About

Showing posts with label pope. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pope. Show all posts

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast: Episode 2

Podcast


Episode two of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is now online!


Podcast Topics:

The second episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast will cover the discussion topic on religious faith and commentary on local news articles.

Cast:

  • Justin Vacula (Podcast Host, Co-Organizer, Spokesperson, and a Board Member
  • Rodney Collins (Founder, Organizer, and Chairman of the Board)
Producer: Jason

If you wish to ask a question or comment on this podcast please send your email to Justin Vacula at jvacula@nepafreethought.org

Books/Authors Mentioned:
News Stories/Articles:
Music Featured:

Don't Let the Condom Headlines Fool You!

condoms.jpeg

(Picture from Macleod Cartoons)

Who would think that I would ever be defending the Catholic Church? Well, I'm kind of doing that in this post. Although I don't agree with the Church's stance on condoms, media outlets are misrepresenting the Church's stance. I'm here to tell you that the Church is still against condoms. I won't let the media paint a positive picture...especially when Catholic sources are fighting back and disagreeing with the way the media is reporting.

Many media outlets and reporters have egregiously misrepresented the position of Pope Benedict/The Vatican/the Catholic Church regarding condoms. Pope Benedict and various other Catholics have made it very clear that the official stance on condom use is "Don't use condoms because they are immoral and misguided." The Church is absolutely against the use of birth control, condoms, and contraceptives because they view them as interfering with the way God made humans. They think that God made sex as a special thing that should only be experienced by married couples with the intent of procreation.

Groups like the Knights of Columbus, for example, have lied about AIDS, condoms, and sex and tried to stop governmental distribution of condoms. Pope Benedict has said that condoms are not the answer to the problem of AIDS and can even make AIDS worse. I've previously covered this in great detail. Apologists for the Knights of Columbus have tried to argue that "It's just a few bad apples, but as you can see, this clearly isn't the case."

Anyway, various sources are featuring headlines like, "Condom Use Still Immoral, but Preferable to Spreading AIDS." This isn't accurate because the Pope only made a comment about male prostitutes using condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. The Pope isn't standing up (as he should) saying things like, "Well, condoms actually can help diminish AIDS. Adhere to the ABC Method (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms). What I said earlier was wrong."

This USA Today article sets things straight. There has been no change in Church doctrine.

After the Vatican paper jumped the gun on an embargo on the book's text on Saturday, chief Vatican spokesman Rev. Frederico Lombardi told media Sunday this does not reflect any doctrinal change in the Catholic view forbidding artificial contraception.

Benedict said that for male prostitutes — for whom contraception isn't the central issue — condoms are not a moral solution. But he said they may be used "in the intention of reducing the risk of infection."

He called it "a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way of living sexuality."

Benedict drew the wrath of the United Nations, European governments and AIDS activisits when he told reporters en route to Africa in 2009 that the AIDS problem on the continent couldn't be resolved by distributing condoms.

"On the contrary, it increases the problem," he said then.

Journalist Peter Seewald, who interviewed Benedict over the course of six days this ummer, revisited those comments and asked Benedict if it wasn't "madness" for the Vatican to forbid a high risk population to use condoms.

"There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility," Benedict said.

But he stressed that it wasn't the way to deal with the evil of HIV, noting the church's position that abstinence and marital fidelity is the only sure way.

Blaming the Media and Atheism for Child Rape and Immorality

Sorry for not posting in approximately a week. It's been quite odd being out of classes during this break...I'm usually responding to arguments from theists in my classes on this blog, but I haven't had many recent discussions with theists.

I found a letter to the editor in the Times Leader that I'd like to respond to. Unfortunately, the Times Leader doesn't allow unlimited text, so I'll post my full response here. Catholics often try to deflect attention away from the child rape and torture scandals by claiming that the media is "anti-Catholic" and is treating the church unfairly...so I'll respond to this letter and offer an open challenge to a public debate with the pastor emeritus of Saint Aloysius church in Wilkes-Barre to any of the following topics:

  • Is Catholic morality superior to secular morality?
  • Can we be moral without God?
  • Is the United States of America a nation founded by Christians on Christian principles?
  • Is the Catholic Church a force for good in the world?
  • Is the media undermining religion and being unfair to Catholics?
  • Did Jesus exist?
  • Did Jesus rise from the dead?
  • Does the Christian god exist?
  • Are the accounts of the New Testament reliable historical sources?

It's quite easy. If the pastor is so sure about his arguments and stances that he posed to his letter to the editor, he should be more than willing to debate me at his church with a public audience. People will surely attend and it's a great chance for him to spread "the word" and prove his points. What does he have to lose with God on his side?

Anyway, here's his letter to the editor and my response point by point:

I am writing to protest the degrading and insulting editorial cartoon published by The Times Leader April 5. It portrays a picture of the pope and someone shouting, “Do something about pedophile priests!” The caricature responds, “Say again?” And the caption is “the deaf boy.”

The timing for such a presentation could not be worse, coming the day after the joyful celebration of Easter. Certainly we all lament and deeply regret the crimes that have been committed by Catholic priests and the suffering by their victims.

Oh, no, degrading and insulting...it's a cartoon that's meant to prove a point and to garner some laughs. What's really degrading and insulting is the Vatican, its treatment of the child rape and torture cases, and the behavior of fundamentalist Christians, not this cartoon.

What do you, reader, think is more degrading: the idea that we should have justice for raped and tortured children and pointing out that the pope isn't listening to the victims and concerned human beings or a cartoon? In the tune of Richard Dawkins' great speech here, what about the idea that a mother and her potential child should die rather than having an abortion that saved the mother? How about Pope Benedict saying that condoms can make AIDS worse? How about the idea that children (and adults) are being taught that they will suffer and burn for all eternity because they think the "wrong things," behave contrary to the church's teachings, or don't accept Jesus? How about the idea that non-Christians are immoral and can have no meaning in their lives or that people treat atheists well because they feel sorry for atheists? ...but no, let's just notice the "insulting" nature of a cartoon.

Children who are raped and tortured by an institution who claims that the "good of the church" is more important than justice and the well-being of children is not something to write off and put to the side. We can't go around complaining that just because we might be offended that people should stop "offending." So what. Everyone can claim to be offended by something. Political humor mocks almost every well-known important individual from Sarah Palin to Obama to Glenn Beck...and they're not crying about it...well, at least Glenn cries.

I think that the cartoon's message is very subtle, perfect, and well-crafted...and not just because I'm an atheist openly against the Catholic church. The deaf boy is obviously referring to Father Murphy who raped the hopes and dreams of boys in a school for the deaf...and the Vatican failed to defrock and/or excommunicate him. The current pope, in his position as a Cardinal, ought to have done something about this...and certainly could have done something recently. The pope really isn't "listening," just as the deaf boys can't. People also certainly can't listen to the cries of the victims who aren't speaking as is beautifully sung in Epica's Cry For the Moon.

The letter writer complains that the timing was horrible on the cartoon...but would be honestly be less grieved or even happy about the cartoon that was "insulting and offensive" if it were published at another time? We ought not declare times where people ought not be offended - and let's face it - all sorts of people can claim offense to all sorts of behaviors, drawings, and even foods. Can I claim offense to gangster rap and have it stopped? May I declare days where people shouldn't criticize me and my organizations? Should I tell Fox News that they better stop critiquing Obama on Memorial Day?

Please bear in mind, though, the fact that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles and the vast majority are faithful to their calling. Please bear in mind also, looking at the whole picture, that the sexual abuse of minors is not confined to the Catholic Church.
You will find the same situation in the history of many other religious dominations, public or private institutions, social agencies, public or private schools, etc. Why is it that the Catholic Church is singled out by the media? In some instances the reports have taken place 30 or 40 years ago. To what purpose?

People aren't claiming that all priests are pedophiles nor are they saying that the sexual abuse of minors is confined to the Catholic church. This pastor is clearly strawmanning arguments from his detractors and trying to prove a case. What people like myself are claiming, though, is that the Catholic Church is not doing enough to crack down on pedophiles, offers half-baked apologies, and should care more about justice and children than the church. Sexual abuse, of course, happens everywhere...but it is a huge concern when it happens in the Catholic Church and almost nothing is done about it.

The letter writer claims that "the same situation" has happened, but I fail to see the "leaders" of any organizations who knew about sexual abuse harboring criminals, exempting them from secular authorities, differing blame to the media, claiming that the documented rape and torture is "petty rumor," covering up crimes, blaming it on homosexuality, transferring criminals to different buildings, etc, etc.

This reporting is being performed because it's important and the media should be disseminating information. If employees of Google were raping little children, would you say something like "why is the media singling out Google?" This blame of the media is ridiculous. The blame should be placed on the Vatican.

It is important, also, to point out that after the scandal broke in our country, the Conference of Bishops through “The Texas Charter” established a zero-tolerance policy, stating that any priest, religious or layperson working for a diocese will be immediately suspended from their position if a complaint is made, and the matter will be immediately referred to the lawful authorities for investigation. If the charges are found to be true, the person is permanently removed from office and is subject to legal punishment. I know of no other religious denomination or group that has taken such a strong stand.

Great...but is this happening? Why isn't the Vatican excommunicating these individuals? Looking at the list of excommunicated individuals, one sees that people are excommunicated for disagreeing with church doctrine, saving the lives of mothers, and being Freemasons. Since so many victims have demonstrated that they've been abused, why don't we see these priests on this list? It's great that Texas may be doing something, but it's not enough. Well, just as theists often say, "God's law is above human law," so why bother? Excommunicate and repudiate nuns who perform abortions, but forget about the rapists.

I believe that it should be the objective of the news media to report the news fairly, objectively and without prejudice. The cartoon I refer to fails to meet any of these criteria. To depict the office of pope or bishop, or any authority figure in another religion, in such a ludicrous fashion contributes to undermining the faith of the people and makes religion in general an unimportant institution in our society. I have to wonder if this is the intended purpose of this cartoon.

Political cartoons, by no means, are intended to be "objective and fair." Political cartoons are meant to poke fun and be unfair - it's satire! Journalists are supposed to be objective and fair, not cartoonists. Depicting people in a ludicrous fashion does not necessarily undermine faith or people...especially in political cartoons - again, it's a point being made. Atheists from around the world depicted Mohammad in various cartoons and this was not meant to provoke people, but rather stand up for free speech. Depicting religion in a negative light also doesn't "make religion in general an unimportant institution in our society" ... depiction does not make it unimportant ... the idea that something is depicted almost certainly shows that it is important. The purpose of this cartoon is clearly to criticize the Catholic Church.

George Washington said, “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” It would appear that our modern age never heard the words of the “father of our country,” or, if so, choses to ignore the warning and immorality continues to increase day by day.
Is the letter writer seriously claiming that without religion we continue to become immoral? Morality is not, by any means, exclusive to religious people. People of various faiths or no faiths are moral individuals. It's also awkward to claim that immorality continues to increase...how can we possibly demonstrate this? What I can demonstrate, though as a correlation, is that the least religious nations and areas have fare better in terms of societal health: less religious nations have lower rates of teen pregnancy, STDs and abortions while the most religious nations have higher rates of poverty, income inequality, and dissatisfaction with life.

George Washington, also, was not a Christian by any means. He was a deist (a person who believe in an indiscriminate creator god who is not active in human affairs who embraced religious freedom and recognized that religion can be helpful and consoling for many:

"The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington; Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; Adams; Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity....
"
Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a sermon preached in October, 1831, first sentence quoted in John E Remsberg, Six Historic Americans, second sentence quoted in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion,pp. 14-15

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
-- George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792, quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, also James A Haught, 2000 Years of Disbelief

If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists.
-- George Washington, letter to Tench Tilghman asking him to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer for his Mount Vernon estate, March 24, 1784, in Paul F Boller, George Washington & Religion (1963) p. 118, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church"


"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which was publlshed in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27
Regardless, it's absurd to claim that the lack of religion causes immorality to increase. Continuing with the letter...

Consider the corruption on the federal, state and local levels of government, as well as in private businesses; the crime rate; the rising number of drug and alcohol addicts; the breakdown of family life, many times due to infidelities; abortion; and same-sex marriages.

Corruption in government and businesses has nothing whatsoever to do with lack of religious faith. It's quite apparent that the majority of people professes religion, specifically some form of Catholicism, and these crimes still occur. I'm quite positive that the people involved in the county corruption probes are religious believers. Consider this...about 75% of Americans profess some sort of religious beliefs. People who run businesses, are politicians, commit crimes, and divorce are representative of the general population....so about 75% of these people are religious. Are you claiming that the lack of religious faith is a contributing factor to this when the people are already religious? When I think of crime and corruption, I think of greed, desperation, taking advantage of the system, poor life conditions, lack of positive peers, and perhaps a bad childhood...not a lack of faith.

Religion can certainly help people cope with problems and avoid crime, but we see that the majority of prisoners are religious (and were before entering prison) and continue to commit crimes in spite of religious devotion. If your idea that the lack of faith leads to crime is correct, we should see non-theists in prisons and on the front page of newspapers eating babies, shooting doctors, etc...but this isn't the case. Where are all the atheist prisoners?

This "breakdown of family life" is a recent myth perpetuated by religionists who assert that the traditional family is a man, a woman, and two children, but this idea is always changing. Many children grow up with one parent, stepparents, grandparents, and not their two birth parents. The "traditional family" was previously not people of mixed races, different religions, different ethnicities, etc. Marriages used to be arranged by parents and females were forced into relationships with people they didn't even know or like. Times are changing...and it's not because of lack of religion.

Learn how the "traditional family values" are Bullshit! from Penn and Teller:


The divorce rate among Christians isn't even pristine. ReligiousTolerance.org even claims that

Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.

"While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce, that pattern has been in place for quite some time. Even more disturbing, perhaps, is that when those individuals experience a divorce many of them feel their community of faith provides rejection rather than support and healing.

Donald Hughes, author of The Divorce Reality, said:

"In the churches, people have a superstitious view that Christianity will keep them from divorce, but they are subject to the same problems as everyone else, and they include a lack of relationship skills. ...Just being born again is not a rabbit's foot."

Hughes claim that 90% of divorces among born-again couples occur after they have been "saved."


...so, it turns out that atheists and agnostics are more likely to stay with their partners and not divorce. So much for this idea that lack of faith leads to more divorces.

Pastor, I'd be more than happy to debate you in a public venue. I'm very easy to contact and I'm more than willing to debate. Take this as a challenge.


- Justin Vacula

Co-Organizer, Board Member, and Spokesperson of the NEPA Freethought Society

www.NEPAfreethought.org

AIDS, Condoms, and Sex...Knights of Columbus and other Catholics Promote Genocidal Stupidity




Theists often say, "What's so bad about religion? People believe what they want to believe and don't harm anyone."

When confronted with bad ideas and actions stemming from religion, theists often offer glib excuses such as "Religion isn't the problem, people are," "Oh, that person wasn't a TRUE CHRISTIAN," or "One person or one group doesn't represent the whole."

In 2003, a senior Vatican spokesman said that AIDS can pass through condoms and priests have said that condoms are laced with AIDS.

The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."

The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass.


In 2009, Pope Benedict announced that condoms can make AIDS worse in a speech directed to Sub-Saharan Africans. About 2/3 of AIDS deaths occur in these very Catholic regions that are heavily influenced by the Pope. What other reason, do you think, besides religious belief, would lead a person to say something so false, dangerous, and deadly to a population plagued with AIDS? The church's teachings on condoms are clearly to blame for this comment of genocidal stupidity. Pope Benedict apparently thinks that not using condoms is more important than the lives of an entire population of people.

In another previous post of mine, I show that religious belief causes severe sexual health problems for various individuals - people are fed false information about sex and suffer because of it. According to the article,

Several physicians were claiming that with missionaries came more patients claiming that prayer would heal any malady they might face, and thus HIV prevention and/or treatment mattered little.
If asked about their husband’s condom usage, the answer was often “never.” After we explained the risks inherent in this behavior, one response from a woman was “God will protect me, I am a Christian.” Another said, “My husband is a Christian and says the Bible says not to use condoms.” Or better yet, I also heard, “If I get sick, it is God’s will.”


The Knights of Columbus follow up with the same nonsense in The Philippines. These Knights of Columbus members are fighting against the most effective prevention method in the battle with AIDS. According to the article from Catholic News Agency,

Knights of Columbus in the Philippines are preparing to rally against the government’s pro-contraceptive campaign as lawmakers debate population control programs that promote condoms and birth control pills. One organizer said the program is “an immoral and misguided weapon.”

The Philippines’ Department of Health has been advocating contraceptives and condoms to stop unwanted pregnancies and to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS.

“Like what others are saying, we believe that there’s no such thing as safe sex,” Tan [the Knights of Columbus’ Luzon Deputy] added, according to CBCPNews.

“Widespread and indiscriminate promotion of condoms is an immoral and misguided weapon in our battle against AIDS.”

What do professionals have to say?

According to the CDC,

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing heterosexual transmission is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission has been scientifically established in laboratory studies as well as in epidemiologic studies of uninfected persons at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected partners.

In a 2006 Knights of Columbus publication linked on the KOC website, an author argues that promoting condom use is introducing people to "dangerous and immoral" lifestyles.

What are the main issues and ideas here?

  • In teaching kids how to use condoms, teachers communicate the message that they do not believe that they (teens) can live a moral life.
  • No condom can protect their heart and their soul, or ensure sound psychological development.
  • virtues training and abstinence
  • for the past 20 years, school sex education programs,or “safe sex” programs, have worked aggressively at trying to convince sexually active teens to use c o n d o m s .The result? During these efforts, sexually transmitted infections among youth have risen. Nevertheless, advocating condom use makes adults feel like they a r e d o i n g s o m e t h i n g about the problem, when in fact we may be making it worse
  • Promoting condom use can make the problem worse for teens in several different ways.
  • promoting condom use to kids promotes a risky lifestyle.
  • it is in fact immoral to allow anyone to believe that he is protected from infections by using a condom
The author says that "I believe that it is in fact immoral to allow anyone to believe that he is protected from infections by using a condom, when, in fact, the scientific data now show otherwise."

It doesn't logically follow that teaching teenagers about responsible sex will make them "immoral sex machines" who behave irresponsibly. If anything, teens who are informed about sex will act more responsibly. Condoms don't make STDs worse; they reduce the rates of STDs and AIDS.

...what does the data really show?

Condoms greatly reduce the risk of getting or passing on many STDs, including HIV.

Studies on couples where one partner is infected show that with consistent condom use, HIV infection rates for the uninfected partner are below 1% per year.

High rates of condom use have resulted in dramatic drops in the numbers of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). After condom use rates rose among Thai sex workers from 14% in 1989 to 94% five years later, STIs dropped from 400,000 to 30,000 per year. Condom use in Thailand and Cambodia has resulted in drops of HIV rates of more than 80% since the peak of the epidemics.

Overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that latex condoms stop the spread of HIV and therefore save lives.

Latex condoms, used consistently and correctly, are 98-99% effective in preventing HIV
transmission. Two rigorous studies of couples in which one person is infected with HIV and the other is not (known as “discordant couples”) indicate that HIV is very rarely transmitted when condoms are always used.

  • In one study of 123 discordant couples who used condoms every time they had sex, none of the uninfected partners became infected. But among 122 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 uninfected partners became infected.

  • In a separate study of discordant couples, three of 171 (two percent) uninfected female partners became infected when their HIV-infected partners reportedly always used condoms. However, eight of 55 (15 percent) inconsistent condom users became infected.

Studies cited by some to question the effectiveness of condoms in HIV prevention generally have significant design flaws. For example:

  • Certain studies do not distinguish between consistent and inconsistent condom use – which is similar to studying the effectiveness of seat belts but including people who do not
    always use them.

  • Some studies do not always assess HIV status before enrolling participants; therefore, it is
    likely that some “uninfected” partners were actually infected before entering the trial.
In a 2010 speech to the Knights of Columbus, "Most Rev. Rodolfo F. Beltran, Ph.D, D.D.
Apostolic Vicar- Bontoc Lagawe" talks about "battles" that the Knights must fight. Included in this "battle" is fighting against the production and open distribution of condoms.

We have other battles to fight against. The battle against the family. Charity begins at home—an element of neighborliness. Brother Knights we continue with firmer determination to lift up and sustain the true meaning of married life and love. There’s no substitute for chaste love. Let us make our homes holy. Let us safeguard the vocation of marriage and the central place of the family in society.

We have the battle against the production and open distribution of condoms by the Department of Health to reduce the fast growth of population. Let us strongly uphold the truth and continue to live by our soled moral principles. Let us earnestly enlighten our people with our solid ethical stand that such gadgets are not only anti AID or anti population measures, but promote promiscuity on the young and infidelity on the married couples. Likewise, our consistent stand against abortion and contraceptive pills which are anti life.


...and condoms aren't the sole weapon in the battle of STD/AIDS prevention. Know your partner. Be responsible. Be informed.

Comprehensive school health education -- including encouraging teens to delay sexual activity and providing them with appropriate, scientifically accurate information on the effectiveness of condoms – is critical.

Teens are among those most likely to have multiple sex partners and engage in unprotected sex, and therefore are at highest behavioral risk for acquiring most STDs.

Extensive research indicates that comprehensive school health education programs that include information on condom use do not encourage teens to initiate sex at an earlier age or engage in more frequent sex if they are already sexually active.

  • In a recent Swiss study of 16- to 19-year-olds, a sex education program did not increase either the level of sexual activity or the number of sex partners. Importantly, though, among those who were sexually active, condom use did increase.

  • A World Health Organization review of 19 studies of sex education programs found there was no evidence that sex education leads to earlier or increased sexual activity in young people. In fact, six studies showed that sex education programs actually led to a delay or decrease in sexual activity. Ten of the studies showed that educationprograms increased safer sex practices among young people who were already
    sexually active.


It's quite clear - responsibility, education, and facts are effective ways to prevent AIDS. Stopping the distribution of condoms, promoting abstinence-only education, and saying that condoms make AIDS worse are condemning people to death.

Of course, not all Catholics and Knights of Columbus members hold the views of the Vatican or some Knights of Columbus members, but this doesn't take away the responsibility of Catholics of Knights of Columbus members. If you are a Catholic and/or a Knights of Columbus member, you should speak out against this genocidal stupidity. The positions that the Knights of Columbus, The Vatican, and various Catholics hold are untenable.

Maddow: Overview of Priestly Abuse

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Here's some great reporting on the sexual scandals within the Catholic Church.

The Vatican - Child Rape and Exorcism




CNN.com has finally featured the Vatican's Chief Exorcist's article on its front page.

I wanted to blog about this when it was first released, but I thought, "Nah, they don't really mean that the devil is actually in the Vatican. They're just speaking in theological nonsense language." Sure, at first this claim seemed to be an evasion of responsibility and a thoroughly dishonest diversionary excuse...but they're really serious.

"The devil tempts everyone -- people in politics, in economics, in sport. And naturally, he tempts, above all, the religious leaders, so you shouldn't be surprised if the devil tempts those in the Vatican. That's his job."

This quote appears to be implying that the devil is everywhere and is responsible for interfering in human affairs in all areas. According to the Chief Exorcist, we shouldn't be surprised about this...and even when religious individuals in THE VATICAN are "tempted by the devil." Wait a second...the devil has power over religious leaders in THE VATICAN?

The writers of the article say,

The Rev. Gabriele Amorth isn't speaking metaphorically when he says that. The 85-year-old priest means people can be tempted and literally possessed by Satan.

Ok, great, if this is true, the exorcist actually literally believes in the devil and is blaming him for the child torture and rape (let's not call it abuse, that's euphemistic).

And as the Vatican's chief exorcist, it's his job to expel the devil when someone is possessed. He's performed more than 70,000 exorcisms in his career, he estimates.

Elsewhere, he's claimed that Hitler and Stalin were possessed by the devil and that ALL Nazis were. According to this article from 2006, this exorcist performed over 30,000 exorcisms....so, there's a change in 40,000 (more than double of what he's performed in 2006) in a period of four years? But according to this, in 2006, he performed over 50,000. There's clearly some number fudging going on.

He has never done an exorcism on a child molester, he said."I have carried out exorcisms on some priests who had been molested by the devil," he said, without going into details."But cases of pedophilia exorcised, no. ... Pedophiles are not possessed by the devil, they are tempted by the devil," he said."
Oh, so you can do nothing about the pedophiles (rapists and child molesters, let's not euphemise), although you claim to be a powerful exorcist? Clearly, you are doing it wrong.

They don't need exorcism, they need to be converted, to be converted to God, that's what they need. They need to confess, they need true penitence, true repentance, that's what they need. They're not possessed."

Oh, so to stop child rape in the Vatican, almost certainly because of dangerous sexual repression, celibacy, and irresponsibility, the priests need to be...converted to God? What about counseling, firing, jail, and everything thing else a person in any other position would need? Let's just think about changing policy, abiding by the law, and being honest instead of shipping child rapists while shielding them from the law to different churches where they can continue to rape, Religion, as usual, will do almost anything not to take responsibility and continue its practices even when they harm others. The Pope still has not retracted his comments of genocidal stupidity regarding condoms and AIDS.

Finishing the CNN article, the exorcist lies and makes a curious comment,

"I just see good people in the Vatican. People of prayer, holy people, I don't see any evil."

There is no evil in the people who rape and torture children? Really?

I'm happy that CNN posted this on the front page. Hopefully more people will observe the abject absurdity of this article and reject the insane claims from the exorcist. This article is nothing more than a refusal to accept responsibility and should just be a slap in the face to the victims of the Catholic Church.

Imagine if employees of any corporation were charged with rape of children and the CEO came forth and said things like this. We would dismiss the claims, write off the business, and move on. A proper and respectful leader should apologize for the actions, take whatever corrections and measures must be taken to stop this (the Vatican is not doing this), and all people should distance themselves from this organization.

Catholics should whole-heartedly dismiss the Pope, break off all ties with the Vatican, and seriously think about the current situation of the Catholic church, all the problems religion is causing in the world, and last but not least ask themselves whether their faith is warranted.

Christopher Hitchens does a wonderful job in detailing this situation and the abuses still going on by the Catholic church in this recent article and this debate: