Wednesday, December 4, 2013

the Vatican and, er, the pope

Of late, Pope Francis has received heart-warming accolades for his attempts to succor those in need. He doesn't lead as swank a lifestyle as his predecessors. He sneaks out at night to help feed the hungry and destitute. He exhorts his colleagues to get back to Christian basics like giving rather than simply passing the plate. This really seems to be a change from a theologically-adamant potatoes.
Now for the reality check.
(BBC) The Vatican has refused to provide information requested by the United Nations on the alleged sexual abuse of children by priests, nuns or monks.
The Vatican said the cases were the responsibility of the judicial systems of countries where abuse took place.
The UK National Secular Society accused the Vatican of hiding behind legal technicalities.
On his appointment in March, Pope Francis said dealing with sex abuse was vital for the Church's credibility.
Business as usual.

But what a great guy!

16 comments:

  1. What's it like living with such bitterness and bile ? Its beginning to seep through your blog like the smell of decay.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Different Anon here. I don't think you can jump to the conclusion of business as usual just because he doesn't give the UN people everything they want to run whatever show they have planned. It might be business as usual, but maybe letting some UN people grandstand over this issue is a bad idea for a pope.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous 2 (how I wish people would just choose some other form of anonymity ... Harry, Sue, Pete or Elephant Walker come to mind):

    Tactically, I agree with your point. I meant "business as usual" in the sense that the Vatican has demonstrably dragged its feet, thrown up roadblocks and done pretty much everything it could outside of cop to the facts in the past. This has detracted from the credibility of the church ... an aspect the pope has alleged he is concerned about. If you can't come clean (or anyway a bit cleaner), it strikes me as understandable if others might see you as dirty.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon3 here...it might seem to some people that calling yourself by a Japanese name and holding out a begging bowl while putting Zen down at every opportunity with a sneeris not too clean either.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon3:
    1. (In the upper right hand corner of this page): "My name is Adam Fisher. My Dharma name is Genkaku. I live in Northampton, Mass., U.S.A." Will you share similar particulars?
    2. There is a "donate" button on this page. I have asked for donations rarely and never under some monastic or belief-burdened banner.
    3. By "putting Zen down at every opportunity," you seem to be implying that you are in full command of what "Zen" means or is and if this is the case, I am happy for you.
    4. I shower as necessary and do what I can to keep things clean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While ' passing the plate...' Pots and kettles. They are just more successful.

      Delete
  6. In the history of the church, there have been popes who tried to reform the machine of the church. Some with moderate success, others not so much. Catholicism, like zen, confronts the animal instincts of the species in their own way. And like herding cats, meet with very limited success.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's not hard to set up a google account to easily respond to this blog with a nick. I'd delete any anonymous posts as either IQ or attitude failures. Anyone who won't stand behind their own posts has a credibility problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the morass of relativity which makes up western ' zen ' why would credibility matter ?
      Credibilty. Non credibility. Anchovies. Chocolate
      Whats the diff ?

      Delete
    2. Using an identifying nick isn't about zen. It's about taking responsibility for your words.

      Delete
  8. The Vatican and all its possessions around the world are worth trillions of dollars. That money could go a long way in alleviating poverty in the world. Why not turn some or most of that real estate gold mine into cash? Much of church property is located in prime locations and some of it is sitting empty and unused.

    Additionally, the Vatican holds or controls untold and priceless artifacts, ancient books and manuscripts that are worth endless billions of dollars. Why is that hoard being kept in huge warehouses when it could be turned into cold hard currency and given to the poor?

    The Roman Catholic church, from its heyday of being the most powerful ruler of the world (Holy Roman Empire), has amassed huge amounts of solid gold relics (most remain unknown to the pubic), and Renaissance statues, frescoes and paintings that are the envy of the entire museum community, and private collectors. With one swell swoop, the Roman Catholic Church could end poverty in the world by simply converting church assets into
    cash, and with that cash feed and clothed the destitute, the poor people of the world.

    When ordained, priests take an oath of poverty. One only needs to visit the Vatican, not to mention many Catholic establishments around the world, to know that is not the case, the clergy are not impoverished.

    Perhaps the church should go back to its roots and lead by example and stop going against original doctrine, which condemns being in bed with adulterous money changers. The Catholic Church has more assets and resources than all money changers combined.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Get your own church in order.

      Delete
    2. The Church of Bob is doing fine, I'll have you know!

      http://www.thechurchofbob.com/

      Delete
    3. Now it makes sense. You're trying to drain the competition of funds!

      Delete
  9. And for those interested in a church-documented history of Roman Catholic difficulties with sexuality in their midst, there is this collection of Vatican data: http://www.awrsipe.com/patrick_wall/official_documents.htm
    Yes, it requires reading, but the tale, at least as far back as 309 AD, seems pretty clear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's not quibble about who diddled who.

      Delete