May 2009 Matthew Stucky Award: Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor

Haven't given an award out lately, but I felt I needed to when I read this. The good cardinal who oversaw a Church which systematically brutalized generations of Irish children has declared that the greatest evil facing us is... atheism.

Really.

Not priests who anally violate little boys.

Atheism.

Fucker.

March Matthew Stucky Award

The coveted Matthew Stucky Award for the month of March 2009 goes to archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of Rio De Janero Recife, Brazil, whose callous, cruel condmenation of a 9-year old girl for being raped by her stepfather very nearly equals the insane misogyny of the Muslims who execute sexual assault victims for adultery. A condemnation which is being defended by the catholic church's chief perpetuator of pederasty, pope benedict xvi.

Jose! Why don't you pull out all of the stops, bury her up to her neck, and hit her in the head with rocks? Oh, wait: stoning is to quick and painless for her, isn't it? Much more fitting for her to be slowly torn apart by the development of twins her body is not physically capable of bearing.

Fucker.

---

Update:
I'm tempted to add, mostly out of pique, the Sydney Morning Herald as co-recipients for this headline:

Vatican defends excommunication for 'raped' nine-year-old girl's abortion

Why exactly is the word raped in quotes? Is there some uncertainty about whether a 9-year old girl is capable of validly consenting to sex? WTF?!

---

Update II:
The Herald has removed the quotes.

Vatican: "Of COURSE We're OK With Child Molestation! Duh!"

From the BBC Online.

I just can't get my mind around this shit. The church is blaming the mother and doctors for this, and not even mentioning the perverted bastard whose disgusting behavior set the situation up in the first place.

This is just disgusting.

Brazil Girl, Alleged Rape Victim, Aborts Twins.The procedure on the 9-year-old girl draws complaints from Catholic church.

Fuck me sideways. This poor girl is raped by her stepfather and is in danger of being slowly torn apart by the twins developing in her, and the bastard archbishop not only condemns the termination of the pregnancy, but excommunicates the girl's mother and doctors?.

And my family wonders why I am no longer a practicing catholic.

I must note, without much surprise, that the father, who raped not only this girl but her disabled older sister, is still all right with the church. But then, that's only child molestation, and we know where the church stands on that.

AND HOW IS IT 'ALLEGED' RAPE WHEN SHE'S NINE!!??

Bastards.

Former Milwaukee Archbishop Admits Secretly Relocating Abusive Priests

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel has an article and video footage of Rembert Weakland's testimony regarding how allegations of sexual abuse by Milwaukee area priests were handled while he was Archbishop. It's noteworthy in that it's the first case I know of wherein one of the Bishops involved in perpetuating the institutionalized child abuse has just come right out and admitted it point-blank. Among the low-lights:

-Weakland never discussed accusations of abuse with the accused priests

-Timothy Dolan, the new Archbishop, never sat down with Weakland to discuss abuse-related issues and what Weakland and others may have known (video 1:10)

Note: for those who grew up in the Milwaukee Archdioces, especially for those who knew this man, the video might be a little disturbing.


I was particularly angered at the following exchange, at about 6:30

If you would have informed the parishioners of the known risk of a priest like Wadera, you never could have assigned him to that parish, 'cause the people wouldn't have it, right?

W: Right, exactly.

And so what the practice was, was to not tell the people, and assign 'em, hoping that they would not re-offend.

W: Hope is.. uh.. too modest a word. (smiles slightly)

Making the choice to take the risk that they would not re-offend

W: With... with safeguards.

Is the Doctrine of Manifestation of Conscience, in your view, an admonition against asking somebody like (Accused priest Franklin) Becker "Did you abuse kids?"

W: Yes, it would be: he would not have to have answered that in the affirmative, to his bishop.

Would it be some kind of violation of norms, protocols, or laws for you as the Archbishop to have asked your priest that question?

W: As far as I know, it would have been contrary to what a bishop has a right to ask of his priest.

Contrary how? Your first duty is to the congregation, asshole. I was in sixth grade when you placed Becker where he could get at kids. I can only thank providence that you didn't place him at my parish.

I consider myself fortunate that I was never victimized by the predators this man sheltered. While I can't say that all of the priests I knew growing up were nice guys, they were all, AFAIK, decent and committed clergy. Many of them were wonderful men and good friends.

But what really appalls me is that this man, had you asked me my opinion before the scandal broke, would have numbered among those I admired and considered good people. I knew him. He confirmed me. I may have received first communion from him (I'm not sure on that one, though). That he was, during the time I knew him, abetting these jackals, makes me shudder. I could have been one of the children he threw into their clutches.

Catholic Priest to Obama Voters: You're All Going to Hell!

Per the AP, Catholic Rev. Jay Scott Newman of St. Mary's Parish in Greenville, SC has instructed his parishioners that if they voted for Obama, they must receive Reconciliation before they can take communion.

The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.

"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

So, Rev, what about supporting a candidate who sees nothing wrong with dropping bombs on 5-year old children? We do plenty of that in Iraq and Afghanistan, and apparently McCain & Co. had no particular qualms about doing the same in Iran. 'Course, those are just dirty brown Muslim children, so that's alright, yes?

This man is not an anomaly in the Catholic church in the US.

the nation's Catholic bishops vowed Tuesday to forcefully confront the Obama administration over its support for abortion rights.

So Obama will be "forcefully confronted". Yet, all of the statements made by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on the Iraq war have been qualified such that no real condemnation of the innocent lives lost was made. I'll take inconsistency of message for 2000, Alex.

Today, I am No Longer Catholic

I've tried: lord, I've tried.

I was raised in a fairly moderate Catholic family. No idiocy like that which has surrounded Crackergate, or the story coming out of the UK about how demons cause STD's and are spread by in-vitro-fertilization. No belief in trans-substantiation (though the same cannot be said of my grandparents), demonic possession, or hell. In short, fairly open-minded, middle-of-the-road white-bread Christianity. My mother's family are very conservative Opus Dei, John Bircher types, but both of my parents are fairly mellow.

But is there any particular point in being such a Catholic? I can't find one anymore. I simply can't accept that God would send himself down to Earth in order to sacrifice himself to himself to try to convince himself not to punish every man, woman, and child that has ever lived for non-sins that were never committed by two people who never existed. That a being capable of creating the cosmos would take a deep and abiding interest in what parts of our bodies we rub on whom. That there is value in sacrifice, or suffering, or the rote performance of sacraments. If one cannot accept these things, is there a point in remaining a member of such a faith group?

I used to find value in the performance of the rituals, the taking of the steps themselves whether or not one accepted the dogma. Kind of like doing yoga or Taiji Chuan without believing that you have invisible energy lines running through your guts (Qi). But the older I've gotten, the more pointless it all seems to be. If there is a God, how could such actions or such belief possibly be of any value to it?

I started drifting away from the Church over two decades ago, in high school (a Catholic, Jesuit high school, before anyone starts babbling about how secular public schooling leads to a loss of faith). The Jebbies taught us to question our faith: that doing so was a healthy part of one's spiritual development. I guess I just questioned a little harder than they intended.

So I really haven't been much of a Catholic for some time, but I guess the garbage that's been coming out of Church leadership and out of loose cannons like Bill the Perpetually Offended has pushed me over the edge. I just can't have any respect for the Church as an institution, as a philosophy, or even as a theraputic set of rituals. I give up. I quit.

I don't think that I can call myself atheist or even agnostic at this point: giving up on the comforting idea that there might just be a guiding purpose behind the universe is something I do find myself shying away from, though I'm not entirely sure why this should be so. I guess I'd test out as a Taoist Deist, if one were to examine my remaining beliefs. But I think I'll stop describing myself as having been "raised Catholic" when people ask about my religious beliefs, as I have been doing for years. I like many others, answer this way to avoid starting religious conversations with family and others which we would rather not have. From now on, it's just "I don't belong to any church".

Of course, the Catholic Church would contest me on that. They marked me at my Baptism like a dog spraying a bush. There's an invisible mark on my soul, and as a 16-year old I dutifully and without significant consideration reinforced that mark by going through Confirmation, like all good Catholic boys did at that age.

But so what, says I, If I no longer believe in invisible marks (or souls, for that matter)? Just another bullshit article of faith on the pyre.

The Latest on Crackergate: No Expulsion for Webster Cook

The insanity never dies: but there's at least one positive development: the UCF students at the heart of it all will not be expelled.

Now, one would think this would be a given: it's a public university, and any disagreements a student might have with a local religious group should not affect his status, unless he attacks someone or something (and NO, mishandling a host does not count as an attack on someone). But apparently the school's rules provide that if a complaint is raised using certain channels, the University has to hold a hearing and review the issue. This they have done.

As kind of a appertif' to the whole frenzy, Sastra weaves a rather apt analogy over at Pharyngula which is worth a read.

More Catholic Whining About PZ's Crackers

The Rev. Fr. John Trigilio of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy (membership: a whopping 600) has taking deep and furious umbrage with PZ over crackergate. He is calling for prayer and fasting:

We ask all Catholics of Minnesota and of the entire nation to join in a day of prayer and fasting that such offenses never happen again.

Or you could just burn everyone to death.

We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional. His flagrant display of irreverence by profaning a consecrated Host from a Catholic church goes beyond the limit of academic freedom and free speech.

Umm, no. It is most certainly not unconstitutional. The CCC needs to brush up a bit on what the Bill of rights is for.

The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion.

And PZ's actions in no way, shape or form infringed upon any Catholic priest's right to free exercise. You can still pray, go to Mass, run Catholic schools, get shit-faced at parish festivals, molest altar boys... oh, wait: not that last one.

Attacking the most sacred elements of a religion is not free speech anymore than would be perjury in a court or libel in a newspaper.

Perjury and libel are based on the fact that the statements made/printed are false. Nothing PZ accused wing-nut Catholics of was false. They did fly completely off the handle when a student tried to show a host to a non-Catholic friend. They did then proceed to harass and threaten both the student and his friend. They did harass and threaten (quite graphically) PZ when PZ called them idiots. And he is quite within his first amendment rights in opining that "It's Just a Frackin' Cracker".

Individual freedoms are limited by the boundaries created by the inalienable rights of others. The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance.

Absolute, utter, mind-boggling, no-holds-barred bullshit. You have no right not to be offended. The Catholic Church, like all mystical organizations, subscribes to a lot of crazy-assed ideas. Calling a dumb idea a dumb idea is protected speech, regardless of who or what is promoting that dumb idea.

The Chancellor of the University refused to reprimand or censure the teacher, who ironically is a Biology Professor. One fails to see the relevance of the desecration of a Catholic sacrament to the science of Biology. Were Myers a Professor of Theology, there would have been at least a presumption of competency to express religious opinions in a classroom.

-As to the Chancellor: bully for him. Good job.
-As to the "irony" of PZ being a Biology professor: ...?
-As the the relevance of desecration to the science of biology: So What? Have you ever discussed that weather with other clergy? You have?! How dare you transgress upon the holy territory of meteorologists!
-As to PZ's competency: Pharyngula isn't a classroom, you stupid git. It's a blog.

Yet, for a scientist to ridicule and show utter contempt for the most sacred and precious article of a major world religion, is inappropriate, unprofessional, unconstitutional and disingenuous.

While his comments and actions were not exactly diplomatic, they were appropriate, given the subject matter: the irrational importance Catholics place on a piece of bread. That they value it more than a human life is breathtaking in its inanity. Unprofessional? He wasn't acting within his profession. Doesn't apply. Unconstitutional? Well, we've covered that. Disingenuous? How? At what point was Myers not frank or sincere about his opinions?

A biologist has no business 'dissing' any religion, rather, they should be busy teaching the scientific discipline they were hired to teach.

And you, father, are hereby prohibited from discussing anything other than Catholic theology, in any setting, ever again, since you seem to be of the opinion that one can only talk on subjects involving one's vocation.

We also pray that Professor Myers contritely repent and apologize.

Yeah, good luck on that one.