Thursday, April 1, 2010

It Must Be Holy Week!

Throughout Christendom, this is the week of weeks, the celebration of the "fullness of time" when Jesus Christ went to Jerusalem, taught (and, you could say, taunted) in the temple courts, instituted his Holy Supper, and then proceeded to be put to death "for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2), to be raised again on a Sunday morning.

However, something about this week seems to bring out the wackos. This year they are specializing in wacking Pope Benedict, for his alleged crimes vis a vis the priest sex abuse scandals. While not wanting to reduce in any way the severity of these crimes, I have read in the past few days a couple of articles that defend Ratzinger/Benedict from the misinformation afloat out there. They are, in fairness worth a read. At least one may also be eyebrow raising for old, settled, staid Lutherans (I've not been one long enough to be staid, but I'm old and settled).

The first, from Logia magazine is entitled
The dictatorship of relativism strikes back—and goes nuclear
by John Stephenson of St. Catherine's seminary in Canada. He does a wonderful job of revisiting the career of Ratzinger, and gives us confessional Lutherans this rather nice quote:
“The Lutherans are to Ratzinger what the Orthodox are to John Paul: the separated brethren he knows best, and for whom he has the greatest natural affinity.” John Allen, Cardinal Ratzinger, 231
Stephenson doesn't mince words, but I find his article a balancing act against what you'll find in what he calls the "quality" press.

The second article is a more direct defense of the NYT article cited above. It is written by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Again, a balancing read if all you've seen is the Times article and its trickle-downs. He begins:
In our melting pot of peoples, languages and backgrounds, Americans are not noted as examples of “high” culture. But we can take pride as a rule in our passion for fairness. In the Vatican where I currently work, my colleagues – whether fellow cardinals at meetings or officials in my office – come from many different countries, continents and cultures. As I write this response today (March 26, 2010) I have had to admit to them that I am not proud of America’s newspaper of record, the New York Times, as a paragon of fairness.

May your Maundy Thursday be yeastless, and your Easter full of rediscovered joy at the peculiar, surprising story of God-become-man, and his deeds of redemption for us, for us, for all of us.


Anonymous said...

""Doing what is right and just is something anyone can do, from small acts to grand gestures - it matters, it makes a difference, and it is good for you," Howard said, reading the brothers' words. "As we have often said, the best exercise for the heart is bending down to pick up a child." Robert Goodman

Anonymous said...

As the father of male children...but then you wisely chose to home school the guys. You are as innocent as are the boys?

Anonymous said...

AP EXCLUSIVE: Future pope stalled pedophile case By GILLIAN FLACCUS, Associated Press Writer Gillian Flaccus, Associated Press Writer 2 mins ago LOS ANGELES – The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including "the good of the universal church," according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.
The correspondence, obtained by The Associated Press, is the strongest challenge yet to the Vatican's insistence that Benedict played no role in blocking the removal of pedophile priests during his years as head of the Catholic Church's doctrinal watchdog office. The letter, signed by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was typed in Latin and is part of years of correspondence between the Diocese of Oakland and the Vatican about the proposed defrocking of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle. The Vatican refused to comment on the contents of the letter Friday, but a spokesman confirmed it bore Ratzinger's signature. "The press office doesn't believe it is necessary to respond to every single document taken out of context regarding particular legal situations," the Rev. Federico Lombardi said. "It is not strange that there are single documents which have Cardinal Ratzinger's signature." The diocese recommended removing Kiesle (KEEZ'-lee) from the priesthood in 1981, the year Ratzinger was appointed to head the Vatican office that shared responsibility for disciplining abusive priests. The case then languished for four years at the Vatican before Ratzinger finally wrote to Oakland Bishop John Cummins. It was two more years before Kiesle was removed; during that time he continued to do volunteer work with children through the church. In the November 1985 letter, Ratzinger says the arguments for removing Kiesle are of "grave significance" but added that such actions required very careful review and more time. He also urged the bishop to provide Kiesle with "as much paternal care as possible" while awaiting the decision, according to a translation for AP by Professor Thomas Habinek, chairman of the University of Southern California Classics Department. But the future pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the "good of the universal church" ....see link for full article

Anonymous said...

Bruce: Though your heart is the right attitude, in this instance Fr. Gee didn't know best. To paraphrase Pres Reagan to Pres Gorbachev: 'Mr. G. tear down this Blog entry!' No one will blame you for one lapse in good heartedness. Smoking: no child or adult should smoke - especially if they've been given the gift of a handsome face from their parents. Cheers, A. None-of-that-Mouse

Clive said...

Child molestation is an awful crime. Anyone having committed that crime should be punished according to the laws of the land and society should be protected from such people. Covering up such a crime is also a crime. Both crimes are sins.

But there is an angry lynch mob out there, after the Pope, led by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and others that have little interest in child abuse, but every interest in demonizing organized religion. This witch hunt has been going one for a very long time and comes from the left-wing Dawinista anti-God brigade. This is more about their anti-religion, God hating agenda than it is about feeling empathy for the victims of child abuse.

It should be realized that there are worse crimes against children, such as state-sanctioned murder of innocent unborn children, about which the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins say nothing. By the end of his term, Mr. Barack Obama will have the blood of hundreds of thousands of unborn human beings on his hands for encouraging and sanctioning abortion, both in the US as well as abroad. He can change the law to make this legal so that he can appear to have committed no crime, but he has still committed the sin. Where is the outcry? Where are the calls for his arrest?

The largest organized group of pedophiles in the world is comprised of American gay men; the second largest is organized by German gay men. These groups organize trips (vacations or holidays they are called) to Brazil, Thailand etc., where there are brothels of child sex slaves for them to abuse for a fee. There have been television documentaries about this, but where is the outcry? Why isn’t it on the front page of the NY Times?

The British public school system is riddled with incidents of sexual abuse of boys by older boys and teachers. (Incidentally, that is why the expression 'bugger me' is common in the UK). This is well known and documented by famous celebrities such as Stephen Fry. No outcry there either. Oh, except that Stephen Fry condemns the Catholic Church for being anti-gay, in his opinion.

I seem to recall a fellow called Roman Polanski who raped and sodomized an underage girl. Well, it seemed to me that the Hollywierd lefties thought all this was fine and dandy and he shouldn't even be punished. Whoopee Goldberg famously stated, "It wasn't rape-rape". So Hollywood seems OK with pedophiles if they are in the movie business. Where's the outcry?

Of course, I am not after a reply here; this is just rhetorical. I know why there is no outcry. There will be no outcry from the left against the Gay community because it is joined at the hip to the left. The same thing is true for Hollywierd. There will be no outcry from the right either. Why, because they are scared of being labeled homo-phobic.

So, in summary, there are sexual deviants and child molesters in every stratum of society and they are all equally contemptible. However, they are not equally demonized and certain groups will use fake outrage at incidents of child molestation to gain political traction. With a nod from me to George Orwell, for those on the left, it appears that some child molesters are more equal than others. In this case, Dawkins and Hitchens are examples of people using the accusations of child molestation to their own advantage. They are gleefully benefiting from the crime. Judging by the smug smile on Dawkins’ face, he could secretly be glad it happened, because it gave him ammunition to hurl at us poor folks who are suffering from the ‘God Delusion’.

God Bless and let us remember the victims in our prayers.

Anonymous said...

The Roman Catholic Church: Martin Luther identified it correctly as that Whore in Rome. Five hundred years later it is no different. It is a 'religious' organization that denies equal treatment and status for women - among other abuses. It is not the faith but the administrators; those 'men' who claim to be more holy and sacred than you or me with divine rights, privileges and insight. The Roman Catholic Church has nothing to do with God. God is used by the Romans to raise money to support their privileged style of living - while the faithful suffer without adequate housing, nutrition, health care. Gluttonous, vain, venal - that's the Pope and his coterie of 'guys'.


Bruce Gee said...

There are a lot of people named Anonymous, alas, once again commenting here. I wonder: did any of them actually read the references I've cited?
Silly slander.
Thanks, Clive, for some relevance and reason.

Clive said...

Dear Anonymous,

As there is so much hate in your heart, here are some more institutions for your loathing pleasure. I hope you enjoy reading about them and send some deserved bile in their direction. Or is it just the Catholic Church you hate?

Here is a link to a news piece on a girl who was molested in England, but the criminals were gypsies so it was not PC to prosecute. Object for your loathing - The Crown Prosecution Service.

Here is a link to a list of child abuse by Lutherans. Object for your loathing - Lutherans.

Here is a link to a breaking story on child molestation by the Boy Scouts. Object for your loathing - The Boy Scouts. (They seem awfully male too, pretty down on females don't you think? Perhaps some extra loathing would be appropriate?)

Here is a link to a piece about Oprah's school in SA (child abuse). Object for loathing - airhead doo-gooders.

Anyway, I will not go on ad nauseum. The point is, there are many institutions to loath if your are concerned about child abuse. If you only complain about about child abuse by Catholics, you are merely anti-Catholic.

Feel free to have the last word,I am now bored with this topic.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Bruce, at least one of the anonymi read both sides - your defense comes wanting in reason and balance. Your indifference to the safety of children helps to explain why your children smoke and live distantly. And Deborah believes in the Holy Roman Catholic Church? We see the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree - like father, like son. You are a known quantity, Bruce.

Clive said...

Dear no-name anony- mouse,

I am changing the subject from child abuse to you, you big dope. Blog abuse - yes it has a name, unlike you, you retarded no-name coward. And you are not even good at it. Here let me help you out. Rule number one: stop sounding like a moron. If you are going to make nasty comments like that, at least be clever or witty and stop sounding like an inbred Nimrod on vallium. The mous -rat puns are just feeble; drop them.

How 'bout this? This is what I am saying about you - "OK, I am not going to mess with this guy, I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent". See, that is both insulting to you AND funny too! It's not that hard and very entertaining.

Anyway, you were trying to get traction with your smoking and living away from home bile? Isn't it a bit cowardly to try and hurt people anonymously? Isn't that what abusive people do? Hurt children and try and hide? Cover it up, pretend it is not you, er, I mean them. You yourself are being abusive in your actions, so you are a hypocrite, by definition. Do you have any good qualities as a human being, or do you just like to hurt others and then hide? Are you proud of yourself, a little mouse hiding in your hole, running out occasionally to hurt people and scurrying back to hide again? You are quite pathetic. I will pray for you.

Anyway, Hmm...Whom else can we think of who smokes and lived distantly from his parents? Oh yes, Barack Hussein Maoboma- the freakin' president, you bonehead. Why don't you complain about him and his parents? They were communists, by all accounts. He's a lush too. In case you don't read the newspapers, his doctor told him to quit drinking to save his liver. And he can't quit smoking, so not only is he a bad example to kids, he's mentally weak. So why don't you quit it with your double-digit IQ crap, and if, like Obama, you are too mentally weak, don't waste your time on us. Send it to someone who deserves it, some real low life no-name, scumbag, waste-of-space, butt-brained, hate-filled abusive loser, who really, really deserves it! Yes that's right, I mean send it to yourself, douche-bag!!!

Boy, that felt goooood:)

PS If you can't catch, don't pitch. OK I'm done. I'll leave you guys alone for a few weeks and move on to educating other blommentators.

Anonymous said...

"Silly slander." Gluttonous, vain, venal - that's the Pope and his coterie of 'guys'. Those are words I used; they're fact, Bruce, so I'm relieved the dart was not aimed at me. The Whore of Rome is my more temperate use of an historical description of the Papacy. The Papacy is still pernicious but no longer 'Great' though it's damage to the faithful is 'great' in it's scope, now as them. We'll kiss-off this topic. Cheers, One-of-the-Anonymouses