creative anachronisms…

Posted on Thursday 16 September 2010


Benedict, in Britain, Criticizes Abuse Response

Speaking to reporters on his flight from Rome, Benedict also said that the church’s “first interest is the victims. I must say that these revelations were a shock for me, a great sadness,” he said of the crisis that has undermined the church’s moral authority in many parts of Europe and beyond. He expressed “sadness also that the authority of the church was not sufficiently vigilant and not sufficiently swift and decisive to take the necessary measures.”

His remarks showed that the Vatican had perhaps begun to learn from its mistakes after stumbling in its response to the crisis. Asked how the church could restore the faith of those shaken by the revelations of widespread priestly abuse, the pope said: “The first interest is the victims” and the church needed to determine “how can we repair, what can we do to help them to overcome the trauma, to re-find their lives.” He also said that priests who are guilty of abuse had a “sickness” and needed to be kept away from children.
"… priests who are guilty of abuse had a “sickness” and needed to be kept away from children." I want to say something sarcastic like "Duh!" or "Thanks for finally noticing, Dingbat!" I suppose that it would be better to say, "Good for you to see that ‘the authority of the church was not sufficiently vigilant and not sufficiently swift and decisive to take the necessary measures‘" and not mention the fact that in your former life as Cardinal Ratzinger, you was the one in charge of what measures were actually taken or not taken [I guess that was before you were rendered infallible]. But enough of that. I expect his nose has been rubbed in that pile plenty before I came along.

That picture would seem to embody institutions that are of historical interest only – something to be rolled out on holidays or history appreciation week. Unfortunately, in the case of the Pope, there is still a powerful influence in the third world [and some of the first two worlds too].

If they’d just get out of the sex business altogether – celibacy, abortion, birth control, homosexuality , etc. – and back into the business of the care of the soul, I’d change my mind in a blue second…
  1.  
    September 16, 2010 | 7:58 PM
     

    Look at this picture and the language in their relative positions.

    The Queen of England is plodding along in the wake of his Holiness, who looks like the regal one, resplendent in his white dress and cape, while she — at best — looks like a dutiful housewife who knows her place — plodding along two steps behind the man.

    What does it mean? (1) The pope has no manners. (2) He doesn’t know how to treat a lady, queen or no. (3) Maybe all the exalted rhetoric about his infallibility and his being next to god has gone to his head.

    Am I being churlish? Yes. But I have little use for the pope ever since he displayed the worst irresponsibility of all by declaring, on the eve of his trip to AIDS ravaged Africa, that condoms actually increase the spread of AIDS. Unforgivable. How many wives and children of HIV infected men — who don’t want to use condoms anyway — have used that as an excuse and infected their wives?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.