Is that a polite invite to join the United Front Against Smelly Old Misanthropes, then?
There's more than enough to find disagreeable without resorting to spelling or grammar.t
Y'know sacha, if it weren't for that Fine Mind of yours, I might never have noticed.
Y'know Ian, I don't recall any political party mobile billboards during the last election - but then I wasn't paying a lot of attention. If there were, thanks to Chuckie's revelation one can fairly bet that they were towed by closet homosexuals who'd undergo almost any humiliation to avoid being outed.
. . . they threaten to OUT them for not towing the party line.
Eggcorn of the week.
Interesting book reviews Tess, seeing as they're from a world that I'm not too familiar with. Coughlin's a clever writer, but again, primarily an apologist for the recent papacy. It's hard not to see his repeated blaming of institutional abuse on already disgraced bishops as a rather calculated action in damage control, while the Vatican hierarchy is largely treated as being beyond criticism.
As for John Paul II's naivety/innocence in refusing to comprehend the scale and seriousness of the abuse taking place in the church, something's seriously wrong with an organisation that elects someone so spectacularly incompetent to its leadership. If he were the CEO of a multinational that had been found to be systematically abusing children in the course of its operations one could hardly raise the defence of naivety.
Thanks Tess, a good link. Not exactly a blog, but a well-articulated and heartfelt opinion piece, and the comments are interesting. Sadly, though, voices within the church such as Thomas Doyle's will remain muted until the Vatican deals proactively with abuse. Like most such statements, and your blaming of the bishops, it stops short of calling upon the pope himself to act with urgency. In a hierarchical organisation where a leader holds close to absolute power nothing will change while scapegoating remains an option.
It's not so long since Ratzinger characterised revelations of abuse as primarily attacks on the church, a position which he has never really recanted. It'd be a great day for the church if the Vatican uncovered and actively dealt with entrenched abuse, rather than making token apologies years after the fact, but as long as the pope's word is up there with the gospels the problem will persist.
Please, can you stop reading my words in the worst light possible.
How about providing a link to one of these catholic blogs that offers constructive criticism of the policies of the current papacy? On an issue that you might personally feel some sympathy with. It's something you've been conspicuously unwilling to do in any of your posts so far.
Where ever there are vulnerable children or adults there will be people who take sexual advantage of that.
Ah, so you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs then. That seems awfully cynical.
Just as it is unfair to taint all clergy by the actions of a few, the same goes for gay activists:
The old 'you'll find a few bad eggs wherever you look' defense. The church's problem is that the abuse is institutional, facilitated by a culture of silence brought about by unquestioning obedience to earthly authority. Children don't tell because they fear going to hell, "good" clergy and caregivers know something's amiss, but maintain their silence.
If 'faithful' catholics were to constructively criticise the church's authority, much like a diehard National supporter might express misgivings about some action taken by John Key, it would be evidence that the culture of secrecy was on the wane. This happened in the time of Roncalli/John XXIII, but ever since the Vatican has worked to return the papacy to the status of an absolute monarchy.
A long as you're so upfront about taking your world view on sexual morality unquestiongly from a bunch of aplogists for persecution and child abuse - which is pretty much the tone of the current Vatican hierarchy, despite the cosmetic attempts to spin things otherwise - it's a bit rich to expect to be taken even halfway seriously.
I mean seriously, do I need to make you a t-shit that says "feel free to disagree with Tess" and make you wear the damn thing until the point hits home?
In your dreams. Shouldn't you rather be knocking up a hairy undergarment and mortifying yourself through prayer and fasting for the sake of steven's misguided soul? Really, you wannabee carmelites are going soft.