Atheists "Not Fully Human," Catholic Childfuckers A-OK

It's been quite a month for the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom.

First, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor thoughtfully unveiled his take on agnostics and atheists: they're "not fully human," His Eminence intoned. Watch:

To make sure the message would be crystal clear, he then clarified, a few days later, that "lack of belief" is truly "the greatest of evils."

Ah. Right. Greater, one surmises, than starving a one-year-old boy to death for not saying "amen" after his meal; greater also than priests teaming up with fascist dictators and preaching mayhem and bloodshed, causing the violent deaths of untold thousands; greater, certainly, than members of the clergy forcibly ramming their blessed cocks up the rectums of underage altar boys, with centuries-long impunity no less.

May was off to a fine start.

Then, a couple of days ago, a long-awaited report on child abuse in the Irish Catholic Church came out, nine years in the making.

A nine-year inquiry into child abuse by Ireland's Catholic religious orders showed a system that shielded child-molesters from justice and trapped generations of Ireland's poorest children in misery from the 1930s to the 1990s. Irish President Mary McAleese on Thursday denounced what she called an "atrocious betrayal of love" by Catholic clergy toward these children.

And what did the Church say in response? This: Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the spiritual leader of more than four million Catholics in England and Wales, commended the bravery of Irish members of the clergy who eventually acknowledged their guilt.

Not making that up. Here's the London Times' religion correspondent on the matter:

Archbishop Nichols praised the courage of those priests in the wake of the Irish child abuse scandal who had owned up to the abuse — even though none actually have. Instead, and quite incredibly, they managed to secure protection from the Government against their identities actually being known — even the dead ones. [emphasis added]

The Catholic Church, steeped though it is in Latin, still does not know how and when to properly utter the words mea maxima culpa. Its morality is as irreparably tattered as its credibility.

Doubt it? See also this.

Comments

[notprovided]

On order to focus on the plight of the abused, I am ignoring your typically anti-Catholic tactic of absurdly demanding one-syllable answers to a panoply of questions that can't even be sufficiently examined in a few paragraphs, let alone answered. That is a tactic, and you are a tactician.

But you are wearing the robe of a Robin Hood, aren't you? Well, let's get you in front of a mirror.

It is an incalculable sorrow that children would be abused by anyone let alone consecrated religious. Nobody sane would disagree with that.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "The Catholic Church" but I'm quite sure your modus operandi is to strike long and wide.

Why aren't you writing about child sexual abuse? Outside of the legal imperative to prosecute, who cares about who is a sexual abuser of children? Oh, wait someone who is investigating so as to curtail a future possibility. Ah, social engineering! Profiling? Handy tool. When do you propose to round up all the priests? When to confiscate all Catholic Church's property?

Your tactic is to hold up exception as the rule. A good question is "why?" It's either because you have an axe to grind or because child sexual abuse by a priest gives you an excuse to grind your axe.

In the pie-chart of identifiable groups accused or convicted of child sexual abuse, why do you not only avoid mentioning the ugly towering reality of married males and teachers dominating the numbers as child sexual abuse defendants? Why do their PR work for them by sharpening the focus onto the smallest group and always away from the largest group?

To solve a problem, you start with the largest group first, or it will never change. Now explain which side of child sexual abuse your efforts are benefitting.

Like 99% of Internet commentators, you haven't the slightest interest in protecting children. You just want to jump on a convenient bandwagon. And who will pay the price for your journalistic "integrity"?

Let's say you imprison all the priests tomorrrow. That protects the innocent from 1.5% of the abusers. Have you even asked the question what about the other 98.5%? That gross omission unmasks your intent.

This 2600 page tragedy is a windfall for the majority of child sexual abusers in Ireland AND EVERYWHERE ELSE who will win years of reduced scrutiny as "enlightened" commentators like you shovel them out of the public mindshare.

You must really love the look of those sparks flying off that edge.

[Rogier]

Dear notprovided,

Please note the following:

(1) Nowhere do I imply that only priests are capable of child abuse.

(2) The fact that criminals from groups Y and Z rape children doesn't invalidate calling out the crimes of the child rapists who belong to group X;

(3) Considering (1) and (2), your entire argument is a strawman, and a remarkably rickety one at that.

[GreginOz]

"Not provided"? I comment with a raised brow, these are fucking PRIESTS, you gormless douche bag! trusted, semi-diefied themselves by their adoring congregations, living off a tithe, tax free and happily pumping their sacred cocks up the arses of innocent children. ANY pedeaphilia is to be abhored but these mongrels, most of all, are to be villified, pilloried, tared and feathered and whipped through their parishs. And don't, really, get me started on the Twisted Sisters, the 'nones' (sic). Evil, sadistic bitches...

[George Arndt]

And people ask why I'm an EX-Catholic!

The Vatican is a holdover from the Medival world.

He must of forgot the part about "judge not lest ye be judged."

[hermesten]

I blame the French for not finishing the fine work they started in 1789.

But as far as these statements go (from notprovided --won't speculate on what's missing but I think we all know):

"Let's say you imprison all the priests tomorrrow."

Oh fuck yes, let's do.

"That protects the innocent from 1.5% of the abusers."

It protects ALL of us from abuse --especially the abuse of logic and reason, not to mention the tax system-- even those of us who are no longer "innocent.

[Henry]

Only those plagued by total spiritual ignorance can disagree with Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor’s statement referring atheists as not being fully human. Jesus Christ, the creator of mankind made the same statement over two thousand years ago. Jesus said in Matthew 13: 24 –30 & 13: 36 –43, that there are two kinds of peoples in the world, God’s offspring, and the devil’s offspring. The devil is a fallen angel therefore his offspring cannot be fully human, since God made only man in His image, and likeness from the dust of the ground, and by breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. Even though all humans have similar physical characteristics, atheists cannot be fully human because they lack the breath of life, the medium necessary they need to acknowledge, love, and communicate with the Almighty.

Jesus reinforced that fact while speaking to the Jews in John 8: 42 – 47, Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."