Tweet
If you are, like me, confused about the answer to this question, please raise your hand….or better yet….ask your Congressperson and Senator. And ask the President.
Why is a pedophilia-ridden, pedophilia-hiding, child-abusing Church allowed to write laws controlling women’s rights?
I am talking, of course, about the Catholic Church and specifically about the hierarchy….not the good people of the Catholic faith.
The Church whose leadership, in case we didn’t already know this, has now been proven to have purposefully hidden an epidemic of pedophilia and–to protect priests, not born children–reassigned serial sex offenders to other parishes to offend again. The kind of people who, if they were not priests protected by the hierarchy of the Church would not be allowed by US law to come anywhere near children or schools?
According to the newest revelations reported in the New York Times:
Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit. [emphasis mine].
The internal correspondence from bishops in Wisconsin directly to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope, shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal.
The documents emerge as Pope Benedict is facing other accusations that he and direct subordinates often did not alert civilian authorities or discipline priests involved in sexual abuse when he served as an archbishop in Germany and as the Vatican’s chief doctrinal enforcer.
As many as 200 deaf children molested. The Pope himself as Cardinal–and as the Church’s chief doctrinal enforcer–more worried about the possible scandal to the Church than the abuse of born children. As a mother, I am so sickened I can barely type.
You know that doctrine that they enforce? The one that makes women lower on the totem pole than a fertilized egg? The one that in Nicaragua has a woman whose life is threatened with cancer, hospitalized at 8 weeks pregnant, refused either an abortion or cancer treatment because the egg, embryo, fetus is so much more important than that woman’s life (or the future of her 10-year-old daughter)? You know the doctrine that says they will excommunicate the mother of a 9-year-old girl in Brazil because she insisted that her daughter, pregnant with twins as a result of rape by her step-father (rape of a then-8-year-old girl) be allowed an abortion? The one that talks incessantly about the "sanctity of life" (until after you are born)? The Church that supports organizations that threaten to remove the social services they provide to all poor people in the District of Columbia because they find offering insurance benefits to married same sex couples so offensive?
The Church that refuses to provide even preventive reproductive health care to women while using federal dollars because it "offends their morals?"
The Church of "abstinence-only" programs that have resulted in countless teens across this country obtaining sexually-transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies?
I ask again: Why is that Congress allows a pedophilia-ridden, pedophilia-hiding, child-abusing Church allowed to write laws about women’s rights?
And I am talking about deals cut over the past several years with the consent of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and other leading Democrats including:
- The 11th hour vote on the Stupak Amendment last fall in the health reform debate allowed by Speaker Pelosi after closed door meetings with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
- The statement by Senator Ben Nelson, author of the limitations in the health care bill that will eliminate women’s existing coverage of abortion care, that he had to confer with the USSCB on the language he proposed to govern women’s health and rights?
- The midnight-rewriting in 2008–the night before a vote–of the original reauthorization bill of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in which the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops–aided in this case by Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA), and Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN)–worked long into the night with Congressman Howard Berman (D-CA) and his staff–with the blessing of the Speaker–to:
- deny HIV-positive women access to contraceptive supplies to avoid unwanted pregnancies (because these women knew already they would not live to raise any child born);
- restrict integration of HIV prevention and family planning services, even though both unintended pregnancies and HIV infection are catastrophic public health problems in Africa and both result from unprotected sexual intercourse;
- re-insert into that bill abstinence-only-until marriage policies despite the fact that the Government Accoutability Office, the Institutes of Medicine and countless other analysts had proven these programs only served to leave people vulnerable to HIV infection.
I am talking about an HIV epidemic in which women now make up the majority of those infected and in which women and girls face the highest rates of new infections. I am talking about policies that consigned untold numbers of women to death and continue to do so.
I am talking about the Church that is invited into decision-making bodies on teen pregnancy, HIV prevention, comprehensive sex ed, by this Administration, in which the needs of "faith-based" organizations continue to take precedence over the health and rights of women, over pro-choice and women’s rights groups representing the majority of women in the United States, and over public health evidence and human rights in shaping public health policy.
I am talking about a Church which the male-dominated media goes out of its way to protect.
And I am offering here but a few examples of things about which I could easily write a book.
When will this stop? When will we actually–not just rhetorically–care more about science than ideology? About women’s rights over a misogynistic male organization that can not even keep its hands off of children.?
Only President Obama and the Democratic Leadership in both the House and Senate can provide those answers and only you can make them do so.
Written by Jodi Jacobson, editor of RHRealityCheck.org – News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.
160 Comments
“And I am offering here but a few examples of things about which I could easily write a book.”
Please write the book!
Yes, yes!!! Write the book. Just imagine the book-signings and talks.
yea! I ask Catholics, How can you support an organization of baby rapers/ O’Grady the anti-christ of baby raping was flown out of the country and is now being protected and honored by the baby raping organization?
They live in a moral swamp, i am not going there with them-
Congress is perfectly aligned with the catholic church, they are just raping the American people as a group
What would make you think Congress is any better?
“The FRANKLIN SCANDAL is the story of a nationwide pedophile ring that pandered children to a cabal of the rich and powerful. The ring’s pimps were a pair of political powerbrokers who had access to the highest levels of our government. Nebraska legislators nearly exposed the ring in 1990, but its unveiling had the potential to produce seismic political aftershocks.The legislators’ efforts resulted in rash of mysterious deaths and the overpowering corruption of federal and local law enforcement, including the FBI, Secret Service, and Justice Department, effecting an immaculate cover-up of the trafficking network.”
http://www.amazon.com/Franklin-Scandal-Story-Powerbrokers-Betrayal/dp/0977795357
My point also -
he Church’s involvement with restricting reproductive rights in the US via Congress must be opposed.
The problem of pedophilia is not to be summarized as a Church problem – indeed that is insulting to the 50,000 priests in the US who have only good marks against their name.
Pedophilia needs serve punishment – lifetime sentences for those that do and likewise for those that cover-up the crime – including priests.
But the smear of the Church as the “pedophilia-ridden, pedophilia-hiding, child-abusing Church” is too broad a brush. The pedophilia-hiding is the only fact based charge – but the number of Priests finally exposed as pedophiles in the US is under 2% of the priests per the Globe stories on Cardinal Law – still a horrific number, but as we have seen with the HLN nightly broadcasts of pedophilia incidents that result in murder, not the only source of such crimes.
oldnslow passed this to me –
.
Rude Pundit Asks A Question
Religion poisons EVERYTHING!
They allow it because for the past 30 years they’ve been terrified of pissing of the religious right in this country. they beg them tio play nice just liek they beg corporations to play nice.
It’s disgusting.
So now there are posts on the Seminal saying that the Catholic Church controls Congress?
It’s not just the Mossad, AIPAC, and the Trilateral Commission?
gat krans
Next up: Mossad blackmailing the Pope. It’s all starting to make sense! Connect da dots!
But seriously, I don’t see the connection between pedophelia and a woman’s right to choose. I mean, would it somehow be better if we let a non-pedophelia ridden church determine a woman’s right to choose?
We’d probably be better off just ditching the pedophiles and keep the topic of a woman’s right to choose focused on a woman’s right to choose.
I believe the point of the diary was to highlight the utter immorality of the Church hierarchy, who hypocritically presume to be the moral arbiter of American women’s healthcare decisions and to condemn people because of their sexual orientation. I think that was quite clear, and I rec’d this diary for making an excellent case for the separation of church and state (no longer an arrangement we can take for granted).
Carolyn, if you think that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is composed of people with more dubious moral sensitivities than that of the members assembled in congress, feel free to indulge that thought.
However, I’ll continue to question whether the Catholic Church does control the congress.
I don’t see where I compared the moral development of those in the hierarchy of the Catholic church to that of our Congressmen and women, nor did I, or the diarist, state anywhere that the Catholic church controls our Congress.
However, the Catholic Church hierarchy was quite active in the recent struggle to prevent women’s access to abortion services, during the recent healthcare reform debate:
The Catholic Church has a history of denying communion to lawmakers who do not vote in accordance with the hierarchy’s wishes. One recent example from a story on NPR:
It surprises me that you think that the Catholic Hierarchy does not have a great deal of influence in Congress. As of June 2008, the top five denominations in the Congress are Roman Catholic (29.3%), Baptist (11.1%), Methodist (10.2%), Jewish (7.8%), and Presbyterian (7.6%).
If you think the Catholic Bishops are above trying to influence the behavior of Catholic legislators, and if you think such efforts have no effect on their voting behavior, you are sorely mistaken.
Carolyn, I don’t deny that the Catholic Church has influence . I believe it to have a good deal.
I also think that other groups have a good deal of same and that while the Church is absolutely using all the influence it has to shape legislation to fit the Church’s doctrine concerning abortion, I remain in thinking that influence does not equal control.
That’s what the headline says and that’s what I say ain’t necessarily so.
(The breakout of legislators by religion seems to be of limited value without a reference to actual votes cast.)
Do you have concern that 6 of the Supreme Court Justices are Catholic?.
Yeah, well, if you’re a woman, it feels a whole fucking lot like CONTROL when some fucking church is telling Congress what “rights” we are entitled to. When fucking Bart Stupak says, “I don’t go to the nuns” when deciding what health care rights should be withheld from women. No, he goes to the child abusers directly.
So yeah, CONTROL.
Yeah, well, it may feel like CONTROL, but it’s influence.
Not that feelings aren’t important, tinfoilhattie, they are.
laws ARE control
is it safe to assume that you don’t now and you never have had a uterus?
is it safe to assume that you aren’t now and you never have been a Catholic?
No, it’s not SAFE.
ahh, so you are a Catholic woman — interesting.
If you’re interested in Catholic women, Elliott, take up bingo or something.
I want the Roman Catholic Church to stay out of my uterus AND my government.
I don’t blame you a bit for wanting that, and I join you in that desire, but I don’t think that we’ve the right to demand it or reason to say that the Church controls us, our congress, or our country.
(or your uterus, but I will agree that you’ve the right to keep the church out of that)
What is it that you are arguing for?
You say:
“I don’t think that we’ve the right to demand it…” (“it” being that the RCC stay out of a uterus and government).
Then you say in the same post:
“but I will agree that you’ve the right to keep the church out of that” (“that” being uterus.”
Is your core issue: “reason to say that the Church controls us, our, or our country”?
It would be less confusing for all and more helpful if you just stick to the above rather if you want to make this a purely legal argument than going back and forth between the two.
Then people can then come back and say what has already been said (paraphrased) “NO ONE has said the Church controls our government” and then many have then said “READ The FUCKING Title of the piece, “…”Control Women’s Rights”.
And then many have said they have more than “influence” in creating laws that control “Women’s Rights”. There are laws “resulting” from their “influence”. I gave the example of “Conscience Clauses”.
Please go back and read the history of Conscience Clauses then get back to us as to how their “influence” has become “law”. And as someone just said. “Laws are control.”
Yes but even if they didn’t have pedo problems it wouldn’t make thier stance on a woman’s right to choose any better? It’s better to attack the message rather than discredit the messenger.
The Pope, Jerry Falwell… there’ll never be a shortage of messengers coming out of the woodwork. But the message is always the same and is designed to make life hell for one or more segments of the population.
Their message doesn’t change. What has to change is how it’s reported. Every time the Church makes statements about reproductive rights, there should be a companion mention of the pedophilia and the cover up that is so deep and so corrupt that there is now an undeniable, unshakeable link straight to the Pope himself.
The Catholic Church has no place in public policy – as in closed door meetings with Pelosi over health care. At the very most, the bill should confine its restrictions on health care for women – and children – to Catholic women and children. Let the rest of us live in peace and do what we want according to our own religious beliefs, if any.
Why do the representatives of the Catholic Church not have a right to meet with congress and lobby for policies that accord with their beliefs?
I thought that any or all of us had that right.
Because of their tax exemption. I’d be happy to take it away & let them do all the lobbying they wish.
Please say that again!
I’d like to tell the bishops (and the cardinals) that if they want Congress and other legislative bodies to make laws that they like, they have to run for legislative office themselves.
Or they can stop trying to run the lives of people who are not active members of their church, or are not members of their church at all.
(Unless they want us telling them ‘Ur Doin It Rong’ in public, a lot more often.)
I also don’t think that members of the clergy who do things that are illegal under civil law should be ignored or allowed to go free by civil authorities, and then be shuffled around by the religious authorities to avoid action against them. That’s another form of hypocrisy, IMO.
This began with St. Augustine. Because sexuality is not under the control of the will (pure Greek thinking) we are not blessed by our sexuality but cursed by it. St. Augustine believed it was the proper role of the Church to divine what proper sexual behavior was, and most importantly, to enlist civil authorities in enforcing those proscribed proper behaviors and punishing those deemed improper. This is how we came to name the “missionary” position thusly, as the missionaries when they set out to evangelize the world in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, required native populations to only have intercourse in the “proper” position, with the woman in the “naturally inferior” position. Since that time, all authoritarian christian denominations have subscribed to St. Augustine’s assertion of the Church as the moral arbiter of sexual behavior, and to use secular authority to enforce the beliefs of the Church.
With regard to pedophilia, recall that for many years the Church also was complicit in “i castriati,” the castration of boys to keep their voices from changing to preserve sopranos for the choir. Why would we be surprised they suppressed sexual abuse by priests?
I don’t know of anywhere the Roman Church has recanted its role in the castration of boys.
Good point.
excellent point, but taxing the Church or revoking the right of their reps to express political ideas seems to have some conflict with an old amendment.
In what way does collecting taxes on church property the same as you and I are taxed conflict with ‘an old amendment’?
I pay more because they don’t pay any, therefore I am forced by gummint to financially support a religion.
the idea that members or reps of a tax-exempt church must surrender their rights to express political opinions upon pain of forfeiting tax -exempt status would seem to conflict with the first amendment.
the idea that citizens of a church-free country must surrender their rights to churches who express political opinions, including pain of forfeiting their church status, including tax -exempt status, would seem to conflict with the first amendment.
Cute, but dim. Churches don’t elect congress or cast votes therein.
There are limits to the amount of lobbying some tax-exempt orgs are required not to pass upon pain of status revocation.
Look at that if you like and maybe start with the LDS
If it’s dim, it’s because I repeated, verbatim, what you claimed.
And yes churches do influence politics, regardless of what you claim.
You sir/ma’am are part of a huge problem in this country.
If you read the top of the comments, you’ll see that I said that I believe that the Church was much influence.
and no, Kelly, you did not repeat what I said verbatum, you paraphrased my comment. I know that there’s nary a thing to fault in your reading comp, so I’ll ask you to reread and grasp the logical defect in your paraphrase.
the Church can entreat and argue and attempt to use influence, but it doesn’t have the power to compel the citizenry to surrender to it.
(I’m not too sure about what the EO actually accomplishes,Kelly.)
By threatening political retribution against non-adherents in power, it has no need to compel the citizenry. It simple becomes the law of the land. You can talk all you like about the elected being too weak to represent their districts, but the reality is that those threats have real public policy consequences.
newt, all political speech has policy consequence or at least attempts to have some.
what is different about the Catholic Church doing it? They get to argue their case same as everyone else.
if they’re doing something illegal, name it.
That is simply not true.
The Catholic Bishops have been shuttled by Nelson and Stupak into the offices of The Majority Leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House to levy their threats.
Rather unusual access, to say the least.
It goes beyond the Hyde Amendment and extends conscience to entities. The insurance company could claim conscience when not providing a medical procedure that effects only women and not be sued. Before it protected individuals. Smacks of giving corporate personhood a conscience. The EO sets a horrid precedent. I highlighted “new protections”.
thank you. sounds like there’s a little something to that, even if it only intends not to compel.
Well, macaquerman, when is the last time that you can think of that corporate personhood was given conscience? It just smacks of one of those “when they come for you” (not so much just you) that others might get it. And that’s what I mean by precedent. Though if it is ever used as a legal precedent then be damned the Dems that let a Dem president sign that legal document.
And then they have the nerve, the utter unconsciousness, to stand up there and say this insurance reform bill is a victory for “civil rights”. Bargaining away rights to get a final vote! What a slap in the face.
Congress wasn’t meeting with people from the left wing of the Democrats. In fact, they were going out of their way to make sure we had no say in the insurance bill – that’s why single-payer never even got to the table, and public option was used only as the bait for their various bait-and-switch games.
Hadn’t you noticed all that going on?
…people from the left wing of the Democrats. In fact, they were going out of their way to make sure we had no say in the insurance bill…
$$$ and the promise of votes.
“Democrats” don’t want the votes of the left-wing of the D party – they can make those up by courting middle-of-the-road- “independent”, a/k/a no-fucking-brain independents. Actually, they pretty much hate our collective ass.
Congressfolk will meet with anybody and everybody willing to kick in bunches of votes and bucks.
If there’s a problem with meetings between people and congressional reps, I suggest that it best be taken up with the people in congress.
Any and every body has a right to seek the meetings.
Nancy Pelosi’s archbishop called her in for a meeting about her ‘lack of understanding of the church’s historical position on abortion.’ It wasn’t a meeting of a constituent with an officeholder; it was a meeting demanded by a church father of a penitent.
A threat, as it were.
if it wasn’t a meeting a meeting involving an officeholder, what’s the problem? *g*
You’re not seriously suggesting that Catholics shouldn’t hold office are you?
What the Catholic office holders need to remember that they took an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution not the Pope. They have no right to make their religion the law of the land.
overstating the case a bit much? I fail to recall many tenets of the Church of Rome being signed into law.
Obama just signed an EO making HYDE the law, regardless of the legislative cycle. This now creeps into the private space.
Indeed, the Bishops of Rome have made their way into domestic US politics.
Come on. It has been in the news for weeks that the Catholic Church was pushing hard for Stupak. Nancy has a meeting with the Bishop – sure, they just had tea and talked about the weather. I’m not that stupid.
I didn’t say or hint or think that you were stupid. I suggested that you’re over the top.
Pedophilia and oppression of women is nourished in a hierarchy rooted in presumed infallibility. A hierarchy with the power of excommunication to relegate those lower in rank to at one time torture, and still to Hell should they dissent.
I don’t know, but I get the feeling women’s liberty and LGBT rights are just chips to bargain away for many of these people.
Thanks for writing this.
I too am dumbfounded, not only that these sick bastards are still respected in any civilized company let alone our councils of government, but that they are NOT IN FUCKING PRISON.
Let these child sex racketeers prattle about my vadge from behind bars.
Jeebus that’s funny!
Great Diary. Arbiter of Moral Virtue, Cardinal Ratzo served on a religious foundation board with Divorced Adulterer Neil Bush. Neil Bush met with Cardinal Ratzo before the 2004 election. Cardinal Ratzo made national headlines with his denouncement of Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator (and Windsurfing Dork) John Kerry. Ratzo said that he would refuse to offer communion to Senator Kerry.
During Neil’s divorce proceedings, Neil confessed that his visits to Thailand included prostitutes who serviced him who just showed up at his hotel room.
Apparently, the fear that the election of Kennedy would cause undue influence by the Catholic church has finally come true after all these years./s
Here’s a blog post that captures my feelings even more
http://blacksheepone.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/why-have-we-not-shut-down-the-catholic-church/
great article!
Even though a recovering catholic, gotta admit that the depths of depravity within this issue astounds me.
I’ve always been tempted to wonder whether there’s some kickback to the C Church from the American Psychiatric Organization – now I’m wondering whether it could be from NAMBLA.
International criminals, the lot of them.
Now tell me all about how my moral beliefs are wrong, motherfuckers.
The Church that says that members who don’t keep silent about their disagreements with the hierarchy can’t receive sacraments … but is perfectly willing to give them publicly to members who are publicly breaking some of their other rules. (*cough* Giuliani *cough*)
Just a little hypocrisy, there, Benny. Might want to consider revising that 19th century decree on infallibility – you know, the one that’s only been used once. Might also be a good idea to get some cardinals with fewer hangups and views that weren’t out of date 400 years ago.
Better question would be, after all that has been brought to light about the Catholic church for the last few decades alone, why is there anyone still in the Catholic church? Pretty straight forward really. This entire organization has been shown to be nothing more than corrupt, fraudulent, and criminal, yet STILL people belong to it by the millions. Are people that stupid?
You’re confusing the church organization with the religion. Not the same thing.
You’re confusing the church organization with the religion. Not the same thing.
If you can still make that distinction, you’re a person than am I.
Yes it is. There is no organization without the religion and vice verse. If people don’t belong to the organization, there is no organization and hence no religion. Yet, people still follow a bunch of hypocrites.
“Yet, people still follow a bunch of hypocrites.”
Yes, that’s the part I don’t get, but I guess it’s hard to leave a group you have grown up with. It’s part of your identity you feel you can’t disown.
I’ve always been a free-thinker, ever since I can remember, so the hold the Catholic Church, or any church, has on people is hard for me to understand.
It’s hard for R.C.s to argue that there is any difference between the church and the religion, given the heirarchical nature of the organization, the demands of obedience, and to crown it off, the pope’s infallibility.
Headline begs the question.
I have been saying forever that womens’ repro rights and gay rights are bound together, and aside from the general gist about the “paternal” thing of it, people always respond to me “Why would you say that?”
Well, A) because it’s true. Domination is a key feature of those who support forced births and gays in the closet. It’s too threatening to Domination-ists to have free women and out gays running around. What good are Domination-ists then?
What I’ve never really gotten around to talking about is about Domination Squared; rape and abuse.
I’m so touch and go with this topic. I’ve recently come out about it in this community, but have never said anything to Mr. B yet. And I’m sitting here in our kitchen, going back and forth from cooking and hanging with Mr. B to blogging.
I am far from a weak person, and the most accurate thing I can say about my own resistance to this is that it’s like shell-shock. It’s like you can’t hear after a bomb goes off, and you know the goddamn bomb went off, and you have the scars to prove it, and everyone talking around you about the stupid bomb is only making meaningless noises as far as you’re concerned.
And for some reason, I still can’t/won’t talk to Mr. B about it.
But what is entirely clear to me is my anger. And you know what?
Fuck defenders of these jerks. Defense of them in the slightest earns nothing but my anger and scorn.
Kelly,
I think you are right. It really can be pared down to domination. Primitive domination.
You’ve hit the nail on the head with the need to dominate concept, Kelly. Have you ever noticed the immense irony in the fact that it’s those who have such a need who are really the weakest among us?
One of the most difficult tasks for prosecutors when faced with an expert for the defense is sorting out the difference between explaining and defending.
I have given expert testimony for the defense in a lot of court actions. I have never given testimony for the prosecution, not be cause I wouldn’t, but because I have never been asked to.
It seems axiomatic that effective intervention requires clearly understanding the facts of the matter, the context, and the dynamics underlying the behavior of concern.
Thus, when I as an expert witness, as I believe I am bound to do, present an accounting of the behavior of the defendant, I am seeking to make the behavior understandable; this is not the same thing as saying it was justified, never mind, right.
I think these distinctions are very important, especially if the end goal is to eliminate the destructive behavior.
(((kelly)))
i guess i missed the post about you coming out. about being abused? if so, i’m so very sorry you experienced that. you’ll tell mr b when you’re ready, if you’re ready. the timing of who you tell and when is all your choice.
There are many good people in the Catholic Church, I’m sure but they have not done anything about this and we have all known about it for years. If they don’t step forward now and loudly and clearly demand the clean up of this mess, they are complicit and will wear this around there necks forever.
If they don’t step forward now and loudly and clearly
Se PJ’s comment @30.
That’s where my parents are – and hanging on to it by their fingernails.
Anticlerical rants like this one are a pointless waste of time at best. They’re definitely a waste of energy that should be put to far better and more productive use.
Anticlerical rants like this one are a pointless waste of time at best.
yeah, you’re right.
Rape, child molestation, and other assorted various sexual abuses merit no consideration whatsoever.
[Edited by Moderator. No name calling.]
[Edited by Moderator. No name calling.]
yeah – all right.
but if it was ever called for…
Is this post about who controls women’s rights or about the Church being pedophilia-ridden?
As written, it’s nonsense that will lead to nothing of use.
Perhaps it’s nonsense to you.
It makes sense to people who have been affected.
~~~Exposing the name of a participant here is a bad idea.~~~
I have no idea how priest-bashing helps abused children or protects women’s rights, but have at it.
Mod: Please remove my first name from Kelly’s comment @ 53. Using my name publicly is against FDL’s policy re protecting anonymity.
You’ve used your full name before in your Circle Park Forum links and letters during the whole HCR cycle of debate this last fall, and here on this very blog. That’s the only reason that I know it.
~~~ModNote: At the request of the commenter. his name was deleted. Whether or not is is public elsewhere is, for this thread, irrelevant.
That said, it was done without prejudice.~~~
I’ve never used my real name at FDL. FDL’s policy re our right to anonymity at this site is clear.
I stopped posting at Daily Kos because others there began to investigate me in an effort to use ad hominem bs to silence me and the mods did nothing about it.
I’m not upset or angry about it. I’d just rather it not happen here.
I’m fine with the edit. In fact I didn’t supply a link for that very purpose, which I could. I didn’t care to further identify the commenter.
What I did hope to elicit was that when it matters to one personally, all of the sudden it matters.
And that’s my point.
“Is this post about who controls women’s rights or about the Church being pedophilia-ridden? As written, it’s nonsense that will lead to nothing of use.”
Funny, I didn’t find it at all difficult to understand this post. Read it again, maybe you’ll get the point if you try a bit harder.
Calling out injustice is a virtue.
Seeking justice is never a waste of time in my opinion, and preventing further injustices is only laudable.
Are we just supposed to be quiet? Believe me, I am being as restrained as possible because this whole thing makes me want to kick furniture. I will not be quiet when children are being harmed especially for the pleasure of men who have promised to be “godly.”
A plague on them.
Just be quiet? Of course not.
If you want to take on the Church for its flaws as an institution, do it. Not sure FDL is the right place to do it, but no one’s stopping you.
If you want to take on our political system and those currently infesting it so as to protect women’s constitutionally protected reproductive rights, do it.
Ranting about the Church being pedophilia-ridden and asking Congress why the Church controls women’s rights is pointless nonsense.
If you think the Catholic Church doesn’t have anything to do with Congress and women’s rights, I would like you to remember the name STUPAK.
What does calling the Catholic Church “pedophilia-ridden” have to do with Congress or women’s rights?
But only a real, on the ground, women’s movement has ever made a difference in how women are treated. Yes we have NOW and NARAL but they are the veal pen as Jane has described it. We need grassroots feminism and activism; its the only thing that has ever made a difference. Appealing to Democrats or men in general to be fairer doesn’t work. We need to end the fear of feminism and remember how good it can feel when women bond to end this regime of male dominance. Don’t forget Cardinal Ratzinger in his role as Grand Inquisitor (Defender of the Faith) declared radical feminism an official heresy. That is a tribute to our power.
empthwheel is upstairs!
The Cass Sunstein Campaign against Open Source Leaks
Catholic church has been working the stockholm syndrome since before there was a Stockholm.
Terrify the children with lurid tales of sin, devils, the tortures of hell and many become attached forever and remain under control
Notice how former catholics almost invariably describe themselves as “recovering catholics” That they do not say “recovered” speaks to the power of the early conditioning tactics.
Heh. Having been raised RC, I threw it off a half-century ago & rarely gave it another thought. I am a kind of cultural Catholic, though. I love sacred music, a lot of the architecture, and some of the paintings.
Yeah, the music is very special.
Those many paintings of the devils are a hoot today. When you are 5 years old, not so much.
Love reading all your rants and then returning to the real world…but the editorialist, whoever she is, has an excellent point…we really should get rid of Nancy Pelosi.
Jeebus, with all the poo-flinging, I thought I stumbled into an Israel-Palestine thread.
Enough poo to go around when it comes to religion.
Kelly, Sorry if I gave you the impression that I’m upset with you. I’m not!
Mod, Thank you for honoring my request. I appreciate it.
Every concern raised in this post is important. My point has only been that the Church’s involvement with restricting reproductive rights in the US and the problem of pedophilia are distinct. Trying to link them like this looks like smear and doesn’t help resolve anything, imo.
I would like to jump in and say this:
The moral authority of the Catholic church to even suggest public policy on any topic has been forfeited. They need to get the hell out of the public policy business, and fast, and tend to their fucking flock.
Ned Resnikoff is upstairs!
Handouts for Me but Not for Thee
RHRealityCheck,
Excellent topic to discuss. as someone initially raised cat-holic, i have grounds to weigh in. In my teen years, after studying the history of the roman catholic institution: the Constantine “miracle”, the Spanish Inquisition, the Galileo fiasco, the secret funding of Nazi Germany, etc, I became eventually a Non-Denominational student of the teachings of Christ.
I only attended Catholic School for one year, (5th Grade) and noticed that the curriculum made the public school system pale by comparison, the Nun’s were the Greatest Teachers, and any boy whom was sent to the “Fathers” for corporal punishment were never quite the same afterward. (the worst I ever got was the old ruler across the front of my hand by the Sister Superior, and yes it hurt like hell!)
I first “noticed” Rep. Stupak at a House Hearing that made the decision to O.K. the irradiation of spinach, in a typical Congressional over-reaction to the “e-coli in the corporate spinach fiasco”, of course radiating spinach basically destroys the nutrients but the consensus was “safety first”.
It seems that Rep. Stupak, in response to the Nun’s weighing in on Women’s Rights, on the Ed Show, was trying to confess to us that the Bishop’s opinions of Women’s Rights are what count, and why would we pay any attention to what a bunch of nun’s think about the right’s of women… Besides the Bishop’s control the MONEY, etc. ad-nausem, but let’s not single out Rep. Stupak on a political system that is corrupt as HELL.
Every time the Catholic Church sticks it’s nose in other peoples business is always a “Galileo moment”.
While we are on current events, the fact that so many Catholic Priest’s have a “penchant” for boy’s, does anyone find it curious that the Catholic Church is fighting tooth and nail to “legalize” Illegal Immigration?
ajmc
Immigrants from Mexico are devote Catholics and would vote “accordingly” whether they went to the polls for Dems or Rebulicans.
True, and possibly MILLIONS of U.S. “Previous Workers”, whom had their livelihood stolen out from underneath them, particularly in the Construction Industry are also Catholics, but are they also “stoopid”?
Hey Dude, where’s my Country?
This is a great diary, Thank for illustrating the corruption of any moral authority the RC church might hope to have, and their utter illegitimacy when it comes to moral issues, especially those revolving around their ‘view’ of others’ sexuality.
I noticed that Anderson Cooper interviewed Sinead O’Connor last night regarding the “evidence” that is now coming out. Who would have thunk it when she was booed off stage for even saying and doing “the unthinkable”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5SRwuo3fOk
Is the Catholic Church too big to fail?
What if all good Catholics went over to the Episcopalian Church? That would do it.
Moral Bankruptcy indeed if they were not bailed out.
I’ve been in the belly of the beast. 12 yrs in Catholic school. That’s why I’m an anarchist and proud of it! The church and state are evil, man. They work hand in hand to cover up crimes against human beings. Without the cover of the state, the Catholic Church would be dead! The Pope is a freakish autocrat, a criminal of the worst sort. The state does his dirty work.
It sickens me that this shit goes on. But nobody is going to stop it.
Scarecrow has a diary upstairs!
Health Care Cost Reform Rediscovers an Old Progressive Idea
I am surprised no one has mentioned Islam and child brides, nor Mormons and child brides, or Hindus and child brides, for that matter.
That is not the topic of the post.
Man, I really don’t understand this sort of post. If you want to attract more people to the progressive cause, attack the politics of the Catholic Church, not the church itself. What can FDL possibly gain from attacking the church? If this is atheist club, count me out.
How can you separate the politics of the church from the church? People, even Catholics, are responsible for what they do. No one, I don’t care who they are, should get away with abusing children. Is the church responsible? You bet it is because this has been public knowledge for years and these pedophiles are still be hidden. They should be in jail. When will the every day, ordinary people in the church stand up and say “enough?”
That’s fine; I absolutely agree that people should be responsible for their crimes and perps should be thrown in jail.
What I worry about is associating FDL with anti-Catholicism. It dilutes the message of the site and really doesn’t gain progressives much of anything.
Put another way, I think most of the things said in this thread absolutely need to be said somewhere, just not here.
Actually, there are those that argue that FDL shouldn’t say bad things about the Democratic establishment either.
The thing I appreciate most about firedoglake is that they do not fear speaking truth to power.
I could care less if valid criticism of this offensive Pope and the Catholic church offends the Catholic heirarchy. Those people would never bestow credibility on a sight such as FDL anyway…they are in league with the GOP right-wingers.
Obama’s problem is that he is so afraid about what the right-wing thinks of him, that his government panders. Many left-wing sites pander out of fear, as well.
Thank God (irony intended) that FDL doesn’t really care what apologists of Catholic church-sanctioned (and protected) pedophilia think.
I guess it depends on what you want out of FDL.
I went to an Iraq War protest a few years ago. I had the dumb idea that we’d be protesting the Iraq War; instead, we were there to do that, Free Mumia, stop the occupation of Palestine, repeal DOMA, etc… and maybe all of those are noble goals, but the only people who agree with ALL of them are people who see protesting as a lifestyle instead of a means to an end. Me, I just wanted to end the Iraq War, and the protest would’ve been much bigger if it focused solely on that.
Let’s face it: we’re losing. Which means we need to focus in on certain winning issues like a laser; health care is one of them (since we’ll be proven right in a few years), opposition to rampant military adventuring is another; but the costs of going up against Catholicism far outweigh any benefits.
FDL needs to pick its fights. This isn’t one of them.
This is a diary, written by a commenter, in an open forum.
What makes that an FDL fight?
Front page, basically an article. If you don’t know anything about FDL and come here that’s what you’d see.
Maybe FDL should put up a disclaimer: We do not endorse talking about religion and politics at the dinner table.
For what it’s worth, this is a seminal diary and not a post on FDL. Diary writers are free to express themselves on a multitude of topics. The views expressed here may or may not reflect Jane’s vision for FDL.
I was trying to make this exact point on this thread yesterday, but had to stop because some were only willing to see the importance of the issues rather than thinking about the best routes to take in order to deal with them.
The fiction that since churches are free to minister to their flocks means they are entitled to turn that ministration into public policy is just that – fiction.
I don’t see attacks on the church – I see attacks on those within the church plying political retribution for ‘political sins’ into power. They are expressly forbidden from doing so. Weak legislators cower in their presence, though.
I’m going to go read a book before my absolute outrage overcomes me.
The Conscience Clauses are direct church influence in our politics. Someone can withhold services or products to another based upon religious reasons but if I were to withhold a product or service to another I could be sued for discrimination. Conscience Clauses are Federal protections for church sanctioned discrimination.
The rat pope gives new meaning to the term Papal Bull.
Alas, there are those who think this diary is a Papal Smear.
As for me…I sorta figured out that the papacy was a joke after learning of the Inquisition.
But the Vatican does have stellar artistic sense.
Lisa Derrick is upstairs!
Saturday Art: Dennis Hopper
Come to think of it, why should I bother in the least with macaqerman?
Was macaquerman raped or abused?
Does macaquerman offer insight, for those who were raped or abused?
Does macaquerman have remorse, if s/he is catholic, for what those people did?
Does macaquerman feel, at all, for those who were raped and robbed of their innocence?
Let macaquerman answer.
Answer me, mac.
where the fuck do you get off demanding that I answer to you about when you’re asking those types of questions phrased in that manner?
Easy, man.
We need to turn down the heat here.
I am one of the children raped and abused by authority in the Catholic Church.
So what if it was long ago, and I only just am dealing with it.
What I will not accept is some other person, who was not abused, to tell me how I will feel.
((((kelly)))
Kelly, I’m not Catholic but I know a few things about childhood sexual abuse.
I won’t detail my personal experiences and those of my family, but I will mention that when I was a fifteen year old boy, I had a friend come live with me and share my room and bed for a year because he was being repeatedly raped by his stepfather after announcing that he was gay.
I’m not entirely devoid of understanding or sympathy.
mac, why not go read a book instead of annoying everyone here? people are outraged about the pedophile priests and about our dear pope and others covering up their heinous crimes. people are also outraged about the influence the catholic prada wearing bigwigs have over our catholic elected officials. what’s there not to get about that? we’re expressing our outrage and our dismay.
what there’s not to get is that outrage isn’t wisdom and if you’re also outraged by people not sharing your expression of outrage, then I’m outraged past the point of reading.
(1) Is it true?
(2) Is it kind?
(3) Is it helpful? – Mac, you might be falling a little short on the third one here. If you’re really outraged past the point of reading, I suggest that you call it a night, rather than get entangled in further arguments with people who are expressing their pain.
1. there are times when the “wisest” response is outrage.
2. what makes you think you know when it’s wise for someone else to be outraged?
3. i’m not bothered by your not sharing people’s outrage. i’m bothered by your picking apart what people are saying when they’re clearly outraged. it’s not “wise” to pick apart what people are feeling. as i said before, it’s annoying. as egregious said, it’s not helpful.
4. looks like you’re not outraged past the point of reading. our loss.
These crimes are very nearly unforgivable, and it is understandable that Kelly is enraged about the whole thing. Someone close to me had a similar experience. Kelly – we’re with you as you try to figure this out.
To all: I hope we can take a step back and think about how to make our points while still treating each other kindly.
Mission accomplished, mac.
You brought out the “my best friend is…” card.
I have nothing else to say.
read it again, Kelly, for what I implied prior to that. I wasn’t showing all my cards.
when i first read it, the implication that i got from that was that the gay friend’s gay relationship was with you.
No, not the case at all.
One more thing, Kelly. I hadn’t read your earlier comments about your personal experiences.
If I had, I would have responded to your comments to me in a different manner.
It’s time to disengage.
In all states of the United States that I am aware of failure to report child abuse is a separate and independent criminal offense. The conversation, so far, has been rather light about this aspect of the abuse of children by employees of the Church. There is the additional difficult question of diplomacy. The Vatican is recognized as a state. How does one separate the acts of church from the acts of state? Maybe the U.S. should send the Vatican ambassador home until this matter is cleared up.
My point has only been that the Church’s involvement with restricting reproductive rights in the US and the problem of pedophilia are distinct. Trying to link them like this looks like smear and doesn’t help resolve anything, imo.
Restriction of reproductive health in the US and all over the world is absolutely related to the sickness of pedophilia in the Catholic Church. It is, as stated earlier, all about domination and oppression. The Church uses its power to dominate and subjugate those with no, or little, power. This includes women and children. Worldwide, not just in the U.S.
And then the Church comes here and “a Father” meets with “a penitent” – coincidentally very publicly, and in a Congressional office – and Stupak confers with the Bishops about how to oppress women more – and the Pope tells women worldwide we can’t protect ourselves from HIV nor avoid having children we can’t support and/or don’t want.
It’s a continuum. And then someone responding to a woman commenter with “cute, but dim” uses the old “put the little lady in her place by condescending to and dismissing her” tactic, which is part of the same continuum.
And if something’s true, it’s not a “smear.” And I don’t have a lot of concern for the poor Catholic Church and how FDL might hurt its feelings by offering legitimate criticism of an institution that hurts women and chidren – not to mention lesbians and gays – on a minute-to-minute basis, all with the tacit support of the U.S. government. Not even support – Congress seeks counsel from this corrupt institution.
I suppose I just didn’t understand that some people think that FDL is anti-Catholic. I don’t think it is, but obviously some who hate the Catholic Church want FDL to hate the Church as much as they do.
The beliefs of the Catholic Church aren’t the problem in the United States. As you yourself point out, politicians like Stupak are the problem in the United States.
It is unbelievable what happens in this world in the name of god. These priests obviously don’t believe in god or they would not be doing something that would send them to hell for eternity. Its beyond belief that our civilization is run by archaic beliefs passed down thousands of years ago. But more unbelievable is the fact that these priests don’t have to answer to the law for their crimes. If any other person committed these crimes they would go to prison. Anyone who knew they were abusing children and actively hid the fact would go along with them. They should not be above the law. Let them go where they can get some of their own medicine.
“Being” controlled is an emotional issue as will as a political issue. It is an emotional issue based on “belief”, not fact, on the side of the RCC church. It is an emotional on the side of women who have been “controlled”. Women don’t “believe” they have been “physically controlled” and “legally controlled”. It is a FACT that they have. See the fucking difference?
And, Knoxville, write a fucking piece at the Seminal and argue your point with Jane and all the readers at FDL as to what political issues should or should not be discussed at FDL.
This piece stimulated more than enough discussion at FDL on whether or not hating the Catholic Church is the appropriate way to effect political change in the United States.
Writing another fucking piece at the Seminal on this topic would be a waste of time, imo.
If Jane thinks that FDL is the appropriate place to rant about the Church rather than about our politicians allowing the Church to inappropriately influence our politics, fine.
Knoxville, then it might be time for you to ask Jane “directly” to take a position on the issue of people bringing the Catholic Church’s or Fundamentalists’ political role up whether they be in the threads or front page pieces. This is not the first front page piece I have seen about the RCC or Evangelical political movements. People are obviously interested or they would not blog it.
My political position has always been: I would much rather Christians address their concerns with their hierarchy than a lesbian and pro-choice heathen like me. Until they do others’ will confront “domination” until the cows come home and some, including me, do not care when Christians say “they are offended”. Many are beyond “offended” in the Church’s political role in suppressing human rights. And saying that is not “hate”.
I’m not disagreeing with your positions on these important issues. The question is what’s the best thing to do about it.
In her comment @ 20 re the Church’s tax exempt status, eCAHN pointed out one angle that I think could work well for activism and could yield results. Catholic leaders have a right to their beliefs, but not a right to lobby and influence policies so long as they represent a tax-exempt institution. Demand that the Church pay taxes or stfu.
Otherwise, shining light on politicians like Stupak who are acting inappropriately would also be a good focus for action. Make sure their constituents know what they’re doing.
There are groups out there already taking on the tax-exempt status. (Google) Might behoove to join with them rather than recreating the wheel. Lawsuits have also already been filed and lost on this issue throughout the years.
I have thoughts about a “direction” to go. Don’t know if it is “the best”. I will write up, cross-post, a piece to The Seminal that I am working on and researching right now.