Boy, that claim can generate all sorts of punchlines. Seriously, can this church claim legitimacy of any kind after becoming the world’s premier professional pedophile protection racket? Michael Airhart:
U.S. Catholic bishops and CNSNews.com declared today that they had “refuted” the Ninth Circuit federal ruling on the constitutionality of Californians’ equal access to civil institutions such as marriage.
Cardinal Francis George, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), rejected [Judge Vaughn] Walker’s claims, stating that “no court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”The Aug. 4 ruling, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put an emergency stay on this week, stated that, “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
And look at this haughty crap – trying to deny the church is homophobic.
Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the bishops, said in an e-mail to CNSNews.com that “Judge Walker, in his decision, backed his bigotry with errors, including the misstatement that the ‘Catholic Church views homosexuality as sinful.’ The fact is, the Catholic Church sees homosexuality as a condition, an inclination in a person, something not intrinsically sinful.”According to the bishops, Catholic autocrats are unbigoted for imposing their antigay prejudices upon all the civil institutions that couples of all faiths or no faith may require – and meanwhile, the bishops say, courts that defend civil law and constitutional equality are bigoted for rejecting false Catholic claims to authority over civil society and for rejecting Catholic false distinctions between sin and supposedly-unholy-disorders-that-cause-one-to-sin.



37 Comments



So now they admitThat they want to override the US Government?
They weren’t singing that tune for JFK, were they?
I hate to belabor the point, but they lie.
They wanna have something to ‘turn the other cheek’ over, I’m afraid they’re going to have to make it personal. Only problem is, I’m a big girl now.
Which may not be their speed.
How old is this guy?
How old is he?
Clearly, this must actually be the same guy who authored the trial court decision in Loving v. Virginia, you know…
Yeh, you know…
THAT trial court decision?
He must be over 100 by now.
*practicing neck cracks*
I understand that according to them I’m ‘objectively disordered,’ right?
Hey, they like Mel Gibson, right?
I’m sure we could find a place to, you know, send out some of these champions of ‘masculinity,’ and, you know, like, see what ‘nature’ has to say about it.
Five to one they don’t dare touch me as an adult American citizen.
Seems the rest of the world’s catching on to that.
Our turn.
Except for the fear factor,I do not understand how anyone who has read about the exploits of the Catholic Cult over the past few years can justify continuing to support this organization. However, the fear factor is understandably huge. When you’ve been brainwashed from infancy that only good, obedient Catholics will go to heaven, it takes a lot of courage to even consider that this is so much BS.
I feel sorry for the Catholic laity. I despise those who set & enforce the hateful, lying, immoral policies.
So the Catholic Church is dictating to the US court system?And they get millions of dollars in tax breaks for these undemocratic, dangerous and potentially treasonous assertions?
The RC Church.No churches within 200 yards of a playground. Outlaw catholic schools.
TAX ALL THE CHURCHES.
Can we declare thema hostile foreign precense now?
Methinks there was a misquote.I’m pretty sure the Catholic Church refudiated Judge Walker’s claims.
No Discrimination“no court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”
So they’re not bigotted – because they don’t discriminate except on the basis of “sinful behaviour” rather than the way Nature made people. Except…..
One girl’s recent experience at a Catholic shelter for homeless youth.
Hmmm…. but that’s what one Catholic institution did. Surely the Catholic Bishops would not approve of such bigotry.
That was from a letter by the Catholic Bishops condemning ENDA – justifying why they were against the Trans-Inclusive version, when they had been neutral when it came to the GLB-only version.
Exactly, and I do mean Exactly, the same arguments used by the KKK and others to object to civil rights legislation for African Americans. “Privacy” and “Associational Rights”, concepts embodied in US law rather than the teachings of the Church. They didn’t even pretend that it was based on religious belief, or “sinful behaviour”.
Not only are they bigots – they’re hypocrites, using whatever arguments they can dredge up to “justify” their bigotry. And not even attempting to hide that.
I just want to see a natural marriage.I’ve yet to hear of any sort of wedding ceremony being conducted in nature, so I’m curious how the Catholic Church is aware of these marriages and I’m not.
Only kidding, of course. The whole idea – atleast religiously – of “natural law” is so completely moronic, it’s astounding that people see it as a legitimate study.
Ya know…Time and place was when marriage happened without anyone to oversee them save the family members.
No priests.
Then the Catholic Church said that unless a priest was there, that the marriage never happened.
Caused quite a stir back then, what with the catholic church redefining marriage and all.
Makes ya wonder…
ReminderThe very same USCCB is currently backing the RI4A semi-comprehensive immigration reform bill that would institute the Real ID program fully as a part of it.
This same group has gay folks in positions of high authority within the coalition — which is funded, heavily, by the catholic church as part of it’s mission to meet the will of their God.
This is the same group that came to NYC earlier this year for a meeting with Bloggers (and that Pam was unable to attend due to a conflict). And asked for the support of the LGBT community for the bill, but would not officially come out and support UAFA, because to do so would mean that the group mentioned above would pull out and the financing would fall through. Ergo — get on your bus and drive beside out to help knock the gate down, but then stay outside so we can back over you on the way out.
Indeed, they oppose any sort of immigration reform that might specifically speak to LGBT people or enable even a remote possibility of recognizing relationships (not even going to get to marriage here).
They would, then, pull out of an effort to change a law, when nature never created countries, and abandon their own mission, just to avoid even possibly supporting LGBT issues.
And they want to say that they aren’t prejudiced? Only prejudice would lead to such a thing, for only prejudice is that irrational.
My favorite “natural law” argument…Birth control — specifically the “pill” — is condemned by the Church because it is not “natural” and goes against “natural law.” However, heart transplants are perfectly OK (along with any other organ and joint transplants).
Hmmmm…when was the last time you saw a heart or hip transplant occur naturally or in nature?
Exactly!!Just remember this fact: the church has bitterly opposed all forms of advancement in technology and advancement in the sciences!
Movable type, sun-centered solar system, earth a minor planet on the edge of a galaxy, illnesses caused by germs and viruses rather than curses and god’s disfavor… the list is endless in addition to heart transplants (kudos to you for remembering that little factoid, CompuChick!!).
Largest Criminal Conspiracy in HistoryThat’s all we need to remember and repeat when faced with my former church’s condemnation. Send Bernard Law back to the US for proper arrest, trial, conviction and sentencing and maybe we’ll start thinking about considering you moral again. Open all the records on all the obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting rapists, defrauding parishioners and conspiracies to commit all those acts and maybe we’ll stop considering you fools.
Not to mention…feeding tubes, which are “morally obligatory.”
I have already declared them enemy combatantsEspecially NOM and that horrible Maggie Gagger and her cabal of pedophile protectors.
What’s wrong with you?You can’t bring facts and history into this disagreement with the RC Church. That’s not playing fair!
And Potted Plants
The idea of acting contra naturam is derived from Stoic philosophy.
When Seneca described the concept, to clarify for his audience he used as examples potted plants and having banquets after sunset, which keeps people awake at night when they should be sleeping (see Epistle 122).
As Jack Winkler points out in “Laying Down the Law: The Oversight of Men’s Sexual Behavior at Athens,” the idea of appealing to ‘nature’ to regulate sexual behavior in terms of ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ did not begin until the Enlightenment period. Acting “against nature” for the Stoics meant acting contrary to a highly specific cultural mode of determining a life of unadorned simplicity (‘simplicity’ of the type available only to a leisured class).
The Church’s claim to be acting in accordance with an unbroken tradition reaching back to the time of Jesus is nothing but unadulterated self-serving bullshit.
The Catholic clergy is between a rock and a hard place and running scaredHere’s a potentially controversial statement (maybe not to this audience, but it would be in society at large). Most Catholic priests are gay. Statistically speaking, the Pope is probably gay. At the very least, the Pope having lived his whole life in and around the Catholic church as an insider knows damn well that the majority of the hierarchy of his organization and the people who make it work are all gay.
What makes me say this? Two things. First, the facts and the implications that can be drawn from it. The majority of incidents of reported pedophilia among priests have been homosexual in nature. This provides us a little window into the sexual orientations of people who are superficially celibate. Pedophiles are heterosexual and homosexual, and molest heterosexually or homosexually, in the same proportions as society as a whole. If the Catholic clergy were a normally distributed cross section of men, you would expect these pedophilia incidents to be about 90% heterosexual. They’re not. They’re more often homosexual than not.
Second is a deduction based on culture. The clergy is required to live celibately, and have been required as such for many centuries. Consider the situation of a young gay man living in a Catholic family in a Catholic community. He knows with absolute certainty that there is no way his family, his church, or his community is going to tolerate him living as gay man and having a relationship with another man. Further, his family, especially his mother, has high expectations of him to marry and have children. His mother is always trying to set him up with nice girls in the village around him. And they are nice girls. He is running out of excuses to avoid these relationships. He really does not want to marry a girl. What are his options? Enter a sham marriage? Face social stigmatization and family disapproval from living alone? Risk death from being discovered having a relationship with a man? Oh but wait! There’s the priesthood. By becoming a priest, he will be required to be celibate, so he doesn’t have to marry a woman, he will gain a position of high status in the community, people will look up to him, he will have employment for life that does not require hard labor, and he will bring honor to his family. How can he saw no?
The clergy has been a refuge from marriage for young gay Catholic men for centuries. So much so in fact that I submit that most members of the Catholic clergy are gay, and this has been true for a very long time. Today, the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church is rooted in the stigmatization of homosexuality coupled with the celibacy of priests driving young gay men to enter and operate their organization.
But the world is changing. There are far more options available to young gay men today. There are places they can go to live where they will be accepted. They are accepted more and more in communities and cultures all over the world. Families are becoming accepting of their own gay children. The result: fewer and fewer young men are entering the priesthood. The Catholic church can’t get enough priests to meet the needs of their congregations. They’re in deep trouble.
Their options? One would be to lift the celibacy of priests. There is nothing in scripture that demands it. The problem is that most priests now are gay, and if they lift the celibacy requirements for priests, priests would go from an expectation of celibacy to an expectation of marriage over night. Any parish priest would be seen as the supreme “catch” for any single woman in his congregation. These men would be pursued by women left and right. They would be right back in the situation they entered the priesthood to escape in the first place. If they lifted the celibacy requirements, most of the priests they have now would just leave the clergy. It would decimate the church. Further, the people who would make the decision to lift celibacy are the very church leaders who have benefited from it their whole lives. They’re not going to change that. Power does not vote to take away what it is important to it personally.
The other option. Try to maintain the status quo. Try to dig in your heals and stop the progress of history. Try to stop any attempts to raise the social acceptability of homosexuality, give young gay men options to live as gay men, and to maximize the social stigma of homosexuality. Nothing is more corrupting than the desire to hang on to what you got. Further, no one publicly hates or discriminates against gays more than a closeted gay.
The Catholic church is dying. To save it, the church leadership has to give up everything they’ve built for themselves. To save what they have built for themselves, they have to hold down and demonize homosexuality. They are desperate, and they are watching their world crumble all around them.
Oops. Sorry.My Bad.
I am absolutely sure it will happen again, and will do everything I can going forward to make sure that it does.
Tell that to Robert Georgewho has built his whole career on that non-sense.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._George#Philosophical_views
One of Maggie Gagger’s mentors and one of our tormentors.
According to the CDC statistics95% of the sexual abuse of children is committed by heterosexuals.
A few questions
Majority? As in 50%+1? Or as in 95%? What are the numbers? And, if you have the numbers, what are the numbers for the women who were molested as children, but have never reported it? I know, you don’t – can’t – have those. So we really have nothing here.
This strikes me as projection, on an epic scale.
I’ll be honest, and say that I responded because your initial premise bugs the shit out of me.
I’m gay. I have sex with MEN. In the absence of men, I would not consider male children a substitute. Your premise as at least offensive as hell, and at most fatally flawed.
An excellent pointIf God wanted people kept alive, He wouldn’t be trying to push them through Death’s door.
A couple answersIt should be noted that my post was a comment in response to an article. It was not a fully fleshed out and researched essay. It took maybe 15 minutes to write. So, if you want to challenge the claim of most incidents of priest molestation to be toward boys, you may indeed have found an Achilles tendon in the argument. Since it’s obviously something you feel much more passionately about than I do, why don’t you do the research to prove the point wrong.
As for your last point, the distinction may be semantic. My position is that gay is what you are, not what you do. Gay is a state of mind, not an action of the body. You can be completely celebate and gay. You may disagree with that definition if you want, and I respect your right to hold a different opinion on that. However, in order to understand my post it is important to understand that this is the position I am coming from. So, a priest having sex with boys does not make them gay. Your having sex with men does not make you gay. The priest wanting to have sex with males makes him gay, and his wanting to have sex with children makes him a pedophile. Your wanting to have sex with men (exclusively) makes you gay. It’s the desire, not the act. Gay is what you are, it’s not what you do.
As for your being offended by my premise, I’m sure I’m the very first person to have ever done that and this is a new experience for you. Don’t worry, it’s not dangerous and you will live through it.
I’m going to mull this over, and I’ll probably . . . . . . comment on this at my own blog.
But in the meantime, all i can say is that they start with wrong pemises and just continue down the slope to inane irrelevance.
I’vealmost gotten to the point of checking on other thengs the Catholic Church hierarchy condemns, on the likelihood that whatever it is, is actualy good.
Prime example of this? Liberation Theology. I am going to have to re-read Gustavo Gutierrez’ A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll 1973, in English). If Joe Ratzinger didn’t like it, it has to be good, right?
So you’re admittingthat the whole thing was a pile of shit you pulled out of your ass and posted up for the world to see.
Well aren’t you just the talented little angel? Oh, and go fuck yourself.
Every bit as muchas you are admitting that in the 37 minutes between my last post and yours, you looked into the numbers and they proved my point, so instead of being man enough to admit it, you just came back and attacked me personally.
YeahSince it’s your asinine argument, it’s your responsibility to prove it, not mine to disprove it. And I guess you don’t have a job, but I do, so it’s not like I don’t have anything else to do besides wait breathlessly by my computer to see what total crap you’re going to post next.
Illogical, offensive and arrogant. There’s just no end to your talent, is there?
catholic nonsense . . . infallibility, ipse dixit (because I say so), etc.Time for some more Thomas Jefferson quotes.
Regarding the Declaration of Independence:
“May it be to the world what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves.”
and:
“the general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
This ain’t my first rodeo kidYou don’t like something I say, so you hysterically attack every little thing. If I go off and provide proof of any of your challenges, you’ll challenge the sources. If I verify the sources, you’ll go find something else. When all else is exhausted, you’ll say “Fuck you!” which is just an Anglicized form of an ancient Latin expression that means, “I’ve run out of things to say.” Oh wait! You’ve already said that. In the end, it was never a serious debate of the merits of the argument. It was just your ego thrashing around to deny something you don’t like. No matter what I say, no matter how much proof I provide, no matter thoughtfully and thoroughly I back up every point, every fact, every detail, in the end you’re going to reject all of it because your ego has been wounded and storm off with a grandiose but utterly meaningless, “Fuck you!” You are not worth my time.
If you had approached the matter with a mature demeanor, if you had asked serious contemplative questions, if you had pursued it as a serious inquiry into the truth, I would have been happy to engage in the debate with you. You think it’s my responsibility to prove my point? It’s even more your responsibility to be someone worth having my point proven to. A histrionic child is not worth arguing with. First grow up, then we’ll talk.
Good night little words on a screen. I’m through playing with you.
Poor youYou make stuff up, post it, can’t defend it, and have to assume a superior attitude to pretend it wasn’t just so much steaming horseshit when you get called on it. Epic fail.
But, hey, it’s not a total loss. At least you learned that when you vomit out Vatican talking points and post them, people are reading what you write.
The reason so many of the abuse casesare “homosexual in nature” is because priests have much more access to boys. It’s a rare child molester that cares about the gender of his victim.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s rare they care.I found this on the subject of pedophile preference in the sex of their victims at http://pn.psychiatryonline.org…
So there does seem to be a specific preference demonstrated by individuals. As for a specific coorelation between the general sexual orientation of the pedophile and the sex of their victim, one might think it’s a reasonable parallel, but it’s possible that it might not be. I’m having a hard time finding any study that even wants to touch the subject. It might be too explosive.
I did find some basic statistics at http://childprotection.lifetip… like:
and:
While not definitive proof, having been married suggests a high incidence of heterosexuality among pedophiles (at least it will until we get marriage equality). Reading up on the subject today, it sure sounds like there’s a lot of reasons that pedophiles might not get married at all, with an array of comorbidities, so I’m surprised it’s 2/3.
Given that 3/4 of victims are girls, it does not suggest that there is rarely a preference of the sex of the victim. Given that there are some that like girls, some that like both, and some that like boys, many of the male victims may be a result of a bisexual preference in the purpetrator. Male purpetrators have equal access to boys and girls when it’s within their own family , and probably greater access to boys when outside of their family (since men are more likely to supervise boys in community based activities like sports and scouting). If there were no perference, I would expect there to be more boy victims than girl victims. I don’t think the numbers support the claim of molesters rarely having a preference.
Not all child molesters are true pedophiles.True pedophiles have no true sexual orientation, which is described as the gender of the adults one is attracted to. Most child molesters get off on the power aspect more than the sex aspect. So conflating all child molesers only clouds the issue.
hmmWhy do Pedophiles think they can tell homosexuals how to live their lives? Catholicism isn’t even a real religion in my opinion. Ritualistic nonsense, purgatory and temporary punishment for sick behavior, not to mention the damn hat fetish.