Vatican: we may be bad, but others are worse

[Are_grits_groceries]

In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not pedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.

The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/sex-abuse-religion-vatican

They aren't truly repentant about their own sexual abusers if they are yammering with this garbage.

And once again, the abusers were homosexuals. These hypocrites make me sick!

[Hannah Bell]

1. if they're being painted as *the* child molesters of the religious world,

nothing wrong with playing offense.

[Are_grits_groceries]

4. The "they did it too" excuse

is ridiculous. They are trying to make a huge cloud of people to hide in IMHO. If they were so concerned, why weren't they addressing this problem before.

It's wrong and abhorrent, and adding to the list of people who are guilty of it doesn't dilute the horror. It just makes it worse.

When they trotted out the "homosexuals did it" line, that proved to me they are still reaching for ways to minimize the problem and once again make a specious and dangerous claim about gay men.

[Hannah Bell]

13. there is no "homosexuals did it" line. read it again & see if you get it:

"the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not pedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males."

the strict definition of pedophile is an adult, gay or straight, sexually attracted to *pre-pubescent* children - not *adolescents* (pubescent teens).

a pedophile might be gay, but strictly speaking, a gay man who likes teenage boys isn't a pedophile.

[TommyO]

17. That is "the homosexuals did it line", without a doubt

The catholic church is, once again, smearing gay people, and now other faiths, to cover its own lapses. Screw 'em (and not in the sexual sense).

[Hannah Bell]

19. whatever you say.

there's no argument in your post, just a claim that the statement means what you say it does, like humpty dumpty.

who can argue with such blinding logic?

[TommyO]

33. The Catholic Church has been fomenting anti-gay hatred for a long time now

This is just an extension of that, trying to absolve themselves of responsibility by falsely blaming others.

[Hannah Bell]

39. you claim. it doesn't follow from their statement.

[TommyO]

41. Their anti-gay bigotry is well known

As is their coverup of their sexual abuse scandal.

Now they're saying that others are more guilty then they are.

Are you so willing to defend the indefensible actions of the catholic church that you are blinded to these simple facts?

[Hannah Bell]

43. it's hopeless. how idiotic people are.

i'll be hiding from the villagers in a few years as they run through the streets, carrying their torches & screaming like apes.

just say the knee-jerk code words & they'll murder you.

so fucking stupid.

[TommyO]

49. What are you trying to say HB?

Are you trying to say that the Catholic Church isn't anti-gay?

[Hannah Bell]

52. lol, lol. gotta laugh or i'll cry.

carry on with your lynching.

[TommyO]

54. I'm not lynching anybody

I'm pointing out that the Catholic Church has a long history of being anti-gay. Can you deny this, given their proclamation about homosexuals being intrinsically disordered, or their activities in California on Prop 8?

[Hannah Bell]

55. "Can you deny this" lol, lol, lol

[TommyO]

56. The fact that the Catholic Church is anti-gay stands

given your inability to deny it.

[Hannah Bell]

59. omg. rofl.

don't you get it? i haven't said one coherent word the last few posts, but you keep making assumptions all the same, all based on the little construct in your own head.

like 90% of the folks on this thread.

[TommyO]

60. I've taken into account everything that you've posted

[Hannah Bell]

62. i didn't say anything. & if i had, it wouldn't have mattered. you have

a little "catholic church" box, & only certain things fit in it.

i don't, so you can't hear me.

you don;t believe it, but it's true.

[TommyO]

67. The facts about what the Catholic Church did in their abuse scandal speak for themselves

The Church's anti-gay agenda speaks for itself.

I didn't put the church into a box, it did, and continues to when it excuses its behavior by saying that other churches are worse.

[Are_grits_groceries]

18. That is just the kind of sophistry

they use to avoid the real problem. They can try to tiptoe on some line they developed, but they are still stomping in the muck. They are trying to make it seem as if all priests who were sexually attracted to adolescents were gay. They were sexual predators who used their position as "Men of God" to abuse kids, adolescents or whatever you want to call them.

In addition, a lot of the victims weren't adolescents. I'm sure there is some razor sharp line they will trot out for that too.

[Hannah Bell]

25. if you have the stats, produce them. i'm going by the distinction made in

the sentence, which is about age, not orientation. furthermore, the sentence doesn't say "all priests," it says the majority. the majority isn't "all". nor do they say there were no pre-adolescent victims.

but apparently you know different & evaluating what the statement actually *says* is irrelevant.

so produce the evidence for your claims that "a lot" of pre-teens were molested & that a significant number of cases involved adolescent girls.

[hedgehog]

51. I've seen this line before. I don't know whether anyone outside the Vatican

uses this strict definition of pedophile, but generally people in this country frown on adults in authority having sex with teenagers regardless of orientation. Look at all the male high school teachers in their 20's and 30's who get in trouble for having sex with 17 and 18 year old students.

The claim that "the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not pedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males." was used as an excuse to purge the seminaries recently. Of course, the men who were purged were those who were openly gay. How much do you want to bet that there are still a lot of men who are in the closet? I don't know about you, but I have no problems with someone who is openly gay, fell sorry for those who admit to themselves they are gay but remain in the closet and distrust those who are gay but in total denial.

[roguevalley]

77. given the power differential and the blatant lie that all the predators

are gay, they can shove it. they cannot defend this.

[CatholicEdHead]

80. Taking the blame off themselves onto an outside force

I have interacted with conservative seminarians on Facebook and Catholic Answers, and the common thread is the Church is a "perfect society" hense it has never and will never do anything wrong. So in this case since the Church and clergy are by their theological definition to be "perfect" then it is the evil homosexual forces of the outside world that came in to massive damage on the Holy Mother Church (tm)(c)(R) :sarcasm: .

They clergy have bought their own propaganda and this is the crap we get.

[cali]

5. bwahahahaha.

the systemic abuse uncovered re priests in the RC church has been unparalleled. but it's cute to see you defending them.

[Hannah Bell]

12. don't you ever get tired of smear tactics? seriously, i don't think i've ever seen you do anything

but name-call, strawman & smear.

you should go work for carl rove.

[cali]

21. go fucking look in the mirror, sweetiepie. you just made a vile smear against me

in the thread by the wingnut about dems and GLBT issues, insinuating that the reason I unrecced the thread was some dark and sinister anti-gay agenda.

You do nothing but smear and lie your ass off and you have the nerve to accuse me of anything. you need help for your illness.

[Hannah Bell]

26. here's the thread. point out this "vile smear" where i "insinuate" you unrecced the thread because

of your "anti-gay agenda".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6652408&mesg_id=6652517

[TommyO]

34. How is pointing out the catholic coverup of their abuses a smear tactic?

It happened, it's fact, and it's indisputable.

[Hannah Bell]

45. are you some kind of fucking automaton? do you even read the posts?

[cali]

63. bwahahaha. St. Hannah who never smears

you are a hoot, honey.

[Dorian Gray]

6. I disagree with this

and I"m a religious and observant Catholic.

The priests who abused children and their position of authority, and the Bishops who covered the crimes up, are wholly responsible for the negative views that the world takes of the Catholic Church. They are human beings, capable of great evil, and they committed that evil. The Church deserves the negative scrutiny it is receiving. And the church should be showing humility in the face of the scrutiny.

Luckily, I know many priests who are active in victim relations who take this attitude. They take umbrage at the Diocesan attitude of deflection, themselves. While it may be true that there are sexual crimes/predators in other religious institutions, the Catholic Church needs to humbly take ownership of the abuses that took place within its boundaries.

[Hannah Bell]

11. i don't disagree in one sense, but there are other considerations in the sphere of politics.

there are underlying conflicts into which the surface issue of "pedophile priests" plays, & is manipulated for covert ends.

[hedgehog]

53. Well said!

[saltpoint]

2. On the issue of poverty, which I bring up because it seems so overt

and upstage in the ministry of Jesus, the Vatican AND the hyper-Protestant megachurches all have a lot to apologize for inasmuch as their material amenities attendant to their station clearly abandon the tenets of Jesus' imperatives to feed the hungry and clothe the naked.

The sex scandal headlines grab everyone's outrage and attention, but the larger issue is whether a given entity -- powerful and wealthy and tax-sheltered in both cases of Catholic and Protestant -- should be the arbiters of moral conduct when there remain hungry people all over the globe.

I acknowledge and praise the charity arms of various denominations' ministries but all we keep hearing about is top-down proclamations and political meddling.

John Kerry threatened by archbishops over his pro-choice ideology. And the nutbag Protestants advancing on the public schools like a pestilence.

The anonymous third-shift Catholic charity nurse who lives in a working class neighborhood in Indianapolis or Omaha or Macon is quite a damn bit closer to the Kingdom than an entire pile of archbishops or any of the smarmy, fat-wallet ego-driven hyper-Protestant fundie televangelists.

[regnaD kciN]

3. This is one thing I heard about years ago from sources among the Jesuits...

...(who were quite disgusted by the whole thing themselves): that, when the first abuse scandals hit, the Vatican made a conscious decision to spend a lot of money to quietly settle the claims of molestation against young girls (which were, in fact, the majority of the accusations) so that only the cases against boys came to light -- so that they could brush aside the notion that mandatory celibacy had anything to do with the problem, and it could all be blamed on Those Evil Awful Ho-mo-sexuals, and the situation could be "solved" by driving them, and the "liberals" who tolerated them, out of the Church.

BTW, for all the qualms I have about the current Pope, this policy was actually enacted and carried out under J2P2, long before Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) was chosen as his successor.

[Betty Karlson]

14. But Ratzinger was already in a position of power back then!

He headed the Congregation for Doctrine or whatever it was called, and advised the pope on many matters of strategy and procedure. His reputation stretches back to the 1960-ies, when he "advised" on intricate procedures to derail Vaticanum II.

[hedgehog]

65. It's worse than that. The claim is made that John XXIII established this policy

in 1962 by issuing the Crimen Sollicitationis.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/.../28_09_06_Crimen_english.pdf

Oddly enough, the WIki article suggests that the ruling requires that priests who solicit sex be denounced, not that the activity be covered up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationis_%28document%29

The National Catholic Reporter seems to agree:
" Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church's internal disciplinary process. It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.

"Of course, a bishop couldn't use this document to cover up denunciation of an act of sexual abuse," Morrisey said. "The document simply wasn't made for that purpose."

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm


John XXIII was aware that some priest used their positions to exploit others; in fact he is reported to have been very suspicious of Padre Pio.

http://www.annoticoreport.com/2007/10/padre-pio-fraud-pope-john-xxiii.html

So, in addition to all the other crimes involved, we now have people slandering John XXIII by saying he originated the policy.

For what it's worth, Crimen Sollicitationis was issued in March of 1962 when John XXIII was busy preparing for the opening of the Second Vatican Council in October. He was already ill with the stomach cancer that killed him June 3, 1963.

[Solly Mack]

7. Pathetic

[old mark]

8. "Only 1.5% to 5%" of how many? How many thousands of assaults is that?

How many kids?

mark

[Hannah Bell]

15. is it any more than in the general population? or in other religious orders?

or other positions of power?

[TommyO]

20. Maybe, maybe not, but it's the catholic cover up of these activities

that puts the Catholic church into the position it's in.

[Are_grits_groceries]

22. They are trying to excuse their behavior by

finding others who did it. Anybody who did it is abhorrent, and that will never excuse the Catholic priests one iota. They are piously pointing to other sinners in hopes that it will deflect attention from their sins.

They remind me of the Mark Sanford. He has abused the use of the state plane. He is now running around trying to find records of any and everybody who may also have done so. I don't care if every person in the state used it wrongly. He is still responsible for his actions, and it won't absolve him.

[Submariner]

9. Those child raping bastards should be locked up for life

but they're not. That POS Ratzinger is a master cover up artist who has hid away the perverts in other parishes, while serving the pope he seceded. These super cults that worship imaginary sky people are nothing more than elitist men's club of clowns in medieval costumes.

[Betty Karlson]

10. My blood is boiling.

If up to 5 % of the Catholic clergy is prone to abuse children, then up to what percentage of Catholic children will be abused?

Those children are not abused by Protestant ministers! Those children are not abused by someone because said someone is gay! Those children are abused by catholic clergy bacause said clergy has a position of authority over those catholic children and takes advantage of their innocence.

Most churches hit by allegations are "protestants"? True. But only if anything not catholic is labeled as a protestant. Furthermore, an allegation is not proof af the act. Now, which church is affected by the most proven cases or *convictions*?

Then there is the question of how many allegations/ convictions there are before the abuse is put to an end. Because protestant churches, to the best of my knowledge, are not in the habit of sending a known child abuser to another parish, hoping this time it will work out.

This so-called church is twisting facts and figures is ways reminiscent of the Republican Party at its worst moments. To do so and claim to act in the name of our Lord is downright blasphemous.

[Hannah Bell]

16. "only if anything not catholic is labeled as a protestant."

i don't get your point. are you saying e.g. jewish & buddhist molestations are being lumped with protestant ones? or that the "scores" of each of the protestant sects should be compared with the catholic "score"?

t

[Betty Karlson]

37. Are Mormons Protestants?

That is my point. My Church (not "sect", if you please), does recognise the "Church of Latter-Day Saints" as Christian, but does decidedly NOT identify it as protestant - in much the same way that we don't identify the catholic Church as protestant.

If you think this kind of distiction is not important, just ask yourself how the pope would feel to be identified, by the Metropolite of Istanbul, with some practices of "High Church" Episcopals in Ireland.

Considering how many Latter Days have pressed their sainthood to children through the practices of fourth-wife child marriages, the distinction - whether or not to compute the Latter-Day figures - may even have consequences for the average of child abuse cases among other protestant denominations: Lutheran Churches, Calvinist Churches, Baptist Churches.

[GinaMaria]

23. What a tag line!

We're not as bad as_____________ (fill in the blank). What PR genius came up with that one? Seriously? That's the best way they could frame this? Why bother even framing at all? Why not just take a strong stance on the matter, zero tolerance for this kind of behavior? What does it get them to deflect? This sort of thing hurts them more than it helps them.

[Hannah Bell]

28. um, that;s the headline writer's spin.

[GinaMaria]

76. It's not just the headline

It's the way they've chosen to frame this. The headline sums up the article well. This is not a good strategy or tactic. It's like saying the RCC is sexist and them coming back with "Well, not as much as the mormans!". It's stupid and doesn't address what really needs to be addressed. It doesn't address what catholics really need from their church on this issue.

[jimshoes]

24. 5% seems intolerably high

no? Even 1.5% seems a bit high. Sigh!

[DaveinJapan]

27. I have just one question...(er, I guess two really)

"In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not pedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males."

Isn't a pedophile an adult who fucks innocent children?

Where the fuck do they get off saying the majority of them "were not pedophiles", regardless of sexual preference?

What a bunch of con artists and scumbags!

[Hannah Bell]

29. a pedophile is attracted to (but doesn't necessarily 'fuck') pre-pubescents.

the statement = the majority of incidents involved teens, not younger kids.

Does *anyone* at DU actually respect language & facts, or is it just all mirror-image teabaggers?

[DaveinJapan]

32. So raping minors who are teens is less bad than raping pre-teens?

Maybe you should check out the law in these cases.

Raping minors is bad, PERIOD. There's no equivocation on this one, much as you wish there were!

[Hannah Bell]

36. "So raping minors who are teens is less bad than raping pre-teens?"

Translation: "So, straw man?" Followed by bullshit which follows from your own straw man.

This is what I mean by dishonesty. Go talk to yourself, you don't need a partner, you can carry both ends. There's a lot of people just like you here.

[DaveinJapan]

57. How was I dishonest?

Please explain in detail.

[Hannah Bell]

61. look up the definition of straw man.

[DaveinJapan]

64. Nice copout.

Tell me again what was dishonest about what I said.

I'm no liar. And I resent having to defend the position against child fucking anyway.

Child fucking is bad, see? It's a crime, and it's bad.

And YOU are defending it.

Proud?

[Are_grits_groceries]

35. It is till an abhorrent crime.

Pre-pubescents or not. Older doesn't mean that it is any less of a crime.

Gay or straight, it is still a crime and a misuse of people who put their trust in a religion.

The area where it might matter is to study why they may be abusers; why they are attracted to certain ages; and other questions. That might give some insight into the crimes.

However these questions are answered won't change the fact that it is a crime and a sin.

Slice and dice it and nail down the semantics and figures to the inth degree. They are still trying to minimize what was done by using figures and words to obscure their culpability.

[Hannah Bell]

38. But they didn't say it's "less of a crime," did they? *You* did.

continue yammering to the voices in your own head, they're speaking so loud you can't hear anyone else's.

[TommyO]

42. No, but they did perpetrate a huge coverup of the crimes to cover their

silk robed, Prada shoe wearing asses.

They are in no position to point fingers at others.

[Are_grits_groceries]

44. The only voice yammering is mine.

I can hear you. I can hear you pick apart any statement, sentence or phrase for a strict interpretation. State it as strictly and as to the letter as you want to.

The priests still committed a crime. I believe that their statement is an attempt to minimize their problem subtley by using such careful language.

Talk about my "voices." (Why did you use that phrase?) Parse each statement until the cows come home. Play semantical games all you want to. I bow to your superior ability and patience to pick nits so thoroughly.

[Hannah Bell]

48. no, i'm actually trying to understand what *they* meant, not my knee-jerk

assumptions about what they meant.

you might try it some time.

"semantic games" "nits" - so says every lord high executioner.

[girl gone mad]

68. I think it was implied.

At least, that was my impression of their statement.

Read: "The majority aren't pedophiles, just gay men attracted to teenagers so it's a gay problem not a pedophile problem"

This appears to be an attempt to minimize their own guilt while laying the blame on gay men.

[TommyO]

30. They get off saying it because they want to absolve themselves of responsibility

They want to make it a gay problem, not a problem with the Catholic Church.

[Soylent Brice]

31. waaaaah!! waaaaaah!!! others do it more than we do!!

waaaah!! waaaaaaahhh!!!

what a FUCKED up excuse.

LAMELAMELAMELAMELAMELAME.

[madokie]

40. He's full of shit as a Christmas turkey

I've never in my 61 years of life been approached by a gay person to do anything. These people committing these acts are Pedophiles and nothing else so fuck him and the white horse he rode in on. btw I've never known of nor heard of a gay pedophile actually

[wicket]

46. It's all the gays fault!

:eyes: Give me a fucking break!

[TommyO]

47. it's the standard catholic church line when it comes to their coverup

not to mention it being the standard for the cult's apologists here.

[wicket]

58. I live in Boston, and I'll never forgive the Archdiocese here

NEVER

[Odin2005]

50. Well THAT'S some brilliant logic!

:eyes:

[jeremyfive]

66. Thank you, Martin Luther.

You saved me from this garbage.

[Mrs. Overall]

69. Yeah, protestants are perfect. No garbage there.

I LOVE the christian fundamentalists--they are so much more Christ-like than those boorish catholics.

[Betty Karlson]

70. Are you seriouly implying Mr Luther was a fundamentalist? N/T

[Mrs. Overall]

73. I'm seriously implying that the christian fundamentalists in the US are protestants--

my family is absolutely filled with them and they all attend Baptist churches, where they are told to be anti-science, anti-gay, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-feminism, anti-U.N., anti-catholic, and the list goes on.

I was raised Baptist.

Since Mr. Luther obviously lived well before the rise of christian fundamentalism in the United States, I would definitely say I am not implying that he was a fundamentalists (sic), since that would be quite impossible.

[Betty Karlson]

81. Baptists, to the best of my knowledge,

Owe more to Geert Groote than to Martin Luther. Groote was a proto-fundamentalist radical by all accounts. And very much anti-science. Anti-intellectual even.

If the fundamentalists in the US are all protestants - do you include the Mormons into the equation?

[JonQ]

71. But that was so long ago, and their victims have probably moved on

and they produced a lot of good art in their day, and we should be more concerned with healing and moving on than simply getting revenge.

Oh wait, this is the catholic church not polanski, string 'em all up I say!

[TwilightGardener]

72. Allow priests to have relationships and marry, and/or ordain women, and

eventually most of the pedophilic/adolescent victimization will disappear, because the Church will then attract mentally and socially well-adjusted priests who have an acceptable outlet for their sexuality. Until then, they'll continue to attract socially inept and sexually confused young men who take advantage of kids. Not that it will happen, but it's clear what NEEDS to happen.

[Brickbat]

74. Gosh, if people of authority in Protestant and Jewish communities did it too, maybe the problem is

religion!

[Betty Karlson]

82. But they don't.

No cover-ups in most protestant churches. And to the best of my knowledge, neither are things covered up by the vast majority of Jewish communities.

So the root of this evil will have to be sought elsewhere, don't you agree?

[olegramps]

75. It is a lame attempt to mitigate the Church's cover-up of crimes.

The major issue is not that pedophiles abuse pre-pubescent child en and that by definition that sexual acts with pubescent children can by regarded as homosexual acts. The major issue was the cover-up of these crimes. I would like to point out that puberty is occurring at a much younger age and that children as young as ten can be pubescent. Clearly a person who is in a position of trust that takes advantage of a ten year old is committing a crime against a child.

There is a distinct difference between homosexual acts between adults and those involving a minor. People who have sexual relations with minors who are pubescent are in a special category that I would not consider to be covered under the same category of consenting adults. In fact psychiatrists have defined two categories of adults who abuse pubescent minors. Hebephilia is classified as abuse of young pubescent minors and ephebophilia of older minors. Hebephilia is known to be more prevalent than pedophilia. This is exactly the categories that accounted for the vast majority of abuse by priests. The attempt to categorize people who abuse pubescent minors as homosexuals is clearly attempt to mitigate the problem. These people are in a special category and many have absolutely no desire to have sexual relations with a consenting adult.

Lastly I would like to point out that law enforcement applies the term pedophilia to the abuse of minors and is not limited to abuse of prepubescent children. The term predatory pedophilia is also a more common term to apply to sexual abuse of minors. Psychiatry differentiates whereas law enforcement does not.

[struggle4progress]

78. Let's look at the actual context and statements:

On 22 September, Keith Porteous-Wood representing IHEU appeared before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and made the following presentation:

Agenda Item 4: Matters requiring the attention of the Council
Child Abuse and the Holy See
In 1990 the Holy See acceded to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ... The extent of child abuse within the Catholic Church is well known ... We urge the Holy See to recognise its responsibilities to children and the CRC, to bring its reporting up to date, and to instruct its dioceses and religious orders to report all cases of alleged child abuse to the civil authorities ... And we urge the international community to hold the Holy See to account.
http://www.iheu.org/iheu-calls-vatican-recognize-its-responsibilities-children-and-under-un-convention

The Vatican responded:

HOLY SEE, RIGHT OF REPLY – CHILD ABUSE
Let me clarify the issue raised by the International Humanist and Ethical Union in its intervention ... In the upcoming report of the Holy See to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is finalized as we speak, a paragraph will be dedicated to the problem of child abuse by catholic clergy ... From available research we now know that in the last fifty years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases ... About 85% of the offenders of child sexual abuse are family members, babysitters, neighbors, family friends or relatives ... The Church is very conscious of the seriousness of the problem. The Code of Canon Law stipulates that priests involved in sexual abuse cases must be "punished with just punishments, not excluding expulsion from clerical state" ... As the Catholic Church has been busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it.
http://www.iheu.org/holy-see-responds-iheu-criticism

[Thickasabrick]

79. Do they have polls about catholics and if they really listen to

the Vatican anymore? I'd be really curious as to how many people in the world really value what comes out of that organization.