It's like the Holocaust, no really

[kinvore.livejournal.com]

Wow. Pope Benedict's personal preacher Raniero Cantalamessa created a firestorm by comparing the scrutiny and pressure the Catholic Church has been experiencing lately in their molestation scandals to the "more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism."

This just further illustrates why the Roman Catholic Church will never take real steps to stop abuse. They aren't concerned with the children that are getting raped, they're only concerned with their own reputation. They see themselves as being wrongfully attacked, and never does it enter their minds that their actions (and lack thereof) contributed to what they are enduring now.

I hope the pressure never lets up but sooner or later the mainstream media will give up on it, only to flare up again down the road after more children have been raped, and the cycle will repeat again.

Pope Benedict, the only way this is going to end is if you take real steps towards stopping abuse. First of all stop protecting priests who molest children and treat it like the horrific sin (and crime) that it is. Throw them out of the Church and/or turn them in to law enforcement.

To help prevent this from happening as much you're going to have to allow priests to marry. Stop making excuses, stop covering up, and make a real effort to end this abuse.

Comments

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Homosexual acts are legal in Vatican City, and the age of consent is 12. Being a sovereign nation, you'd think they could fix at least those parts.

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

Yeah they should totally get with the times and ban gay sex. That'll take care of the pedophiles.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

You don't see an issue with an organization saying X is a super-mega sin, then having the nation that organization that controls not outlaw X?

[ryder-p-moses.livejournal.com]

I'd say it was a promising sign that at least someone was still up on the distinction between the domains of man and the domains of God, but I'm probably being too charitable.

Pretty much everything from cursing to masturbating is regarded as a sin (all minor venial sins just like gay sex is, you're thinking of Baptists or something), and no I have no problem with any government opting not to punish people for them, that's be terrible!

I'm not sure what your point here is or why you'd think anything else would even be an acceptable answer, really.

[a4honor.livejournal.com]

"The church should never hold a sword" -David Barton

simply explained, the church should never have the power to enforce anything or control the military in any way. That is actually the true definition of(wait for firestorm) "separation of church and state"

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Tell that to the first 1600 years of Church history.

And while that may have been the *original* definition, it's certainly evolved to mean something different and more relevant.

[a4honor.livejournal.com]

Or it evolved in to a tool to manipulate policy. It does not mean that we rob children of their ability to pray over their lunches at school, if they want to do it out loud. But we do that anyway. For it to evolve into something other than what it meant when Thomas Jefferson used it in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Church, would mean that it is acceptable to change the definitions of an older writing due to the fact that we think it should be a certain way. Which would incur the complete invalidity of any document meant to protect us, or any wisdom found before our time.

I agree whole heartedly about the Church during the Middle Ages, I don't know that it encompasses 1600 years however.

[a4honor.livejournal.com]

You know, morality isn't based in Law. A law on the books that prohibits murder will not decrease murder, punishments help but do not completely erase the problem. Morality comes from God. I think the Vatican realizes this, but apparently does not have men who are congruent with the moral code necessary, but writing laws can fix that either.

[ex-restless.livejournal.com]

Why do you think that because the Church recognizes something as a sin that they should also seek to make it criminally liable in order to be consistent? Do you not recognize the difference between criminal law and moral law?

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Why should the Vatican make any laws at all?

[ex-restless.livejournal.com]

They were required to as part of the 1929 deal with Italy which made the Vatican its own state. Part of that deal just required that they import Italian law of that time.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Apparently they've been adopting all new Italian laws up until 2008, when they stopped because of abortion law issues. If abortion is important enough to fudge the treaty on so they can stand by their principles, why don't they do the same for homosexuality?

[ex-restless.livejournal.com]

Because abortion is a human rights violation against another human being. Consensual sex between two persons can be sinful, depending on the context, but that doesn't make it a human rights violation.

Also, they haven't adopted all of Italian laws since that time, though they often do just because the Vatican doesn't spend a lot of time, for obvious reasons, dealing with issues of criminal law within the state. Something like the age of consent, for instance, would have no cause to ever be brought up because there are only adults living in the Vatican.

[ex-restless.livejournal.com]

And there wasn't any fudging of the treaty, btw. The treaty required that the Vatican adopt Italian laws in 1929, but it didn't require that the Vatican continue to change their laws with Italy. So there was no fudging.