Miscellanea Agnostica

Note: See below for a “good-news update” about this case.

I’ve already blogged about the reprehensible defense offered up by the archdiocese of Hartford, facing a court case over one of its priests who abused children — which is that the youthful victims “liked it” so it was OK and no big deal. Never mind that a minor “liking” sex with an adult is a legitimate defense. Never mind that the victim “liking it” at the time it happened makes it acceptable. Oh no. Those little facts carry no weight, in the eyes of the achdiocese. The Hartford Courant reports on the latest chapter in this bone-chilling judicial proceeding (WebCite cached article):

A psychiatric expert called to testify Tuesday in Superior Court by the Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford disputed an earlier diagnosis that an adolescent victim of sexual abuse by a priest would likely suffer from mental health problems for the rest of his life.

Dr. J. Alexander Bodkin testified that the most significant mental disorder suffered by the victim — depression — was not the result of the sexual abuse he experienced in the early 1980s, but is the result of stress caused 26 years later by litigation associated with the abuse.

This is truly precious. This “expert” is saying that the victim’s problem is not that he was abused by a priest … rather, it’s that he pursued a case against the Church over the abuse.

That’s right, folks. Bodkin is saying that the victim wouldn’t be having any trouble, had he simply “accepted” the abuse, kept quiet about it, and never made any attempt to hold the priest who abused him or the archdiocese of Hartford responsible for it.

Really. That’s what this guy said. Yes, this … from a “hired gun” working for an organization that dares set itself forth as an arbiter of morality and ethics.

In the words of every informercial you’ve ever seen, though … “But wait! There’s more!”

In fact, Bodkin testified that Doe’s experiences with Ferguson — which included being given pornographic materials and alcoholic beverages when he was 13, 14 and 15 years old — was a “positive relationship.”

“He was eager to keep up the relationship,” Bodkin said. “This was his choice. He was eager to see Ferguson. From his perspective, this was something he was looking forward to.”

So you see, because Fr Ferguson — an adult, and a clever manipulator — was able to convince a minor child, at that time, that having sex was just fine, then no harm could possibly have befallen the victim. It was all terrific fun!

Yes, that is precisely what the archdiocese’s “expert” said at trial.

Of course, Dr Bodkin at least made an attempt to distance himself from his own downplaying of the damage:

“It ain’t nice. I’m not approving any aspect of it,” he said. “But it is not the type of thing that is prerequisite to long-term mental illness, expecially 26 years later.”

So while Dr Bodkin claims he doesn’t “approve of any aspect of” child sexual abuse, he nevertheless doesn’t see that it can cause any harm. One wonders, then, what logical reason he’d have for saying he doesn’t “approve of any aspect of” it? If it causes no harm to a child, then there would seem to be no rational reason for him not to “approve of” it.

Just goes to show that you can pretty much find any “expert” who will say or do just about anything one wants him/her to do, if the check one writes has enough zeroes in it. (And yes, the archdiocese of Hartford can most certainly afford to pump lots of zeroes into the check it writes to Dr Bodkin.)

Really, the amount of evil the Roman Catholic Church has brought to the world, is staggering. But what’s even more staggering, is the amount of evil it continues to bring into the world … and the amount of it that it actually tries to rationalize and justify!

I’m not sure there ever was a Jesus Christ, but if he did live, I can’t imagine he could possibly have wanted to be represented by this hideous bunch.

I honestly hadn’t though the archidiocese of Hartford could possibly have stooped any lower than they already have … but they managed this immense feat nonetheless. I suppose they’re proud of themselves; but in reality, they have nothing to be proud of. With every word they speak, with every action they take, with their every step, they condemn themselves as amoral and despicable, in every conceivable way.

Update: The Hartford Courant reports the jury has found the archdiocese of Hartford reckless and negligent in its dealings with Fr Ivan Ferguson, and awarded “Jacob Doe” a million dollars (cached). I’m sure the archdiocese will appeal and continue litigating this case, stalling as long as they can. But at the very least, it’s clear the jury did not buy into the archdiocese’s horrific defense.

Photo credit: Archdiocese of Hartford.

Tags: archdiocese of hartford, catholic church, catholic clerical abuse scandal, catholic clerical child abuse, catholic clerical child abuse scandal, child abuse, ct, hartford, jacob doe, priestly pedophilia, roman catholic, roman catholic church, waterbury, waterbury CT

The wizened, robed denizens of the Vatican continue to evade responsibility for how their own institution handled clergy who abused children in their care for decades in various countries. They continue to act as though they’ve done nothing wrong and are being unfairly maligned by insidious, vile forces who are out to destroy them. CNN reports on the latest example of this head-in-the-sand thinking, mouthed this time by the Catholic Church’s doctrinal enforcer (WebCite cached article):

A top Roman Catholic official opened a conference on protecting children from sexual abuse Monday by defending Pope Benedict XVI, arguing that he deserved thanks for his efforts.

Cardinal William Levada said Benedict, before becoming pope, enacted many of the reforms that followed the eruption of the church’s sex-abuse scandal a decade ago.

“But the pope has had to suffer attacks by the media over these past years in various parts of the world, when he should receive the gratitude of us all, in the church and outside it,” Levada said in his opening address to the conference.

All I can say to this is, boo fucking hoo, Cardinal. I call bullshit on this claim. Prior to becoming Pope, Benedict had been the doctrinal enforcer, and in that capacity had, in fact, ordered bishops not to cooperate with local authorities’ investigations of child abuse, and to continue the longstanding policy of silence and cover-up. He personally intervened to keep a known predator priest in active service. When Irish authorities discovered that this hideous policy of obfuscation and interference was still being followed as recently as 2009 — even after Irish bishops had promised to stop — the Pope was offended, and recalled the Vatican’s nuncio to that country.

No, Cardinal Levada. Pope Benedict is by no means innocent in this scandal, and is not being “unfairly” maligned by a vicious and evil “media.” Moreover, the Pope has most certainly not been “attacked” by anyone in the media. A punch in the face is an “attack.” Being called to account for conduct he engaged in and which was documented, is no “attack.”

Cardinal Levada’s lie about the Pope’s innocence places him in my “lying liars for Jesus” club.

Clearly the Cardinal is adhering to the notion — prevailing within the halls of the Vatican and in diocesan chanceries around the world — that the Roman Catholic clerical child-abuse scandal is a spiritual attack by the Forces of Darkness upon a totally-innocent and forever-saintly Church that has done nothing wrong. They’re convinced that it’s not the abusive clergy who are guilty of anything, but instead, the Devil within the child-victims who — somehow — forced those poor, virtuous souls into abusing them. Alternatively, it’s all society’s fault; the “sexual revolution” forced clergy to abuse kids in their care. The Church hierarchs continue to point the finger of blame everywhere but toward themselves.

Enough is enough. When does the Pope — or Cardinal Levada — or any other hierarch plan to finally “man up” and take responsibility for this horrific worldwide scandal? They won’t. They’re all a bunch of sniveling crybaby cowards.

Photo credit: Catholic Church (England and Wales).

Tags: benedict xvi, cardinal levada, cardinal william levada, catholic child abuse scandal, catholic church, catholic clerical abuse scandal, child abuse, child abuse scandal, christian, Christianity, christians, clerical child abuse, holy see, pope, pope benedict, pope benedict xvi, priestly pedophilia, roman catholic, roman catholic church, scandal, vatican, vatican city, william levada

The latest example of what I like to refer to as “the Christian martyr complex” comes in this pronouncement by Pope Benedict XVI. The Catholic News Service reports that the Holy Father has declared Christianity — and even religion itself — to be in danger of extinction (WebCite cached article):

Christianity and even religious belief are in grave danger across the globe, risking oblivion, Pope Benedict XVI said.

“Across vast areas of the earth, faith runs the danger of extinguishing like a flame that runs out of fuel,” he said.

Last I knew, religious faith was still going strong. The vast majority of people in the world are religious, and while religious fervor is fading in a few places such as Europe, in most regions religion is going strong and is nowhere near dying out.

It almost goes without saying that, in those few places where religion is becoming less common, the Roman Catholic Church’s own conduct has very likely contributed to this trend. “Charity begins at home,” or so the saying goes, so maybe the Pope should look in his own mirror and figure out how he might try to reverse this trend that so alarms him? My guess is he’ll refuse to do so and continue to wail about the evils of “secular humanism,” rather than examine and ferret out the evils within his own Church.

The article includes an additional quote, though, which I find remarkable:

“Without faith, the whole ecumenical movement would be reduced to a form of ‘social contract’ that’s adhered to out of common interest,” the pope said.

I’m not quite sure what the problem is with a “social contract” that people embrace “out of common interest.” Wouldn’t that be the best thing … for people to get along with each other, because it’s in their own best interest? And isn’t this precisely how the Ethic of Reciprocity works — a principle which, ironically, none other than the founder of the Pope’s own religion promoted? If this is something Jesus taught, why would the Pope find it objectionable?

None of this should be news to any Vatican-watcher. As the clerical child-abuse scandal has hammered the Catholic Church around the world, the current Pope and his predecessor both staunchly refused to acknowledge any part in it; they both tried to prevent bishops from allowing abusive clergy to be investigated by local authorities; and Benedict remains committed to a policy of evading responsibility for it, becoming offended when he’s forced to face it. He could, in one moment, restore the credibility of his own Church — and by extension, that of Christianity and of religion generally — by dealing with the scandal in a contrite and moral manner. But he never will. Count on it.

Hat tip: CNN Belief Blog.

Photo credit: Catholic Church (England & Wales).

Tags: benedict xvi, catholic church, catholicism, christian martyr complex, christian persecution complex, ethic of reciprocity, golden rule, holy see, persecution, persecution complex, pope benedict, pope benedict xvi, religionism, religionist, religionists, roman catholic, roman catholic church, vatican, vatican city

Yesterday’s post on the latest reprehensible excuse for child abuse by priests — and for hierarchs doing nothing to stop it — offered by the Roman Catholic Church, got me to thinking about the number of excuses the Church has made over the years, concerning its handling of the vast worldwide child-abuse scandal that has dogged it for around a decade. Here are some of the ones I’ve blogged about:

1. What’s wrong with abusing children?
2. Claims are claims, so we don’t care
3. The Devil within the victims caused the abuse
4. The Devil lurking in the Vatican caused the abuse & the scandal
5. The scandal is a plot against the Pope
6. The Bible forbids anyone to “judge” the Church
7. The scandal was falsely cooked up by “masonic secularists” and “great newspapers”
8. The scandal is a conspiracy of the Jews
9. Admitting wrongdoing would cost too much money
10. The scandal is an attack by “the world”
11. Sexually assaulting children is not pedophilia & there’s nothing wrong with it
12. The priestly-pedophilia scandal is all society’s fault
13. The victims liked it, so it was OK

The above are all serious statements offered by current or former Church officials, accused clergy, or the Vatican’s defenders. In addition to all of these, there’s also a widespread assumption among lay Catholics that allegations of child abuse are all fabricated, made up in order to extort money from dioceses.

The aforementioned excuses are all depraved evasions of the truth, which is that Roman Catholic clergy around the world abused children in their care; they sometimes did so systematically; abusive clergy were aided and abetted by the Church’s hierarchs; and to date the Church still tries to keep its clergy from being prosecuted.

And yes, folks, the abuse absolutely did occur. While it’s not reasonable to assume each and every individual allegation is true, a long line of independent reports in many countries have all verified that the abuse happened, it happened on a wide scale, and it took place over the course of decades; see e.g. reports from Ireland, Belgium, and the Netherlands, to name just three.

I’m sure more excuses will be offered in the future, but at this point I expect they’re likely to be variations on the above … along the lines of “it wasn’t all that serious” or “it’s a conspiracy!” More’s the pity.

Photo credit: Demotivators blog (defunct).

Tags: catholic church, catholic clerical abuse scandal, catholic clerical child abuse, catholic clerical child abuse scandal, child sexual abuse, christian, Christianity, christians, conspiracies, conspiracy, conspiracy theories, conspiracy theory, excuse-making, excuses, holy see, papacy, pope, priestly pedophilia, roman catholic, roman catholic church, sexual abuse, vatican, vatican city

Note: See below for a “good-news update” about this case.

Most of us realize that, when we’ve dug ourselves into a hole, the best thing to do is drop the shovel and climb out. Apparently, the archdiocese of Hartford never got the memo on this. With the Roman Catholic Church already having dug itself into the abyss of an international child-abuse scandal, the archdiocese and its attorneys have decided the solution is to keep right on digging. Toward that end they pulled a truly reprehensible stunt, as the Hartford Courant reports in a little nugget near the end of the story (WebCite cached article):

In his cross-examinations, [church lawyer Jack] Sitarz has implied that, since [plaintiff] Doe and his friend never forcefully resisted [Fr] Ferguson’s advances, they may have enjoyed them.

That’s right, folks. In a court of law, no less, an archdiocesan lawyer dared imply that the victims of sexual abuse at the hands of a Roman Catholic priest enjoyed being abused!

I’m almost at a loss for words to use to describe this maneuver. This is truly sick behavior.

Sitarz must, I’m sure — being an attorney — know full well that minors cannot legally consent to any kind of sexual activity, and that “liking” the abuse cannot and never will make it legal, much less moral or acceptable.

Yet he trotted out that old saw anyway — knowing it’s legally pointless.

Once again, I’m left asking: Why oh why, lay Catholics, are you tolerating the self-serving, greedy, manipulative, crafty, hateful, and horrific antics of the robed old men who rule your Church? When you are going to say to them, “Enough! No more!” When are you going to take back your own Church, turn them out, and change it into the organ of humility and compassion your own Jesus Christ himself supposedly taught about? What part of any of this behavior do you find acceptable … and why? If (as I hope) you don’t find it acceptable, why are you tolerating it?

Update: The Hartford Courant reports the jury has found the archdiocese of Hartford reckless and negligent in its dealings with Fr Ivan Ferguson, and awarded “Jacob Doe” a million dollars (cached). I’m sure the archdiocese will appeal and continue litigating this case, stalling as long as they can. But at the very least, it’s clear the jury did not buy into the archdiocese’s horrific defense.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: archdiocese of hartford, catholic church, catholic clerical abuse scandal, catholic clerical child abuse, child abuse, clerical child abuse, clerical sexual abuse, derby CT, hartford ct, jack sitarz, priestly pedophilia, roman catholic, roman catholic church, st mary's school, waterbury CT

Here’s a news story of a sort that I’m surprised is not more common than it is. The Los Angeles Times reports on the fall of a Roman Catholic hierarch in California (WebCite cached article):

From humble beginnings in southwest Mexico, Gabino Zavala entered the priesthood and embarked on a remarkable journey that landed him squarely in the corner offices of the nation’s largest Roman Catholic archdiocese. …

Popular and approachable, Zavala was widely known by his first name. To many, that sensibility made the Vatican’s announcement on Wednesday unthinkable: For more than a decade, Zavala had harbored a dark secret. He is the father, church officials said, of two children, and had resigned his post.

Zavala’s fatherhood, a violation of canon laws of celibacy for priests, was the first controversy to rock the local church during the tenure of Archbishop Jose Gomez, who succeeded Roger Mahony last year.

As usually happens with such revelations, this triggers the LA Times to ramble into a discussion of Catholic clerical celibacy:

Zavala’s resignation is likely to spark renewed debate over the ecclesiastical laws of celibacy. The earliest popes — St. Peter himself, under some interpretations — were married men and fathers. Later, in the fourth century, church officials concluded that men who were not celibate “shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical life.”

The idea was to mimic the sacrificing, chaste life of Jesus — for priests to be married, in a sense, to the church. But in recent years, hundreds of theologians have argued that the rules are dated and needlessly restrictive.

Actually, in spite of efforts beginning in the 4th century to make all clergy celibate, the fact is that this was not universally observed. By the 11th century, clerical marriages were still taking place, among the “secular clergy,” and the matter had to be addressed as part of the Gregorian Reforms.

And while the Catholic Church’s stated reason for priestly celibacy is to emulate Christ’s chastity, the actual reasons are a bit less spiritual and more mercenary than that. Clerical celibacy meant that priests no longer were having children (legitimate ones, anyway), so that church offices no longer passed automatically down from father to son; this in turn meant that church office appointments were made explicitly by the bishops and the Pope, giving them greater control over the Church and permitting them more nepotism. Another reason is that celibate priests don’t have families to take care of or worry about, eliminating the possibility that a priest’s loyalty to the Church might be diminished.

This last is the chief reason the Church will never willingly do away with priestly celibacy; it would cease to be a closed club of bachelors with few external influences. It would fundamentally change as an organization, in a way that would — almost by definition — reduce the hierarchs’ control. There’s no way they’d forfeit that, at least not without a fight.

Photo credit: Xavier de Jauréguiberry.

Tags: archbishop jose gomez, archdiocese of los angeles, bishop gabino zavala, catholic church, celibacy, celibate, clergy, clerical celibacy, gabino zavala, irwindale CA, los angeles, los angeles CA, priestly celibacy, roman catholic, roman catholic church

I’ve already blogged about the case of Raymond Lahey, erstwhile Catholic bishop of Antigonish (NS), who was found to have had child porn on his computer. He pleaded guilty, and the CBC reports on his sentence, which appears rather lenient (WebCite cached article):

Raymond Lahey, the disgraced Roman Catholic bishop who admitted he was addicted to looking at child pornography, has been released from prison after being sentenced to time served.

He was sentenced Wednesday to 15 months in prison and two years probation but received a two-for-one credit for time served. Lahey pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography for the purposes of importation to Canada.

What’s ironic here is that, as a bishop — presumably at the same time that he was collecting child porn — Lahey had negotiated a settlement a substantial settlement over child abuse in his diocese. So one would assume he’d been well aware of the fact that what he was doing was wrong, and that it harmed children, at the time he was doing it. Moreover, it turns out his child porn was religiously-flavored:

The Crown’s case involved 588 photos and 63 videos, with the Crown pointing out that some involved adolescent boys engaged in sex acts while wearing a Crucifix and rosary beads.

Naturally the current bishop of Antigonish had some remarks on the sentencing:

In a written statement, the current bishop of Antigonish said many people have been disturbed and upset by Lahey’s case.

“This entire matter has caused a great deal of hurt, disappointment and anger within and outside of our Diocese,” said Bishop Brian Joseph Dunn.

“Church leaders are called to provide good example and to show moral integrity in their lives. When they commit serious moral failures, this can have a significant impact on the faith community.”

This sounds all nice and contrite, but that apparent contrition is contradicted by the fact that, in most cases (albeit apparently not in Lahey’s), the R.C. Church goes to bat for abusive clergy and refuses to acknowledge they might have done anything wrong. This repeated denial is a pattern of conduct the Church has exhibited around the world. And I find it difficult to believe they’ve given up this particular habit.

Photo credit: CBC.

Tags: antigonish, antigonish NS, canada, catholic church, catholic clerical abuse scandal, child abuse, child porn, christian, Christianity, christians, clerical abuse, clerical child abuse, clerical child abuse scandal, diocese of antigonish, nova scotia, pedophilia, priestly pedophilia, raymond lahey, roman catholic, roman catholic church, sentence, sentenced, sentencing

The Roman Catholic archdiocese of Hartford has a number of problems on its hands. It has several misbehaving priests to deal with, in addition to its campaign to control the state of Connecticut. One would think that Archbishop Mansell would be working to address these and other issues — such as the continuing lawsuits and controversy over a deceased pedophile doctor at St Francis Hospital in Hartford (cached). But if one thinks that, one would be wrong. It turns out that the archdiocese has a much larger agenda, which includes an effort to promote abstinence among gays in Connecticut, as the Hartford Courant reports (WebCite cached article):

The Hartford Archdiocese wants gays and lesbians to practice abstinence in the new year.

On Tuesday, the archdiocese announced it was launching a local chapter of a national ministry called Courage “to support men and women who struggle with homosexual tendencies and to motivate them to live chaste and fruitful lives in accordance with Catholic Church teachings.”

This effort is ironic; on the one hand the archdiocese is putting forth a specific effort to reach out to gays; on the other hand, it’s telling them they’re disordered and need to curb themselves:

Linda Estabrook, executive director of the Hartford Gay & Lesbian Health Collective, took offense.

Thousands in the state receive services each year from the health organization, whose motto is “Be well. Be yourself.” The ministry implies that many of them “are not moral and are not leading fulfulling lives, and that is not true,” Estabrook said.

Those of us with brains can see how insulting and backhanded this ministry is, but I’ll concede that the folks who came up with it don’t see any problem with what they’re doing. The Catholic Church is run by a bunch of celibate men; they probably don’t consider it unreasonable to order gays to be celibate, too. They’re celibate themselves, so — in their eyes — there’s nothing wrong with it.

This idiocy serves as further evidence of how out-of-touch with reality the leadership of the Catholic Church is … as though we needed any more such evidence. I think the archdiocese of Hartford should work on putting its own house in order before it runs around telling other people how to live. And this shouldn’t be too much to ask of a Christian organization. After all, Jesus Christ himself is reported to have said:

Why do you observe the splinter in your brother’s eye and never notice the great log in your own? And how dare you say to your brother, “Let me take that splinter out of your eye,” when, look, there is a great log in your own? Hypocrite! Take the log out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take the splinter out of your brother’s eye. (Mt 7:3-5)

How can you say to your brother, “Brother, let me take out that splinter in your eye,” when you cannot see the great log in your own? Hypocrite! Take the log out of your own eye first, and then you will see clearly enough to take out the splinter in your brother’s eyes. (Lk 6:42)

Time for the archdiocese to put Jesus’ own teachings into effect, and straighten out their own act before ordering other people around.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: abstinence, abstinent, archdiocese of hartford, catholic church, celibacy, celibate, connecticut, gay, gays, homosexual, homosexuality, lesbian, lesbians, roman catholic, roman catholic church