alternative news


January 3, 2013 By Joseph P. Farrell

Sometimes I have to wonder about the colossally bad timing and, well, just all round bad taste the Vatican in general and Pope Benedict XVI in particular seems to be showing. As the USA and much of the world was absorbing the senseless slaughter of young children at Sandy Hook, the Pope was releasing statements about how gay people are threats to world peace and justice, and now, as recently as a Christmas message last year, the pope seems to be saying in certain contexts child pornography is ok:

Pope’s child porn 'normal' claim sparks outrage among victims Read more:

Now I suspect the readership here is about as diverse as any site on the internet; I know we have atheists, agnostics, Protestants, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox, Buddhists, Hindus... and probably an equal spread of just about every age group, sexual orientation, race, cultural background, and economic demographic you can think of. And I'll bet that by far and away most of us here would think that to rob a child of his or her innocence and to abuse them in this or any fashion is just about the most barbarous act one can think of. We wouldn't need to read books of ethical philosophy, canon law, moral philosophy, or to run and consult a holy book. Our response would be visceral, immediate, from the heart.

So I have to wonder folks, when I sit and read words like these:

"In his traditional Christmas address yesterday to cardinals and officials working in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also claimed that child pornography was increasingly considered “normal” by society.

“In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said.

“It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than' and a ‘worse than'. Nothing is good or bad in itself.”

The Pope said abuse revelations in 2010 reached “an unimaginable dimension” which brought “humiliation” on the Church.

After shaking off my shock and bewilderment, I had to wonder, is he more concerned about the loss of innocence in our society and culture, about the victims themselves? or more concerned with his institution's reputation? Why all the diplomatic tiptoeing?
What disturbs me here is, you'll recall, that I also blogged recently about the Vatican's call not only for a new Central Bank of the World, but for a "moral authority" that the coming spic-and-span chrome and glass global government can turn to when it wishes to "consult" on "morality," and there was little doubt about whom the papacy was thinking of...
...and we've made it through the great filter...?
See you on the flip side.