The Irish are rightfully angry at the Pope's newest apology for his priests raping their children – his holiness seems good at abject grovelling, but the Irish have noticed that the Pope forgot to kick any of his priests and bishops in the ass. The Irish might understandably want a few priests kicked forcibly out the door, but the Pope apparently forgot.
But if the latest allegations against the Pope himself prove true, things are going to get mighty interesting. It looks like the vicar of Christ on Earth himself was responsible for protecting the very priests who went on to commit some of these terrible crimes.
Did you know that a priest or bishop can be excommunicated for revealing a sex crime to law-enforcement authorities, but not for raping a child? Think about that: two men show up at the Pearly Gates. "Next! What's your sin?" "I raped a child, but I'm really sorry." "No prob, come on in. Next! What's your sin?" "I turned that last guy in to the police." "You jerk! Sinner! You traitor against Christ's own Church! Get out of here!! GOD WON'T FORGIVE YOU!"
And who do you suppose was responsible for this? Why, Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger, the man who is now the Pope.
Showing posts with label irish. Show all posts
Showing posts with label irish. Show all posts
Monday, March 22, 2010
del.icio.us
reddit
StumbleUpon
Monday, September 21, 2009
Slavery and Child Trafficking in Ireland?
What do President George H. W. Bush's chief legal counsel, a baby who was stolen from his mother and sold for profit, and a tormented gay man who suffered from depression and died of AIDS, have in common?
They're all the same man.
Few stories get me as angry as those about slavery and selling children for profit. And although today's story isn't as black and white as many such stories, the shocking part is that it took place in Ireland in the 1950's, and the perpetrators were Catholic Nuns. And in case you're thinking, "OK, just another another overblown exaggeration," think again.
Our story starts in 1952, when Philomena Lee, a young Irish lass of 18 years, became pregnant. Philomena's mother died when she was just six herself, and the nuns raised her. At age 18, she knew nothing of men and the facts of life, and became intimate with a handsome young man she met at the county fair. So far, an all-too-common story, yet hardly shocking.
But for young Philomena, the shame of her pregnancy was nothing compared to what came next. The Catholic Church was so powerful that the Irish government had abandoned its duty, and handed over responsibility – and unchecked legal authority – of all unwed mothers and their babies to the Church. The Catholic Church took full control of these young women, imprisoned them in nunneries, and managed to block all legal interference from the government.
The Church started running it as a money-making business, taking money from the government, while at the same time selling the babies for profit to wealthy Catholic couples in Great Britain and America, even against the mothers' direct objections and refusals.
And the profits didn't stop with the babies. Their mothers were kept in the convent as slaves, forced to work in gardens, kitchens, nurseries or light manufacturing, unless they or their families could buy their freedom at a cost £100, a substantial sum in those days which many couldn't afford. It was slavery, plain and simple.
Philomena's baby became Michael Hess, a chief architect of the Republican National Convention's election strategy, whose brilliant work ultimately won the presidency for George H.W. Bush (senior), and for which he was appointed Bush's chief legal counsel. But unfortunately for Michael, he was also a gay man in a political party that didn't put up with homosexuality. Mike ultimately got AIDS, and died.
But even more tragically, both Philomena and Michael were trying desperately to find each other, to reconnect. Each of them went to the convent, and begged to be introduced, mother and son. Michael probably passed within a few miles of his mother. Yet, the Catholic nuns inexplicably refused, in spite of the earnest appeals of everyone involved. Michael died without ever getting to see his mother again, and Philomena never got to see the man that her little boy had become after he was forcibly taken from her and sold.
My summary barely does justice to this appalling story. I hope you'll read the full story, beautifully and tragically written by Martin Sixsmith of The Guardian.
Those who would claim that without religion, there can be no morality (which is the Roman Catholic Church's official position), need only look at deeds such as these to see that even with religion, morality is difficult to find.
They're all the same man.
Few stories get me as angry as those about slavery and selling children for profit. And although today's story isn't as black and white as many such stories, the shocking part is that it took place in Ireland in the 1950's, and the perpetrators were Catholic Nuns. And in case you're thinking, "OK, just another another overblown exaggeration," think again.
Our story starts in 1952, when Philomena Lee, a young Irish lass of 18 years, became pregnant. Philomena's mother died when she was just six herself, and the nuns raised her. At age 18, she knew nothing of men and the facts of life, and became intimate with a handsome young man she met at the county fair. So far, an all-too-common story, yet hardly shocking.
But for young Philomena, the shame of her pregnancy was nothing compared to what came next. The Catholic Church was so powerful that the Irish government had abandoned its duty, and handed over responsibility – and unchecked legal authority – of all unwed mothers and their babies to the Church. The Catholic Church took full control of these young women, imprisoned them in nunneries, and managed to block all legal interference from the government.
The Church started running it as a money-making business, taking money from the government, while at the same time selling the babies for profit to wealthy Catholic couples in Great Britain and America, even against the mothers' direct objections and refusals.
And the profits didn't stop with the babies. Their mothers were kept in the convent as slaves, forced to work in gardens, kitchens, nurseries or light manufacturing, unless they or their families could buy their freedom at a cost £100, a substantial sum in those days which many couldn't afford. It was slavery, plain and simple.
Philomena's baby became Michael Hess, a chief architect of the Republican National Convention's election strategy, whose brilliant work ultimately won the presidency for George H.W. Bush (senior), and for which he was appointed Bush's chief legal counsel. But unfortunately for Michael, he was also a gay man in a political party that didn't put up with homosexuality. Mike ultimately got AIDS, and died.
But even more tragically, both Philomena and Michael were trying desperately to find each other, to reconnect. Each of them went to the convent, and begged to be introduced, mother and son. Michael probably passed within a few miles of his mother. Yet, the Catholic nuns inexplicably refused, in spite of the earnest appeals of everyone involved. Michael died without ever getting to see his mother again, and Philomena never got to see the man that her little boy had become after he was forcibly taken from her and sold.
My summary barely does justice to this appalling story. I hope you'll read the full story, beautifully and tragically written by Martin Sixsmith of The Guardian.
Those who would claim that without religion, there can be no morality (which is the Roman Catholic Church's official position), need only look at deeds such as these to see that even with religion, morality is difficult to find.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Irish blasphemy law: The Road to Chaos
Every blogger in the religion / agnosticism / atheism blogosphere will be commenting on the offensive new law banning blasphemy in Ireland, but I can't help myself, I have to add my voice to the chorus. We might expect this sort of thing from the Muslim world, which is trying to make it a crime worldwide to criticize Islam, even in the United States. But Ireland?
Isn't Ireland known as a the land of freedom fighters? Hasn't Ireland already seen enough death and destruction related to religious intolerance? Isn't Ireland a democracy?
Most bloggers are focusing on the censorship aspect of this law, the blatant and offensive violation of free speech. But there is a more subtle, and in some ways more damaging, side effect of stupid laws like these. Laws like this threaten democracy itself.
There are two principles, well known to legal scholars, that the Irish are violating.
First of all, laws must be clear. "Thou shalt not steal" is a great law, because in almost all cases, we know the difference between what belongs to us and what doesn't. When we break this law, we know we're breaking the law. On the other hand, "Thou shalt not view pornography" has turned out to be a horrible law, because nobody knows what pornography is. Even a Supreme Court Justice of the United States once famously said, "I know it when I see it." If a Supreme Court Justice can't draw a clear line between what's legal and what's not, how is the average citizen supposed to obey the law?
A blasphemy law fails this principle abysmally. Nobody knows what's legal and what's not. The Irish tried to inject words like "reasonable" into the law, which only muddies things further. Is Jerry Falwell "reasonable"? Many people thinks so, I don't. My book, for example, will almost certainly be considered blasphemous by many, yet many consider it important literature in the religion debate.
The second principle that the Irish law violates is best described by the quip, "Better to set ten guilty men free than to convict on innocent man." Most people think this is about the tragedy of sending an innocent man to prison, but it isn't. Tragic though it may be to jail a good citizen, the real tragedy is much worse: If innocent men and women are sent to prison, then there's no reason to obey the law in the first place. "What the hell," they might say, "I'm going to jail either way, why not just do what I want?"
Government can only exist when people give up certain freedoms. Laws are only enforceable when enough people agree with the laws. That willingness evaporates like vodka on hot pavement when innocent people find themselves in jail.
These two principles form a terrible synergy in the Irish blasphemy law: Nobody knows what's legal and what's not, and honest people who sincerely believe they're on the right side of the law will find themselves convicted.
I hope the Irish Parliament, which should be one of the shining beacons of democracy and free speech in the world, abandons this terrible law.
Isn't Ireland known as a the land of freedom fighters? Hasn't Ireland already seen enough death and destruction related to religious intolerance? Isn't Ireland a democracy?
Most bloggers are focusing on the censorship aspect of this law, the blatant and offensive violation of free speech. But there is a more subtle, and in some ways more damaging, side effect of stupid laws like these. Laws like this threaten democracy itself.
There are two principles, well known to legal scholars, that the Irish are violating.
First of all, laws must be clear. "Thou shalt not steal" is a great law, because in almost all cases, we know the difference between what belongs to us and what doesn't. When we break this law, we know we're breaking the law. On the other hand, "Thou shalt not view pornography" has turned out to be a horrible law, because nobody knows what pornography is. Even a Supreme Court Justice of the United States once famously said, "I know it when I see it." If a Supreme Court Justice can't draw a clear line between what's legal and what's not, how is the average citizen supposed to obey the law?
A blasphemy law fails this principle abysmally. Nobody knows what's legal and what's not. The Irish tried to inject words like "reasonable" into the law, which only muddies things further. Is Jerry Falwell "reasonable"? Many people thinks so, I don't. My book, for example, will almost certainly be considered blasphemous by many, yet many consider it important literature in the religion debate.
The second principle that the Irish law violates is best described by the quip, "Better to set ten guilty men free than to convict on innocent man." Most people think this is about the tragedy of sending an innocent man to prison, but it isn't. Tragic though it may be to jail a good citizen, the real tragedy is much worse: If innocent men and women are sent to prison, then there's no reason to obey the law in the first place. "What the hell," they might say, "I'm going to jail either way, why not just do what I want?"
Government can only exist when people give up certain freedoms. Laws are only enforceable when enough people agree with the laws. That willingness evaporates like vodka on hot pavement when innocent people find themselves in jail.
These two principles form a terrible synergy in the Irish blasphemy law: Nobody knows what's legal and what's not, and honest people who sincerely believe they're on the right side of the law will find themselves convicted.
I hope the Irish Parliament, which should be one of the shining beacons of democracy and free speech in the world, abandons this terrible law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
