Vatican’s Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said that priestly celibacy has nothing to do with it. Gay priests are doing the abusing.
On a visit to Chile, Bertone, dubbed the Deputy Pope, also said Pope Benedict would soon take more surprising initiatives regarding the sex abuse scandal but did not elaborate.
“Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia,” he told a news conference in Santiago.
“This pathology is one that touches all categories of people, and priests to a lesser degree in percentage terms,” he said. “The behavior of the priests in this case, the negative behavior, is very serious, is scandalous.”
Of course pedophilia is the wrong term because most of the cases are post-pubescent boys, but aside from that the Cardinal is entirely correct. My question is then, so what? This debate is not over what the Church is doing to prevent such a abuse from ever occurring again, the media couldn’t care less at this point. The point of this barrage is to somehow discredit the Pope, and by extension the Church, by linking him with old cases.
Don’t get me wrong, I think that in order to truly address the root of the issue the Church has to take seriously the homosexual nature of the problem. But the truth has nothing to do with it at this point. This is a PR battle orchestrated by the enemies of the Church and the Church is losing. True or not, I don’t think the Cardinal’s remarks are particularly helpful in the matter of the day.
The Church has made tremendous strides in reducing the number of abuse cases in the last few years, but the media does not care.
Old cases are where it is at.
If you want to truly fix the problem, listen to Cardinal Bertone. For the rest, the New York Times.
April 14, 2010 at 6:23 am
David – sorry you don't seem to understand the concept of colloquialisms. We're not actually literally scoring points.
And since you are speaking conceptually and I am speaking scientifically, I don't think we are going to get anywhere on this conversation. Finally, last I checked Cardinal Law and Levada are still comfortably in the Vatican. Now who was it who brought them there to avoid prosecution? Was it our beloved Pope Benedict? No. Hmmm. Was it Nancy Reagan? No. Hmmm… Oh, right it was JP II. And say, wasn't he the same one who elevated Cardinal Mahoney? And the rest of the liberal pro-homosexual Bishops in the US? Oh, and wasn't he a big defender and supporter of Maciel Maciel (you know, the legionaries of Christ guy who molested all those children and fathered several out of wedlock when everyone around told him what a monster he really was)?
If you cannot face facts that unfortunately lead straight to the late JP II, then you are just as guilty as any bishop for looking the other way.
April 14, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Early Riser:
I understand colloquialisms fine. What should you have all the fun with them? What I don't understand, is how an attempt to clarify the meaning of a particular word, for someone with whom I would have otherwise agreed, turned into such a combative exchange. Your inference that I would approve of any malfeasance on the part of John Paul II is completely out of line.
For all his gifts, administrative prowess on the part of JP2 was not one of them, by his own admission. The Vatican has been a hive of corruption for centuries, as anyone with a passing knowledge of Church history would know. JP2's prior experience did not prepare him.
So I'm not letting anyone off the hook, but for the purposes of THIS discussion, at THIS time, I am not prepared to engage on this subject, but on the one discussed in this blog post.
The unnatural sexual tastes of some priests has been a problem with the Church since the earliest days. It is an infestation that is bigger than any one pope. At least this one is trying to deal with it.
And I don't take kindly to being accused of anything just because I don't answer the way you expect. Do that again, and I'll appeal to have your comments moderated.
No, I take that back. I already have.
April 14, 2010 at 5:30 pm
David – so, let me see if I can paraphrase you: "Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!"
April 14, 2010 at 5:31 pm
…known troll, or just caught at a bad time?
April 14, 2010 at 10:16 pm
I commend David for not submitting to the compulsion to get in the last word. Regarding the article, the Church can try as it may to defend itself with the truth or instead focus on better PR seeing as the truth isn't "helpful". It doesn't matter. The Church will always be condemned by the world until the end of time. If it's not about pedophilia or homosexuality, it will just be about something else. You'll know something is severely wrong if the day comes (which it won't) when the Church is accepted by most as an upstanding institution.
April 14, 2010 at 10:24 pm
"The Church will always be condemned by the world until the end of time. If it's not about pedophilia or homosexuality, it will just be about something else."
April 15, 2010 at 4:18 am
The Cardinal has let the Bishops off the hook. Hasn't a big part of the problem (whether pedophilia or ephebophilia, hom or hetero) been bishops who have moved these guys from one parish to another and covered up? If bishops had simply followed canon law and not listened to half-baked "therapists" (though I find it hard to believe that they didn't tell bishops to supervise, follow up on, restrict the access to kids, etc. of these wayward priests)we would not be in this mess. Why are bishops not held accountable?