If I get any more news like this, I think my head will explode.
First on the list is an article on how the Vatican is responding to the UN about sexual abuse accusations.
They start off by saying, "In a defiant and provocative statement, issued after a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said most of the Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not pedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males."
Try telling that to the female victims. They make up around 40% of the victims. I guessing this must have happened because they were heterosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent females, right? If the Holy See decides to ban homosexuals to protect little boys, it would stand to reason that they should ban heterosexuals to protect little girls.
Perhaps they should just ban anyone with a penis from the priesthood. Let the women run the church. It would be a smooth transition. They already have the dresses.
The Holy See tried to deflect their responsibility by noting that "...most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant"
In most Protestant churches the members hire their ministers. They are not appointed by the Bishop, who may be playing a shell game with a person who is attracted to sex with an adolescent.
And I can't think of one protestant church that is actually a sovereign nation. Hence the UN's involvement. Which is the good news.
Speaking of the hierarchy of the church, a Roman Catholic bishop from Nova Scotia faces child porn charges. Raymond Lahey has been charged with possessing and importing child pornography.
"Lahey once oversaw a $15-million settlement with people who said they had been sexually abused by priests in the diocese, in a case dating back to 1950."
So that is who is minding the store. My only question, though, is was it child porn porn?
Which brings me to Roman Polanski. The rush to protect a convicted rapist of a 13 year old girl is staggering. 100 filmmakers signed a petition demanding Polanski's release.
Among them Martin Scorsese, who once studied at the seminary and flirted with becoming a priest. I have no doubt he would have become a celebrated Bishop.
And, of course, Woody Allen. What else needs to be said?That is a two for one, truth and punchline in the same sentence.
It would be funny except we are talking about the rape of a 13 year old girl.
This is how it works for the successful predator, either a priest or celebrity. The communities back the predator because it is too much to fathom that they have loved and been touched by the work, of a person who commits monstrous deeds. Better to rely on denial than face that.
I'm a fan of both Scorsese and Allen's films. I'm even in Scorsese's new film Shutter Island. You can see me in the trailer. That's me being dragged on lawn.
And I got the part of a mental patient because I actually have a diagnosis, PTSD, because of clergy sexual abuse.
Can I separate the art and the artist, or is that just another form of denial?
Perhaps Whoopi can tell me if it is denial denial.
Yesterday I went to St Mary's in Uxbridge, the place of my abuse, to support a friend, a brother in arms, at a funeral. The church has a history of hosting more predator priests in the Worcester Diocese than any other parish. Six priests to be exact.
We had coffee after the funeral in the new, and quite expensive, community center. All funds raised by the thriving parish.
I would say it's just plain denial.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
If I get any more news like this, I think my head will explode.
First on the list is an article on how the Vatican is responding to the UN about sexual abuse accusations.
They start off by saying, "In a defiant and provocative statement, issued after a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said most of the Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not pedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males."
Try telling that to the female victims. They make up around 40% of the victims. I guessing this must have happened because they were heterosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent females, right? If the Holy See decides to ban homosexuals to protect little boys, it would stand to reason that they should ban heterosexuals to protect little girls.
Perhaps they should just ban anyone with a penis from the priesthood. Let the women run the church. It would be a smooth transition. They already have the dresses.
The Holy See tried to deflect their responsibility by noting that "...most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant"
In most Protestant churches the members hire their ministers. They are not appointed by the Bishop, who may be playing a shell game with a person who is attracted to sex with an adolescent.
And I can't think of one protestant church that is actually a sovereign nation. Hence the UN's involvement. Which is the good news.
Speaking of the hierarchy of the church, a Roman Catholic bishop from Nova Scotia faces child porn charges. Raymond Lahey has been charged with possessing and importing child pornography.
"Lahey once oversaw a $15-million settlement with people who said they had been sexually abused by priests in the diocese, in a case dating back to 1950."
So that is who is minding the store. My only question, though, is was it child porn porn?
Which brings me to Roman Polanski. The rush to protect a convicted rapist of a 13 year old girl is staggering. 100 filmmakers signed a petition demanding Polanski's release.
Among them Martin Scorsese, who once studied at the seminary and flirted with becoming a priest. I have no doubt he would have become a celebrated Bishop.
And, of course, Woody Allen. What else needs to be said?That is a two for one, truth and punchline in the same sentence.
It would be funny except we are talking about the rape of a 13 year old girl.
This is how it works for the successful predator, either a priest or celebrity. The communities back the predator because it is too much to fathom that they have loved and been touched by the work, of a person who commits monstrous deeds. Better to rely on denial than face that.
I'm a fan of both Scorsese and Allen's films. I'm even in Scorsese's new film Shutter Island. You can see me in the trailer. That's me being dragged on lawn.
And I got the part of a mental patient because I actually have a diagnosis, PTSD, because of clergy sexual abuse.
Can I separate the art and the artist, or is that just another form of denial?
Perhaps Whoopi can tell me if it is denial denial.
Yesterday I went to St Mary's in Uxbridge, the place of my abuse, to support a friend, a brother in arms, at a funeral. The church has a history of hosting more predator priests in the Worcester Diocese than any other parish. Six priests to be exact.
We had coffee after the funeral in the new, and quite expensive, community center. All funds raised by the thriving parish.
I would say it's just plain denial.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Powerful, Skip. My head is about to pop off too. Will it never end?
"Unpleasant truths are friendless" A quote from Yaffa Eliah whose family was murdered in Eishyshok during the 2nd World War. Our world has to cop on to the compulsions of those who can excuse themselves for the rape of children and we have to present the consequences clearly, calmly and consistently. Those who would defend them are no better then they are. Case in point: Catholic bishops!
I find it interesting that the Holy See says it was homosexuals. The church doesn't allow homosexuality. Therefore, shouldn't all the guilty priests be ex-communicated? They have not been. You can't have it both ways folks. I agree it's just denial...a powerful act ascribed to by large groups and much easier than facing the truth.
My head is all 'splodey now too. Good point on Polanski. I'm not familiar enough with the details of the original charge against him, but fleeing the country rather than face the charges in court says a lot about the man, none of it good.
First: Great commentary
Second: Denial by the RCC? Absolutely endless. Is it possible to admire the genius of an artist who has committed evil acts? Absolutely, if you can reconcile that genius and corruption can coexist in the same being. The danger actually is in separating the artist from the art. Remember when Norman Mailer and bunch of movie stars worked so hard to spring Jack Abbott from prison on the grounds that such a great writer should not be prison? Then Jack Abbott within months killed a man and went back to prison. Art does not redeem the artist. Caravaggio was a murderer, among other things. How much of his dark side contributed to his art? How much of your dark side contributes to your art?
Thirdly: On a lighter note-I really don't think it is necessary to keep pushing the Holy See to the floor when he keeps falling on his own face.
Post a Comment