Pope Francis has admitted that a “gay lobby” exists within the Vatican’s administration and is planning to take action about it, according to reports.
The Pontiff supposedly made the claim during an audience last Thursday at the Vatican with a group of Latin American priests and nuns.
“It is true… they speak of a ‘gay lobby’ and that is true, it is there… we will have to see what we can do.”
“Yes, it is difficult,” he reportedly said. “In the Curia there are holy people, truly holy people. But there is also a current of corruption, also there is, it is true… they speak of a ‘gay lobby’ and that is true, it is there… we will have to see what we can do.”
A Vatican spokesman declined to comment on the statement, which was reported by the Chilean Catholic website, Reflexion y Liberation. “This was a private meeting held by the Pope and I will not comment on private meetings,” said Father Federico Lombardi.
I’ll be the first to admit that there are thousands, millions of decent, loving Catholics out there who live good lives and do good work.
But, frankly, the men you allow to lead your religion are dicks.
c u n d gulag
Maybe, Pope, just maybe, the proper course of action would be that you could accept that there are gay members of your clergy and hierarchy, and proceed accordingly. They are men with a different sexual orientation, not monsters.
Oh, and would it kill you, if you allowed them, straight or gay, to have sexual relations with consenting adults – including marriage – straight AND gay?
In other words, “turn the other cheek,” so altar boys don’t have either sets of cheeks, abused.
Betty Cracker
Pope Francis seems a marked improvement over his predecessor, but I don’t suppose we’ll see an end to institutional homophobia in the Vatican during our lifetimes. Or sexism. The place is run by old white men, after all.
Omnes Omnibus
@Betty Cracker: Sauron seems a marked improvement over Morgoth.*
*FWIW I do agree with you.
Ash Can
I remember, years ago, a local priest recounting a story involving two retired clerics he knew. One was meticulously frugal, saving bits of paper, string, and whatever else he might be able to use again. But he was crabby and unpleasant all the time. The other finally called him out on his sourness, saying to him, “You know what your problem is? You keep things and throw people away.” That’s exactly the way the Church leadership is at this point in its history. It’s keeping things — dogma and tradition — and throwing people away — women, children, gays, the laity in general. Francis is a step up from his predecessor on matters such as personal likeability and social justice issues, but there was no way he was going to be a sea change.
PurpleGirl
@Betty Cracker: And the upcoming clerics from Africa are being trained by those same old white men and will be as conservative and hidebound.
Argh!
Ash Can: Very good comment on the state of human relations and relationships in the church.
Baud
@Betty Cracker:
The Vatican has gone so far overboard in being reactionary on social issues that any change will have to gradual, even generational. Religious institutions tend to have trouble saying “oopsies.” (Which, as an aside, is why separation of church and state is such a good idea).
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
I am skeptical that the Catholic Church is *ever* going to change its views in this area. Tell me one major view that it has changed over the years that will give me some reason to think otherwise?
Redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus: It’s true. Sauron implemented many reforms that helped your every day Orc. A true reformer.
The Red Pen
“We’ll see what we can do” is a non-answer. Pope Francis’ main priority is cleaning up after the molestation scandal that Ratzinger/Benedict works so tirelessly to protect. Job #2 is cleaning up financial corruption. I don’t think Francis has any plans to modernize the Church’s position on homosexuality, but I don’t think he intends to entrench it any further either. It’s not on the radar.
There is so much crap to shovel out of the Church that Francis can only do so much. I’m looking to see where he is in five years.
Also, let’s not lose site of the fact that PJP1 entered the papacy declaring rather aggressive plans to modernize the Church and liberalize doctrine and then died suddenly and mysteriously and was never subjected to an autopsy. Maybe it was an unexpected heart attack, but maybe it was a message: keep your edicts where we can see them and don’t make any sudden moves.
Ash Can
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): It used to condone slavery, many years ago. And its annulment system is its way of recognizing and accommodating the reality of divorce. So yes, it can happen. But it takes a John XXIII, not a Francis I.
Ash Can
@The Red Pen: This is a good point.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Ash Can:
From what I’ve read of the annulment system, it’s a pretty fucked up way of squaring that circle.
But points to them for renouncing slavery. I guess there is hope.
JD Rhoades
I just have to shake my head at the people who are disappointed that they didn’t get a gay-friendly, choice-friendly Pope. It’s the CATHOLIC CHURCH, people. Folks who think like us are lucky if they don’t get chucked out, much less elected Pope.
Emma
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): Count me as one of your way of thinking. They will NEVER change. It is part of the Catholic dogma now. The only solution is for American Catholics to vote with their feet and stop feeding the monster. They will never do that because of their attachment to their local “good guy.”
SRW1
Maybe I am totally wrong, but the way I understand the ‘gay lobby’ issue is not that there are gays in the curie who advocate for the RCC to change its stance on homosexuality.
The issue with this ‘gay lobby’ much rather appears to be that they are reactionary traditionalists who see no problem for the RCC publicly taking its usual homophobic stance, while privately giving themselves generous dispensations to engage in said sinful carnal frivolities.
In other words, the ‘gay lobby’ are closeted bigots for whom it’s all good as long as mass is in Latin, the hats and robes are fanciful, and the altar boys keep their mouths shut (afterwards that is, of course).
Lurking Canadian
@c u n d gulag: I’m all for lifting the rule on clerical celibacy and welcoming openly gay clergy. But I don’t think clerical celibacy causes pedophilia. The church’s problem with child abuse is the cover up and the enabling. The fact that it happens is not unique to the church. It seems to be a problem everywhere adults work with children. Institutions are culpable in how they respond, and what safeguards they (don’t) put in place, but not, I think, in the presence of the crime itself.
Cassidy
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): I answered your X-Men question back in the other thread just a few minutes ago. I went to bed after I commented.
daveNYC
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): They apologized for Galileo.
What’s sad is that this guy is probably liberal compared to whoever will be the next Pope.
Robert
We don’t get to choose the pope. The people in charge who choose to boost other people up for the ultra-conservative agenda get to choose the pope. It’s a circle jerk of ultra-conservative, reactionary buffoons who will tell their parishes the Bible is allegorical in nature and then dictate all Catholic law from passages contradicted by other passages because Jesus hates the gays.
EconWatcher
I’m not 100 percent sure this remark by Francis means what you think it means. Closeted gay men are an entirely different political and social force than out gay men.
When Francis refers to a “gay lobby,” is he referring to a group of gay priests who would like to be out and are lobbying for gay rights within the Church? Could be, and if so your reaction to his remark is correct.
But I think he might be referring instead to the twisted culture of mutual blackmail among a set of the hierarchy, all of whom have violated their vow of celibacy, some in ways that would be considered innocuous in the outside world, and some in monstrous ways.
It is grossly unfair to blame the molestation scandal on gay priests within the Church. But part of the reason why offenders were not exposed was because of this twisted culture of mutual blackmail. Certainly that was part of the story with Archbishop Rembert Weakland in Wisconsin, for example.
EconWatcher
@EconWatcher:
I think SRW1 is suggesting something similar to what I am: I don’t think this quote makes the case for Francis being antigay.
geg6
Same as it ever was. Anyone who thought that this pope was any better than the last few is a sucker of epic proportions.
I hope the whole fucking corrupt edifice of the international criminal conspiracy falls to pieces soon. And that the authoritarian misogynists and bigots who run the whole thing suffer more than all the victims they and their predecessors have created.
Trakker
And most would be decent, loving people who do good things even if they weren’t Catholics, or even religious.
geg6
@Ash Can:
Um, no it isn’t. Only someone who knows nothing about the annulment process could say this. Annulments have been around longer than civil divorce (since about 1100AD or so there was the Declaration of Nullity and even as early as 110AD with the discretion of a bishop, I believe), so there is no similarity or connection between them.
low-tech cyclist
But, frankly, the men you allow to lead your religion are dicks.
But the truth is, it isn’t even a matter of allowing.
Whatever the good people in the pews think or feel about it, the Roman Catholic Church is the property of its clerical hierarchy, lock, stock, and barrel. The only choices the laity have are to attend or not attend, to put money in the collection plate or not. But attendance and monetary contributions only serve to enable the crew that own the Church.
Ash Can
@EconWatcher:
I was crushed when he was taken down. He, out of all Church leaders, was the one to initiate group discussions comprised of pro-choice women, with the stated objective of listening to them and understanding their point of view. He made it clear that he personally was no fan of abortion, but he maintained that the Church couldn’t effectively address the issue of abortion without understanding why so many people saw it, or at least legal access to it, as a good thing. In other words, he at least acknowledged that hey, whaddya know, women are people too. Conservative Catholics, in both clergy and laity, had a conniption when he did this, and I’ve always thought that the abuse case that came out later against him stunk to high heaven.
gelfling545
@EconWatcher: This was the impression I received from reports on the remarks from BBC & France: that he was referring to general corruption in the Curia and that included a group of gay men who were lobbying for their own personal power & financial gain, not for acceptance of their orientation in the Church; and these people were being blackmailed by others inside and outside the Curia to get them to work their will. It was rather different from the way I had seen it reported in US sources. It could be that, or something else entirely.
geg6
@Trakker:
Yup. How about I fix?
You can be decent and loving, live a good and decent life and help others every day without being Catholic or even believing in the invisible sky fairy.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@Cassidy: Sorry, I went back and checked, and that’s Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism you replied to. :)
The Red Pen
@geg6: Show us on the doll where the priest touched you.
Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS)
@The Red Pen: IIRC from being around these Catholic discussions long enough, you really don’t want to go there.
low-tech cyclist
@Lurking Canadian:
It doesn’t cause it, but logically it should lead to a proportion of both gays and pedophiles in the priesthood that’s higher than that in the general population.
Think about it this way: you’re a young Catholic man who has some interest in the priesthood.
If you’re straight, then if you choose the priesthood, you’re giving up something significant: the normal sex life that the Church wants you to have.
But if you’re gay but buy into the Catholic Church’s bullshit about homosexuality being immoral, then you might as well join the priesthood because you aren’t attracted to women, and you aren’t allowed men. You are giving up nothing, sexually.
And if you’re a pedophile, then you might as well join the priesthood because you really can’t indulge your desires of the flesh. You, too, are giving up nothing with respect to sex.
So there’s a filter for entering the priesthood that would almost have to filter out some of those whose sexual desires are deemed kosher by the Catholic Church, but not filter out any of those whose sexual desires aren’t deemed so. If the filter has any effect at all, it should lead to higher concentrations of gays and pedophiles in the priesthood than in the laity.
I should add that the ONLY reason gays and pedophiles are lumped together in this argument is that the Catholic Church regards both groups as sexual outlaws. If the Church was OK with homosexuality, then the filter would act on gays in the same manner as straights, and only pedophiles would be overly concentrated in the priesthood.
EconWatcher
@Ash Can:
When you say “the abuse case,” I think you might be referring to the allegations made by Weakland’s adult male lover. And yes, they were complete b.s. But as I remember, there was good evidence that Weakland had notice of multiple real abuse cases and did not respond appropriately, once ven threatening the family who reported the abuse with a libel lawsuit. And it was apparent that one of the reasons he did not respond well was because of the skeletons in his own closet. True, they should not have been skeletons at all, because they involved consenting adults, but they are within the Church. Furthermore, Weakland took about half a million of Church money to pay hush money to his former lover.
I think Weakland is the perfect, tragic example of how bad rules can turn decent men into bad men. There is a lot of evidence that Weakland was a man with good intentions and decent instincts. But he looked the other way when it was absolutely critical that he take a stand. If there’s a hell, he earned his spot.
Rafer Janders
There is a gay lobby in the Vatican, and I’ve seen it. Frankly, as lobbies go, while lovely, it’s a bit overdone — too much marble, inlaid gold, purple curtains, candlelight and candelabras for my taste. But on the other hand, if you don’t like it, you can just walk down the gay lobby, turn left, and enter a straight room.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Cassidy: I posted there, but I think I’ll repeat this part here:
And ya know what? They were right. Comics are subversive.
Paul in KY
They sure like dick.
joes527
@geg6:
Happy now? And yes, I know where of I speak. I followed multiple friends through their divorce-annulment. Once the divorce was complete, the annulment was all about identifying some imperfection in the people that entered the marriage. They checked the box (“I was too emotionally immature to enter into a ‘true’ marriage”) and that cleared the deck for them to imperfectly enter into their next marriage.
Mandalay
This is like telling kids the people they allow to run their school are dicks, or telling Iranians the people they allow to run their country are dicks, or telling soldiers the people they allow to run their army are dicks, or….
It’s just a very silly assertion.
Ruckus
@Emma:
That also sounds like a description of congress. Or actually our entire political system.
Shakezula
Fxd.
P.S. The RCC is not a democracy. The shmoes who religiously attend Mass have no say in who wears the magic beanie. The only choices the shmoes have are whether to toss money in the basket (or box by the candles), to sit in the pew or not, vote based on his religious beliefs or not.
Paul in KY
@SRW1: My take on it too.
Sophia
SRW1 and EconWatcher have the gist of it. Anyone who reads that snippet and imagines there is a group of gay men in the Vatican lobbying for liberalization of the Church’s position on homosexuality should not trust themselves to interpret news from the Vatican. Not that it’s a bad thing to miss the many flavors of wrongdoing on offer, just that one should be aware that they are being missed.
I imagine the “Gay Lobby” in the Vatican bears a striking resemblance to Mean Girls.
geg6
@The Red Pen:
Go fuck yourself. I actually was a victim of the Catholic Church, but not in that way. Maybe you should think before you post.
geg6
@joes527:
That’s not actually how it works, at least for 99% of the people who seek them. I know because my mother actually was an expert in annulments within the Church and was much sought for advice on the process by those in our parish who looked into pursuing them. 99 out of 100 times, the only way to get an annulment is to be wealthy enough to afford the diocesan lawyers and to be large donors to the Church. The vast majority of Catholics will never be able to get one, even in this day and age.
Occasional
@SRW1, @Paul in KY, @EconWatcher have it right. It’s easy to misread these comments (from Vatican, Pope) if you haven’t followed the context. “Gay lobby” doesn’t mean a bunch of folks lobbying for human rights. It means a bunch of jerks, a large number of them hypocrites, who live a pretty cushy scene, tend to be theologically conservative, and use their access and power to keep things nice for themselves and their friends. Francis is far from perfect — his theology is conservative — but his honesty and more pastoral approach (meaning he cares about people more than ironclad rules) is a very healthy opening for this stagnant outfit called the Catholic Church. I think his comment refers to breaking up a little obstructionist powerblock rather than going after gays. I guess, better said, I’m hopeful that it does.
Zifnab
@geg6:
I wouldn’t go that far. He made a few important baby steps toward a more progressive church. Unfortunately, the Pope’s primary audience, his immediate peers, and a major providers of his income happen to be retrograde lunatic assholes. So he gets jerked back pretty quickly when he tries to edge over the line.
There are definitely differences between Popes, and those differences are quite visible to those that keep track. But the Roman Catholic Church is so incredibly backwards that even when they’re stepping forward it rarely looks like they’re moving anywhere, assuming you’ve got modern social expectations.
Paul in KY
@Zifnab: To me (so far), Pope Francis seems like a major improvement over Pope Palpatine.
Mandalay
@geg6:
It’s a bit rich for you to be telling someone else to be a mind reader about your personal experiences, and think before posting, just after you posted about “believing in the invisible sky fairy”.
You want everyone else to worry about hurting your precious feelings, but you can write whatever you want without regard to their feelings?
Nice double standard you’ve got there.
catclub
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): Blaming Jews today for the crucifixion. Gone. But very popular in its time.
joes527
@geg6: Utter bullshit.
Everyone that I know of that has looked into annulment has gotten one. It was really just a matter of filling out the right forms and acting suitably corrected by TBTB. There were probably diocesan lawyers involved in the process, but if so, they were just a part of the pageantry, and not anything like “hiring a lawyer.” No “donations” were required.
You may live in a Parrish/Diocese where the they use annulment to shake their parishioners down, but that isn’t 99% of the world/nation/church/whatever.
Not. Even. Close.
Mnemosyne
@SRW1:
This right here. I mean, FFS, we’re responding to a frickin’ NewsMax headline. Of course they’re going to make it sound like it’s a gay rights lobby that Pope Francis is complaining about.
@The Red Pen:
Yes, because there’s nothing funnier than children being abused by priests, amirite? I mean, it’s not like there are thousands of documented cases or anything.
The Red Pen
@geg6: You fell for the “eternal salvation or triple your money back” too, huh?
@Mnemosyne: Ouch! I think I found the needle in the haystack. It got incorporated into that straw man. What are the odds?
Violet
@joes527: My friend’s dad tried to get an annulment and ultimately was denied by the Vatican. His ex-wife, my friend’s mother, appealed to the church not to allow it to be annulled. Not sure if having one party want it and the other not want it makes a difference.
As I understood it, the local diocese was going to allow it, so that’s why she had to appeal to the Vatican.
Mnemosyne
@geg6:
@joes527:
Honestly, I think joes527 is probably right here to the extent that how difficult it is to get an annulment depends strongly on your diocese. If your local archbishop or cardinal wants to be an asshole about it and make everyone jump through hoops, then that’s what you’re stuck with. It sounds like the diocese that geg6’s mom is in is very traditional and close-minded, while joes527’s friends are in a less by-the-book diocese.
We always talk about “the Church” as though it’s a monolith, but there’s a lot of local and regional variation. When we both moved out to California, my friend from Detroit was surprised to find that the church out here still used communion wafers, because they’d been using actual bread in Detroit for years.
joes527
@Violet:
Yeah, that’s gonna be a special case. The only annulments I am familiar with were uncontested, and they sailed through.
Chris
@Betty Cracker:
Abortion and gay marriage are the last thing the church will change its mind about. I’m just hoping Francis gives a shit about other things too (eg the liberal ones).
I’ve compared Francis to Andropov before and this is a case in point. Yes, better than his predecessors, but don’t forget what kind of organization he rose up through and is running.
Mnemosyne
@The Red Pen:
If you really want geg6 to tell you her story of how she was treated by the Church, I’m sure she’ll tell you. But, hey, hers is just one of thousands of completely unrelated and coincidental stories that just happen to all revolve around Church doctrine, amirite? No conspiracy to see here, just move along and say an extra “Hail Mary” to make up for your lack of faith.
Mnemosyne
@Violet:
I think it makes a huge difference. Joseph P. Kennedy’s ex-wife fought their annulment all the way to the Vatican and got it overturned.
The Red Pen
@Mnemosyne: geg6 can do whatever she wants. So can you.
I fully understand that the Internet is the only social outlet available to the emotionally damaged; God knows the party invitations are few and far between.
Mnemosyne
@The Red Pen:
You just keep on defending the indefensible. Ha-ha, kids were sexually abused by priests! Unwed mothers were abused and forced to slave in laundries! Comedy gold!
The Red Pen
@Mnemosyne:
Ridiculing you is not actually the same as defending child sexual abuse.
If you’re having trouble understanding that, there’s a Wikipedia page about it.
AHH onna Droid
@Brother Machine Gun of Desirable Mindfulness (fka AWS): Modern language. They moved to vernacular Mass oh about 70 years after Chauvinismus on the continent and the modern language movement in the US. ( Highlight of the latter: US college students protesting to study Shakespeare instead of Catullus & Vergil.)
Basically take the zeitgeist, add 70 years, then the 80 yr olds in charge will think the movements of their childhood is a nobrainer. Voila.
The Other Chuck
The RCC compromised a lot with respect to evolution, and especially compared to a lot of the protestant denominations: they pretty much accept Darwin’s entire theory, and don’t even so much push “intelligent design” as just saying that God set up the evolutionary dominoes just so so that all that randomness would result in, well, us. Yeah, that’s humility for you. Chances are they’re retrenching to full-on ID now, but back then they really were moving toward more of a God of the Gaps.
Heck, they even accept the existence of the Big Bang, they just consider God to be outside of the whole rules of time and space thing. I guess the notion of falsifiability isn’t in their canon yet.
The Red Pen
@The Other Chuck:
Some Catholics are (mostly in the US), but as an institution, no.
You do understand there’s a difference between religion and science, right? I mean, at this late date, the RCC finally does.
aimai
@SRW1: I rather agree with this. I also think that for the church “gay” is always a code word for both corrupt and pedophile. Not only did al the good heterosexual priests leave the church, I’m betting the good gay ones did too as it became more possible to live and out gay life and less necessary to hide behind fake celibacy.
Tokyokie
@gelfling545: Sounds to me like an inapt translation of a secondhand quotation of an informal remark. As such, it’s going to lose a lot of its meaning.
Pococurante
Elections have consequences?
Shortstop
@SRW1: add me to the list of people who think you nailed it here.
aimai
@Violet: This famously happened to Kennedy’s first wife, I think it was Joe Kennedy. He annuled the marriage after twenty years and two children and against her wishes.
Look: both things are true. Annulments used to be reserved for special cases and wealthy people–in that case they served as a form of divorce. If they’d let Henry the 8th have an annulment he wouldn’t have had to split off and form a new church. Its also true that different dioceses handle annulments for non important people and for people who actually don’t deserve them differently than they do those that rich people ask for. But in both cases annulment still functions as a form of divorce for the people who get them. There’s a real thing called “divorce” but if you get one of those you can’t get remarried in the church so catholics who want to stay catholics and accept the sacraments and get remarried in church prefer to avoid them. Annulments function as divorce for those catholics and enable them to stay in the church rather than splitting, as Henry the 8th did.
Mnemosyne
@The Red Pen:
I was unaware that when you said, “Show us on the doll where the priest touched you,” you were not referring to child sexual abuse but to something else entirely. Can you clarify what you actually meant since you of course were not referring to the RCC’s sexual abuse scandals?
Another Halocene Human
@SRW1: Right, that’s how I take it. We’re talking about hypocritical closet cases and palace intrigue and the Vatican using
theirdonor money to buy themselves bathhouses or condos on top of a bathhouse or whatever it was in Rome (, Italy, EU).Remember that Benedict is the one who wrote the 1986 “Halloween” letter that “clarified” RCC policy on homosexuality to actually be worse than it was [prior]. Ratzinger, who is believed the world over to be a closeted gay man, introduced the term “objectively disordered”, implying that gay people have some sort of physical thing wrong with them, some sort of indelible moral stain, akin to original sin, but over and above that of straight people. Self-loathing at work! Prior to this, the American council of bishops (which was once rather liberal, not any fucking more!) had reasoned that while homosexual behavior was forbidden there was nothing wrong with gay people per se. So Ratzinger set us all straight even before he was Pope (with the then Pope’s tacit approval–they were quite close/aligned as colleagues, and JPII had Ratzinger running the Inquisition, I mean Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for many years).
edited for clarity
geg6
@joes527:
Okay, so you know better than I. Are you Catholic? Have you, personally, ever been involved in the annulment process? I’m sure my and my mother and my sister’s experiences with the process are anomalies. (rolling my eyes)
@Mandalay:
I’ve written extensively on this blog about my experiences with the Church. And if the invisible sky fairy isn’t invisible, then please point out where, exactly, I can see it.
@The Red Pen:
I fell for nothing. I was born into it. The minute I had a choice, I was out. And I’ve never looked back.
geg6
@The Red Pen:
You seem to think that, contrary to all internet traditions, you can say whatever you want to whomever you want and there will be be no blowback. I guarantee that I am not the only victim of the Church who reads or comments on this site. Perhaps you might keep in mind that some of us have been damaged for life because of the criminal conspiracists of the Catholic Church. Thankfully, I am not one of them as I have gotten help for the issues they left me with and I have moved on and now live a wonderful and full life. But not everyone has and even those of us who have may never forgive or forget what happened. I know I won’t. I hope the whole thing burns, the sooner the better.
Another Halocene Human
@Lurking Canadian: The church’s problem with child abuse is the cover up and the enabling. The fact that it happens is not unique to the church. It seems to be a problem everywhere adults work with children. Institutions are culpable in how they respond, and what safeguards they (don’t) put in place, but not, I think, in the presence of the crime itself.
This x1000. Most CHILD MOLESTERS/RAPISTS (not pedophiles, that is a psychiatric classification, venn diagram is two circles, one much bigger than the other, that intersect but one does not subsume the other, far from it) are OPPORTUNISTS. They act out because the child is powerless and they believe, often with good reason, that THEY WILL NOT BE PUNISHED.
Institutions which act to PREVENT (windows on doors, two adults with children never one adult alone, etc) child abuse and who STRICTLY PUNISH the abuse rather than punishing the victims will actually DRASTICALLY REDUCE HARMS.
Institutions which are authoritarian, which rely on “trust us” and “faith in the institution” which put their head in the sand and have a “don’t talk about it” policy actually inculcate the environment in which rape and abuse of children occurs. Those who speak out will be punished because they are making the institution look bad. Pedophiles*, sadists, sociopaths, rapists flock to these institutions and put themselves in a position of trust where they can victimize people over and over again.
*again, let me note that not all pedophiles have an anti-social outlook, in fact the majority will never abuse children; however, among the minority that do, of course they will seek situations where they can act out and not go to prison–and again, the anti-social pedophiles are only a minority of those who will rape children. the majority are not pedophiles, they just like to rape
Mandalay
@geg6:
That is a strawman.
My post was about your double standards. You constantly tell other posters to “fuck off” more than anyone else on this board, and feel free to ridicule the beliefs of all Catholics, but then you want to whine and be offended when someone made a comment that offended your precious sensibilities.
You dish it out all the time, but you can’t take it.
Another Halocene Human
@EconWatcher: But I think he might be referring instead to the twisted culture of mutual blackmail among a set of the hierarchy, all of whom have violated their vow of celibacy, some in ways that would be considered innocuous in the outside world, and some in monstrous ways.
My money is on monstrous. Note his disgust. Not sure how much of a rift there is between English and Spanish speaking Jesuits, but among English-speaking Jesuits there is an understanding that long term relationships are part of normal human social development and a lot of Jesuits will protect their “brothers” who have (secret) life partners. This is different from parish priests who are a) far less educated, b) under pressure from parishoners, c) because of first two seem to have bought into the whole “one night stand is less of a sin” mentality.
Another Halocene Human
@geg6: Isn’t it more possible that annulments were “democratized” concurrent with divorce?
Divorce was once only available to elites. Annulments also.
My aunt’s first marriage was annulled. It was like an annulment mill. They were told what to say because the Church’s list of valid reasons does not include spousal abuse. Not then and not now. Oh, and they had a child.
Another Halocene Human
@joes527: No donation for an annulment? Excuse me, but which archdiocese are you part of, because Imma need to write this down.
EVERY NA diocese I know of requires a donation for an annulment, usually a pretty big one.
Actually, every single act comes with a donation you know, from baptism on down!! A parish is a franchise after all, gotta make it rain somehow. Those wallets don’t just open themselves… somebody had to pay to give Monsignor that enormous gut and brand new cahhh.
The Red Pen
@Mnemosyne: You know what would be awesome? Locking you in a room with a conservative Catholic! They would keep yelling, “Baby killer!” and you would keep yelling, “Child rape enabler!” Finally you would both be exhausted from the effort, and after convincing yourselves that you were not being watched, you’d start making out.
But, of course, you are being watched. If not by God, then at least by the NSA.
@geg6:
Well, that much is obvious. That was the first thing I thought about you. I thought, “There’s someone who has moved on and is no way ruled by their emotional damage.” MoveOn dot-org should change their name to geg6 dot-org because you personify moved-on-ness.
Another Halocene Human
@The Red Pen: I’m pretty sure it’s “or else”. See Wager, Pascal’s.
And you are being an enormous, pulsating jerk on this thread, but don’t let that stop you or anything. After all, posters on the internet aren’t real people with emotions or anything.
Another Halocene Human
@Violet: His ex-wife, my friend’s mother, appealed to the church not to allow it to be annulled. Not sure if having one party want it and the other not want it makes a difference.
Uh, yeah, yeah it does. Joe Kennedy (jr!) wanted an annulment (so he could run for Prezzie some day), his Episcopalian wife refused, he called her lots of mean names, she stuck to her guns, and Joey had to marry his 2nd wife in a non-Catholic wedding, so, yeah.
ETA: @Mnemosyne: Oops, saw you got there first, didn’t ya?
Another Halocene Human
@The Red Pen: Tu quoque.
Another Halocene Human
@aimai: Aimai, in the US a Catholic marriage has force of law (unless there are shenanigans involved) whereas a Catholic annulment is a strictly religious procedure with no legal consequences. Therefore US Catholics must pursue annulment AND legal divorce [if they intend to remarry in a Catholic church].
Essentially, marriage is so blasé & trivial that the State appoints all kinds of agents to perform them (clerks, JOP, Universal Life Church $1 ministers, Elvis, and in some special cases motel lobby clerks), but the flip side is put in the hands of a judge. How about that.
The Red Pen
@Another Halocene Human:
It never stopped me before.
Oh wait… no… I’m sorry. You see, I have issues. Yes, deep searing emotional scars. While I have healed from these deep searing emotional scars, I am compelled by my harrowing experience to be an enormous pulsating jerk on the Internet. You insensitive prick!
Better?
shortstop
@Another Halocene Human:
It’s Joseph P. Kennedy II. Junior is his uncle (JFK’s and RFK’s brother), the one who died in WWII.
Anyway, he married his second wife in a civil ceremony long before the annulment was finished processing. He did get it, and Wife #1 only found out about it after the fact. It was later overturned by the Vatican when wife #1 kicked up a proper fuss.
geg6
@Mandalay:
WTF are you talking about? Who, besides BoB and Derf and today’s troll, have I ever told to fuck off? I actually have pretty good relationships with most posters here. I’ve never even told ol’ Burnsie, Catholic extraordinaire, to fuck off that I remember. And I certainly don’t do it constantly because I am only commenting here sporadically most of the time.
As for feeling free to make fun of Catholicism, I admit to reserving my most negative disdain and disgust for the Catholic Church, but it may make you feel better to know that I disdain any and all religions. Not necessarily the practictioners, but definitely the religions. I consider religion to be a crutch, and one I don’t need. I feel for those who think they need the crutch, but don’t for those who think their crutch is the only true crutch or that one needs a crutch at all. If that hurts your fee fees, so be it.
geg6
@The Red Pen:
Wow. You really think I’m the only victim around here, don’t you?
And FWIW, I really have moved on. Doesn’t mean that I have to give up criticizing the Church or that I have to act as if nothing ever happened. You obviously have never had anything bad happen to you or anyone in your life if you think that’s what moving on means.
The Red Pen
@geg6:
Not the only victim, but a vocal bigot.
I can tell the difference between legitimate criticism and hate-fueled bigotry. I’ve spent an unfortunate amount of time at Free Republic and I don’t see any daylight between what you say and what the typical anti-Islam Freeper bigot says. Your own personal trauma doesn’t give you any license to spew derision on a billion or so other people.
I see you as a small-minded bigot seething with rage, not a wizened critic speaking from experience long “gotten over.”
You are not going to shame me into silence.
Tehanu
@Ash Can:
Your comment made me think of Lois McMaster Bujold’s character Cordelia Vorkosigan, a believer, not an atheist, who says (somewhere, can’t remember exactly which book) that people are much more important than principles. I may not have the exact statement right, but it’s something like this: Principles can and do change. The needs of people, who have immortal souls, are much more important than any “principle” you care to name.
The Other Chuck
@Another Halocene Human:
It’s always been harder to dissolve contracts than to make them.
The argument that the practice of annulment predates divorce is, to put it mildly, ridiculous. Divorce has been around as long as marriage itself, and there’s always been some sort of procedure for doing both. Maybe annulment is the longest standing single legal doctrine on the subject still in effect (now not even relevant to civil legalities), but that’s really neither here nor there.
TG Chicago
@Baud:
Never thought about it that way. Interesting — thanks.
Medicine Man
I’m actually inclined to give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt on this one. When regarding the grievous top-down sexual dysfunction of the RCC, I’m often reminded of the various public homophobes we’ve seen in secular politics who turned out to be closet cases of the worst kind. It is not hard to imagine how a group of guilt/fear/denial-riddled old men at the apex of the church hierarchy may have contributed to the church’s horrible sense of priorities, especially if those men have also internalized the pedophilia = homosexuality slur that is so popular amongst a segment of the religious community.
Mandalay
@geg6:
Well me for another one, which already puts you at four at least. Telling people to “fuck off” is your modus operandi.
You specifically criticized practictioners of Catholicsm (rather than the Catholic Church) for believing in “the invisible sky fairy”. Which is fine if that is how you truly feel I suppose, but then you whine when other posters here make comments that offend you. If you want to make offensive comments yourself, and sneer at others, then you can expect some payback.You are acting like a spoilt valley girl throwing a tantrum.
You obviously (really, really obviously) have personal issues, and you may well have been through hell and high water for all I know, and I feel for you about that. And if you really feel the need, then carry on exploding at other posters every time you don’t like what they post. Just spare us the whining when others offend your sensibilities.
Mandalay
@The Red Pen:
This.
geg6
@The Red Pen:
Apparently not. I have had nothing bad to say about Catholics themselves or any other religionists (many of whom are, as they say, good people), just their religions. How that makes me a bigot or comparable to the Freepers is a mystery, but you obviously have your own issues with which you have not dealt.
Well, feel free to keep sticking up for the child molesters and misogynist abusers and trying to shame the victims. I’m sure that works well for you IRL.
The Red Pen
@geg6:
Ah, the “love the sinner, hate the sin” dodge. Classic.
I’ll bet some of your best friends are Catholics.
You’re not fooling anyone.
shortstop
@Medicine Man: That might have been true at one point. At this time, I don’t think they’re guilt/fear/denial-riddled about their own homosexuality, and I don’t think they’ve internalized the pedophilia = homosexuality slur they actively and gleefully promote. I think they’re a bunch of arrogant, power-mad elitists who are perfectly happy to play by one set of rules as they energetically seek to enforce another…to do whatever the hell they feel like doing even as they smack down any other LGBT Catholics’ chance at a healthy, dignified life within the church.
geg6
@Mandalay:
I have no clue what you’re talking about. If people want to believe in Zog or invisible sky fairies or Jesus or Buddha, I really don’t care. That’s their problem, not mine and it impacts me not at all. The only thing that impacts me is when their institutions of religion impact my life and the lives of others. The Catholic Church has had a direct and negative impact on my life and on the lives of millions all over the world and the Church continues to try to rule how I and many Americans live their lives regardless of our own religious beliefs or lack of them. Perhaps the Church could avoid the criticism of people like me if they’d keep their noses out of things that are none of their business and started operating humbly (much as their founder did) and without criminal actions against millions of people. And perhaps practitioners of religions, such as Catholicism, wouldn’t have to get so bent out of shape because I and the millions of other critics would have nothing to criticize.
The Red Pen
@geg6:
Really? Because Catholics don’t use the term “sky fairies.” You do. If you don’t care, why do you have to denigrate them with that phrasing? Why can’t you just say “God”?
Your denial doesn’t ring true, and, again, you’re not fooling anyone.
Michael Finn
Those quotes are really selected oddly. While I don’t think we can see a huge difference between this pope and the last one on any particular faith doctrine, I have an issue with a quote with that many contextual issues.
geg6
@The Red Pen:
Actually, I am a baptized Catholic, though I have left the Church ( and still, as both Bishop Zubik and Bishop Weurl informed me, the Church refuses to let me go and still considers me a Catholic). My parents were both Catholic, my brothers and sisters were all Catholics up until adulthood and one until just this past year when she and her family finally had enough and left and joined up with the Episcopalians. My significant other is also a baptized Catholic. Most of my friends and co-workers are Catholics, or were at least baptized as such. My closest cousin is a Methodist minister. So what? Funnily enough, none of them consider me a bigot and they know my views on the Church and religion much better than you do.
As for your last sentence about me not fooling anyone, I’m not trying to. I have complete disdain for the Roman Catholic Church and most of BJ knows all about it. And it is full of child abusers and misogynists and their enablers and co-conspiracists, at every level of the hierarchy. Are you disputing that?
geg6
@The Red Pen:
I don’t believe in any god or gods. I’m not about endorse the concept. Why is the concept of an invisible sky fairy any different from what you call “god?” They are completely interchangeable to me. One is as believable a concept as the other. Your “god” is certainly invisible, unless you can point out where I can catch a glimpse of him/her/it. And how do you know that your “god” isn’t a sky fairy if you have never seen him/her/it?
The Red Pen
@geg6:
Define “full of.”
I dunno, why would anyone be offended if I described Jesus as a “dead Jew on a stick”? He was dead. He was a Jew. He was nailed to a big stick. What’s the difference?
(That’s a freebie, geg6 — feel free to start using it.)
For that matter, even if one agrees that homosexuality is innate, having same-sex relationships is a decision… it’s a… choice! So why do gay people get so prickly when you describe their relationships as a “lifestyle choice.” After all, it’s technically accurate.
And why can’t I say “colored people” when “people of color” is acceptable? What’s up with that?
And what’s the deal with airplane food?
You just tell those silly believers that when they get offended by “sky fairy” that you refuse to bow to the libtard political correctness. They’ll appreciate your folksy common-sense wisdom.
Mandalay
@geg6: I have no clue what you’re talking about.
Of course you do. I am talking about how you feel entitled to tell other posters to fuck off, and how you are entitled to sneer at the beliefs of Catholics, then scream like a fucked piglet when a poster offends your precious sensibilities and hurts your feelings.
You are a bully and a bigot. You dish it out all the time, then act the confused innocent one when you get called on it.
Mandalay
@geg6:
That’s another lie from you. You cared enough to sneer at Catholics for “believing in the invisible sky fairy”. You went out of your way to denigrate them, so don’t pretend now that you don’t care.
geg6
@Mandalay:
Whatever. I’m over this.
Religionists are the most tiresome people on earth.
The Red Pen
@Mandalay:
There is something particularly sleazy about someone who uses a derisive term and tries to play it off as inoffensive.
It’s like someone with a swastika bumper sticker that says “It’s heritage, not hate!”
The Red Pen
@geg6:
I feel the same way about bigots. We have so much in common, if you think about it.
fuckwit
And the men who lead other religions are not dicks, how, exactly?
It’s all a bunch of bullshit.
The Red Pen
@fuckwit:
The Bene Gesserit are women.
Another Halocene Human
@shortstop: Apologies for my misstatements of fact. I was going off my memory of the ex-wife’s apologia for her conduct.
Another Halocene Human
@The Other Chuck: Interesting, although I doubt it. I don’t know anything about the Chinese legal system, for example, but they must have some sort of track record/history.
Plus let’s not forget that many traditional cultures have a practice of ‘divorce by abandonment’. In fact, I think that might even be in the English legal system, too.
Yeah, it’s amazing what dipping one’s toes in the classics will do. Caesar was divorced twice, IIRC.
Another Halocene Human
@The Other Chuck: It’s always been harder to dissolve contracts than to make them.
I think my problem is that the state and its agents really gloss over the implications of this big ass honking contract to the parties entering in … only rarely do parties acquire legal advice or really do much of any sort of legal or financial planning, but good luck dissolving the partnership without at least 1 (one) $400 lawyer, and much, much more if there is acrimony between the parties, accusations of wrongdoing/criminality, stupid state laws, shitty new partners challenging custody, or a fuckton of property involved, etc, etc.
Another Halocene Human
@shortstop: I think you’re too optimistic. Septagenarian catholic prelates !== middle-aged to elderly American MOTUs.
Desert Rat
This is an institution that took 2000 years just to decide that maybe their high holy services should be spoken in languages that the unwashed masses can understand.
At this pace, they’ll get around to dealing with their pederasty problem, stop hating on gays and women, and and allow married priests about 5000 years from now.
Redshirt
You can be a bigot towards people who believe in fairy tales?
PC run amok!
The Red Pen
@Redshirt:
Do religious Jews qualify as people for the purposes of this question?
I’m just asking because sometimes Jews don’t qualify as people in certain contexts.