenswein look very much like a clone of MR. John Paul II's Mystical Marriage to MRS. Josemaria de Opus Dei. ...
pope-ratz.blogspot.com/.../benedict-xvis-handsome-private.html


As we have said repeatedly, the Opus Dei controls, own and run the Vatican want SNAP and victims of the JPIIPPA to be nothing but “Dust in the Wind” exactly as the lyrics of the song itself sings so see pope-ratz.blogspot.com/.../opus-dei-pope-2-benedict-xvi-stomped.html


The Pope and the Opus Dei are busy playing with words and directing ghost writers to write their strategies to paint Benedict XVI as the fourth Christ such as the title “Conscience of our age” see pope-ratz.blogspot.com/.../benedict-xvi-faulty-conscience-of-our.html.


To the Opus Dei their St. Josemaria Escriva is the first Christ, the second is John Paul II and the third is their alive Opus Dei Bishop of Rome and the fourth is the live pope Benedict XVI.


Opus Dei has many lawyers and politicians members in the parliaments in Europe and the USA Supreme Court. Opus Dei owns major news media outlets and their many Opus Dei writers paint a rosy picture for the Pope.

So Opus Dei and Benedict XVI’s morality are full of doctrine-shit because they are evil and corrupt because they show no remorse for the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army that they covered-up for over a quarter of a century www.jp2army.blogspot.com!

Benedict XVI’s morality is full of fallibility, foibles and fallacies as this article dissects his most recent speech in Rome. Those Opus Dei ghost writers are so stupid none of them are qualified to be astronomers and so they got Benedict XVI to shut down the Jesuit-run Vatican Observatory. The Opus Dei is the most evil Catholic organization in existence and their obsession is to annihilate the Jesuits and bury live the victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priesta Army as “Dust in the Wind” pope-ratz.blogspot.com/.../opus-dei-pope-2-benedict-xvi-stomped.html



===

Benedict’s Moral Equivalence

June 8, 2009 | From theTrumpet.com

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=6238.4667.0.0

Pope Benedict slams America’s means of ending World War II.

Ron Fraser

In his most glaring instance of moral equivalence yet, Pope Benedict xvi has described the means that America used to finally end World War ii in terms that should be music to the ears of every one of America’s enemies. During a mass in the Vatican Basilica on Sunday of last week, the pope exclaimed, “The tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain as a perennial admonition where atomic energy, used for bellicose ends, ended up causing death on an unprecedented scale.”

This pope is, as British historian Paul Johnson has pointed out, a pope whose “thinking is elaborate, refined, confident and energetic.” Johnson described what is perhaps Benedict’s most famous speech, delivered at his old university in Regensburg, Bavaria, in September 2006, as a “brilliant lecture” and “a cool, calm, well-documented and penetrating presentation” (Spectator, April 11, 2007).

Much of the mass media commentary on that particular speech was critical of how Pope Benedict appeared to denigrate the Muslim religion. Those who are aware of the pope’s specific universal agenda were aware that the whole message was carefully crafted to make a powerful point to the Muslim community. The speech got the reaction that Benedict fully expected it would. There was a huge outcry from Muslim religious leaders, who then came flocking to Rome to sit at the pope’s feet. Benedict had made his point.

Vatican watchers who have followed the course of this pope realize that, notwithstanding the often negatively critical views of the babbling press to the contrary, every public statement Benedict makes is a deliberate proclamation of his personal moral platform and of the specific direction in which he is channeling the vision of his papacy.

Clearly, in the context of Benedict’s public statements during his May 31 mass, the pope’s referring to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings as having been “used for bellicose ends” should end any doubt as to where America and its traditional allies stand in his eyes, and the place they hold in that papal vision.

True Context

Let’s place the pope’s statement, referring to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being “atomic energy, used for bellicose ends … causing death on an unprecedented scale,” in its true context.

Horrific though the loss of life caused by the first two atom bombs used in warfare was, the death toll in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—estimated to be 200,000 souls—hardly warrants comparison with the sheer vastness of the numbers of innocents sacrificed to the god of the Nazi regime in which this pope served as a committed member of the Hitler Youth.

Thirty times that number, 6 million lives, were deliberately eliminated by the Nazis in a dedicated effort to expunge the very existence of world Jewry from the planet. The total number of deaths resulting from the war started by Nazi Germany, supported by fascist Italy, then joined later in axis with Imperial Japan, is estimated to have exceeded 56 million!

Where, pray tell, is Pope Benedict’s sense of reality, let alone his sense of proportion, in viewing America’s final desperate act to put an end to the continuing aggression of Imperial Japan, an enemy of peace, as having been instigated for “bellicose ends” when compared with the results of Axis aggression?

Where is this pope’s sense of context in seeking to describe the less than a quarter million dead as a result of an act seeking to bring an end to the war instigated by Hitler that was still being continued by the last remaining Axis power, Imperial Japan, as an act “used for bellicose ends … causing death on an unprecedented scale”? That statement appears to be a deliberate skewing of the truth. The reality is that the death toll from the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was vastly exceeded by “death on an unprecedented scale” enacted by more traditionally “bellicose” means in the gas chambers of the Hitler regime.

But the worst aspect of Pope Benedict’s latest, hardly subtle, verbal attack on the Anglo-Saxons, is the warped sense of history it conveys as to the reasons for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The bombing of Nagasaki, far from being an action designed to achieve “bellicose ends” by America, was the result of an extremely agonizing decision taken by a U.S. president faced with the prospect of further loss of Allied lives in a continuing campaign of belligerence by an Imperial Japan committed to fight to the bitter end.

“Japanese resolve stayed strong and the idea of a bloody ‘house to house’ invasion of the Japanese mainland would produce thousands more American and Allied casualties. The Allies in late July 1945 declared at Potsdam that the Japanese must unconditionally surrender. After Japanese leaders flatly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, President Truman authorized use of the atomic bomb …” (Harry S. Truman Library and Museum).

That was a final desperate act to bring peace to a world that had suffered the multiple agonies instigated by the overtly “bellicose” actions of the crazed leader of the Hitler Youth of Benedict’s earlier days!

It boggles the mind to think that one who leads the greatest religious institution in the world, who styles himself as the “vicar of Christ,” would deign to accuse the Anglo-Americans, whose entire war effort was in defense of the cause of freedom and world peace, of using the specific act designed to end a horrific war as an act motivated out of a desire to achieve “bellicose ends.”

Surely any sound-minded individual, having a balanced perspective of the specifics of the history of 1914-18 and 1939-45, could differentiate between the “bellicose ends” sought by the actions of Hitler, Mussolini and Togo, and the peacemaking motivation of those who sought to quell the final militaristic frenzy of Imperial Japan. The history is clear in its rendering that suicidal Nipponese fanaticism promised to only prolong the agony of war in 1945 and add to its terrible toll. It took two atomic explosions to finally humble Japan’s imperial leaders into capitulation, finally putting an end to the greatest war in humankind’s history.

“Used for bellicose ends”—this was not a slip of the tongue by the most intellectual and highly articulate pope to grace the papal throne in centuries. This was a very carefully chosen phrase, used with precision to affect the moral mindset of the masses by warping the true history of that Teutonic tendency for repetitively seeking to take advantage of other nations by actions used for bellicose ends under dictatorial leadership. It was a statement geared to spreading a plain deceit that is increasingly resulting in the masses viewing Germany and Japan as the victims of Anglo-American “hegemony” in the wake of the two world wars.

Pious Silence

But this is not the first time Pope Benedict has shown his tendency for moral equivalence. There is at least one other glaring instance.

During his visit in 2006 to the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, Benedict asked the question, “Why, Lord, did you remain silent?” That question was presumably addressed by Pope Benedict to the same Lord whom the wartime pope, Pius xii, served in the same stated capacity as Benedict claims to hold, that of vicar of Christ, during the whole period that Nazi atrocities were being committed at Auschwitz and many other Nazi death camps in Europe. Perhaps this pope should really have asked that question of the very pope whom he is determined to beatify as a saint! Why was Pope Pius xii SILENT during the whole satanic genocidal slaughter of 6 million Jews under the Hitler regime, let alone the instigation and perpetuation of the worst war in humankind’s history?

Rather than ask that question of the silence of Pius xii on the horrors of the Holocaust, Vatican sources are intent on a cover-up of the true nature of the papacy of Pius xii by refusing outright to open archives on his pontificate. Notwithstanding this, authors John Cornwell and David Kertzer have produced well-researched works providing ample evidence to support, as Cornwell writes in the preface to his book, Pius being guilty of combining “a fatal combination of high spiritual aspirations in conflict with soaring ambition for power and control. The consequences were collusion with tyranny and, ultimately, violence” (Hitler’s Pope).

In his excellent coverage of Cardinal Joseph Hurley’s diplomatic links between the Vatican and the U.S. presidency during World War ii, Jesuit Charles Gallagher has strengthened the position of those who would condemn Pius xii for his silence in the face of glaring proof of the Holocaust. Gallagher demonstrates that Joseph Hurley had, by 1940, seemed “to have dismissed Pius xii as a moral force on the world scene,” indicating that the pope had “ushered in a new policy of speaking in generalities and sugar-coating tough discussion” (Vatican Secret Diplomacy).

Notwithstanding the gravest of doubts about the moral worth of Pope Pius xii in relation to his compromising conduct during World War ii—a matter of clearly documented history in the face of a vigorous Vatican campaign of disinformation to the contrary—Pope Benedict has made it clear that he is intent on pursuing the beatification of “Hitler’s pope.”

The danger of this pope’s orientation is that while his actions in respect of Pius xii imply endorsement of that pope’s failure to take an overtly moral stand against the Holocaust—let alone the whole period of death-dealing Nazi violence—his most recent implied condemnation of the act which finally stopped the greatest war in humankind’s history reveals, at its heart, a mind clear, and quite chilling, in its condemnation of the efforts of the greatest of the Anglo-Saxon democracies to ultimately save the world from tyranny.

It is not the purpose of this column to argue the morality of the use of the atomic bomb to put an end to World War ii. Its purpose is to highlight the dangerous and duplicitous moral equivalency of a religious leader who holds sway, to one degree or another, over the minds of 1 billion adherents to his religion, and to whom many world leaders look for moral guidance.

But there is a deeper concern.

EU Looks to Rome

The founding fathers of the greatest trading entity in the world, the European Union, were right-wing committed Catholics. Today, most of the senior bureaucrats who pull the strings that operate this Brussels-based behemoth, established by the 1957 Treaty of Rome, are right-wing committed Roman Catholics. Symbolically, the treaty that gave the imprimatur to the EU pursuing its own constitution was signed by the heads of state of all EU member nations in Rome in 2004. It is to Rome that the most influential movers and shakers who have sought to resurrect the grand Germano-Roman universal vision of the Holy Roman Empire, under its EU cloak, look for spiritual guidance. They are on course to triumph over the secularists and install the religion of Rome as the official state religion of the European Union.

Between June 4 and 7, the EU electorate voted to seat their representatives in the European Parliament for the next five years. Early indications are of gains by center-right, far-right and extremist fringe parties in this election. The far right gained ascendancy in the Netherlands, Austria and Hungary, with Germany, France, Italy and Spain all showing a pronounced swing to the right. The left, the socialists, were the big loser in this election. The question now is, how far further right will Germany swing in the next three months as recession bites deep into its electorate in advance of that nation’s own federal election in September?

While Germany may well be in the box seat to reap the benefit of any future demand for its exports in the event of recovery from the current recession, the nation’s reactions in the short term remain the real concern.

Rising unemployment, falling income, rising debt, falls in gross domestic product, street rallies by the masses, continuing threats by Russia to cut energy supplies—all this combines with a dramatic rise over the past year in membership of extreme right-wing political movements within the EU and an escalation in attacks on European Jews to present a worrisome picture of the current mood in Europe.

We have for decades encouraged our readers to watch Europe, and to especially watch for conditions of crisis that would produce a climate ripe for the rise of spiritual and political demagoguery within the EU. Those very conditions that will trigger such events are ripening right now on the European continent!

Watch Europe for the outcome to this crucial parliamentary election. More importantly, watch the reaction of the EU’s leading nation, Germany, to the outcome of this election. It may well set the mood for a surprising result in the forthcoming federal elections in Germany this September.

As our editor in chief, Gerald Flurry, has maintained, “We need to watch the European Union for a man stepping in and seizing control of that entity through flatteries. He is going to hijack the EU. … Politics in Europe are going to shift dramatically to the right.

“I truly believe the Vatican will help bring that [prophesied] political leader on the scene, and that’s when we will really see the fireworks. We know from these prophecies [of Daniel and Revelation] that the Vatican will become very powerful and instigate some radical changes” (Daniel Unlocks Revelation).

To judge by Pope Benedict’s words on Sunday of last week, those radical changes have already begun.

Our note: The Vatican = the Opus Dei

Monday, July 06, 2009

Benedict XVI and Michael Jackson speak alike

Opus Dei superstar Benedict XVI and music superstar Michael Jackson speak in the same monotone and softiness. While Benedict XVI covered-up the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army ahref="www.jp2army.blogspot.com">www.jp2army.blogspot.com for more than a quarter of a century, Michael Jackson was describing his dick being photographed on international TV...


US lawmaker blasts 'child molester' Jackson


1 hour, 23 minutes ago July 6, 2009

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Music superstar Michael Jackson was a "pervert" and "a child molester" and the media has disgraced itself with the day-in, day-out coverage of his death, a US lawmaker has charged.

In a two-minute video posted on the YouTube Internet site, Republican Representative Peter King fumed that tributes to the late "King of Pop" honor a "low-life" while people like US troops fighting overseas are ignored.

"Let's knock out the psychobabble. This guy was a pervert, he was a child molester, he was a pedophile. And to be giving this much coverage to him, day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country?" King said.

Jackson was acquitted in 2005 of child molestation charges.

"I really think the media has disgraced itself, I think that too many people in public life have made fools of themselves by talking about Michael Jackson as it he was some kind of hero," said King.

"There's nothing good about this guy," the lawmaker, whose home state is New York, said in a video message recorded in front of a local chapter of the American Legion veterans' group.

"He died, he had some talent, fine. There are people dying every day -- there's men and women dying today in Afghanistan, let's give them the credit they deserve," he said.

"He may have been a good singer, he did some dancing. But bottom line is, would you let your child or grandchild be in the same room with Michael Jackson? What are we glorifying him for?"

In the video, King said he wished the media would honor people like teachers in rough neighborhoods, AIDS clinics volunteers, police and firefighters, and US troops serving overseas.

Copyright © 2009

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Benedict XVI not welcome in Ireland in wake of Ryan report

Benedict XVI papal Titanic ship is sinking and he will have nowhere else to go but stay in his Vatican Palace surrounded by Opus Dei eunuchs and by act of God the Vatican will disappear like smoke as predicted by the Third Secret of Fatima.

see the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com

===

Papal visit would not be welcome in wake of Ryan report

IRELAND
Irish Independent

By Anne-Marie Walsh

Monday June 29 2009

POPE Benedict XVI is not entirely welcome here in the wake of the damning Ryan report, a survey found.

More than half of people surveyed do not want a second papal visit following the revelations in the report on child abuse.

An online survey by radio station Newstalk, in which 1,108 people took part, shows the scenes that greeted the late Pope John Paul II during the first papal visit 30 years ago are unlikely to be recreated. ...

"Until he condemns what happened and pays compensation for his vile colleagues' actions, and helps this country prosecute them by handing over all documents in relation to abuse issues and the movement of priests, then he shouldn't be allowed set foot in this country," said one of the interviewees.

---

Benedict XVI should learn from this layman who said:

The good done by the many does not undo the evil done by the few; and vice versa. Both are reality. The good experiences of the many students does not negate the horrendous experiences of those who were abused. Both are reality for those concerned.

I say again that I am ashamed of the actions of fellow religious Brothers; I express my deep regret for the hurt done to victims; I look forward to the day when all bishops and religious superiors will agree to psychological testing for their candidates. It is difficult to believe that this is still not universal, even in Australia.

I look forward to the day when a healthier more human lifestyle can be provided for priests in particular. (For the most part, religious seem to have moved far more quickly in these areas.) In many Dioceses, the falling numbers of priests has led to increased and unreasonable workloads on those who remain, and the expectation that they will continue to work into their 80s. This cannot be healthy — physically, psychologically or spiritually.

See full article in http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=14784

Monday, June 22, 2009

The Madness of Pope Benedict XVI



condom-cross


The Madness of Pope Benedict XVI

March 18th, 2009
Posted in Politics, Public Health, Religion, Society

See The John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com

See Fire David Letterman http://firedavidletterman.com/


Africa and in particular sub-Saharan Africa is the continent the most affected by the HIV epidemic. During the last 25 years more than 20 millions people have died of AIDS in Africa. There, the epidemic particularly affects women, HIV transmission is mostly through heterosexual sex, and concurrent relationships have been identified as a force driving the spread of the virus in the population. In Africa, HIV is mostly about sex. Prevention interventions have been difficult, hindered by limited political commitment, if not political denial of the cause of AIDS, religious interference and lack of resources (amongst many other factors).

Today His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI made his first papal visit in Africa and dropped a bomb on an already decimated population.

Speaking in Cameroon, the not-so-holy head of the Catholic Church argued that HIV is “a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem.”

Against all common sense, against all scientific evidences, against a background of one and a half millions death a year, 12 millions of African children orphaned by HIV, 23 millions infected people, Benedict XVI believes that the answer to HIV is to be found in a “spiritual and human awakening” and “friendship for those who suffer.”

The BBC reports that “While in Africa, the pontiff is expected to talk to young people about the Aids epidemic and explain to them why the Catholic Church recommends sexual abstinence as the best way to prevent the spread of the disease.”

Let it be clear, to date there is no scientific evidence to support that condoms have increased the problem of HIV, but there is plenty of evidences supporting that abstinence, or “spiritual and human awakening” as Benedict now calls it, has failed preventing HIV transmission.

Let it also be clear that condom are not the all-in-one solution, as demonstrated -only briefly, in Uganda before Christian pastors start burning condoms in front of Makerere University, but they are not part of the problem as an old age ignorant prelate would like a vulnerable and sometimes desperate people to believe (see H. Epstein God and the Fight Against AIDS)

The pontiff wants young, energetic, hormonally-driven and sexually attractive and curious young people to sacrifice their natural attraction to the opposite sex in favour of spiritual and human awakening. Welcome to Planet Vatican, where sex is the enemy, where it must be controlled by men who know nothing about it, or so we would like to think.» The BBC reports that according to the Church, “The number of new claims of sexual abuse made against US Roman Catholic priests rose by 16% to more than 800 last year”

One can only supports a spiritual and human awakening, an awakening that would lead to evidences-based prevention interventions and discourses, an awakening that would lead to a reduction in HIV transmission. But it is doubtful that this is the kind of awakening the pontiff has in mind.

How can a man with so little legitimacy but so much power on other’s decisions in life be left airing such dangerous ignorance in public without a global outcry? Nobody expects the head of the Church to change his mind or the credo, but showing a minimum of respect for human life by having the decency to remain silent on issue the pontiff knows nothing about would be a minimum.

Burning condoms literally or metaphorically does not and is not going to help fighting HIV. Burning a backward and irrelevant institution might. By the time you finish reading this post 20 people will have been infected by HIV, 17 of them in Africa. In most case, a condom, properly used could have prevented the infection.

http://www.peripheries.org/2009/03/18/the-madness-of-pope-benedict-xvi/
====

The madness of Pope Benedict

March 23, 12:50 PM
10 comments
Okay, it isn't exactly the madness of King George, but I'd say the Pope is out of touch with reality. Seriously, how is it that this man still holds the Pope position? It is not just naysayers who disagree with him, but Catholics far and wide do as well.

He has been making quite a splash across newspapers and Web sites around the globe for some time now. It was pretty bad that he lifted the excommunication of Williamson, the Holocaust denier. Never mind his appointment of a bishop in Linz, Austria who said that Hurricane Katrina was divine retribution for sin.

Now he has come out to say that condoms should not be used in HIV/AIDS stricken Africa. Rather, he preaches abstinence. He should know by now that abstinence doesn't work. All he has to do is ask the sex abuse victims of the many predatory priests who swore a vow, to God no less, of abstinence to know the truth. If the most devout Christians cannot abstain, what makes him think that those in the general population will? Is he really that delusional? Surely the millions of dollars that have been paid out to victims should be a reminder to him that abstinence doesn't work.

And if that weren't enough, the Pope decried the superstitions that remain in parts of Africa. He urged Angola Catholics to reach out and help to convert those who believe in witchcraft. According to an MSNBC report, he said, "In today's Angola, Catholics should offer the message of Christ to the many who live in the fear of spirits, of evil powers by whom they feel threatened, disoriented, even reaching the point of condemning street children and even the most elderly because — they say — they are sorcerers."

I suppose the Pope thinks his brand of chicanery is better than witchcraft (not that I condone witchcraft). So, instead of those people living in fear of evil spirits they should be converted to believe in Satan and his power and they should be introduced to the fear of Hell and so on. Uh huh. Apparently replacing one set of superstitions with another set is the answer.

Let us not forget that the Pope, while condemning sexual violence, condemns abortion even in the case of rape and when the mother's life is at risk. I heard that although he excommunicated those who helped a nine-year-old rape victim get an abortion, it is not clear if he excommunicated the rapist. How many of his own raping, child-molesting priests were excommunicated? It would seem he thinks that abortion is far worse than rape...

Honestly, this man clearly does not seem to be in touch with reality. His antiquated solutions are just that... antiquated. They have no place in the real world. It is such a shame that this man cleaves so tightly to his religious texts and ideologies that he cannot see past them at what is really going on all around him.

Surely the fact that he seems to live in a world all his own, where reality does not resonate, has to be indicative of some form of madness. His take on reality certainly doesn't seem sane to me.... Really, what is this man thinking? Does he think? Whose side is he on anyway? God's side? What about being on the side of humanity for a change?

=====




Condom War: Another Catholicus Ignoramus: Cardinal Pell from down under

The head of the Catholic Church in Australia has open his mouth to add primate bunk to previous pontifical nonsense.

Unsurprisingly, the Cardinal Pell from down under endorsed the papal comment made in Africa that condoms “can even increase the problem” of HIV, adding that, “The idea that you can solve a great spiritual and health crisis like AIDS with a few mechanical contraptions like condoms is ridiculous”.

HIV and AIDS have been jumbled with quite a lot of nonsense but to relate it with a great spiritual crisis is a rather interesting novelty. With the Church in charge of the spiritual (alongside our sex-life), one wonders is the Cardinal is advertising for his own business on the back of HIV infected people.

Reporting a conversation with “a non-Catholic health worker”, the Cardinal added that “people in remote areas are too poor to afford condoms and the ones that are available are often of very poor quality and weren’t used effectively.” For crying out loud, isn’t that saying that what is needed are good quality condom provided as an affordable price? What about fre condoms?

But of course not, because and without a shred of evidence Cardinal Pell added that “Condoms are encouraging promiscuity. They are encouraging irresponsibility.” How could condoms encourage promiscuity? And if they were, would it matter as long as people are using them whilst being promiscuous? There is no evidence that people who started anti HIV treatment or men who were circumcised became more promiscuous. So why the idea of using a condom or their availability would be any different? There is little hope that the Cardinal could understand what is sacerdotal vestments forbid him to know.

Adding misinformation to ignorance the prelate could not refrain harking back the old red herring of Thailand vs. the Philippines: “If you look at the Philippines you’ll see the incidence of AIDS is much lower than it is in Thailand which is awash with condoms.”

The myth was debunked here on peripheries, but it might be wise looking at more recent data from UNAIDS. For example at the estimated number of people living with HIV in 2001 vs. 2007 in the Philippines, <1000 vs. 8300 and Thailand, 660,000 vs. 610,000. Of course the number of people living with HIV is much higher in Thailand (see previous posting for an understanding of why) but it has also decreased between 2001 and 2007 whilst the figure has increased in The Philippines and is set to increase even more in the coming years if nothing is done now to ensure that the virus does not find a fertile Christian soil to multiply, like it did in Africa.

The catholic’s answer to HIV? As always, abstinence and faithfulness. But as pointed out by Don Baxter in The Australian, the pontiff’s comments about condoms could easily be misunderstood in Africa, where it is common for men and women to have several concurrent sexual partners but still see themselves as being faithful. “Calls for not using condoms and being faithful are heard by Africans to mean if they have regular partners, they don’t need to wear condoms,” said Baxter.

Abstinence is one method of preventing the transmission of HIV, condom is another one. To discourage the use of one or the other is plain stupid and irresponsible. Is it even stupider if it is done on spiritual background, because the HIV virus can be killed with a sign of the cross over someone and a few drop of holy water.

Cardinal Pell is not alien to controversy, in October 2007 he challenged the cause of climate change: “I am certainly skeptical about extravagant claims of impending man-made climatic catastrophes, because the evidence is insufficient. Climate change has always occurred. Scientific debate is not decided by any changing consensus, even if it is endorsed by public opinion.”

It is definitively a hard time for enlightenment, especially within the Catholic Church.

http://www.peripheries.org/2009/04/11/condom-war-another-catholicus-ignoramus-cardinal-pell-from-down-under/

===



HIV on the rise in the Philippines: Will condoms do any good?


May 19th, 2009

Since the papal comment about condoms and the HIV epidemic, there has been a flurry of articles written in support of the pontifical nonsense. These often call upon a comparison between “sinful” Thailand, awash with HIV and condoms, and the “holly” Philippines where there is not such thing as HIV or condoms (a bit like in Iran).

Does this sound slightly over the top? Not really. Kathleen Gilbert writing for the LifesSiteNews website quotes Yolly Eileen Gamutam, head of the Asia’s Catholic Association of Doctors, Nurses and Health Professionals (ACIM-Asia) saying that “Condoms are highly dangerous.” Gilbert added that “by the end of 2003, Thailand, with a population of 63 million, registered 570,000 HIV-positive adults and children. Gamutam compared the statistic to the Philippines, where only 9,000 Filipinos were HIV-positive out of a population of 80 million. 500 died of AIDS in the Philippines that year, while 58,000 perished in Thailand.”

peripheries has already addressed this misleading and inappropriate comparison but it is necessary to add that comparing two countries at one time point is rather meaningless. That the head of an association of doctors allows herself to be so unscientific is rather disappointing, if not telling that religion and science are definitively two nonoverlapping magisteria.

But let’s look at the figures available from UNAIDS and let’s compare the number of People Living with HIV and AIDS (PLWHA) at two time points:

In 2001 there was 660,000 adults and children living with HIV and AIDS and this figure dropped to 610,000 in 2007. In the Philippines, the number of PLWHA rose from less than 1,000 to 8300 and has been continuously on the rise since 2006.

Without fear or shame and against all evidences, Yolly Eileen Gamutam concluded that “the condom use program in Thailand is not effective.” Mechai Viravaidya, politician and leading Thai AIDS activist who introduced a 100% condoms policy in brothel where HIV was raging and henceforth contributed to a reduction of the number of PLWHA from 2% to 1.4% in 10 years (1997-2007) and the successful containment of the epidemic, will appreciate how his work and continuous efforts are being so promptly dismissed.

The rise in the number of HIV infections in the Philippines may not seem dramatic now but it may have some serious consequences later if not controlled. Conscious of the consequences of inaction, the Filipino government, who in the past adopted an approach to the epidemic that limited its progression in the general population, was considering a controversial bill on reproductive health at the end of 2008.

Another worrying concern about the rising HIV epidemic in the Philippines is that it is so far mostly observed amongst Men who have Sex with Men. The health departmental HIV/AIDS registry recorded 210 new infections among MSM in 2005, 309 in 2006 and 342 in 2007 and from January to September 2008, there were already 395 cases, up 96 percent since 2005.

And as we all know, before or next to condom, homosexuality is the next “abomination” that the Catholic church condemns with wrathful vehemence.

“The Catholic Church’s centuries-old doctrine, created by a bunch of celibate priests, on sex only for procreation leaves many people ignorant about sexual health. This is the sad reality.

Taking away people’s right to protect themselves, and their right to education and to responsibly manage their sex lives is certainly taking away some of their humanity.” write William Sparrow for the Asia Times.

But not all Catholics are dogmatic or blinded by credo and for example, Catholics for Choice an organisation initially founded to support women’s moral and legal right in a world led by Bishops, started an unprecedented worldwide public education effort to raise public awareness about the devastating effect of the bishops’ ban on condoms. In a recent press release the organisation wrote:

“According to a recent poll commissioned by Catholics for Choice, which interviewed Catholics in Ghana, Ireland, Mexico, the Philippines and the United States, support for condom use among Catholics is overwhelming. When asked if “using condoms is pro-life because it helps save lives by preventing the spread of AIDS,” 90% of Catholics in Mexico, 86% in Ireland, 79% in the US, 77% in the Philippines and 59% in Ghana agreed. Unfortunately, the Catholic hierarchy’s position holds the most sway in the countries least able to deal economically and medically with the disease.”

A sway leading to death. And as for the role of condoms, they certainly won’t do any harm.

http://www.peripheries.org/2009/05/19/hiv-on-the-rise-in-the-philippines-will-condoms-do-any-good/

===

HIV: Thailand versus The Philippines

July 21st, 2008 Posted in Education, Politics, Public Health, Religion


To prove that condoms don’t work, pro-life & anti condoms organisations such as The Illinois Family Institute often cite the case of two Asian countries with almost equal populations: Thailand (pop. 63,753,000) and the Philippines (pop. 88,351,000) and what they call “facts” about the two countries. It reads like that,

“Both countries saw their first cases of AIDS appear in 1984. Both embarked on campaigns to combat the threat and spread of this deadly disease. That’s where the similarity ends. The Philippine government educated its people and stressed the importance of chastity, fidelity in marriage and abstinence outside of marriage. Thailand, on the other hand, embraced “King Condom” and distributed massive numbers of condoms to its people, without any attempt to change people’s behaviour.

Here are the results. As of 2007, there have been a total of 2,965 individuals infected with AIDS in the Philippines, over 23 years! In Thailand, the number is a shocking 1,106,000! In other words, one out of every 21,850 Filipinos have become infected with AIDS – one of every 90 individuals in Thailand are infected.”

Facts? Let’s have a closer look.

Both country saw their first cases of AIDS in 1984, but here ends the similarities. There are several differences both cultural and social between Thailand and The Philippines, most importantly in the way these two countries have dealt with the rising epidemics in the 90s at a time when appropriate action would make all the difference. When HIV arrived in the Philippines, it was to meet a soil much less propitious to its dissemination.

Amongst the cultural differences the most important one is that Filipino men are circumcised whilst Thai men are not. Recent studies have shown that circumcision reduces the risk of being infected by HIV by up to 50%.

Whilst in the late 80s the epidemic fired up amongst drug users and sex workers in Thailand, the position of the Thai government was that it was only a disease that affected foreigners and that Thai shouldn’t worry . A government official is often quoted saying that “The general public need not be alarmed. Thai-to-Thai transmission is not in evidence.”

In contrast, in The Philippines the epidemics did not catch up, in particular amongst sex workers because early efforts to screen and treat sex workers since the early 1990s when Philippines approach the epidemics with more sense and less jingoism. Not only sex workers were screened and tested for HIV but also for other sexually transmitted diseases which have been associated with increased risks of HIV infection. Remember that to enter the body, the virus needs to go through the wall of cells that line up the inside of the vagina. Any other infection that may damage this wall will increase the chance of the HIV virus to pass through and enter the blood stream. By addressing these STD, and by providing treatment to HIV infected people, the viral load is kept at a low level and the risk of infection is reduced, even without condom.

What about the suggestion that Filipinos know more about HIV than Thai? In 2008 USAID reports that “approximately two-thirds of young women lack comprehensive knowledge on HIV transmission, and 90 percent of the population of reproductive age believe you can contract HIV by sharing a meal with someone”.

And did condoms failed in Thailand? Thanks to the “Condom King” (Senator Mechai Viravaidya) and its ‘100% condom’ program in brothels and national awareness campaigns, by the end of 2005, national HIV prevalence was 1.4%, down from 1.8% in 2003 and more than 2% a decade earlier.

Meanwhile, in the Philippines, HIV prevalence is on the increase, slowly but surely.

Finally, pro-life and other anti-condoms lobbyists, Christian fundamentalists and their ilk, wants us to believe that abstinence has been doing, is doing and will be doing miracle. They want us to believe that Filipino men go back home after work and enjoy a cold beer watching TV with their wife whilst heterosexual intercourse accounts for the majority (61 percent) of the Philippines’ reported /AIDS cases. They want us to ignore the 1993-4 estimated number of sex workers that range between 100,000 and 600,000 (by comparison, in profane Thailand the estimated number of sex workers in 1997 was only 200,000 to 300,000) whose work account for anywhere between 2 and 14 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (ILO 1998 report). A difference that also lead to a lower number of customers for Filipino sex workers compared to Thai sex workers.

They simply want us to believe that abstinence did it.

Who are they kidding?

Friday, June 19, 2009

Pope deplores 'acts of infidelity' by priests, Benedict is playing with words again

Pope deplores 'acts of infidelity' by priests

IRELAND
The Irish Times

PATSY McGARRY, Religious Affairs Correspondent

THE POPE has deplored acts of infidelity by priests and has called for “a frank and complete acknowledgment” of the Catholic Church’s weakness.

In what is being interpreted as an indirect response to the Ryan report, as well as to clerical sex abuse generally, he said yesterday that there had been “situations which can never be sufficiently deplored where the church herself suffers as a consequence of infidelity on the part of some of her ministers”. ...

However one US victims’ group said yesterday that his words of sorrow “ring hollow”.

David Clohessy, director of the Survivors’ Network of those Abused by Priests, said: “It’s tiresome again to see verbal Vatican posturing about clergy sex crimes devoid of any action whatsoever or any admission that the real issue remains: callous bishops who continue to recklessly and deceptively transfer sexually troubled priests to unsuspecting parishes.”

===

True Story of Opus Dei Supernumerary in Movie "Breach"

Once again, Opus Dei members are featured in a movie entitled "Breach."
Unlike the fictional Da Vinci Code, however, the movie is based on the true story
of convicted FBI spy and Opus Dei supernumerary Robert Hanssen.

Many wonder, how could a seemingly pious, dedicated and hard-working man be at
the heart of one of the worst security breaches in the history of the United States?
The answer can be partly found in the paradoxical nature not only of Hanssen, but also
of Opus Dei, both of whom share similarities such as elitism, superiority, secretiveness,
intelligence, detachment, and isolation.

For current and past news articles about Hanssen, along with some thoughts on the
paradoxical nature of both Hanssen and Opus Dei: Hanssen and Opus Dei

Benedict XVI slapped on the face by Sobrino’s ``Outside the Poor, there is no Salvation.``

Benedict XVI as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote the Dominus Iesu wherein he said: Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Now the Jesuit Jon Sobrino whom he silenced with the Opus Dei Bishop in El Salvador slaps Benedict onthe face and he pokes another hole into his sinking papal Titanic Ship by proving what Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei are guilty about: Outside the poor there is no salvation. Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei are outside the poor from their wealthiest palace and bank at the Vatican.

It is evident that Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei echelon never dirty their hands to serve the poor like Jon Sobrino and the Jesuits do. Their guilty consciences made them silence Jon Sobrino and forbid his Liberation Theology books from being taught in all Catholic universities worldwide. Opus Dei are elitists living in million dollar houses which they conveniently call `centres``.

After apologizing to Galileo, Benedict XVI repeat history by shutting down the Jesuits’ Vatican Observatory and condemning Jesuits like Jacques Dupuis.


Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei think they have silenced the Jesuit Jon Sobrino for good but he just wrote one of his best book yet: NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE POOR: Prophetic-Utopian Essays, 2008, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1570757526/ref=cm_rdp_product

Sunday, June 07, 2009

Benedict XVI's trip to Israel create Jerusa-pope and Nazi-reth, the new cities of Israel

Jerusa-pope and Nazi-reth, the new cities of Israel....
………built with the stones of the Roman Ara Pacis, of course.

Well, the world is so little that if you looks it from a whatever perspective you can see always a corner stone of a Vatican temple. Of course the curious phenomena occurs mostly in the ideal abstract world of the relations among people, agents and events. I received the newsletter from Barry Chamish, “Mural”, where the man is exposing the re-birth of the ancient Roman empire, with the pope as its divine emperor, and the consequent near, planned final destruction of Israel. The destruction of the Jewish country is realized mostly through disguising ‘peace agreements’ of which the Oslo agreements are the most false and abominable product.

The fact that Peres and the rest of the papal elite of Israel promised their land to the Vatican, is no more a mystery thanks to Barry Chamish exposition. Israel is no more a Jewish country. Israel is today – thanks to the Masonic Labour fake Zionists of the pope – another Konzentration Lager, where the prisoner are living believing to be protected by a fortress. But that ‘fortress’, thanks to decades of low-intensity manipulations and high intensity wars under the sign of the Novo Ordo Seclorum (New World Order), all finely tuned to arise hate against Jews and international support to the Islam, is laying on fundaments filled with explosive, the explosive of an international context where sudden changing could appear.

On the 1st June, the day before the Day of the Republic, national holyday in the Apennine peninsula, the same day when the echoes of the moral condemnation to the ‘racist’ and ‘anti-immigrant’ laws of Berlusconi government thrown by the evil tongue of the cardinal Angelo Bagnasco were still in the air to excite the anti-racist, pro-Islamic immigration opposition, a demonstrative action, allegedly performed by members of a futurist (Fascist) artist group, painted the external protection of the Ara Pacis in Rome with the colours of the Italian national flag.

Graziano Cecchini, a man who performed similar actions in the past, denied the direct responsibility in the fact. But he claimed the intellectual responsibility of the event. Probably they know who are the executors. But they preferred to pick up Graziano in order to use a more famous mouth to spread the message: “a protest against a divided Italy, an Italy following the ballons putted above or the water-closet laying below”.

Major of the city of Rome is Gianni Alemanno, a ‘former’ Fascist. During his last visit in Israel, in May, he announced the use of the Ara Pacis as seat for a permanent council for Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation – as reported by the Chamish newsletter. The Roman empire strikes back. After it struck on Gaza using the David’s star on his standards, to frame the Jews with the blood of innocent Arab children, and to bind them again with the chains as did by the emperors of Rome, it is going to rise again and for this purpose also the clowns of the pope, with showgirls or colouring are doing their best to help him.

Silvio Berlusconi continues to play the role for which he was blessed and consequently kissed the pope’s ring on that 6th June 2008. He is the captain Edward Smith which has the duty to smash the Titanic on which the ones who are opposing to the Islamic invasion of Europe have been gathered. He is purposely driving the boat on the rocks of the “moral national condemnation”. Under the political sea, the far left wing sharks, those Marxist Brown shirts which are sharing with the Mussolinian Black shirts the hate against Jewry and the love for the (purposely for this goal ) oppressed Muslims, those radical leftist who hates also the moderate centre left coalition for having not hardly opposed to the ‘racist’ laws of Berlusconi, are ready to devour the shipwrecked people who will fall in that waters.

It was the leftist Walter Veltroni, starting the electoral campaign just on that 17th February 2008 (Kosovo Independence declaration day), that man who created - obeying the orders of his Vatican masters - those Marxist sharks, wiping away the radical leftist party from the centre left coalition and imprisoning them in the waters of the political exile, where they are cocking their Leninist revenge. And was still Walter Veltroni, major of Rome before Gianni Alemanno, member of the former Partito Comunista Italiano, whose father broadcasted the visit of Hitler in Italy in 1938 (the year of the racial laws), to have promoted the realization - basing on a design of Richard Meier - of the building to contain the Ara Pacis. In that building it will find permanent seat the Israeli-Palestinan council and on the walls the futurist (Fascist) artists of the pope will express their creativity and their devotion to the Newly Restored Vatican & Jesuit Roman empire.

--------------------------------------------
www.barrychamish.com

ABOVE THE MURAL OF ANNUNCIATION

by Barry Chamish

The pope had a lousy time in Israel. The plans for Pres. Peres to hand him sovereignty over six places in the land were shattered thanks, in no small part, to my longterm readers like Dr. Daisy Stern, Bob Kunst and Prof. Hillel Weiss. They successfully informed the Israeli public of Peres' Vatican perfidy. And as for the Peres/Papal land seizure, curses, foiled again! The pope was plenty ticked by his disappointment and immediately blamed Israel for his crummy tour:

13:27 , 05.21.09
Vatican seeks answers for low turnout for pope's Jerusalem mass

Roman Catholic Church officials say they would like an explanation from Israel for the poor turnout at Pope Benedict XVI's open-air mass in Jerusalem last week.
Monsignor Antonio Franco, the papal nuncio in the Holy Land, said Thursday that church officials are still trying to figure out what happened. He says he's received reports that worshipers with tickets were turned away at the entrance while others received their tickets too late. Some 5,000 worshippers expected at the May 12 mass next to the Garden of Gethsemane but no more than 3,000 people arrived. (Reuters)

So while the pope was stuck in his dead end Israeli jaunt, a new road to get what he wants was presented to the world:

http://www.ansa.it/site/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2009-05-19_119372238.html

Rome to host Mideast council

Permanent forum to be based at Ara Pacis, symbol of peace


(ANSA) - Jerusalem, May 19 - Rome is to host a permanent council for Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation, the city's mayor, Gianni Alemanno, announced on Tuesday.

Speaking after a meeting with Israeli President Shimon Peres, Alemanno said the council would be located at Rome's 2,000-year-old symbol of peace, the Ara Pacis. ''The idea is to set up a permanent office at the Ara Pacis, providing a permanent, complete council tasked with working towards reconciliation,'' said the mayor. Alemanno said he would also discuss the idea with Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas later on Tuesday.

The mayor said he hoped to launch the council on April 21, 2010, the birthday of Rome's mythical founding, in an event attended by political and religious leaders. Saying he was hopeful Pope Benedict XVI would be there, Alemanno explained that Peres had ''underlined the importance of involving leading world figures in such an initiative, which Rome is ideally placed to do''. According to Alemanno, a similar idea was raised over a year ago but was shelved during the change of government in May 2008.

Peres has reportedly said he will write to Premier Silvio Berlusconi to personally request his support for the initiative. Alemanno's announcement about the Rome council comes at the end of a visit that has seen him trying to forge closer ties with the area.

On Monday he joined his Jerusalem counterpart Nir Barkat for a ceremony in which a small square near Jerusalem's Italian synagogue was renamed 'Piazza Roma'.

The traditionally Jewish quarter of Rome will soon see one of its squares renamed Piazza Jerusalem. During his visit Alemanno also confirmed that the Palestinian National Authority is to get a permanent embassy in Rome.

The Palestinian embassy has moved around for the last ten years but will now be located ''in a prestigious building'' in the city's San Giovanni neighbourhood, the mayor said. The Ara Pacis, meaning Altar of Peace, was commissioned in 13 BC to celebrate peace throughout the Roman Empire under the Emperor Augustus. It was completed in 9 BC, 23 years before Augustus's death at the age of 76 in 14 AD.

My friend Michael from Australia called this week, just returned from his pilgrimage to Israel. He followed the pope's journey in part, visiting Nazareth's Church Of The Annunciation where the pope said a few good words on May 14. He was shocked by, well, here are his words and photo:

This is the photo taken in the Church of the Annunciation, Nazareth in
late-April 2009.

However Pope B16 did pray on 14th May under this mural, which clearly
contains the all-seeing eye or the Eye of Horus.


for another look: http://www.superstock.co.uk/stock-photos-images/1269-1169A

The Church of the Annunciation was dedicated by Pope Paul VI on his trip to Israel in 1964 and completed in 1969. It was built over the ruins of previous churches which chose this spot as the holy place where the angel Gabriel found Mary in a grotto and informed her that she would soon give birth to Jesus. The mural appears to feature Jesus, Gabriel and Mary together, a miracle since Jesus wasn't alive at the time.
But it isn't the mural that is so damning of Vatican symbolism as the adjunct above it. Secured to the wall directly above the head of Jesus, is an all seeing eye, resting on, apparently, eagle wings. Although Roman legions marched under banners of eagle wings, some early Christians adopted the wings, turning them now into their symbol for the ascension. But NO Christians, then or now, and certainly not Jesus, had any use for the occult symbolism of the Eye of Horus.



ALL-SEEING EYE: A universal symbol representing spiritual sight, inner vision, higher knowledge, insight into occult mysteries. Look at your $1 bill.

EYE in top Triangle of the PYRAMID: Masonic symbol for the all-seeing eye of god - an mystical distortion of the omniscient (all-knowing) Biblical God.

Above main mural of Nazareth's Church of the Annunciation is not just the all seeing eye, but it is ensconced within a pyramid. The eye and pyramid are the most prominent artwork of the church. The stare directly above the pope, or anyone standing at the main altar, down through Jesus, forcing the worshipers to be reminded that it is mysticism which rules the universe, and definitely not God.

end

**

One of the members of this list is sending me 60 copies of a very valuable book, The Vatican's Holocaust by Avro Manhattan.
It tells the horrifying story of the worst religious holocaust of the 20th century. I asked him to send me a copy before I went to bat for it. I was astounded. 237 pages, filled with rare photos. And...It's yours for free. The only cost will be postage, envelopes, gas to the post office, say $6 in the States. Overseas the postage will be higher but the book itself is free.

Send me your mailing address and I'll get it to you.

PS
I'll add my two Vatican DVDs, one recorded in Jerusalem, the other in Atlanta if you ask, a bit more money BUT without profit.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3557853190547322236

Don't let this pass you by. I repeat, a great, educational FREE BOOK. Just for you. Barry

**

I offer a pay as you can news service that my subscribers love. I receive hidden but very real news almost no one else is reporting. The sources are worldwide, and usually accurate. Then I send the best to you. Let me know if you can take as many as 10 e-mails a week in your in box. Then pay me fairly as you can. Honest, it's worth it. write me at chamish@netvision.net.il to join. Three more happy subscribers since last week.

**

Chapter 1 of the new audio book format of The conPromised Land is up on your website. It's on the top of this link: http://www.thebarrychamishwebsite.com/lectures.htm

If you liked this teaser:

THE conPROMISED LAND can be ordered direct from the publisher http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback_book/the_conpromised_land/6398777

If you have ordering problems or just want the book signed, write me at chamish@netvision.net.il

--------------------------------------------
(As I have no time, no resources, no money, no support at disposition, it is clear that what I wrote is affected by many errors and uncorrectness. I am not a prostitute lay journalist of this dirty Vatican 'tollerant' regime called 'democracy'. I have not the 51% of the Bank of America supporting my writings. I don't control the Casinò of Ostenda and neither Citroen and Peugeot as the General Superior did at least in 1958. So corrections and additions could appear in the future)

June 03, 2009 06:05 AM

Friday, May 29, 2009

Benedict XVI ‘God’s Rottweiler’ Barks

When Benedict XVI went to Jordan, one of the first things he did was to visit a Muslim mosque and apologize for his comments against the Muslims which he made in Germany in 2006. It was well orchestrated with the Royal Family of Jordan who played host to him for 3 days. Sam Harris wrote an article about that maul against the Muslims Benedict did as God's Rottweiler. Benedict XVI should also apologize and recant his "Notification" and the "silence" imposed on the Jesuit Jon Sobrino by the Opus Dei Bishop in Salvador.


‘God’s Rottweiler’ Barks


By Sam Harris

www.samharris.org

The bestselling author of “The End of Faith” responds to Pope Benedict XVI’s speech on the interplay between faith and reason. Harris: “It is ironic that a man who has just disparaged Islam as ‘evil’ and ‘inhuman’ before 250,000 onlookers and the world press, is now talking about a ‘genuine dialogue of cultures.’ ”

Read Harris’ new book, “Letter to a Christian Nation”.

The world is still talking about the pope's recent speech (http://zenit.org/article-16955?l=english), a speech so boring, convoluted and oblique to the real concerns of humanity that it could well have been intended as a weapon of war. It might start a war, in fact, given that it contained a stupendously derogatory appraisal of Islam. For some reason, the Holy Father found it necessary to quote the Emperor Manual II Paleologos, who said: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman….” Now the Muslim world is buzzing with pious rage. It's a pity that Pope Benedict doesn't also draw cartoons. Joining a craven chorus of terrified supplicants, The New York Times has urged him to muster a "deep and persuasive’’ apology. He now appears to be mincing his way toward the performance of just such a feat.

While the pope succeeded in enraging millions of Muslims, the main purpose of his speech was to chastise scientists and secularists for being, well, too reasonable. It seems that nonbelievers still (perversely) demand too much empirical evidence and logical support for their worldview. Believing that he was cutting to the quick of the human dilemma, the pope reminded an expectant world that science cannot pull itself up by its own bootstraps: It cannot, for instance, explain why the universe is comprehensible at all. It turns out that this is a job for… (wait for it) … Christianity. Why is the world susceptible to rational understanding? Because God made it that way. While the pope is not much of a conjurer, many intelligent and well-intentioned people imagined they actually glimpsed a rabbit in this old hat. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, praised the pope's "deep and complicated" address for its "clarity and openness." Here is the heart of the pope's argument, excerpted from his concluding remarks. I have added my own commentary throughout.

“The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizon….”

The pope suggests that reason should be broadened to include the empirically unverifiable. And is there any question these new "vast horizons" will include the plump dogmas of the Catholic Church? Here, the pope gets the spirit of science exactly wrong. Science does not limit itself merely to what is currently verifiable. But it is interested in questions that are potentially verifiable (or, rather, falsifiable). And it does mean to exclude the gratuitously stupid. With these distinctions in mind, consider one of the core dogmas of Catholicism, from the Profession of Faith of the Roman Catholic Church:

"I likewise profess that in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice is offered to God on behalf of the living and the dead, and that the Body and the Blood, together with the soul and the divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ is truly, really, and substantially present in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, and there is a change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into Blood; and this change the Catholic Mass calls transubstantiation. I also profess that the whole and entire Christ and a true sacrament is received under each separate species."

While one can always find a Catholic who is reluctant to admit that cannibalism lies at the heart of the faith, there is no question whatsoever that the Church intends the above passage to be read literally. The real presence of the body and blood of Christ at the Mass is to be understood as a material fact. As such, this is a claim about the physical world. It is, as it happens, a perfectly ludicrous claim about the physical world. (Unlike most religious claims, however, the doctrine of Transubstantiation is actually falsifiable. It just happens to be false.) Despite the pope's solemn ruminations on the subject, reason is not so elastic as to encompass the favorite dogmas of Catholicism. Needless to say, the virgin birth of Jesus, the physical resurrection of the dead, the entrance of an immortal soul into the zygote at the moment of conception, and almost every other article of the Catholic faith will land in the same, ill-dignified bin. These are beliefs that Catholics hold without sufficient reason. They are, therefore, unreasonable. There is no broadening of the purview of 21st-century rationality that can, or should, embrace them.

“Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today….”

It is ironic that a man who has just disparaged Islam as "evil" and "inhuman" before 250,000 onlookers and the world press is now talking about a "genuine dialogue of cultures." How much genuine dialogue can he hope for? The Koran says that anybody who believes that Jesus was divine--as all real Catholics must--will spend eternity in hell (Koran 5:71-75; 19:30-38). This appears to be a deal-breaker. The pope knows this. The Muslim world knows that he knows it. And he knows that the Muslim world knows that he knows it. This is not a good basis for interfaith dialogue.

“In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures….”

Astrologers don't like "their most profound convictions" attacked either. Neither do people who believe that space aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Happily, these groups do not take to the streets and start killing people when their irrational beliefs are challenged. I suspect that the pope would be the first to admit that there are millions of people on this Earth who harbor "most profound convictions" that are neither profound nor compatible with real dialogue. Indeed, one doesn't even need to read between the lines of his speech to glean that he would place the entire Muslim world beyond the "universality of reason." He is surely right to be alarmed by Islam--particularly by its doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. He is right to find the treatment of Muslim women throughout the world abhorrent (if, indeed, he does find it abhorrent). He is right to be concerned that any Muslim who converts to Christianity (or to atheism) has put his life in jeopardy, as conversion away from the faith is punishable by death. These profundities are worthy objects of our derision. No apologies necessary, Your Holiness.

We might, however, note in passing that one of the pope's "most profound convictions" is that contraception is a sin. His agents continue to preach this diabolical dogma in the developing world, and even in sub-Saharan Africa, where over 3 million people die from AIDS each year. This is unconscionable and irredeemably stupid. It is also a point on which the Church has not shown much of an intelligent capacity for dialogue. Despite their inclination to breed themselves into a state of world domination, Muslims tend to be far more reasonable on the subject of family planning. They do not consider the use of temporary forms of birth control to be a sin.

“Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought—to philosophy and theology….”

This may have been where Sullivan found the Holy Father to be particularly "deep and complicated" and "profound." Granted, questions of epistemology can make one sweat, and there are many interesting and even controversial things to be said about the foundations of our knowledge. The pope has not said anything interesting or controversial here, however. He has merely insinuated that placing the God of Abraham at the back of every natural process will somehow reduce the quotient of mystery in the cosmos. It won't. Nearly a billion Hindus place three gods--Brahma (the Creator), Vishnu (the Preserver) and Shiva (the Destroyer)--in the space provided. Just how intellectually illuminating should we find that?

“The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur—this is the program with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time.

“Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor….”

Please read that first sentence again. I hope it doesn't seem peevish to point out that the West faces several dangers even greater than those posed by an incomplete epistemology. The West is endangered, primarily, by the religious fragmentation of the human community, by religious impediments to clear thinking, and by the religious willingness of millions to sacrifice the real possibility of happiness in this world for a fantasy of a world to come. We are living in a world where untold millions of grown men and women can rationalize the violent sacrifice of their own children by recourse to fairy tales. We are living in world where millions of Muslims believe that there is nothing better than to be killed in defense of Islam.

We are living in a world in which millions of American Christians hope to soon be raptured into the sky by Jesus so that they can safely enjoy the holy genocide that will inaugurate the end of human history. We are living in a world in which a silly old priest, by merely giving voice to his religious inanities, could conceivably start a war with 1.4 billion Muslims who take their own inanities in deadly earnest. These are real dangers. And they are not dangers for which more "Biblical faith" is a remedy.

http://www.samharris.org/site/articles/

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Benedict XVI is OUT OF TOUCH: The Williamson Affair

Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei are OUT OF TOUCH with reality because they live in the ivory tower of the Vatican Palace where they are drugged with their Latin Mass ecstasy everyday.

Opus Dei is more concerned with their own founder's glory, that fascist St. Josemaria Escriva - see the John Paul II Millstone www.jp2m.blogspot.com for indepth coverage -- and the speedy canonization of John Paul II. Opus Dei covered-up the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army for more than 26 years because they were preparing for his canonization in the Vatican saint-factory.

Latin Bullshit! - Did Christ speak Latin?

Benedict XVI cares more for Bishop Williamson than the poor people of El Salvador and so he and the Opus Dei Bishop silenced the Jesuit Jon Sobrino.

Imagine, williamson the Jew hating Catholic Bishop has more right to speak than the Jesuit Jon Sobrino - the infallible pope couldn't be more fallible!

---
The Williamson Affair

I wonder if, hearing about the Vatican's embarrassment over the Bishop Williamson affair, you experienced a feeling of schadenfreude - delight in other people's misfortunes? I winced at the damage done to the Church's relationship with the Jews; to the reputation of our Church and to the confidence of thoughtful, sane Catholics. All the same, one couldn't but feel gratified that what supporters of women priests know only too well; THE VATICAN IS OUT OF TOUCH was being shouted around the world.

The announcement that four Lefebvrist bishops, including Bishop Williamson, who, excommunicated for disobedience, still reject Vatican II teachings on liturgy, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue and religious liberty, could return to the Church, was made on the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of Pope John XXIII's announcement of the Second Vatican Council. Did the Pope really believe that the lifting of the order of excommunication would help reconciliation? In modern parlance, "What was he thinking?" .

Apparently he decided to lift the order of excommunication unilaterally and without consultation. A contributor to CIRCLES contributed the comment,

"Great harm is being done by just a one-man papal dictatorship or all male small Vatican oligarchy of misguided and mistaken clerics who do not reflect the Catholic laity or most of the nuns and priests or the traditions and teachings of Jesus Christ who never excluded people or women or defamed or hated Jews or any people."

According to Hans Küng, the Pope is not at ease with modernity and reform. It is to be hoped that the outraged reaction of the main body of the Church to his recent decision will help to bring him into the modern world. Cardinal Schönborn, the first of several German-speaking cardinals to criticise the Pope's decision, wrote in Thema Kirche that the outcome of the crisis could be positive.

"Crises can be opportunities - not comfortable ones, free of suffering, but in the final effect salutary opportunities, even if one cannot see them as such in the middle of crisis itself."

The Catholic Network for Women's Equality (CNWE) seized the opportunity of The Pope's "merciful" decision to readmit the dissenting bishops for the sake of Church unity, to ask him, in a gesture of reconciliation toward women, to also lift the May 29, 2008 decree of automatic excommunication issued against all women priests or bishops who belong to the 'river ordinations' movement .

We can surely also pray that the furore aroused by Bishop Williamson's published views on women (eg. they should not go to university or wear trousers!) will convince Pope Benedict that such views reflecting age-old prejudices are unacceptable in the modern world.

Best Wishes from the Housetop Team

Leonie Russell

editor

WWW.WOMENPRIESTS.ORG

Quotes from Bishop Richard Wiliamson


On 21 January, Pope Benedict lifted the excommunication from four Bishops of the Society of Pius X. Among them is the controversial Bishop Richard Williamson.

Bishop Williamson has not only denied that Jews were gassed by the Nazis in the infamous concentration camps. He has also repeatedly expressed totally unaceptable views about women, reflecting the age-old prejudices that unfortunately beset the thinking of Church leaders in the past. His statements have recently been removed from SSPX sites but we have been able to recover some. The original links to these letters were appended to an article by John Allen in the National Catholic Reporter on January 26th, 'Lefebvre Movement: long troubled history with Judaism.'

* Bishop Williamson: Why Women's Trousers Represent Deep Revolt Against God -- The Unwomaning of Woman, September 1, 1991

* Bishop Williamson: Why No 'Girl' Should Go To University, September 1, 2001

* See related CIRCLES' discussion re Are Child Bearing and Parenthood 'Woman's' Primary Social Tasks? Scroll through thread to find info about Nazi Women's League!


http://www.womenpriests.org/circles/tm.asp?m=2119&mpage=78&key=睸


Bishop Williamson's Letters
Girls at University
Emancipation’s Mess of Pottage
(Gen. XXV, 29-34)

Winona, September 1, 2001

Dear Friends and Benefactors:

Canadians strike me as a gentle people; but "strike" is the word! Ten years ago I was innocently asked in Canada whether women should wear trousers. Some ten weeks ago, also in Canada, I was asked whether a girl should go to a conservative Novus Ordo university. The answer now to the second question may be as stormy as the answer to the first:- because of all kinds of natural reasons, almost no girl should go to any university!

The deep-down reason is the same as for the wrongness of women's trousers: the unwomaning of woman. The deep-down cause in both cases is that Revolutionary man has betrayed modem woman; since she is not respected and loved for being a woman, she tries to make herself a man. Since modem man does not want her to do what God meant her to do, namely to have children, she takes her revenge by invading all kinds of things that man is meant to do. What else was to be expected? Modern man has only himself to blame.

In fact, only in modern times have women dreamt of going to university, but the idea has now become so normal that even Catholics, whose Faith guards Nature, may have difficulty in seeing the problem. However, here is a pointer in the direction of normalcy: any Catholic with the least respect for Tradition recognizes that women should not be priests - can he deny that if few women went to university, almost none would wish to be priests? Alas, women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God's Nature which characterizes our times. That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls.

NATURE OF UNIVERSITIES

Let us begin with the true university. As defined by Cardinal Newman in his famous "Idea of a University", it is "a place of teaching universal knowledge". Universities in this sense were a creation of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, and, as the Cardinal splendidly recalls, theology held pride of place there because, as science of the Supreme Being, it is the supreme science which alone can appoint to all other sciences their proper place. So a true university is a place for all-round learning of reality beneath the queenship of Catholic theology. The value of sciences and this need of theirs for theology is why the Catholic Church is always tending to create universities, and why she alone can create true universities, directing all study ultimately to the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

From which, one must question what kind of queenship can be exercised by Novus Ordo theologians, even conservative. Normally, "conservative" Catholics who have left Tradition are in bad faith, so will be bad teachers, while those who have never known Tradition will be ignorant, and so bad teachers. Both will make a point of "rescuing" a damsel in"schismatic" or "excommunicated" distress. Therefore a Traditional girl putting herself under "conservative" teachers will, to keep her Faith, require a special effort to resist the menfolk whom God designed (and her parents paid) her to follow. She will then be voluntarily so setting her true Catholic Faith against her true feminine nature that one or the other is almost bound to suffer.

It also follows from the queenship of Theology that a democratic age like ours, rejecting God and dethroning Theology, will make a nonsense of universities. Sure enough. All around us we see "universities" which are much worse than brothels, because not only does democratic "equality" indiscriminately herd there together all kinds of boys and girls with little or no interest in ideas so that they should not be studying in the first place, but also, by silencing Theology and rendering Philosophy ridiculous, these "universities" corrupt the highest part of the youngsters' nature, their minds, leaving their lower nature with little or no means of resisting the aided and abetted promiscuity of the two young sexes. Survey the waste on any "university" campus today - feckless unmen and trashy unwomen whose noblest activity is throwing frisbees at one another!

Such "universities" dedicated to the defiance of God and Nature, make mincemeat of the youngsters' Faith (if they had any), of their morals and of their common sense. Poor parents. But they have mocked God, and God is not mocked. Obviously no boy, let alone any girl, should be sent to such a "university". What needs to be proved is that even to a decent university, if such could be found, few or no girls should be sent. This is because of the God-given nature of girls. Which, despite today's massive propaganda to the contrary, is quite different from the God-given nature of boys!

NATURE OF GIRLS

For a sane grasp of woman's nature, let me appeal to the Church's Common Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, distant now by three-quarters of a millennium from our own disturbed times. The three reasons he gives in his Summa Theologiae (2a, 2ae, 177,2) why woman should not teach in Church in public can all be applied to why she should not teach or learn in a public university. Firstly, he says, teaching is for superiors, and women are- not to be superior, but subject, to their men (Gen III,16).

Secondly, women stepping up to teach in public can easily inflame men's lust (Ecclus IX,11). Thirdly, "Women are not usually ("communiter") perfect in wisdom".

To grasp these three reasons, let us back up another five millennia, to Adam and Eve. Since the word "nature" comes from the Latin word for "being born", then to study a thing's nature one goes back to its birth. Eve was created by God to be a "help" to Adam (Gen. 11,18). She was to help him, says St Thomas Aquinas elsewhere (1a,92,1), not for any other work than that of generation (or reproduction), because for any other work man could be more suitably helped by another man. It follows that woman's nature is intrinsically geared to motherhood, so that in all things pertaining to motherhood she is man's superior, in all else she is his inferior, and in none of all the things in which the two sexes are complementary are they equal.

Now to attract a man so as to marry and become a mother, to nurture and rear children and to retain their father, she needs superior gifts of feeling and instinct, e.g. sensitivity, delicacy, tact, perspicacity, tenderness, etc. by which her mind will correspondingly be swayed, which is why no husband can understand how the mind of his wife works! For to do the work of generation, i.e. to ensure nothing less than the survival and continuation of mankind, God designed her mind to run on a complementary and different basis from her man's. His mind is designed not to be swayed by feelings but on the contrary to control them, so that while his feelings may be inferior to hers, his reason is superior. And reason being meant to rule in rational beings, then he is natured to rule over her (Gen. III, 16), as can be seen for example whenever she needs to resort to him for her feelings not to get out of control.

Correspondingly, while she senses family (and loves to talk about it), he responds to the world around and wants to master it (Gen II,15,19,20). While she is people-oriented, he is reality-oriented. (How often will a woman pull an idea or a question of reality back to family! - "You're against drink? You're attacking my husband!" This is in woman's nature. One does not mock her for it.) So while she is queen of feeling within the home, he must be king of reason over the home. So while he must love her and listen to her, at the end of the day she must obey him, because he is natured to take the broader view and to be the more reasonable (Eph V 22,25: Col III, 18,19).

FIRST REASON

Now what does a university call for? Whereas in modem "universities" the males all believe in "if it feels good, do it," which is why they are, as they wish, overrun by feeling females, on the contrary in a true university one thinks about universal reality, which is the prerogative of men. A woman can think in this way, or do a good imitation of handling ideas, but then she will not be properly thinking as woman. The dilemma is inescapable: she cannot do what is properly men's thinking or work without cutting across her deepest nature. Did this lawyeress check her hair-do just before coming into court? If she did, she is one distracted lawyer. If she did not, she is one distorted woman.

Moreover, true university thinking tends to produce leaders because true students have pondered on more or less universal reality. Cardinal Newman may argue that the cultivated mind is an end in itself, but if Mother Church has always raised universities, is it not because an elite of all-round minds will in any society powerfully help many souls to get to Heaven, if those minds' studying has been governed over all by the true Faith? But women are neither meant, nor normally gifted, to be leaders! Therefore girls should not be at university. As for a Queen Isabella the Catholic, Spain was her family and she never went to university! Nor did Theresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna or Joan of Arc.

Concretely, if a girl devotes several years of her youth and much money of her parents to acquiring a university education, especially a decent one, how easily will she submit to her husband, especially if he has not had that education? And how may she not argue with him if he has had it? And if she has a "degree", how will she not think herself above the multiple humiliations of being "barefoot and pregnant"? And if she is a "graduate", how will she not hold-herself superior to being-a “vegetable at the-kitchen-sink"? And if making a family makes her forget in the right kind of way all about "graduating", "degrees" and "university", why go there in the first place? The dilemma is inescapable: in doing manly things like going to a university, either she is merely going through the motions or she is damaging her potential for motherhood - conclusion: she should not go there.

SECOND REASON

We come to St Thomas' second reason: the inflaming of lust. Enough said about today's unibrothels. What will happen if heaps of boys and girls are thrown together with mention of God even forbidden is massive common sense, but that is not the whole story!

Just suppose that a decent girl can find a decent university which is cultivating on a broad front minds of an elite of boys who will provide tomorrows world with its leaders. If she is smart enough to study, will she not be smart enough to know that even if she does not wish to distract the boys, she will still be a distraction? To this reason there is no exception. So if she is that decent, will she not prefer to hang back from distracting the future leaders that she and all her society tomorrow will need?

Then the more decent the university, will she not the more keep away? What woman can be imagined taking part in Plato's Dialogues? Not even the Blessed Virgin Mary took part in the Last Supper. Girls at university are a double source of confusion, both doing what girls were not created to do, and distracting the boys from doing what the boys were created to do.

At any true university, the worthwhile students do not want to be distracted by girls. Those are exactly the potential husbands that the really intelligent girls will go after. That is why even really intelligent girls should not be at university.

THIRD REASON

For indeed - St. Thomas's third reason - "women are not usually perfect in wisdom". This is because woman's family-wisdom is priceless, it comes straight from God, but it is as wisdom, because it orders only a part of reality.

Woman's thinking is subjective, inward, intuitive, concrete, small-scale, with a gift for loving details. University thinking needs to be objective, outward, rational, abstract, large-scale, with a drive towards the grand principles. Her thinking follows her heart. University thinking can only follow the head. While a university professor is teaching, the boy will be listening to and learning from the words but the girl will naturally be listening to the man and learning by osmosis. Only by an effort will she listen to the words, because her heart is elsewhere - usually on the boys. Naturally docile and possibly possessed of more than sufficient brains, she can always do a good imitation of a good student, especially if she wishes to please a particular male professor. Nor, again, should she be mocked for that, insofar as God designed her to please and to attract - a husband. Rarely, however, will the impressive studentess be a really good student, because the Lord God simply designed her heart and mind for a quite other task. Girls, do you really want to spend so much of your time and of your parents' money on doing something God almost for sure did not mean you to be doing?

OBJECTIONS

But Pius XII encouraged you to make the best of being forced out into the world? - Maybe he was making the best of an already bad situation in the 1940's and 1950's, when he hoped women would bring to bear their femininity on the public domain. However, by the definitions of "feminine" and "public", that is a contradiction in terms. Fifty years later, who can deny that the public domain has de-feminized, woman? As a friend said, "Women used to have careers open to them only in nursing and teaching, which they did well. Now they no longer know how to do either!"

It is high time for Catholics to buck the current and to buck the world! Europe, center of Christendom, is collapsing, because European girls are all being taught to go to "university" and to "put off' having babies! Woman and family are in desperate crisis - do we want to follow the swine over the cliff?

But men today are unfit to lead, so you have to go to university to take their place? – You cannot take their place!!!! (The exception proves the rule). Today you are merely following them into "universities", tomorrow you will be following them out. By hook or by crook, do something motherly, play your part as God meant you to do, and God can give you back from above the manly leaders and the husband that you pray for and need, but that you cannot by the nature of things wrest to yourselves from below. You cannot restore God's order by breaking it. Get behind your men! Behind, you have an enormous power to inspire and guide. In front, you will merely make them more irresponsible than ever...

But what about the Dominicans' school for girls in Idaho? - As much as St Thomas Aquinas disapproves women teaching in public, he approves their teaching in private, in other words at home, "or in a home-like setting". A university cannot resemble a home, but wise Mothers can keep a girls' secondary school like a home. See the enclosed flyer for an encouragement to support the same Dominican Mothers' primary and secondary schooling in France.

But where will girls' secondary schools find women teachers if no girls go to university? -One needs no university to learn most of what secondary schoolgirls need to be taught, for instance "domestic economy, setting up home, running a house, the care and education of children, the spiritual and social preparation for marriage" - Pius XII's timeless list, to the Union of Catholic Women, June 24, 1949. Of course if the law of the land, as now in France, demands "university" "diplomas" for women to teach or to open girls' schools, then some women's "university" attendance becomes, for the duration of that law, an exceptional necessity. However, exceptions make bad rules!

But what about the co-educational college of the Society of St Pius X at St. Mary's in Kansas? - It is still a family-scale operation, typical of the true Church's drive to teach the true Faith in as much depth as possible amidst difficult circumstances, but according as it may expand and rise in the future to a truly university level of teaching, I for one piously hope that the boys will by then be giving such a lead and example, creating such a new world, that the girls will no longer feel any need to attend.

But what are girls in the meantime to do, who have a brain and are not ready to get married? - Let them use their brain: firstly, to grasp how God designed them, and for what role; secondly, to pray God He grant us all some men; thirdly, to read at home on their own (for instance Jane Austen, a classic example of how much domestic woman can do); fourthly, to devise with their parents a feminine place and function where they can mature towards marriage. Or - for Heaven's sakes - let them think of a vocation! Old saying: "A woman is once a woman, a nun is twice a woman"!

CONCLUSION

For all these reasons, domestic girls are not by nature for public universities. Where did modern man go wrong?

As man puts himself in the place of God, so this life on earth blocks out of view any after-life in God's Heaven or Hell. Man's pride unchains his inclination to pleasure here below. Self comes first But children - however unconsciously -demand and reward selflessness in their parents. Therefore the children, and the demand, and the reward, most go. But woman's life is natured to center around children. Therefore woman's life in particular becomes empty, as does her home, especially if working conditions take her husband also away. She will inevitably follow him into his domains, eg. university, where she is liable to impose female patterns that do not belong, but that are frustrated at home. She will not let her being remain meaningless!

As this letter has often argued, such a breaking of family, home and woman is too deep a violation of Nature for the modern way of life to be able to survive. With men in the lead, Catholics, whose Faith should give them a handle on Nature, will be wise, according to circumstances, to take remedial action now. The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

Men, think! Give substance to the home! Girls, I bless you, your parents and all dear readers.

Sincerely yours in Christ,


+Richard Williamson

http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-2001.htm

Benedict's speech in Israel showed verbal indifference and banality

Benedict XVI and his Opus Dei entourage, with theatrical direction of GAY Zeffirelli, was in Israel – walking and talking in his usual GAY mannerisms. Of course, the 12,000 American victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army is all but "Dust in the Wind"... That is why SNAP must built a SNAP Memorial like the Holocaust Memorial where an eternal flame will be lit in memory of the American victims, and victims from around the world, of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army…and that Pope John Paul II must NEVER be called a “saint” in Amrican soil and by American children.

------

Benedict's speech showed verbal indifference and banality


One word unsaid can sometimes be more damaging than thousands of words uttered. This is what happened two days ago during Pope Benedict XVI's speech at Yad Vashem. The thorough preparations for his visit to Israel, the complex traffic and security arrangements, and the millions of shekels that were earmarked for his hospitality evaporated as if they did not exist thanks to a speech that was missing one word - "sorry."

The pope's visit was a good opportunity to improve Israel's relations with the Vatican and for advancing inter-religious dialogue. His arrival strengthened the government's international standing on the eve of Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with United States President Barack Obama.


From the church's standpoint, the pilgrimage to the Holy Land could have buttressed the Vatican's position in the diplomatic process while minimizing the damage caused by some of the pope's decisions: beatifying his predecessor, Pius XII, who is accused of turning a blind eye to the Holocaust, and reinstating a bishop who is on record as denying the Holocaust.



Yet the political weight of a visit by a pope who was in the Hitler Youth in Nazi Germany and a soldier in the Wermacht are reason enough to undertake as diligent a preparation as possible.


Perhaps in the eyes of his Catholic followers, pictures of the pope at Christian holy sites are the most moving of all. But from the standpoint of his Israeli hosts, the crux of the visit was the event at Yad Vashem. It should have been clear to the Vatican that every word spoken by, and every bead of sweat dripping down the face of the leader of the Catholic Church during his appearance at the site of the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority would be picked apart.


But Benedict is not as attuned an internationalist, capable of rallying the masses, as his immediate predecessor, John Paul II, was. His organizers should have made more of an effort in understanding the audience which the pontiff addressed. His important statements condemning anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial lost their potency because of his lukewarm remarks at Yad Vashem.


The pope's visit shows that there is no real dialogue between Israel and the Vatican, and that it is difficult to erase centuries-old wounds. It is clear that logistical preparations for such a visit are not sufficient, and that it is vital to conduct diplomatic dialogue over the content of the public aspects of the visit, so as to prevent mishaps and ensure a successful trip. On his trip to Africa, Benedict set off a storm by what he said. In Jerusalem he set off a wave of disappointment by what he did not.


Survivors angered by Benedict's 'lukewarm' speech at Yad Vashem



By Jonathan Lis, Nadav Shragai, Jack Khoury and Cnaan Liphshiz

The speech by Pope Benedict XVI yesterday at Yad Vashem drew criticism from staff members of the Holocaust memorial, who described it as disappointing and lukewarm. The chairman of the Yad Vashem Directorate, Avner Shalev, said he expected the pope, "who is a human being, too," to draw on his personal experience to issue a stronger condemnation of Nazis and Germans, who were not directly mentioned in the speech. The pope grew up in Nazi Germany and served in both Hitler Youth and the Wehrmacht, before deserting from the army in 1944. Shalev, however, said the speech was "important," especially in its criticism of denial of the Holocaust.


The pope spoke at length about the importance of remembering the victims of the Holocaust. "One can rob a neighbor of possessions, opportunity or freedom. One can weave an insidious web of lies to convince others that certain groups are undeserving of respect. Yet, try as one might, one can never take away the name of a fellow human being," he said. "May the names of these victims never perish! May their suffering never be denied, belittled or forgotten! And may all people of goodwill remain vigilant in rooting out from the heart of man anything that could lead to tragedies such as this!"



The chairman of Yad Vashem, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, himself a Holocaust survivor, complained of the pope's usage of the word "millions" instead of the more specific "6 million" when speaking of the Holocaust's Jewish victims, as well as over his use of the word "killed" rather than "murdered."


"There's a dramatic difference between killed and murdered, especially when a speech has gone through so many hands," Lau said.


Lau also said that the speech "didn't have a single word of condolence, compassion or sharing the pain of the Jewish people as such. There was a lot about the pain of humanity, cosmopolitan words," Lau said. Lau, the chief rabbi of Tel Aviv and a former Ashkenazi chief rabbi of Israel, also described the speech as "beautiful and well scripted and very Biblical," however.


Some of the Holocaust survivors chosen to shake hands with the pope at the ceremony also expressed mixed feelings about the pontiff's speech.


"It was exciting to meet with the most important dignitary of the Christian world, and his coming to speak at Yad Vashem is very meaningful," said Avraham Ashkenazi, who as a 4-year-old boy in Nazi-occupied Greece attended church with his parents, who pretended to be Christian in order to survive. "But he's not all innocent, he was in the Hitler Jugend and the Wehrmacht. He might not have had a choice, although his father opposed the Nazis."


Other survivors were less critical. "People who expected the pope to apologize or change his mind demonstrated a poor understanding of diplomacy and the Catholic church," said a founder of the the Company for Restitution of Holocaust Victims' Assets, Avraham Roth, who attended the ceremony.


Later yesterday the pope met with the parents of captive soldier Gilad Shalit. He promised to do everything he could to obtain a sign of life from him and to aid the negotiations for his release. The Shalits told the pope they were disappointed with the conduct of the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose delegates have not visited Gilad. They gave the pope a copy of the children's book written by their son before his capture, translated into Italian especially for the pontiff and inscribed in Gilad's name.


Meanwhile, police declared a "zero tolerance" policy regarding any attempts of protest during the papal visit. In East Jerusalem's Ambassador Hotel, a press center set up by Palestinians for foreign journalists covering the visit was shut down by police, who also dispersed a press briefing conducted there.


In another incident, right-wing Jewish activists protesting near the President's Residence in West Jerusalem were dispersed by Border Police.


Two Jews carrying protest signs near Augusta Victoria Hospital in East Jerusalem were detained, as was a man who was seen throwing paint at a Vatican flag elsewhere in the city.


The traffic jams in Jerusalem yesterday caused by the papal visit were much worse than police had anticipated. Further congestion is expected tomorrow, when Hebron Road will be closed for the duration of the pope's visit to Bethlehem.


Pope at Yad Vashem / Benedict's speech showed verbal indifference and banality

By Tom Segev
Tags: Holocaust, Haaretz TV


Pope John Paul II was received in Israel with enthusiasm that sometimes bordered on the excitement generally reserved for pop stars. He radiated warmth. Pope Benedict XVI, in contrast, comes across as restrained, almost cold.

In the best-case scenario, Benedict will leave behind indifference, not hostility. The speech he gave yesterday at Yad Vashem was surprising mainly because one would have expected the Vatican's cardinals to prepare a more intelligent text for their boss. Someday, maybe in 500 years, when the Vatican archive is opened to researchers examining the preparations for this visit, we will be able to learn from early drafts how the final speech came to appear so forced.

There is nothing easier than expressing real horror when talking about the Holocaust, than identifying with its suffering, pain and grief. If that is not done, it is a sign that there was a deliberate decision not to do so. No church bell would cease to ring had the pontiff said something about Christian anti-Semitism, even if he fell short of explicitly saying that without it, the Nazis would not have won the support of the German people. What he said about the Holocaust sounded too calculated, too diplomatic and professional - he advised "compassion," a prescription that is to priests what aspirin is to general practitioners.


Yad Vashem officials rushed to express "disappointment" at Benedict's failure to mention the Germans, and naturally they attributed that omission to his own background. The truth is that the Israeli culture of memory has itself struggled hard with the question of whether and how to identify the murderers.

Sometimes this identity is not mentioned at all, as in the "El maleh rachamim" funeral prayer recited before the pope's address. Yesterday, President Shimon Peres referred to the genocide as "Hitler's Holocaust," a highly problematic term he would do well not to use again. The intention, of course, is to avoid insulting the German people as a whole. Yad Vashem ceremonies generally use the term "the Nazi Germans and their helpers." How simple and fitting it would have been had the Vatican adopted that terminology, just as it inserted the Hebrew term "Shoah" into the pope's text, a tribute to the Israeli view of the destruction of the Jews.

Benedict is aware of the historical responsibility that rests on his shoulders as both a German and a Christian. He supports annulling the statute of limitations on prosecuting Nazi criminals in Germany and has visited Yad Vashem once before. On more than one occasion, he has expressed empathy for Jews and for Israel.

But in last night's speech, he inexplicably said Jews "were killed," as if it had been an unfortunate accident. On the surface, this may seem unimportant: Israelis often use the same term, and they do not need the pope to tell them about the Holocaust, which today is a universal code for absolute evil.

But the word the pope used is significant because someone in the Holy See decided to write "were killed" instead of "murdered" or "destroyed." The impression is that the cardinals argued among themselves over whether Israelis "deserve" for the pope to say "were murdered" and decided they only deserve "were killed." It sounded petty. Even the recurring use of the term "tragedy" seemed like an attempt to avoid saying the real thing.

The verbal stinginess Benedict displayed last night also diminishes the impact of anything he might say about Palestinian suffering. Had he said what he needed to on the Holocaust, he could have said more to condemn Israel's systematic violation of the human rights of residents of the West Bank and Gaza.

The Yad Vashem speech emphasized the Holocaust's universal lessons, which are obviously important. Israel has yet to learn to do this sufficiently well. The legacy of the Holocaust obligates every person to fight racism and protect human rights. It obligates every soldier to refuse a patently illegal order.

But Benedict chose to phrase even the universal lessons of the Holocaust in abstract terms. These may still have a place in the lecture hall of a German theology professor, but in the Internet age, they are little more than empty banalities.


------

Comment:

http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2008/12/pope-benedict-criticizes-homosexuals.html

Just watch the descent of Pope Benedict down the steps of his aircraft upon his arrival in Amman airport, Jordan, on his recent Middle East trip.

The wind was up and the pope's small, white cape blew up around his left shoulder and remained stuck there.

His PA, Msgr. Ganschwein noticed it, some minutes later, although he was the other side of a line of dignitaries and some way off.

Ganschwein rushed right round behind this line of dignitaries, over to the pope and flicked the offending garment off the Pope's shoulder.

That says "Mr. and Mrs." to me.

It is certainly not the behaviour one would expect from two straight men.

Also the pope has changed his tailor and the white casssock was very full and billowy; very swishy; very girly.

I am a big, old girl and I know another when I see one and THAT is one.

Keith.

SALFORD.
U.K.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

Benedict XVI Rethinking Catholic Boston at 200 years

Rethinking Catholic Boston at 200 years

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/

Link|Comments (69) Posted by Michael Paulson April 23, 2009 03:57 PM

Boston College's Church in the 21st Century Center has pulled together a series of thematic essays reflecting on Catholicism in Boston over the two centuries since the Archdiocese of Boston was established. The essays are collected in a new book, "Two Centuries of Faith: The Influence of Catholicism on Boston, 1808-2008,'' edited by university historian Thomas H. O'Connor. The book is not a comprehensive history of the archdiocese, but rather takes a look at several aspects of the development of the archdiocese, from the French influences on its beginnings, to the role of women and minorities in its ranks, to the role of Catholicism in Boston politics, social services, education and literature.

BC held an event Tuesday to present a copy of the book to Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, the archbishop of Boston; the authors and a variety of faculty and students gathered in the Irish Room at BC's Gasson Hall, under a giant stained glass window of St. Patrick, the patron saint of the archdiocese.

O'Connor, offering the gathering an overview of the book, provocatively suggested that in some ways, the archdiocese of today resembles the archdiocese of 200 years ago, with fewer Catholics and fewer priests than it enjoyed during the triumphalist decades of the early 20th Century.

In the book, one of the contributors, the Rev. William T. Schmidt, pastor of St. Patrick Church in Stoneham, offers a sober look at the history of parish life in the archdiocese, observing that the sexual abuse scandal caused a "crisis of confidence and trust in the leadership of the Catholic Church" and saying "the long-term impact of this crisis is still unknown.''

"The parishes of the Archdiocese of Boston are facing extraordinary struggles, disappointments, and challenges at the beginning of Boston's third centenary. Sunday Mass attendance on the part of Boston Catholics has dropped precipitously from more than 70 percent of baptized Catholics during the halcyon days of the 1940s and 1950s to less than 25 percent today. This depleted participation at Sunday Mass is certainly reflective of continuing anger over the clergy sex abuse scandal. It is also refelctive of some deep distress with the closure of parishes. It would be inaccurate, however, to attribute the depleted numbers at Sunday Mass to these issues alone. There has indeed been a steady erosion of Sunday Mass attendance since the 1970s that is reflective of sweeping changes within the church and society.''
The last word in the book goes to BC history professor James M. O'Toole, who looks back at the bishops of Boston, and then looks ahead:

"For the foreseeable future, the institution of the church will continue to shrink, and the number of priests and sisters will become steadily smaller. Even as new forms of lay ministry expand, the reconfiguration of the institutions and agencies of the church will have to be accomplished cooperatively. For their part, lay people are eager to participate in this process of seeking new ways of 'being the church.' As time puts distance between ourselves and the events of the scandal, it seems increasingly significant that large numbers of Catholics did not simply abandon the church. That they stayed with it, even amid the heartbreaking scandal, evinces a desire to remain faithful members of the church. That commonality of faith has sustained them for the last two hundred years and will be essential for the next century -- centuries -- of Catholics of Boston.''

Cardinal O'Malley spoke briefly as he accepted a copy of the book. Here are some video excerpts of his remarks:

(Photo above, by Wendy Maeda of the Globe staff, shows Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston greeting history professor Thomas H. O'Connor of Boston College on 4/21/09.)

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Benedict's Evasive Apology

Benedict's Evasive Apology


When the Pope apologizes for anything, his statement generally signifies nothing more than an attempt at damage control in the wake of an unanticipated public relations disaster created by his and his church's actions. In all fairness, it must be said that this generalization also applies to nearly every apology made by secular politicians. This should not be surprising, because all popes are politicians. They wouldn't have gotten to be popes otherwise.


Pope Benedict's belated, ambiguous response to the storm of public criticism over his reversal of the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop in January is a classic example of an apology unaccompanied by any real action to remedy the situation.

Richard Williamson, who has repeatedly said there were no gas chambers and that only 300,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis (and not as part of any organized plan) was told by the pope that he needed to revise his views or he couldn't serve as a bishop again. (Pope Benedict's reversal of the excommunication issued by his predecessor, Pope John Paul II--not, by the way, because of Holocaust denial but because of Williamson's opposition to liturgical reforms--was unchanged.) Williamson said he had to consult with more experts to examine his views. One of the "experts" was David Irving, a British historian who is also a renowned Holocaust denier.

No matter. The latest on Williamson is that he and his ultra-conservative Catholic liturgical sect, called the Society of St. Pius X, are trying to buy their own church in England. According to the East Manchester Advertiser, "It is understood that the Bishop of Manchester, chairman of the (U.K.) national council of Christians and Jews, has grave reservations about the move." I'll bet. When a Holocaust denier is moving into your liturgical neighborhood, it must be difficult to preside over well-meaning ecumenical efforts involving Christians and Jews. Pope Benedict hasn't weighed in on the matter. His apology--which I wouldn't call an apology because it was really just an admission that he had misjudged the strength of feeling on this matter in Europe--is worthless.

This pope's apologies (or expressions of regret) for the harm done to victims by pedophile priests are equally worthless, because he has done nothing to punish the bishops and cardinals, throughout the United States, who were fully aware of the accusations against these priests for decades and did everything possible to cover up the crimes by shifting the priests from parish to parish. That goes for the previous pope, John Paul II, as well. Boston's former cardinal, Bernard Law, one of the worst offenders, was given a position in the influential curia of Vatican cardinals, took a prominent role in funeral services for John Paul, and is head of the storied basilica of St. Mary Major in Rome. Some punishment. Why should anyone have paid attention to Benedict's crocodile tears (or, rather, misty eyes) over victims when he visited the United States?

I don't place much value on apologies for distant historical events about which the apologizer can do nothing. But the Catholic Church could, in fact, still do something about the evil heritage left by pedophile clergy. The church has the power to punish every high official who knew and looked the other way, but it has chosen not to do so. In similar fashion--instead of shilly-shallying and demanding that the Holocaust-denying Williamson reexamine his views--Benedict could simply revoke any church sanction for his acting, in any capacity, as a priest.

I cannot imagine why anyone would care one way or the other about what the Vatican does, and does not, consider worthy of an apology. Consider the Vatican's defense of a decision by a Brazilian archbishop to excommunicate the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion after she was raped by her stepfather. Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Catholic Church's Congregation for Bishops, declared that "life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian church is unjustified."

The rapist-stepfather was not excommunicated because, the Brazilian bishop had said, abortion is a far more serious crime than the rape of a child. So what if the nine-year-old, who was carrying twins, could, as the doctors feared, have died in childbirth? Why should anyone attribute any moral authority to a church, and its leaders, that upholds such inhumane doctrines? Their apologies and their moral rationalizations merit neither attention nor praise.

And, gentle readers, please refrain from criticizing me for criticizing the Catholic Church, and not some other church, in this instance. The question was about Pope Benedict and his apologies, not about a grand rabbi, an ayatollah, or the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints. Yes, I know that representatives of other faiths, like other politicians, have also issued meaningless apologies. And when a rabbi or an ayatollah issues some smarmy non-apologetic apology in the future, I'll be happy to criticize him.


Religious "authorities" ought to burn in hell, if there were a hell, for hypocritical apologies composed of words rather than deeds. There could surely be no better place for church leaders who believe in forcing a nine-year-old to bear the children of her rapist. No apology could ever wipe away their guilt. But they won't apologize, because they feel no guilt. And no shame.

By Susan Jacoby | April 4, 2009; 8:55 AM

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/04/the_art_of_the_evasive_apology_words_without_actions.html