Update: In a follow up story on the Daily Beast, records uncovered show that the Pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, failed to prosecute the Arizona Priest Father Michael Teta. According to the report, the church later used the description of “satanic” to describe the pedophile priest.
Do you find it fascinating that so many claim interest in the sanctity of life and “protecting the unborn” yet they turn aside when it comes to standing for the unprotected once they are born? Is there a better definition of hypocrisy than being “pro-life” then actively, secretively protecting pedophiles in the Catholic Church? Protesting against abortion physicians then timidly ignoring abusive priests, I can’t get it to fit in my mind. You either defend those who can’t defend themselves or you don’t. There is no grey area. If you are going to champion human life, champion human life.
You decide. Sanctity or Sacrilege? You can’t have both.
I have suggested repeatedly that we use RICO statutes to prosecute any vatican officials responsible for covering-up sexual attacks against children. Today, great article in the Daily Beast refuting the Vatican’s claim of “Immunity for the Pope” because he is a “Head of State” and therefore an untouchable. Are you kidding me? Our focus has turn from pedophile priests to political protections?
Instead of immunity for the Pope, how about incarceration for the guilty? No Pontiff is above the law.
The world has enough plaster saints.
Comments