Thursday, January 16, 2014

"morally reprehensible"

"Morally reprehensible" is one of those nifty, thunderous expressions that requires the speaker to credit morality to some extent and to hope, in all probability, that s/he has or can create a loyal following. In other words, what is morally reprehensible requires that someone gives a shit. What is morally reprehensible is more often than not just what is repugnant.

No one with two brain cells to rub together would walk into a Mafia social club and discourse on the moral reprehensibility of killing other people. Killing is just the price of doing or protecting business. In a Mafia social club, finding excuses is not necessary.

Politicians and businessmen work a little harder to elude the lash of moral reprehensibility. Selling shoddy products works better when the products or programs are construed as worthy or good. A vocabulary of plausible deniability is kept handy for those times when the shoddy goods or programs fall apart or do inescapably-obvious harm to others.

Msgr. Charles Scicluna
All of this mental gum-chewing came to mind while trying to rein myself in this morning when reading about a meeting in Geneva between representatives of the United Nations and representatives of the Vatican in the matter of clerical abuse of children. It was "the first time the Vatican has had to publicly defend its record in what amounted to a courtroom cross-examination where no limits were placed on the questioning."

Monsignor Charles Scicluna spoke for the Vatican:
He was responding to a grilling by the U.N. committee over the Holy See's failure to abide by terms of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child which, among other things, calls for signatories to take all appropriate measures to keep children from harm. Critics allege the church enabled the rape of thousands of children by encouraging a culture of cover-up to defend its reputation....
The Vatican insisted it had little jurisdiction to sanction pedophile priests around the globe, saying it was for local law enforcement to do so.
The Vatican can create and defrock priests, change assignments and duties, elevate and enshrine, lay claim to the pronouncements of God Almighty, dissect sin and salvation, cut off the pay of those who come into disfavor, send missionaries far and wide, open hospitals and schools ... and otherwise wield an enormous power, but nevertheless has "little jurisdiction to sanction pedophile priests?"

The sheer balls of the assertion is enough to leave me all but speechless.

And that's where the "morally reprehensible" gum-chewing began. Wasn't this like the teenager who loves the benefits of getting laid but is no where to be found when pregnancy evolves? The shamelessness and irresponsibility beggar belief ... it is morally reprehensible ... or rather, I guess ...

I find it repugnant.

In spades.


  1. The real problem is the elevation of the priest class over the centuries, which has destroyed a large portion of what might have been truly viable about that religion. In the early church, there was no concept of a priest class acting as some kind of intermediary between man and God. It was only a later invention/corruption put in place by clever cleric/politicians who wanted to take control from the congregation and invest it in a power elite, which is now the church hierarchy, and which was also responsible for the celibacy issue (which was all about inheritance of property and wealth which the hierarchy craved for itself). The current church is an abomination of corrupted doctrine and it is no wonder it attracts so many predators to fill its clerical ranks, since like attracts like. It is no wonder that bishops play the role of shepherds, given that they see their congregations as sheeple to be sheared for all they're worth.

  2. Mustafa Mahmood Al-SaedyJanuary 17, 2014 at 12:35 AM

    This is where Islam comes in 8)

    Allah says that you are hypocrites when you cast your burdens on others (the priests). Maybe the Christians would disagree but the Prophet/Apostle Muhammed says that he is no your father (maybe God .. no, he is not our father). And as detached creatures there can only exist kindness and kindness does not exist. It exists only in giving.

    I believe that the Church has right to not give. Because they are nor your fathers. But if you are going to attack them, by all means tell them about Islam and that their God and our God is one. And that God has no son or owner (wife). And that he is sought for help (i would rather exclusively ask him for help if i could) and noone is like unto him.

  3. I see no benefit in placing a god between myself and my life, much less a priest or imam.

    1. When he sees us hugging, my dog will place himself between myself and my wife, because he wants to share in the affection.

  4. Charlie -- Pascal may not agree with you, but I do.