Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Holy Terror
Warning: the following post is... shall we say, inflammatory. It's supposed to be. So, let the games begin...
It all stems from that celibacy bullshit, a restriction on priests allegedly grounded in morality but actually founded on papal greed. You see, there was no requirment at first for priests to be celibate; it's something that didn't come along until at least the 5th Century at the Council of Carthage -- although it apparently wasn't widely observed to the extent that, in the 11th Century, Pope Gregory VII had to put his foot down and remind the priests to stop fucking around.
And getting married. And having sex with their wives. And having children -- which is the crux of the biscuit here. 'Cause, you see, a priest who has children is going to leave his worldly goodies to them, not to the church. It's like the whole fish on Fridays thing (who do you think had a big stake in the fishing business?) -- a supposedly theological requirement that's really based in economics. And yes, you should read "economics" as what's good for the church.
There's no basis whatsoever at all at all for making priests celibate. In fact, here's a little mind-blower for the fundie wingnuts and Catholics alike out there. In the bible, Jesus is referred to as Rabbi. He teaches in the temple. He does rabbinical things. And, guess what kids... at the time, in Jewish tradition, a man had to be married before he could become a Rabbi. Not could be married, had to be married. Ergo, Jesus was married. A lot of scholars think the wedding at Cana, with the whole wine to water schtick, was, in fact, Jesus' wedding. Paging DaVinci Code fans. Although you'd do better to go to the source of that novel, the fantastic Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
But, I do digress...
My point is that the church has created this inhuman condition for its priests: no sex. Another tradition, of course, is that a lot of people prohibited by their society from having the sex they want to have had, have traditionally escaped into the church. Yes, a lot of gay men and lesbians have become priests and nuns in the past for exactly this reason -- it gives them the perfect excuse to not have to answer the, "So, when are you getting married?" question. But... keep in mind that a lot of priests joined early, and had their sex-drives in effect turned off before they were fully adult. Take a boy, lock him up with a lot of other boys, raise him to be a man and then put him in a Roman collar and tell him, "No sex for you", and you've all but created the conditions that will breed child molestors.
(Major caveat: I am not equating gays, lesbians and child molestors here. In fact, a) the vast majority of pedophiles otherwise identify as heterosexual males, and b) I think pedophilia is a sexual condition totally separate from the norms of hetero- or homosexual. You can't put it into either of those categories because it doesn't have to do with normal, adult sexual relations. It's a fetishism that transcends gender because its genesis predates strict gender differentiation, especially in the case of pedophiles attracted to pre-pubescent children. Okay, end of Abnormal Psych Minor rant...)
Anyway, I'm hoping these men in Houston can see this through and drag the lawsuit and the muck and the onus of having looked the other way right to Pope Ratzo's silk-slippered feet, and then shove that subpoena right up his lovely dress and make him choke on it. The powers that be are already trying to manufacture an out for Ratzo on this one:
And, second: this technical detail certainly hasn't stopped our current Administration from going after Saddam Hussein, a head of state. Or, rather, former head of state. How'd he become a former head of state? Oh, rumblings of vague threats from him, phantom WMD, a few lies, an invasion, voila.
And that's exactly what the Vatican needs. Here's the math: Catholic priests for years have terrorized children all around the world by molesting them and silencing them under threat of nasty retribution from the Invisible Cloud Being. The Vatican, in charge of these priests, has covered up the abuse, hidden criminals, looked the other way. The Vatican has been complicit in terrorism aimed at our children, and Ratzo, in both his non-superhero guise as Cardinal Joe and now as Le Pope, explicitly authored the decree allowing that terrorism and abuse to be covrered up.
Conclusion: Pope Ratzo is a terrorist, and the next place the US should invade is Vatican City. He's refused to destroy his WMDs -- pedophile prists; indeed, they're planted all over American soil. It took a hell of a lot less for BushCo. to go into Iraq, and Vatican City would take maybe, what, ten minutes to knock out?
But, of course, that won't happen. Why not? Well, a) Pope Ratzo is a former Nazi, and apparently Nazis are okay with this administration; and, b) The most damning reason of all...
Da Vatican gots no oil, except that useless holy kind. Useless, that is, except apparently for making child molestors above the law.
Three Houston-area men used a letter written by Pope Benedict XVI while he was a cardinal as the basis for a lawsuit against the Catholic Church, Local 2 reported in an exclusive story Tuesday.The letter in question is something I've written about previously in this blog -- and it's heinous. Basically, the church's attitude on sex abuse since the pre Vatican II days has been "don't ask, don't tell, cover it up." The collision of hypocrisy, lies, abuse of power, corruption of innocence and pure, slimy, slithering Satanic evil in this whole case is beyond appalling -- and the abuse itself is a pure product of the warped theology of the church.
The men claim that they are victims of the church's sex scandal and that a letter written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is proof that he conspired to keep claims of sex abuse secret.
It all stems from that celibacy bullshit, a restriction on priests allegedly grounded in morality but actually founded on papal greed. You see, there was no requirment at first for priests to be celibate; it's something that didn't come along until at least the 5th Century at the Council of Carthage -- although it apparently wasn't widely observed to the extent that, in the 11th Century, Pope Gregory VII had to put his foot down and remind the priests to stop fucking around.
And getting married. And having sex with their wives. And having children -- which is the crux of the biscuit here. 'Cause, you see, a priest who has children is going to leave his worldly goodies to them, not to the church. It's like the whole fish on Fridays thing (who do you think had a big stake in the fishing business?) -- a supposedly theological requirement that's really based in economics. And yes, you should read "economics" as what's good for the church.
There's no basis whatsoever at all at all for making priests celibate. In fact, here's a little mind-blower for the fundie wingnuts and Catholics alike out there. In the bible, Jesus is referred to as Rabbi. He teaches in the temple. He does rabbinical things. And, guess what kids... at the time, in Jewish tradition, a man had to be married before he could become a Rabbi. Not could be married, had to be married. Ergo, Jesus was married. A lot of scholars think the wedding at Cana, with the whole wine to water schtick, was, in fact, Jesus' wedding. Paging DaVinci Code fans. Although you'd do better to go to the source of that novel, the fantastic Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
But, I do digress...
My point is that the church has created this inhuman condition for its priests: no sex. Another tradition, of course, is that a lot of people prohibited by their society from having the sex they want to have had, have traditionally escaped into the church. Yes, a lot of gay men and lesbians have become priests and nuns in the past for exactly this reason -- it gives them the perfect excuse to not have to answer the, "So, when are you getting married?" question. But... keep in mind that a lot of priests joined early, and had their sex-drives in effect turned off before they were fully adult. Take a boy, lock him up with a lot of other boys, raise him to be a man and then put him in a Roman collar and tell him, "No sex for you", and you've all but created the conditions that will breed child molestors.
(Major caveat: I am not equating gays, lesbians and child molestors here. In fact, a) the vast majority of pedophiles otherwise identify as heterosexual males, and b) I think pedophilia is a sexual condition totally separate from the norms of hetero- or homosexual. You can't put it into either of those categories because it doesn't have to do with normal, adult sexual relations. It's a fetishism that transcends gender because its genesis predates strict gender differentiation, especially in the case of pedophiles attracted to pre-pubescent children. Okay, end of Abnormal Psych Minor rant...)
Anyway, I'm hoping these men in Houston can see this through and drag the lawsuit and the muck and the onus of having looked the other way right to Pope Ratzo's silk-slippered feet, and then shove that subpoena right up his lovely dress and make him choke on it. The powers that be are already trying to manufacture an out for Ratzo on this one:
A law professor said there are a number of hurdles to suing the pope, most importantly, the fact the U.S. does not allow people to sue a sitting head of state.Oh, where to start with that one? First, show me the state. Yeah, the Pope has this nice little piece of Rome that's been carved out for him -- or, rather, condensed from what used to be the "Holy" Roman Empire (oxymoron alert). But is it a state? If his subjects comprise the world's Catholics, they're pretty spread out and don't comprise a state on their own. Meanwhile, is Vatian City really a "state" as such? I don't think so. It's a district of Rome.
And, second: this technical detail certainly hasn't stopped our current Administration from going after Saddam Hussein, a head of state. Or, rather, former head of state. How'd he become a former head of state? Oh, rumblings of vague threats from him, phantom WMD, a few lies, an invasion, voila.
And that's exactly what the Vatican needs. Here's the math: Catholic priests for years have terrorized children all around the world by molesting them and silencing them under threat of nasty retribution from the Invisible Cloud Being. The Vatican, in charge of these priests, has covered up the abuse, hidden criminals, looked the other way. The Vatican has been complicit in terrorism aimed at our children, and Ratzo, in both his non-superhero guise as Cardinal Joe and now as Le Pope, explicitly authored the decree allowing that terrorism and abuse to be covrered up.
Conclusion: Pope Ratzo is a terrorist, and the next place the US should invade is Vatican City. He's refused to destroy his WMDs -- pedophile prists; indeed, they're planted all over American soil. It took a hell of a lot less for BushCo. to go into Iraq, and Vatican City would take maybe, what, ten minutes to knock out?
But, of course, that won't happen. Why not? Well, a) Pope Ratzo is a former Nazi, and apparently Nazis are okay with this administration; and, b) The most damning reason of all...
Da Vatican gots no oil, except that useless holy kind. Useless, that is, except apparently for making child molestors above the law.
Comments:
Post a Comment
