The Pope Tweets Death

Rebecca Kadaga, the most virulent supporter of Uganda's Kill The Gays Bill was blessed by the pope. Ironically, it was at the same time that the Pope opened his first official twitter account. 



I guess I'll have to write more about this, huh?

Our Knights In Rusty Armor: K of C Hit With Sex Abuse Scandal

“The supreme purpose of the Columbian Squires is character building.”

Holy hypocrisy! One of the most powerful lay organizations in the world has finally succumbed to a sex-abuse scandal: The Roman Catholic Church's own Knights of Columbus. Yes, that's right, the KofC, that bastion of money, male bonding and morals has gotten slapped with not one but two sexual abuse lawsuits. And due to the size of the organization, it's likely that more will follow.

NEW HAVEN, CT, December 14, 2010 — The Miami law firm of Herman, Mermelstein & Horowitz announces the filing of two new child sexual abuse lawsuits against the Knights of Columbus, one of the world’s largest organizations for Catholic men... The suits allege that the two boys were sexually abused on multiple occasions by Julian Rivera, the leader of the Columbian Squires [youth group] in Brownsville, Texas. One victim claims that Rivera sexually abused him at gunpoint, and also threatened to kill his family if he did not comply with Rivera’s demands.

In addition, one of the victims said he was "shared" by another Columbian Squires leader. This last exposes a whole new aspect to the situation: these are not isolated incidents. These suits go beyond the sexual abuse seemingly endemic in the Catholic Church's preisthood. And like the Vatican, the K of C has covered up the abuse:

According to the Complaints, Rivera was a leader in the Columbian Squires youth program until very recently, despite a 1986 report to two different Knights of Columbus officials that Rivera sexually abused a member of his Squires group.

A Matter of Size

Considering the span of years that the Church has had to account for sexual abuse, it is surprising that the Knights of Columbus has not been indicted earlier. Then again, considering its size and influence, it becomes clear that the organization's cover-ups must have been well orchestrated: there are over 5000 Columbian Squire Circles [chapters] throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, the Philippines and even Cuba.

And the membership of the Knights of Columbus is matched by the size of its fund-raising pocketbook: while giving over $1.37 billion over the last 10 years, it also has assets of over $14 billion and $70 billion in life insurance policies. No wonder it could afford to spend $1.4 million on Prop 8. 

Its innate homophobia is a force to be reckoned with. Indeed, the K of C has flaunted its homophobia by spending more money to fight same-sex marriage than on its usual charitable donations, including donations to food drives. In other words, "The poor we will always have," but the chance to fight equal rights for gays, well, we may not always have.

Given the amount of money and assets involved, it will be interesting to see how Pope Benedict reacts to this latest scandal ...and if he had any knowledge of cover-ups. His defence of the Knights of Columbus will be convoluted at best: will he try to save this piggy bank from being shattered by public opinion? And if he defends it too much, will he add to the rancor towards the Vatican concerning its history of cover-ups?

Another portal to hypocrisy has been discovered while another bastion of rectitude has fallen. 

Pope OKs Condoms For Gay Porn Stars!!

But Doesn't That Fall Under "Special Protections For Gays?"

The silliness of the "abstinence only" group got sillier when Pope Benedict XVI declared that it was OK for male prostitutes to wear condoms since, after all, they don't procreate.

AP)  Pope Benedict XVI says in a new book that the use of condoms can be justified in some cases, such as for male prostitutes seeking to prevent the spread of HIV.

Benedict said that condoms are not a moral solution to stopping AIDS. But he said in some cases, such as for male prostitutes, their use could represent a first step in assuming moral responsibility "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."

Of course, some Catholic adherents to the Vatican, praised the pope's statement:

"We welcome the pope's change of opinion because it is meant to save life and to protect people. We see here an enlightened pope putting his concern over human life as a priority first." 

Then again, thinking hard: 

"There may be extreme, extreme exemptions for the church to allow its use, I'm thinking hard, but I can't think of any right now."

Exemptions, exemptions. Rapists? Nah. Pedophiles? Nah. The speculation as to exceptions besides male sex workers boggles the mind. 

So whither America's Christian Right? Should they condemn the pope because he acknowledged hustlers? Is he just trying to protect priests? Is he putting a (very small) halt to God's judgment? Or should they applaud him for helping them to point out gay porn stars? ("Pssst! That cute guy over there just bought some condoms - I wonder what movie he's in!"). Whatever their stance, they'll still look as perplexed as the rest of us: condoms for hustlers/porn stars, but not for anyone else?

This looks to be a lame attempt to counteract Benedict's 2009 statement that condoms were actually part of the problem of the AIDS epidemic. And it's one that will be twisted by the Christian Right (read: Tony Perkins, et al) as promoting homosexual concupiscence: "since gays can't procreate, let's just give them protection against STDs, then they can have as much sex as they want to."  

And another stance: this earth-shaking announcement flies in the face of women: women need protection too, but Benedict doesn't seem to care. He has taken a very chauvinistic attitude by allowing only a small male segment of the population the right to protection. One hopes he gets justifiably pilloried by women's groups for this latest effort to look sympathetic to the world's ills.

All people have the right to protection from illness, so the placement of that right on one minuscule segment of the world's population smacks as disingenuous at best. It is a tiny throwaway plastic trinket that only further distances Benedict from the people of the real world. And anyone who thinks this is a portent of further pronouncements on birth control is foolish. 

 

So where is Benedict going with this (assuming he's moving in any direction at all)? It smacks of chauvinism, stigmatization, or benign contempt:  the ruminations of a man who shielded pedophile priests, the cast-off, arbitrary pronouncements of a clerical actor who can think of nothing to say about human sexuality. 

In  the end, who cares?

So You Think You Can Scandalize? Rightwing Christians Top Each Other With Juicy Stories in September.

Not to be outdone by Christine O'Donnell's little witchcraft escapade, The Vatican and Bishop Eddie Long have chimed in with their own scandals. 

For a change, the Vatican scandal was not about pedophilia, but about money. Specifically money LAUNDERING:

The Catholic Church has suffered yet another blow to their tarnished image, as Italian investigators seized $30 million from a Vatican bank account Tuesday, stating the action was the result of a possible money laundering scheme. The Vatican said they were “perplexed and surprised” by the subsequent investigation and seizure of a small percentage of the Church’s cash assets. Law enforcement authorities in Italy say the seizure was a precaution, as prosecutors investigate the Vatican Bank’s Director and Chairman in connection with violations of Italy’s anti-money laundering laws. While Italian authorities are not accusing the Catholic Church of directly laundering the money seized, questions have been raised as to the origin of the $30 million.

Well, those cute little Prada shoes really do cost a bundle. 

The pontiff might be breathing a sigh of relief that it was only money and not another sexual abuse case, as is the one with self-proclaimed "Bishop" Eddie Long.

Two lawsuits filed late Tuesday in DeKalb County accuse Bishop Long of inappropriate sexual relationships with two young men from his church.

Maurice Robinson and Anthony Flagg, both in their early 20's, claim in their lawsuits that, "Long utilized his spiritual authority to coerce certain young male members and employees of defendant New Birth into engaging in sexual acts and relationships."

The suit claims the congregation is likely unaware of the practices. But it also says church money was used to foster the relationships.

Robinson, in his suit contends Long used, "monetary funds from the accounts of defendant New Birth to entice the (young men) with cars, clothes, jewelry, and electronics.

God, Vetting and Wikipedia

The systemic problem of titles and their automatic reverence is one that is rife in Long's group. Looking back into Long's life takes a suspension of belief: the title of "Bishop" is self-administered since Baptists do not recognize hierarchy in clergy. And while Long's Master of Divinity degree from Interdenominational Theological Center is valid, his PhD in Pastoral Ministry from the International College of Excellence is suspicious: the ICE is accredited by Accrediting Commission Internationalwhich is NOT recognized by the Department of Education.

Long's "prosperity gospel" gave root to an overblown image complete with fancy cars, diamond rings and a luxury estate.

And because of his "Bishop-ness", Long got away with financial scandal:

On August 28, 2005 the Atlanta Journal-Constitution printed a front page spread accusing Long of mishandling funds that were funneled through a charity started by Long. The article reports that from 1997-2000, the non-profit charity, Bishop Eddie Long Ministries Inc., provided him with at least $3.07 million in salary, benefits and the use of property.^[2] Long contended that the charity did not solicit donations from members but instead gained its income from royalties, speaking fees and several large donations.^[3]

 OK, kids, stay tuned!!

A Brilliant Look At Benedict's Cover-up

Thanks to Bill Daly.  I would have published this       piece of art in my last post if I had seen it in time.      Nonetheless, it expresses more than meets the eye.

Bully For The Press, But Boo For Benedict: Why Peggy Noonan and Benedict's Defenders Are Wrong

Timothy Shriver's Washington Post article, Can the pope restore the purity of Catholicism? is a wonderful and insightful piece - except for the title. It assumes that Catholicism has had "purity" for a long time. It hasn't. Catholicism has always been too complex for "purity" of any sort. Ever since the official acceptance of Christianity by Rome (313 CE), The Church has been a curious mixture of conflicting doctrines, artistic beauty, money, immense power, sincere faith and corruption. And perhaps in no other person are those qualities more evident than in pope Benedict XVI. To this man, change in the Church is anathema: Pious XII was his inspiration and John XXIII his enemy. 

That is why his supporters in the latest news about the on-going scandal of sexual abuse have a tough time convincing people that he is not culpable. Take Peggy Noonan of the  Wall Street Journal:

Let me repeat that: The press has been the best friend of the Catholic Church on the scandals because it exposed the story and made the church face it. The press forced the church to admit, confront and attempt to redress what had happened. The press forced them to confess. The press forced the church to change the old regime and begin to come to terms with the abusers...Without this pressure...the church would most likely have continued to do what it has done for half a century, which is look away, hush up, pay off and transfer.

I agree wholeheartedly. Then why would Noonan come up with this statement:

The most reliable commentary on Pope Benedict's role in the scandals came from John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, who argues that once Benedict came to fully understand the scope of the crisis, in 2003, he made the church's first real progress toward coming to grips with it.

"Fully understand the scope of the crisis." The PRESS made Ratzinger understand. No one else did. Sheer conjecture but still valid: IF the press had not capitalized on the scandal, would Ratzinger have continued the old game of "pass the pedaphile priest"??

Come on, Peggy, Ratzinger knew about the abuse long before 2003; he had resources at his command to find out minute details about every priest in the Catholic Church. A hint of heresy never got past him and neither did a hint of sexual abuse. It's sheer idiocy to think that he knew nothing. And with that knowledge he doth sinned in doing nothing.

And there are Catholic leaders - like Bill Donohue of The Catholic League - think that the press is evil, comparing the "persecution" of Catholicism to anti-Semitism!  His own lame response to the scandal:

wikipedia:

On March 30, 2010, Donohue appeared on CNN's Larry King Live as part of a panel discussing sexual abuse of children by priests. Donohue blamed the decades-old problem on gay priests, claiming they could not be considered pedophiles because most of the offenses involved "post-pubescent" boys (defined in the interview as boys 12-years-old or older) and were thus "homosexual" acts.

Holy twisted reasoning!!

The Catholic Church (indeed, American Christianity as a whole) is infamous for not admitting culpability in past misdeeds. If Pious XII had admitted that he could have spoken out during the Holocaust would he still be (fast-tracked) on the road to canonization? If the Vatican would have voiced regret for its role in the Crusades and the expulsion of Moors from Spain and Portugal, would the radical Muslim world have as much animosity for Christianity as it does today?

As recently as the 1980s and 1990s, the media has forced the Catholic Church to admit to heinous acts against children: the Duplessis Orphan scandal in Canada and the Magdalene Laundry scandal in Ireland. In both cases, nuns were the perpetrators of torture, slavery, sexual abuse and even homicide over a period of decades. And the Church did more than simply cover up the bodies and place them in unmarked graves.

So the widespread cover-up of sexual abuse in the priesthood is not really surprising. And the abuse was around far longer than Joseph Ratzinger's time on earth. To think that he had nothing to do with it because he (re)acted after the media blew the whistle is polite wishful thinking. As head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger was, in effect, the Church's spin doctor: he was charged to protect the image of the Church as well as its doctrine from heresy. 

And there were times when he acted rather viciously.

Hans Kung was a trusted friend of Joseph Ratzinger in the late 60s. He even helped Ratzinger obtain a professorship at a university in Tubingen, Germany, where Kung was professor of theology. Later, Kung was stripped of his authority to teach theology by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger who was head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The official reason: Kung denied the infalability of the pope. Another reason (according to conspiracy theorists): Kung was too close to John Paul I during his controversial tenure (30 days) and even more controversial death. Kung has since reiterated his criticism of the papacy and in particular of Benedict:

"Joseph Ratzinger has stood still because as a Bavarian Catholic in the Hellenistic tradition, interpreted in Roman terms, he wanted to stand still."

Timothy Shriver of The Washington Post put the scandal and its nuances quite well:

What's needed is a conversion of the bishops and the pope himself. That's right: It's time for the pope and the bishops to convert their culture to one that is centered on loving God from the depths of their souls and to leading a church that is as much mother as father, as much pastoral as theological, as much spiritual as doctrinal. It is time for them to listen to the deep and authentic witness of the people of faith, to trust the spirit that blows where it will, to abandon their defensiveness of their positions and trust only the gospel, and not their edifice of control. Conversion is a total experience -- letting go of the old and putting on the new.

That is something Benedict will never do. And there is no defense of a man who will not progress for the spiritual good of his flock. Benedict is not a shepherd. He is merely an old sentinel who stands guarding an old abusive system.

That Was The Week That Was: A Warren-Uganda-Guam-Palin-Bennny Kind Of Week

Playing Catch-up Is Confusing!

If you're like me, you get frustrated when there's just so much going on that you can't absorb it all. Last week was like that:

Rick Warren condones executing gays -- Uganda's death penalty for gays with HIV -- Ratzinger wants the British monarchy's money -- Guam's archbishop thinks that Iran has the right solution for homosexuality (hanging) -- and -- Palin goes crony before she goes ballistic about polar bears!

The thing about the five topics is that four of them are connected like ideological cars of a train, except for Palin who "goes rogue" and, as a caboose, typically derails.

Rick Warren, he of the Purpose-Driven-Publicity-Seeking-I-Really-Love-Everyone-Life, is (hopefully) having a pang of conscience over Uganda. In Dec. 2008:

Americablog.com

A Kampala newspaper report on Warren's support of the Lambeth boycott included this paragraph:

Dr Warren said that homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right. "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all," Dr Warren said.

So far, the erstwhile Pastor of Saddleback Church has made no comment about the legislative proposal in Ugnada. He may never make one.

Back in Uganda: the committee is still out about the forementioned legislation:

The bill is aimed at increasing and expanding penalties for 'homosexual acts' and for all institutions (including NGOs, donors and private companies) who defend the rights of people who engage in sexual relations with people of the same gender. The bill also calls for Uganda to withdraw from all international treaties and conventions which support the rights of lesbians, gays and bisexuals, introduces extradition arrangements for Ugandan citizens who perform 'homosexual acts' abroad, and includes legal penalties for people who fail to report alleged homosexual acts or individuals and institutions that promote homosexuality or same-sex marriage to the authorities.

The death penalty is mandated for HIV-positive people who engage in sex with people of the same gender. The tabling of the bill has been accompanied by threats against any Ugandan media organisation that allows LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) Ugandans to air their views or publish press statements.

In other words: they believe in gay genocide.

Now if you think that someone as learned and wise as the pope would never be connected to Uganda, well guess again. The pontiff has made a oddly cryptic move to invite disenchanted Anglicans to seek shelter under the wings of the Catholic Church. He'll even let married priests stay married! So how does that work? Never mind. The big question is: why? Is it an historic outreach from Catholic to Protestant? Is the pope getting senile?

Maybe - just maybe - it's the money. There are over 70 million Anglicans in the world and the British Anglicans have the most power. They also control most of the assets which are, in part, ladled out by the monarchy since Queen Elizabeth II is the titular head of the Church of England. Maybe the pope's bucking for a lordship or two.

Trying to emulate the pope, Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron of Guam came out with the most shocking "pastoral letter" the other day and basically condoned Iran and Iraq's execution of gays since it was necessary to save Western Civilization from "imploding' (one of his favorite words). Guam has had an identity crisis for the last hundred years and now has a new image: homophobic center of the Pacific Islanders.

And finally: the week wouldn't have been complete if Sarah Palin wouldn't crop up with not one but two instances involving her persona: 1. she created another PAC:

Sarah Palin fans can expect to see a new Palin political organization surface as her memoir, “Going Rogue: An American Life,” hits the shelves next month. “There will be an announcement about it coming up,” Palin associate Tim Crawford said Wednesday.

Oh joy! More Sarah Palin! When she goes on the talk show circuit, perhaps she'll tell us why she hates polar bears so much!

Yep, it was an incredible week. I can't wait for another one to top it!