Saturday, December 11, 2010

Who's Going To Defend the Pope Now?

The Catholics have spent years denying that the Pope and the Vatican knew about or covered up the sex abuse scandal that has rocked the church and put many diocese in financial terouble from legal judgements, hush money and bribes. Now Wikileaks comes alnog and confirms that the corruption and coverups reach the absolute highest levels. The Pope himself was more worried about the reputation of the church than the safety, health and well-being of its most vulnerable and innocent members.

Benedict refused to let investigators talk to Vatican oficials about the abuses taking place in Ireland. Apparently, it was more important to make sure the Catholics didn't get a bad reputation just as they were trying to sway the British Anglican community to convert to Catholicism. According to the Catholics, it seems, it's better to hide your dirty secrets and obstruct justice so you can grow your membership, and to hell with those poor, raped and sbused children.

2 comments:

Nathaniel said...

The RCC's problems are three levels deep. The sex scandal is the surface level; underneath that is a crisis of governance (namely incompetent corruption); and underneath that is, fittingly, a spiritual crisis (namely, the hubris of infallibilism).

For the RCC to put its own interests above those of raped children is normal institutional behavior. It failed in its stated mission but protected its interests; this is corrupt incompetence; S.O.P. which this imperfect world tolerates. But the world cannot tolerate incompetent corruption. The RCC did wrong, and didn't even do wrong right.

And why did it do wrong, and in a wrong way? Because, according to the Church, the Church can do no wrong; therefore, when it does do wrong anyhow, it must not seem to do wrong; even when creating such a false seeming is itself more wrong-doing.

Thus infallibilism is hubris. It guarantees, not error-correction, but error-accumulation.

www.KCFreeThinkers.org said...

I cannot get it how Vatican as a regligous center of Catholic church can be regonized as a state? Makes no sense at all, has to be a vestige of the political power it once had over the world. Seems to me many of these problems with Vatican would be non existant if it was treated as a religous "organization" rather than a state.

Where is Jesus when you need him? Must be having a good time with 72 virgins or something.