The Protestants do it more!
The Catholic church is so brilliant at PR!
The Vatican has lashed out at criticism over its handling of its paedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic church was “busy cleaning its own house” and that the problems with clerical sex abuse in other churches were as big, if not bigger. In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.
Great! Brilliant! We’re busy, don’t bother us. Everybody else does it even more than we do, don’t bother us. It’s mostly queers who do it, don’t bother us.
That’s good enough for me! I take it all back about the Catholic church.
The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that “available research” showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse. He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common.
Aha! Okay then! Only a small fraction of Catholic clergy abuse children, so it’s not a problem then. Most churches that are accused of abusing children are Protestant so child abuse by Catholic clerics is not a problem then. Sex abuse ‘within Jewish communities’ is common so child abuse by Catholic clerics is not a problem then. That’s some impeccable logic! I’m convinced; who wouldn’t be?
He added that sexual abuse was far more likely to be committed by family members, babysitters, friends, relatives or neighbours, and male children were quite often guilty of sexual molestation of other children.
So what’re you picking on us for?! They do it too! They do it more than we do! Little boys do it, so why are you yelling at us for doing it too?! If little boys do it we can do it! That’s fair isn’t it! Shut up, leave us alone, go away, you’re excommunicated, god is going to hit you, shut up!
Representatives from other religions were dismayed by the Holy See’s attempts to distance itself from controversy by pointing the finger at other faiths…The Ryan Report, published last May, revealed that beatings and humiliation by nuns and priests were common at institutions that held up to 30,000 children. A nine-year investigation found that Catholic priests and nuns for decades terrorised thousands of boys and girls, while government inspectors failed to stop the abuse.
Well…but…uh…well…other people beat and humiliate children too! Lots of them do it! Bullies do it – sadists do it – rapists do it – lots of people! So what are you shouting at us for?!
All together now: Compassion is at the heart of every great religion. Amen.
Bravo, Ophelia! Your Bill Donohue impression is spot on!
And the great olympiad of sick narcissistic grandiosity begins:
Event 1: ¿Quién es más macho?
Event 2: Which religion has the most pedophiles?
Me too. “That’s good enough for me! I take it all back about the Catholic church.” With bells on and incense burners swinging.
See you at Mass, OB. (Chuckle.) ;-)
For the previous Benedict thread:
“History has demonstrated the absurdities to which man descends when he excludes God from the horizon of his choices and actions.’’
Nothing to match the absurdities when he includes God – like perpetuating and covering up decades of abuse.
When Benedict dismisses every priest who abused a child and every priest, bishop and cardinal who covered up those crimes, then we can talk.
Even then – no, Michael, we can’t talk. To a bunch of 80 year old schoolboys dressed up in frocks?! Who pretend to speak, not only with authority, but with absolute authority? Who have the nerve to lecture us about morality? Who are quite prepared to smear homosexuals to salve their own consciences? Who point the finger at others, instead of taking any responsibility themselves, despite the fact of the secret directives, and vows of silence taken by both priest and victim to protect the church from scandal? Who force men to live a life of celibacy and call it holiness, when they must know, each one of them, how difficult this is for most of them, and how many fail? (It’s probably just as well that girls are not allowed to be altar servers in the Roman Catholic Church. Repressed sexuality, exaggerated respect, and access to boys. What if they had had access to girls too?) Who then shift those men around from parish to parish, to prevent even a whiff of scandal? Who did nothing to help these men come to terms with their problems, and ignored their victims? No, these turkeys have gone too far this time. Not only have they done all these things. They have now refused to accept responsibility. And they’ve made what must be one of the most immature, self-serving statements ever made by this organisation – and that’s quite a record! This really puts the tiara on Benedict. He’s shown his incompetence again and again. This surely is the last straw. What an insufferable lot of fools.
Every once in awhile I have a nostalgic sense that all this sound a fury (church, religion, etc.) must have been about something. Time and time again, I’m shown to be wrong. Can someone remind me the next time I get up on my hobby horse that it really doesn’t have any legs?
Eric,
I agree; I don’t think they will ever accept responsibility for any of their crimes and I will never see any need to talk.
Why did sex become such as obsession with Christianity? How did it come to this ?
Eloquently put, Eric.
My levity is the expression of profound disgust.
I think the Virgin Mary has a lot to do with it, and also the aura of impurity and pollution that surrounded sexuality and bodily discharges in Judaism. Of course, the idea of the virginity of Mary probably had more to do with lowliness, in the beginning, than with purity, but never mind. Later, of course, sex and original sin were closely connected – thus the immaculate conception of Mary, so she could not pass on original sin to her son! After all she was a perpetual virgin – even during childbirth, so the doctrine goes! But not a C section!
But then, you have to add Augustine’s irrepressible sexuality, and his belief that it was the one thing that was uncontrollable by the will and reason. A lot of early Christian misogyny comes in here too, since Eve tempted Adam, and woman tempts man. Woman became, in the Christian imagination – all of it male – to be the pathway to hell. Something similar in Islam. That’s why women have to be covered up. There’s a story about a famous ‘spiritual advisor’ in France – his name won’t come to me – wouldn’t even look at his mother! When they met they sat at opposite ends of a bench looking away from each other! It would be comic if it hadn’t turned out to be such a tragedy.
the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males. This is so wrong. Consensual sex between two adults is not the same as clergy raping boys and girls.
The whole thing seems to be a massive tu quoque.
Which, coming from people who never stop patting themselves on the back for being so much more Moral than the rest of us, is simply beyond disgusting. What next? Pointing out that the Nazis were worse? It’s hard to figure out how low they can go.
Thanks Eric – always enlightening.
Growing up in an evangelical protestant family, the perpetually virgin Mary always baffled me – especially since we were told Jesus had brothers.
The fear of women and their oppression as a means of dealing with that fear is also something I find so foreign. Perhaps this is one of the reasons I dispensed with Christianity 30 years ago.
Yes, Ophelia, I understood the levity as disgust. There is no other word for this than evil. There is something deeply evil about the Vatican, the pope and the Roman Catholic Church.
Quote: “…the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.”
?!?
This makes as much sense as saying: He’s not a murderer, he just likes killing people.
No it makes as much sense as saying: He’s not a murderer, he just likes killing people, the faggot.
See? All the sense in the world!
Keith and OB: technically, someone attracted to a pubescent or post-pubescent child isn’t a pedophile. There’s another term for it, ephebophile (for those attracted to children at the age of puberty) or hebephile (for those attracted to the 14-17 demographic).
Morally, this means fuck-all. It’s a technical jargon-centered distinction the Church is drawing to rid itself of moral culpability. Sure, it’s less creepy to be attracted to a 17-year-old (to take an example *most* favorable to those priests) than a 5-year-old. Maybe it’s less traumatic for the 17-year-old, too, to suffer those sexual advances than it would be for a 5-year-old. Or maybe not–lots of individual factors come into play. But it’s still flat-out wrong for an adult, especially in a position of authority, to act on such attraction.
And most of those pubescent and post-pubescent victims aren’t 17: they’re 10, or 12, or 13. And YES, most people’s common usage of “pedophile” would include someone attracted to a kid who’s not even in high school yet. The moral revulsion attached to the concept of pedophilia applies in full force to someone who is attracted to an 11-year-old, and rightly so.
The Church is trying to get people to see these pedophiles as ordinary gay men who are attracted to young men with practically-adult bodies and some capacity to give/refuse consent. That’s the reason why they’re resorting to this technical use of “pedophile.” They can cover up their crimes and smear gay folks into the bargain.
Jenavir, isn’t an ephebe a man from the age of 17 to 21 or something? That’s when apparently the Athenians had to do compulsory military service. Now, that may not be correct, but in anycase, if two 17 year old lads want to have consensual sex then there’s nothing wrong with that. This is what the church is trying to associate themselves with. If priests are just having consensual sex like others have consensual, then hey, it’s alright. But of course that’s not the case here. It’s about priests raping children. I particularly dislike the maligning of gays. Homosexuality is not the same thing as peadophelia and the church knows it, but keeps on muddying the water for its own benefit.
So certain behaviors aren’t a problem so long as only a few people are doing it, or, conversely, if a lot of groups are doing it.
Doesn’t that pretty much go against everything the Catholic Church stands for?
“It’s not a sin. Not enough people do it.”
“It’s not a sin. Everybody does it!”
Chayanov: Doesn’t that pretty much go against everything the Catholic Church stands for? “It’s not a sin. Everybody does it!”
Spot on. However, in the modern world, it has become natural that church spokesmodels attempt to usurp the greater moral legitimacy of gay men attracted to underage boys.
Brian English: I’m not sure about the etymology of ephebe, but I’m pretty sure the technical modern tern ephebophile refers to under-18 folks. Nevertheless, you’re quite right that the church is trying to associate the pedophilia scandal with consensual sex with a young adult.
Saying “we’re not paedophiles, we’re just gay” doesn’t really work as an excuse when you’ve spend the last couple of millennia telling everyone that homosexuality is a “mortal sin.”
Is the Catholic church is getting its policies from Father Ted?
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/comedy/watch/v6328870mjj7zJba (fast forward to 19m0s)
Next it’ll be Archbishop Dougal McGuire explaining that you shouldn’t talk this whole Catholic thing so seriously.
According to the OED, in ancient Greece an ephebe was a young man of 18-20, primarily occupied with garrison duty. ‘Ephebic’ means of or pertaining to early manhood. My edition of the OED does not include the word ‘ephebophile’, and I couldn’t find it in Websters either.
So, the word is misused by the Vatican. In any event, it is doubtful that most of the ‘young men’ involved in sexual abuse cases were young men at all. Altar boys tend to start much younger, and the evidence from Mt. Cashel in Newfoundland puts the boys and a much earlier age. I daresay the Ryan Report will support this, though I have not checked.
The Vatican statement is an entirely immoral, self-serving, and cynical attempt by the church – no surprise there, then – to foist responsibility for the offences onto gay men of a particular type – without any evidence that there is such a type. Homosexual acts are held to be intrinsically disordered, gravely depraved, and contrary to natural law, (see CCC 2357) so this not only makes them a good target, from the church’s point of view, but they can dismiss it all as the work of a few perverts.
My guess is that the men involved were largely infantilised by the church, sexually repressed, and used the one outlet available to them. Many of them, whatever their orientation, probably suffered from some sort of arrested development, and are therefore classic pedophiles. What those men did is certainly blameworthy, and they should doubtless be punished, and given as much help as possible. But for the church to excuse itself in this way, by effectively branding gay men as perverts, despite the fact that the church has, perhaps for centuries, hidden all evidence of these abuses, and still does where it can, while largely ignoring the effects of abuse on the children, is really inexcusable.
The Bishop of Antigonish, in Nova Scotia, recently made a large financial settlement with victims of abuse, to be paid for by selling church lands. When told of it, I said that he wouldn’t last long. He didn’t. He’s just been removed. That’s within a few weeks of the settlement being made public. Official statements say it has nothing to do with the settlements, but I don’t believe them. The bishop took responsibility for the abuse, and brought scandal on the church. Enough said.
As Ophelia says, once you’ve said what the Vatican has done in defence (?) of the church, you can’t sink much lower. The pope and the whole Vatican hierarchy is really beneath contempt. And they have the temerity to lecture us about morals!
“And they have the temerity to lecture us about morals!”
Ceaselessly, and without a trace of shame or hesitation. Whited sepulchre anyone?
Why is it that so many people and groups go on about how they cannot be acting immorally because there are others who have been even worse ?
Why choose the actions of groups or people you claim are acting immorally as your benchmark on how you should behave ?
Aren’t these the people who believe in moral absolutes? Who knew something wasn’t wrong unless more than 5% of the population engaged in that behavior.
I guess if you are god’s representative on earth, if your incantations can compel the creator of the universe to become corporeal and if you have the power to consign eternal souls to heaven or hell, then complaints about child abuse are rather nit-picking.
1.5% to 5% actually abusing children is not unreasonable? How would that work in a school? Yes, we have up to twenty predatory paedophiles in a pastoral role, but we have a very moral ethos.
Don’t sweat the small stuff, salvation is what matters and they have control of that.
They have bigger fish to fry, pick on the prods and jews.
And the queers and the women.
Maybe it is like the 5 second rule for when you drop food on the floor. Less than 5% – act as if nothing happened.
Jenavir: “Keith and OB: technically, someone attracted to a pubescent or post-pubescent child isn’t a pedophile.”
I’m not sure why you address this to me, in particular. I only quoted the Vatican; I didn’t use the term or define it.
On the other hand, you wrote: “And YES, most people’s common usage of ‘pedophile’ would include someone attracted to a kid who’s not even in high school yet.”
The ‘1.5% to 5%’ figure made my jaw hit the floor. I’m as happy to make tasteless generalizations about priestly paedophilia as the next guy, but if asked to guess – and even at my most uncharitable – I’d have suggested the problem was limited to maybe a quarter of a percent at most.
That figure, though… actually it seems too high to be plausible to me, even though accepting it would dovetail well with my prejudices. With big populations involved it doesn’t take high percentages to make a very serious problem!
As OB said, smashing PR job.
Interesting sidebar on my earlier comment where I mentioned the Bishop of Antigonish. This morning it is in the news that he was wanted, and a warrant has been issued for his arrest, on charges of importing child pornography. No one, apparently, knows where he is. The story never ends!
“male children were quite often guilty of sexual molestation of other children”
This bit is quite disgusting: are the Catholic church really saying that one child molesting another is somehow morally equivalent to a fully-grown man in a position of responsibility molesting a child?
I’ve pointed it out before, but the reaction to Catholic sex abuse is a perfect example of the privileged place religion has in society. Can you imagine if any non-religious organisation were to actively help paedophiles avoid being investigated by the police and brought to justice under the criminal law? Imagine if a school, university, private company, hospital, trade union, police force, Scout or guide troop, chamber of commerce or scholarly society were to cover up for paedophiles: there’d be outrage in all the newspapers like the Mail. They’d be rightfully angry and calling for the head of the chief executives, and for everyone in the organisation who were involved to be booted out from the organisation and to be subject to a police investigation. But if it’s a church, or indeed the one true Church of Rome? Huge double standard alert.
Keith: I was saying that the technical definition of ‘pedophile’ is slightly different from most people’s common usage of the term and the Church is exploiting that. I addressed it to you because you were discussing the Church’s “we’re not pedophiles!” claim.
To elaborate: when most people think “pedophile,” they just think someone who’s molesting a young child, “young child” meaning anywhere from an infant to an 11- or 12-year-old.
But the Church is disclaiming “pedophilia” in the more technical sense of attraction to children well below the age of puberty, and is hoping that people will assume that it meant “pedophile” in the common sense.
At least, that’s what I think is going on.