…But I Tumesce

What does the Pope do when gripped by tumescence, even if it is only of the matutinal, bladder-assisted variety? It is, of course, inconceivable that, being an adult male of the species homo sapiens, he has not experienced it.

In any event, ha! Made you think of the Pope with a boner.

I had never even once been tempted to conjure such an image, but it came to me after hearing of yet another pearl of wisdom from Herr Ratzinger on the subject of marriage and family life. From the Associated Press on January 22:

Pope Benedict XVI told priests Saturday to do a better job counseling would-be spouses to ensure their marriages last and said no one has an absolute right to a wedding….

He said the right to a church wedding requires that the bride and groom intend to celebrate and live the marriage truthfully and authentically.

“No one can make a claim to the right to a nuptial ceremony,” he said….

Benedict said priests had an important pastoral job to discern whether would-be spouses are prepared and able to enter into a valid marriage.

A laudable goal, getting young couples to think seriously about the seven and a half years they will spend together. But is there any less qualified a group of would-be counselors than a contingent of celibate males in robes, barred by vow (not that that seems to have mattered to many of them) from any knowledge of physical intimacy and its place in family life?

There are many Serious Catholic Apologists who would have you believe that the Church’s pedophilia crisis has no relationship at all to the celibacy of its clergy. Noted vein-popper William Donahue, head of the so-called Catholic League, as well as at least one senior Vatican official, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, answer with the vile smear that the problem is that these offending priests are gay. Yet this crisis can easily be seen, if we are to give a moment’s sympathy to the perpetrators, as a product of the general ham-handedness of the clergy when it comes to responding to the appearance under their robes of a stiffened pee shooter, something that, as was pointed out, befalls all male great apes. Confronted by an onset of penile ossification, all too many priests, many of whom were marked for the priesthood before they were old enough to know how to responsibly handle this thorny challenge, have sought out convenient targets to discharge their urges. This usually means children, who are easier to gull and scare into silence.

From such as these—celibates with no knowledge of sexuality and its place in a committed relationship, or alternatively, those who have quenched their tumescence in the orifices of the vulnerable and innocent—the Church would require young couples to receive counseling.

Sounds like a formula for success.

No Child’s Behind Left

Those familiar with the ongoing revelations of widespread sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy will recognize, in the title to this post, Christopher Hitchens’ grim humour (somehow I cannot imagine Hitchens having any other kind). The spectacle provided by the leadership of what increasingly resembles (in addition to whatever else it is) a pedophile cult, as it frantically trims, slices and parses its way through the thicket of accusations of abuse from all corners of the world, might inspire a cringeworthy pity for its fecklessness if it weren’t for all the lives it ruined and destroyed.

It should be clear by now that the leadership of the Catholic Church, expert as they are in casuistry, have been engaged in a vast exercise of jesuitical turd-polishing in the face of its worldwide child sex scandal.

Now from Ireland comes the latest coprolite, another instance of Church lying and evasion.

As reported by the Associated Press on January 18, 2011:

A 1997 letter from the Vatican warned Ireland’s Catholic bishops not to report all suspected child-abuse cases to police – a disclosure that victims’ groups described as “the smoking gun” needed to show that the church enforced a worldwide culture of covering up crimes by pedophile priests.

The newly revealed letter... documents the Vatican’s rejection of a 1996 Irish church initiative to begin helping police identify pedophile priests following Ireland’s first wave of publicly disclosed lawsuits.

The letter undermines persistent Vatican claims, particularly when seeking to defend itself in U.S. lawsuits, that Rome never instructed local bishops to withhold evidence or suspicion of crimes from police. It instead emphasizes the church’s right to handle all child-abuse allegations and determine punishments in house rather than give that power to civil authorities.

When challenged in lawsuits that name the Pope as a defendant, the Vatican insists he cannot be sued because it is a nation state, that thereby the Pope, as head of state, is immune from prosecution, that priests and others who commit these crimes do not “work for” the Vatican, and that the Vatican cannot be held responsible for what is done by these miscreants. Yet this so-called nation state also claims jurisdiction over sex crimes committed on the soil of other sovereign nation states by those it claims to have no power over. The polite term for this is sucking and blowing at the same time, something that, sadly, the Church and the pederasts among its clergy are all too good at.

It is clear that the clerical side of the Catholic Church has never listened to radio station WWJS. If they had, they might have heard these golden oldies, straight from the lips of a certain Jesus of Nazareth, yo: “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me…. [I]f you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

You get the picture: Jesus clearly wanted pederasts to get the cement shoes treatment. This, I submit, gives you an indication of how seriously He would have dealt with this latter-day corruption of the innocents, and of the enormity of the Church’s (including this unworthy Pope’s) response to it, which has been to coddle the criminal and punish the victim, further compounding their sin. Der Kurrent Pope himself has voiced the typical self-pitying response of the Church: “I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign ... to discredit the church.”

Hitchens responds to the response:

On April 10, the New York Times—the apparent center of this “planned campaign”—reprinted a copy of a letter personally signed by Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict XVI]  in 1985. The letter urged lenience in the case of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle, who had tied up and sexually tormented two small boys on church property in California. Kiesle’s superiors had written to Ratzinger’s office in Rome, beseeching him to remove the criminal from the priesthood. The man who is now his holiness the pope was full of urgent moral advice in response. “The good of the Universal Church,” he wrote, should be uppermost in the mind. It should be understood that “particularly regarding the young age” of Father Kiesle, there might be great “detriment” caused “within the community of Christ’s faithful” if he were to be removed. The good father was then aged 38. His victims—not that their tender ages of 11 and 13 seem to have mattered—were children. In the ensuing decades, Kiesle went on to ruin the lives of several more children and was finally jailed by the secular authorities on a felony molestation charge in 2004. All this might have been avoided if he had been handed over to justice right away and if the Oakland diocese had called the police rather than written to the office in Rome where it was Ratzinger’s job to muffle and suppress such distressing questions.

Until now, this Pope has said nothing directly about the role he played in protecting child rapists from justice. Instead, he whines that the shame brought upon the Church is a result of a concerted campaign by those who expose crimes by its clergy, crimes that Jesus himself stated should be punished by throwing the perpetrators into the sea with millstones tied around their necks. Only when the light of day was shone on the Church’s ugly secret did Herr Ratzinger respond, with words of regret crafted to deflect moral and legal accountability, all the while defiantly insisting that the Church continue to call its own balls and strikes.

Until he confesses his own sins, as the Church requires every Catholic to do, until he releases all internal Church documents that would in any way shed light on all cases of child rape by clergy and the actions undertaken to protect these monsters from answering to the law, until he resigns and accepts whatever punishment is meted out by due process of the law, Ratzinger cannot expect anyone to accord him the least deference or respect. Until that time, the institutional Church will continue to be seen as morally rotted out.

Church of the Unclad Schlong

So Papa Ratzo, otherwise known as Pope Benedict 16, has concluded that the Bishop Williamson affair was not handled all that well. By him, that is. After it was pointed out that a simple Google search would have sufficed to tip off the Vatican about Williamson's Holocaust denial, it was revealed that no one in Ratzo's inner circle had any clue about this newfangled intertube thingy. Which gives you a pretty good idea of just how sclerotic and clueless are the people the Pope has surrounded himself with.

Let's charitably assume that these worthies are not counted among those Catholic clergy who have put their penises ahead of their faith, and that none of them has parked his pecker where it is not allowed, in particular, in the orifices of the most vulnerable of the faithful. As I've had occasion to note, that such a collection of robed virgins, not a female among them, is uniquely placed to lecture the rest of the world on issues of sex and family life is one of the more hilarious conceits of Catholic thinking. In comedic terms, it has shown itself to be the gift that keeps on giving, as evidenced by Ratzo's recent swing through Africa. In this case, the only orifice being filled was his mouth, and by his foot.

The Church's record, when it comes to the issue of AIDS and how best to keep it from ravaging Africa, is one of shame. It has lobbied long and hard against the use of condoms, because, as we know from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, it is more important for the Church to ensure that every sperm remains sacred than to save actual lives. This was true with J2P2, and if we had any doubt that it is also true of Ratzo, he put it to rest with his contention that condoms, which have been known to help cut the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, actually make the AIDS situation in Africa worse: "you can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms.... On the contrary, it increases the problem."

One can see the intellectual laziness in this position. Rather than be honest and say, "we know that condoms can help protect against AIDS (although not perfectly), but we have a moral principle that keeps us from accepting the use of condoms among our believers, and therefore we do not support their use for Catholics," Ratzo instead doubled down, disputing what virtually every other person not addled by dogma could see, and claimed that somehow condoms increased the suffering caused by AIDS. Of course, not one single piece of evidence was offered to support this transparently ridiculous claim. Perhaps Ratzo and his perfumed coterie feel that his status as Virgin-in-Chief is sufficient to create this new upside-down reality.

What next from this Pope? Given that he's already used both his feet to fill his cakehole, can we now expect to see him walking on his hands? Given his predilection for pompous inanity, we won't have to wait long to find out.

Making Catholicism safe for Mel Gibson

I would like to preface the following by noting that I was born into the bosom of the Catholic Church, raised by devout Catholics, taught by Christian Brothers. I served Masses, sang in the choir, and was altar boy of the year in my parish. I have experienced firsthand all the good that can flow from people whose faith has informed their lives. I also witnessed, however, the physical and sexual abuse that was often meted out by those who wear the "uniform" of the Church—particularly the brothers and priests—as well as the arrogance that animates the pronouncements coming out of Rome, and out of bishops and other officials who have done so much to advance causes that, despite being given cover by their collar, promote hatred and sow division among people. Although brewed a Catholic and imbued with many of its teachings, I have found it impossible to stay in the Church, since some of what look to be its core values are ones I absolutely reject, in particular its rejection of full membership for women, its homophobia, its misogyny, and its twisted and backward views on sexuality (not surprising, given the ludicrousness of celibate misogynists setting themselves up as experts on family life). Add to that list now its racist bigotry, thanks to Joseph Ratzinger, aka Benedict 16.

Ever since his predecessor J2P2 told Catholics that anti-Semitism was in fact a sin, Der Kurrent Pope has kept a special place in his heart for Jew haters and other ding-dongs who long to return to the bosom of Mother Church, and has now welcomed some of them back with open arms. Last year, when Ben16 relaxed rules to allow the return of the Latin Mass, one of the effects of this was to reinstate the Good Friday prayer that seeks the conversion of the Jews (who we all know "murdered" our Lord and Saviour on the Cross). This reinstatement is odd, given that the Church has, since Vatican II, rejected the notion of collective guilt for Jews for the crucifixion, but Ratzinger seems unbothered by this. Four bishops of a schismatic sect who rejected the Church in the wake of Vatican II reforms and who have referred to both Popes J2P2 (who excommunicated them) and Benedict16 as "heretical"—among them Richard Williamson, a very vocal Holocaust denier who also claims that the US staged the 9/11 attacks so they could go to war in Afghanistan—have been welcomed back into the Church, apparently without having so much as to recant any of their repulsive bigotry. Days after this, B16 promoted ultra-conservative Father Gerhard Maria Wagner to assistant bishop of Linz, in Austria. Father Wagner believes, among other things, that Harry Potter spreads Satanism, and that hurricane Katrina and the flood of New Orleans were divine retribution for the city's tolerance toward sex and gays. He was particularly pleased that in addition to brothels and clubs, the Katrina disaster hit five of the city's abortion clinics.

One can just imagine a boy's night out with the likes of "Bishop" Williamson, Father Wagner, and Hutton and Mel Gibson. Not to mention that Neo-Nazi waste of skin, Ernst Zundel, who found himself enthusiastically defended by Williamson years ago when the latter was in Canada.

Frances Kissling put it best in the New Republic, "It is not merely discouraging or problematic that Pope Benedict XVI is making nice with a Holocaust denier, or mending fences with a splinter group of ultraconservative anti-Semites, it is sick and evil."

What kind of church is it that (or equally, what kind of a spiritual leader is it who) will welcome back into their midst someone who bears false witness about one of the most horrific episodes in human history, who in so doing continues to perpetrate a hate crime? Those who might be tempted to find the answer to this in Joseph Ratzinger's being German should note that German Chancellor Angela Merkel tore a strip off him over this, and that many prominent German Catholics have raised a holy ruckus, so much so that only today the Vatican declared that Williamson would have to recant his Holocaust denial as a condition of his being brought back into the Church. The Vatican also stated that Ratzinger didn't know about Williamson's views before asking him back in. This latter shit-eating statement cannot but be a lie, yet another sin to be added to this catalogue of shame for the Church.

It will take a long time, and a new Pope at a minimum, before the stain of this will wash off the leadership of the Church. In the meantime, those clerics who preach hatred, and all those who enable them in the Church need to be told to go to hell.