STILL BEATING....

From the New York Times:

A widening child sexual abuse inquiry in Europe has landed at the doorstep of Pope Benedict XVI, as a senior church official acknowledged Friday that a German archdiocese made “serious mistakes” in handling an abuse case while the pope served as its archbishop.

The archdiocese said that a priest accused of molesting boys was given therapy in 1980 and later allowed to resume pastoral duties, before committing further abuses and being prosecuted. Pope Benedict, who at the time headed the archdiocese of Munich and Freising, approved the priest’s transfer for therapy. A subordinate took full responsibility for allowing the priest to later resume pastoral work, the archdiocese said in a statement.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said he had no comment beyond the statement by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, which he said showed the “nonresponsibility” of the pope in the matter. (My emphasis)

And we are to take the statement by the Rev. Lombardi at face value? Not if we attend to the words of Fr Thomas P Doyle.

The priest from Essen, “despite allegations of sexual abuse, and in spite of a conviction — was repeatedly assigned work in the sphere of pastoral care by the then-Vicar General Gerhard Gruber,” who worked under Benedict, at the time Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger.
....

But Mr. Gruber took full responsibility for the decision to reinstate the priest to pastoral work. “I deeply regret that this decision resulted in offenses against youths and apologize to all who were harmed by it,” Mr. Gruber, according to a statement posted on the archdiocese Web site.

There was immediate skepticism that Benedict, as archbishop, would not have known of the details of the case.

Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, who once worked at the Vatican Embassy in Washington and became an early and well-known whistle-blower on sexual abuse in the church, said the vicar general’s claim was not credible.

“Nonsense,” said Father Doyle, who has served as an expert witness in sexual abuse lawsuits. “Pope Benedict is a micro-manager. He’s the old style. Anything like that would necessarily have been brought to his attention. Tell the vicar general to find a better line. What he’s trying to do, obviously, is protect the pope.”

I take no pleasure in writing this post. In fact, I feel sick. I'm no admirer of Benedict XVI, and I never was. I remember him as Cardinal Ratzinger in his role as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, or the Enforcer, as he was known in the US. The theologians, presidents, and professors in the Roman Catholic universities, and certain bishops dreaded his periodic visits to the US to assure that all were following the orthodox line. The list is long of the great thinkers and teachers in the RCC who were silenced or otherwise disciplined by Cardinal Ratzinger. Although I had been out of the RCC for nearly 10 years, my heart sank low when he was elected pope. He was not an unknown. My heart sank for the sake of my many family members and friends who are still part of the church.

As pope his policies and practices have been even worse than I expected. I think of him declaring just last year that married couples in which one partner is HIV positive are forbidden to use condoms.

From CNN:

Pope Benedict XVI refused Wednesday to soften the Vatican's ban on condom use as he arrived in Africa for his first visit to the continent as pope.

He landed in Cameroon, the first stop on a trip that will also take him to Angola.

Sub-Saharan Africa has been hit harder by AIDS and HIV than any other region of the world, according to the United Nations and World Health Organization. There has been fierce debate between those who advocate the use of condoms to help stop the spread of the epidemic and those who oppose it.

The pontiff reiterated the Vatican's policy on condom use as he flew from Rome to Yaounde, the capital of Cameroon, CNN Vatican analyst John Allen said.

Pope Benedict has always made it clear he intends to uphold the traditional Catholic teaching on artificial contraception -- a "clear moral prohibition" -- Allen said. But his remarks Tuesday were among the first times he stated the policy explicitly since he became pope nearly four years ago.

The world and the Roman Catholic Church would be better off if the pope resigned. There I've said it.

Other recent posts on child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church at Wounded Bird are here, here, here, and here.

"KOREAN MAN MARRIES PILLOW"

 

From UKMetro:

Lee Jin-gyu fell for his 'dakimakura' - a kind of large, huggable pillow from Japan, often with a picture of a popular anime character printed on the side.
In Lee's case, his beloved pillow has an image of Fate Testarossa, from the 'magical girl' anime series Mahou Shoujo Lyrical Nanoha.

Now the 28-year-old otaku (a Japanese term that roughly translates to somewhere between 'obsessive' and 'nerd') has wed the pillow in a special ceremony, after fitting it out with a wedding dress for the service in front of a local priest. Their nuptials were eagerly chronicled by the local media.


Could it be? Is the story proof that the slippery slope argument against gay marriage is right? (Irony alert!)

Thanks to Lapin for the link.

HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE!

From The Lead:

GayUganda reports on another hate campaign supported from the US, this one in Kenya. Terrifying and possibly illegal websites from the U.S. call for death to gays and lesbians. They provide posters with photos and addresses of people to target. One of the Americans behind this is an anti-gay and anti-abortion activist and sometime candidate for governor of Georgia.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:

At first glance, Neal Horsley appears to be the merry old uncle of his neighborhood on a cul-de-sac in a middle-class Atlanta suburb.
Irreverent, amusing and animated, Horsley seems for all the world a warm and faithful husband, a friend to children, an iconoclastic conversationalist and wry commentator on the state of the world.
....

A second look reveals an entirely different Horsley — the implacable enemy of homosexuals who promises regularly to "arrest faggots," a man who proposes to use nuclear weapons in a bid for Southern secession, the Scripture-quoting theocrat who wants to force his version of Bible law on American society.

This is the Horsley that rails on about "desecration," "pagans," "lust" and "perverted tolerance."

Read the entire article by Ann Fontaine at The Lead, which includes links to further information on the despicable and quite dangerous anti-gay campaign.

UPDATE: From Box Turtle Bulletin:

A Georgia man who was arrested for making terroristic threats against Elton John this week is also behind a web site inciting violence and murder of gay Kenyans.

The Associated Press is reporting that Neal Horsley, 65, was arrested early Wednesday in Carrollton, Georgia for making a terroristic threat. Atlanta Police Sgt. Curtis Davenport would not say who Horsley is accused of threatening, but it is believed that the charges are in connection with a February 28 YouTube video in which Horsley held up a sign reading “Elton John Must Die” in front of a building where he said John has a condo. In the video, Horsley is heard saying, “We’re here today to remind Elton John that he has to die.”

Horsley is not only calling for Elton John’s death, but we have learned that he is also the operator of a Kenyan site known as ProjectSEE. That web site is responsible for placing posters written in Swahili in parts of Kenya containing photos and identifying information for LGBT people, and encouraging Kenyans to follow the Levitical law calling for their death.

Horsley is a dangerous man. His actions must be stopped.

Thanks to Ann for the update.

NOT TO BEAT THE SUBJECT TO DEATH....

Yesterday, I resolved not to write more about celibacy and the Roman Catholic Church, but I received more than one email message with links to articles in various media outlets on the statement by Archbishop Schonborn, of Vienna, on celibacy and child abuse in the the RC church, and I decided to post on the subject one more time.

From the Guardian:

The Archbishop of Vienna today said priestly celibacy could be one of the causes of the sex abuse scandals to hit the Catholic church.

In an article for Thema Kirche, his diocesan magazine, Christoph Schonborn became the most senior figure in the Catholic hierarchy to make the connection between the two and called for an "unflinching examination" of the possible reasons for paedophilia.

He wrote: "These include the issue of priest training, as well as the question of what happened in the so-called sexual revolution.

"It also includes the issue of priest celibacy and the issue of personality development. It requires a great deal of honesty, both on the part of the church and of society as a whole."

Schonborn is not the first person to suggest a link between celibacy and paedophilia – the theologian Hans Kung has made the same assertion.

A spokesman clarified the archbishop's words, insisting he was "in no way" seeking to question the celibacy rule or call for its abolition.

Archbishop Schonborn is, indeed, not the first person to suggest a link, nor is Fr Hans Kung, because I, and a good many others, suggested a link when the revelations of abuse first became public a good many years ago. Of course, our questions did not make the leap to the media.

What I don't understand is the statement by a spokesman that "in no way" was the archbishop questioning the celibacy rule. If you believe there may be a link between celibacy and child abuse, why would you rule out questioning the wisdom of the celibacy rule? If the intention is to conduct an "unflinching investigation" of the reasons for child abuse by RC clergy, why cut off what seems a logical component of an open and honest way forward in the investigation?

Who is the spokesman who clarified the archbishop's statement? Was the spokesman from the Vatican?

The Guardian continues:

Writing in L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican newspaper), Lucetta Scaraffia said women might have helped remove the "veil of secrecy" surrounding the abuse.

She used the word "omerta" – the Mafia code of silence – to describe the conspiracy involved in hiding the offences.

"We can hypothesise that a greater female presence, not at a subordinate level, would have been able to rip the veil of masculine secrecy that in the past often covered the denunciation of these misdeeds with silence," she said. (My emphasis)

Brava, Lucetta Scaraffia! The all-male, patriarchal culture of the of the clergy in the RCC could, indeed, have contributed to the conspiracy to cover-up the misdeeds, rather than deal with the abuse openly and honestly, which would have meant that many cases of abuse could have been prevented, rather than allowed to continue for decades.

Note that Scaraffia says "a female presence, not at a subordinate level". My question then is, what would the female presence "not at a subordinate level" look like? For instance, what would be the equivalent non-subordinate, female presence to a cardinal?

In the comments, Paul (A.) suggests the picture below in answer to my question just above.

TRUE LOVE

An elderly senior couple were invited to an old friend's home for dinner one evening.

The elderly woman was impressed by the way her lady friend preceded every request to her husband with endearing terms such as: Honey, My Love, Darling, Sweetheart, Pumpkin, etc.

The couple had been married almost 70 years and, clearly, they were still very much in love.

While the husband was in the living room, the woman leaned over to her host to say, 'I think it's wonderful that, after all these years, you still call your husband all those loving pet names'.

The host hung her head. 'I have to tell you the truth,' she said, 'his name slipped my mind about 10 years ago, and I'm scared to death to ask the old crank what his name is.'


Don't blame me. Blame Doug. And I do blame Doug, because he often sends me jokes about old people. Does Doug think that I need to be reminded that I'm old?

SUSPENSE IN SOUTH CAROLINA

From Andrew Gerns at The Lead, we learn that the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina will meet in convention on March 26. I wrote earlier of Bishop Lawrence's pastoral letter announcing that the convention was postponed because requests for certain documents from an attorney for the national office of the Episcopal Church troubled Bishop Lawrence, and he didn't think he should comply with the request.

The resolutions proposed for consideration at the convention, which are now posted at the diocesan website, would make explicit that the diocese intends to position itself with one foot in and one foot out of the Episcopal Church.

Gerns says:

It appears from these resolutions that the Diocese of South Carolina wants to act as if they are an independent body free of accountability to the Episcopal Church, it's governing bodies (that it has heretofore participated and assented to) or her sister dioceses and bishops. They are trying to do what the former leadership in Pittsburgh attempted. Unfortunately, right now there is no Grace Church to hold them accountable from within.

Having declared that they want to isolate themselves from General Convention resolutions and Episcopal Church ministries that they don't like, now they will claim that they do not have to follow any canon of the Episcopal Church that they disagree with. Their resolutions stating that the PB has no ecclesiastical (R-3 and R-4) or legal (R-2) jurisdiction in their space is essentially saying that no one has a claim on their ministry and they are accountable to no one but themselves.

The Special Convention last fall, gave authority to the bishop and the Standing Committee of the diocese to withdraw from participation in bodies in TEC whose "actions [are] deemed contrary to Holy Scripture, the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as this church has received them, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference which have expressed the mind of the communion, the Book of Common Prayer and our Constitution and Canons, until such bodies show a willingness to repent of such actions."

Gerns adds:

Of course there are limits to independence. We wonder if, as outward signs of their independence and self-sufficiency the clergy of South Carolina would like to live without a Church Pension Fund, which depends on all of us. Or if their parishes will make do with Church Insurance, which equally depends on all of us, or if a disaster should strike their diocese if they would refuse the work Episcopal Relief and Development. They should probably stop using the Book of Common Prayer or any hymnals printed by Church Publishing. They know better than the rest of us anyway and probably do a better job.

Yes, indeed! One wonders why the pension plan and health insurance are not tainted by association. By refusing to participate in those programs, the leaders of the diocese could show forth with dramatic clarity that they have the courage of their convictions and are willing to make sacrifices for conscience's sake.

Will the delicate balancing act succeed? Tune in for the next episode of the saga of the Diocese of South Carolina when the convention meets later this month.

MAN OF THE HOUSE

The husband had just finished reading a new book entitled:

'YOU CAN BE THE MAN OF YOUR HOUSE.'

He stormed to his wife in the kitchen and announced: 'From now on, you need to know that I am the man of this house, and my word is Law. You will prepare me a gourmet meal tonight; and when I'm finished eating my meal, you will serve me a sumptuous dessert..

After dinner, you are going to go upstairs with me, and we will have the kind of sex that I want. Afterwards, you are going to draw me a bath so I can relax. You will wash my back and towel me dry and bring me my robe. Then, you will massage my feet and hands. Then tomorrow, guess who's going to dress me and comb my hair?'

The wife replied: 'The feckin' funeral director would be my first guess.'

MORE GOOD NEWS

From The Lead:

The Rev. Mary Glasspool has received a majority of Standing Committee consents needed to confirm her election according to the Diocese of Los Angeles news reports. The bishops' consents are not yet known although Bishop Bruno says he looks "forward to the final few consents to come in from the bishops in the next few days."

Thanks be to God and the Standing Committees. I pray that the SC votes to consent will serve as an example to the members of the House of Bishops who are still undecided.

UPDATE: For those who don't know, I'll add that the Rev. Mary Glasspool is a partnered lesbian in a long-term relationship.

WHY BOTHER?

You may wonder why, since I am no longer an insider in the Roman Catholic Church, I continue to pay attention and be bothered by the church's policies and actions. In the nearly 60 years that I spent in the RCC, there was much that I loved about the church. I'm grateful for my 16 years of RC schooling, where, for the most part, I was well taught. I grew up in a seriously dysfunctional home, alcoholic father, depressed mother. I won't bore you with the details, but my RC school was my safe place, my place of refuge and peace away from the sometimes nightmarish atmosphere in my home. The nuns were, with only one exception that I can think of, good and intelligent women. Under their nurturing, my sense of self-worth and moral core were planted, cared for, and grew. Of course, we were taught a bit of nonsense, too, but on the whole my RCC schooling was a strong, positive force in my life, and I will always be grateful for those years.

The church was a force for good in other ways, such as in my years at Loyola University, I learned the evils of racism. All I knew growing up was racism. Racist attitudes were a given, not questioned, until I encountered the teachings of the Jesuits. The voices for peace in the church were instrumental in turning me against the Vietnam War. I could go on.

The first seeds of discontent with the RCC were sown when I had three babies in four years, and I had to face the fact that I must break the church's birth control rule or, very likely, end up in a mental institution, because I had what I now believe was postpartum depression after my third child, which went untreated, because the illness was not yet named at the time. The decision to use birth control was difficult. Looking back, common sense tells me that the choice should have been easy, but it was not.

Anyway, to make a long story short, I stayed with the RCC through good times and bad, more good than bad, until the sex abuse scandal broke in our diocese. The sexual abuse of children was horrific enough, but that the powers covered up the abuse and moved the priests from one parish to another to continue the abuse for years was the final straw for me, and I took my leave about 14 years ago.

But for the sake of the good that I received from the RCC, I still care about the church, and I want the institution to be better than it is. Just as I call the powers in my own church, the Episcopal Church, to account, I continue to call the powers of the RCC to account because of the many years I made my home there.

I was thrilled when Katharine Jefforts-Schori was elected Presiding Bishop, but I did not hesitate to call her to account when she asked LGTB members of the Episcopal Church to remain in "a crucified place" and when she waited far too long to speak out publicly against the draconian laws proposed in Nigeria against LGTB persons.

In the beginning of his essay, Richard Sipe writes the following words and quotes the words of Thomas Keating:

I am pursuing this discussion in the spirit of contemplative transformation espoused by Fr. Thomas Keating who challenges us to confront the biases that keep us from facing truth when we fail to ask penetrating questions: “Are you so enamored with your religion that you have a naïve loyalty that cannot see the real faults that are present in a particular faith community? Do you sweep under the rug embarrassing situations and bow to the security or esteem needs of the community?”

I end my post with the words.

THIS IS MY STORY