RAW NUMBERS

I saw this blurb-size story in Catholic World News this morning, headed Women one-sixth of Vatican workforce.

Vatican, Jun. 25, 2007 (CWNews.com) - About one of every six workers at the Vatican is female.

Father Sandro Bianchini of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See announced that roughly 600 Vatican employees, 16% of the Vatican workforce, are women.

Seemed kind of deadpan. So I found some context.

According to the UN’s Statistical Yearbook of the Economic Commission for Europe 2003 publication, the Italian workforce (as of 2001) is 38.9% female.

Comparing 16 to 38.9 we see that the Vatican hires women at a rate less than half that of the average Italian employer.

----- o -----

JESUITS RAPED MENTALLY RETARDED

Gosh darn it! I was going to write some light stuff about John Donne and his attack on Ignatius. I was going to praise the Jesuits for giving us both Donne and Hopkins.

Also, I was going to articulate a basic FOME tenet: Everyone goes to heaven, there’s no such thing as hell, which we think of as "really" good news.

Then this.

Just when I think I can’t be shocked, a grotesque horror story comes to my attention. I got to it through Good Jesuit, Bad Jesuit (I think).

According to the story, Jesuit priests and one brother serially molested two mentally retarded men who lived and did menial work at a Jesuit retreat center in Los Gatos. Price tag: $7.5 million.

Molesting mentally retarded people is a felony in California. The California Jesuit hierarchy covered up the ongoing felonious behavior, thus facilitating it.

Particularly obnoxious in the LA Times story is a Jesuit superior named Smolich. His puling denials and claims of ignorance and blindness are as unacceptable as those of any corporate crook. He’s in charge but he don’t know nothin’.

Here’s an article about SNAP protesting an honor being given to Smolich.

There are three groupings, at least, of Jesuits who are culpable in this and the other sex abuse cases.

1. The actual Jesuit personnel who did the raping and related crimes.

2. The Jesuit hierarchy who covered up and enabled (promoted) additional raping.

3. Every other Jesuit who had any knowledge or any suspicion of any sexual misconduct with vulnerable populations by fellow Jesuits, and failed to take action sufficient to protect actual and potential victims.

My assumption is that group three is the most populous. My guess is that, at least in America, that the total of the three groups equals a huge percentage of all Jesuits.

The various bishops and heads of orders have so persistently hidden evidence, and in many cases helped accused priests abscond, that the only way it get to the bottom of the problem is through RICO prosecutions of the very highest Church officials reachable by US law.

The bishops and the raping priests are not the worst of the problem. It’s group three that makes the organization truly corrupt.

There’s a cross-dressing motif that would make a hilarious satyr-play to this tragedy if it weren’t for the seriousness of the case.

According to this story, one of the Jesuit priests accused of molesting the two retarded guys, Father Angel Mariano, S.J., is a transvestite who had earlier been arrested for performing sex acts on teenage boys while dressed as a woman.

Of course, the conviction and jail sentence hadn’t cost him his job with the Jesuits.

So the subtext is one of incredible insult to women. The Jesuits consider this clown, Mariano, who must register with local authorities as a sex offender for the rest of his life, more worthy to be a priest than the holiest, most erudite, most competent woman in the world.

According to numerous reports, increasing percentages of priests being ordained in the USA are from second and third-world countries, where the priesthood is still seen as a respectable, even prestigious profession.

Pathetic that the Catholic priesthood has become one of those “jobs that Americans won’t do.”

----- o -----

GAY CATHOLIC KIDS, READ THIS:

Gay sex is NOT sinful. Prejudice against gay people IS sinful.

According to a recent N.Y. Times story, a Jesuit theologian has been condemned for these and other pro-sex views of Catholic doctrine.

The theologian, Daniel C. Maguire, teaches religious ethics at Marquette University, a Jesuit institution in Milwaukee. He is a 75-year-old former priest and a prolific writer, educated at the prestigious Gregorian University in Rome, who has been challenging Catholic teaching on sexuality for years.

One of the two pamphlets in question is available free on-line, A Catholic Defense of Same Sex Marriage, which includes, of course, a defense of same-sex sex.

The Catholic Church is beginning to rediscover what it once knew; that not all persons are heterosexual, that many people are homosexual and that this is just fine. In the past, the Church accepted homosexuality more openly and even had liturgies to celebrate same sex unions. There was a recognition that different sexual orientations are clearly part of God's plan for creation-some people are heterosexual and some are homosexual-this is the way God made us and we have no right to criticize God.

The basic issue is can there be multiple Catholic views. The bishops and the pope say that there is only one Catholic view—theirs. As a Hitler Youth, pope Ratzinger was taught that homosexuality was bad. Hitler sent gay people to concentration camps. Ratzinger’s position hasn’t changed, except Ratzinger sends gay people to hell.

Maguire argues that to condemn homosexuality is as silly, but more harmful, than condemning the eating of shellfish. He cites other theologians who agree that gay sex is ok.

The Catholic Church directly contributes to the suicides of gay youth every day by teaching that gay sex gets hell. Professor Maguire states what is obvious to us gay people, that anti-gay prejudice is a sin.

In addition to teaching, Maguire runs a group called The Religious Consultation-on population, reproductive health, and ethics. Their home page is here.

Jesuit Watch congratulates the Society of Jesus for its continued support of Professor Maguire’s academic freedom.

----- o -----

CALLING DR. MENGELE

Jesuit Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda says the Church needs to use the psychological sciences to help weed out homosexual candidates from the priesthood. What a moron! I’m sorry, what I meant to say is that Father Ghirlanda could possibly be mistaken. (CNS story here.)

When this guy Ghirlanda gets to the “individual judgment” and the sin of employment discrimination comes up, he’ll be pleading incompetence and stupidity.

The stupidity defense works well with Yahweh (we’re told). The problem is God doesn’t like to hear this defense from the Jesuits. They’re supposed to be smart. It’s like the Puerto Rican and the Jew.

Once I overheard two members of my softball team arguing. One was an older, crusty, Puerto Rican ex-junkie from Spanish Harlem, the other a fussbudget young Jewish kid from the suburbs. At one point Izzy got exasperated and said, “Scott, you’re the first dumb Jew I ever met.”

So Father Ghirlanda wants to use science-based health care professionals to assist the Church in discriminating against homosexuals in employment. No can do.

The underlying assumption is that vows are more likely to be broken by homosexuals than by heterosexuals. Can anyone spell lol?

Then Father Ghirlanda mentions transitory versus deep-seated homosexual tendencies. I’ve been gay all my life, I’ve been gay longer than the average person on earth has been alive, and I have never heard this distinction. It sounds like something dreamed up in a steamy seminary dormroom to justify “just one more time.”

I aver that all competent psychology professionals in the industrialized world agree:

1) Sexual orientation is involuntary and unmanipulable.

2) Sexual orientation is a predictor only of sex partner choice.

3) To impute any moral, or psychological, or functional deficiency to anyone based on their perceived sexual orientation is scientifically unjustifiable.

4) To discriminate against homosexuals in employment is a violation of human rights.

5) For a practitioner to assist in a process that identifies homosexuals so that they can be discriminated against is a gross violation of medical ethics.

So, Father Ghirlanda’s idea is a non-starter. Any psychologist who would assist such a program is either a crackpot or someone with dark personal motives. Either way, the outcome will be a botch.

The Church is going to get the same crappy candidates for the priesthood that they’ve always been getting until they allow females and married people to be priests.

For a young man to vow to never have sex for the rest of his life makes as much sense as the same young man vowing never to drink orange juice. Like, why?

The vow of celibacy itself selects for weirdos, as discussed in “Celibacy Math.”

----- o -----

PROVOST? YES. PRIEST? NO.

Loyola-Chicago has appointed Christine Wiseman, J.D. to be provost of the university. Of courts the press release speaks highly of Ms Wiseman and describes her new job thusly:

As chief academic officer, the Provost oversees teaching, learning, research, and academic services; formulates general academic policies for the University; and promotes quality in undergraduate, graduate, and professional studies. Academics and research are administered by the Division of Academic Affairs, which provides leadership and strategic direction to the University's academic departments, schools, and programs in support of Loyola's mission.

In order to do all that she has to be smarter than many of the 20,000 Jesuit priests roaming the world, John McLaughlin, for instance.

Despite her skills, she could never become a priest because she’s a woman. There’s no simple explanation of why this should be so. Defenders of banning women quickly descend into mumbo jumbo.

----- o -----

SEX DISCRIMINATION

Mr Ryan Duns S.J. has a blog that’s up for Blog of the Year in the Catholic Blog Awards. In a recent post he attacks a columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer for reporting parish closings and consolidations from the viewpoint of a consumer of religious services (weddings, baptisms, masses, etc.). She’s complaining that services are being reduced.

She has the audacity to assert that allowing female and married priests would solve the priest-shortage component of the problem. She also has the audacity to state what Christianity means to her. View the full post here.

What stood out, in Mr Duns' response was this statement, supposedly explaining why Catholicism is different from the Elks club.

The assumption of this blog is that the Jesuits represent the highest level of intellect among the RC clergy. This quote gives me pause. (He starts out referring to the article and its female author.)

The tone of her conclusion about the simplicity of Jesus' message reduces Christianity to little more than collection of do-gooders: so why am I a Christian when I could be in the Elk's Club or a Shriner?

It's because that in Jesus I have met God most fully. In my confession of Jesus as the Christ of God, I am called to live out this confession in the world. This draws me into communion with others, women and men who pray with and for me, who also confess with me that Jesus is Lord. We don't gather together, do good things, and then break bread and *WHAMO* there's Jesus. We are part of a much larger and still-unfolding story of a pilgrim people nourished by Christ's own body and blood, who derive strength and sustenance from it, and continue in their labors to help bring about God's Kingdom. The Eucharist is the source and the end-point of our labors. Nourished on his own body and in response to the love I have known, I go out into the world where I struggle to "feed my sheep. Feed my lambs. Love one another as I have loved you." And I fail. And I return again to the table of the Lord. And I try again. And again.

If this isn’t nonsense, I don’t know what is.

You might be able to convince gullible students that the incoherence of this statement indicates a kind of mysticism. We’re supposed to believe that there is something really important that Mr Duns is struggling to tell us about.

(This goes along with the supposed inarticulateness of God. There's stuff that God wants us to know but He's not very good at expressing Himself, so He needs really smart people (Jesuits) to help.)

One thing about the statement is clear, that Mr Duns is definitely struggling.

By way of contrast, the following is a coherent statement of liberal Catholic moral theology. Whether or not you agree with it, it’s clearly written, and intellectually competent. This was posted on Pendagon.

Liz
Feb 14th, 2007 at 8:48 pm

As a feminist raised in a large (I was sixth of eight kids) Catholic family and educated in Catholic schools for more than 18 years (most of those jesuit), this post reminded me of some of the wonderful priests, brothers and nuns I’ve known over the years and made me nostalgic for a religious community I left behind. While I no longer consider myself Catholic, most of my family still actively practice, and they are generally very liberal people (so they would most likely be considered cafeteria catholics). Both my upbringing and my education helped to instill what I consider liberal values….the importance of social justice (with an emphasis on protecting the “least” among us), a respect for life (which for me personally never really included “potential life”), tolerance, a desire for knowledge and understanding and/or education (however you want to look at it), and compassion, among other things. Of course it wasn’t all rosy and beautiful, The Vatican made itself felt….which is why I no longer consider myself a Catholic. That said, I am often dismayed these days about how it seems that right wing Catholics have managed to hijack the spotlight and convince people that they speak for or represent all Catholics. I know many practicing Catholics who are appalled by the bigotry and small mindedness of Donahue. So, thank you for the post recalling Father Cobos and reminding me of the wonderful teachers I encountered over the years.

Why bring this up? The Church won’t let Liz, who is smart, be a priest, because she’s a woman.

On the other hand, the Jesuits will pour tens of thousands of dollars into Mr Duns’ training, at some point declare him a priest, and turn him loose on unsuspecting young people.

So the Church’s policy is that a not so bright man makes a better priest than a really smart woman.

Then we hear crap about “Excellence.”

Scherzo: Another commenter, on the same page as Liz, had this to say:

Hank
Feb 14th, 2007 at 3:17 pm

I had known a nice priest, but it
turned out he was a pedophile.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Remeber, judge not, lest ye not be judged.
Remember, Jesus loved the
sinners.

Either Hank has an excellent deadpan, or… scary!

----- o -----