- 1
- 2
Vatican Sex Sting
In defense of the Vatican, officials are at pains to point out that cases of rogue officials are rare. Vatican staff are some of the finest, they say, both in terms of moral rectitude and work performance. In an interview this week in the Italian daily La Repubblica, Cardinal Julian Herranz, head of the Vatican's disciplinary commission, said his organization is "almost out of work" because there are so few cases. "Anyone can make a mistake," he said. "But the church knows how to intervene." Herranz also described the Stenico situation as an "isolated case." "[Such cases] cause sadness, assuredly, but we are aware that these cases are exceptions," he told the newspaper.
Indeed the Vatican's response to this "abuse of office" has been applauded in some quarters. Father Robert Gahl, a professor at one of Rome's Vatican universities, praised the speed at which the Vatican acted and because it did so "not out of hypocrisy but genuine coherence to her doctrine"—evidence, he said, that the institution is in good shape. He added that the Vatican's decision to allow Stenico to defend himself at a tribunal was "proof of the church's respect for all people, whatever sinfulness or disorders with which they may be tainted."
Nonetheless, some are voicing concern that it took a television program to draw attention to this issue. As with the sexual abuse crisis that broke in 2002, many Catholics believe it shouldn't be up to the media to expose such scandals but for clergy superiors and colleagues to deal with offenders internally before the media gets hold of them. Only when these initiatives are taken at the local level, they say, could the institution truly be deemed healthy.
Ironically, some church officials even believe that it could be good for the church if Stenico's case exposes other gay officials in the Holy See. In 2005, shortly before he became pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger spoke about how much "filth" there was in the church, especially the priesthood. He was referring mainly to sexual abuse of minors, but many on the conservative wing of the church—who consider pedophilia to be closely linked to homosexuality—believe he was referring to practicing gay clergy as well. Herranz said this week a priority of the Holy See was to "cleanse itself from within," while respecting human rights and the rule of law. For Catholics disturbed by this case, it could be the welcome beginning of that cleansing.
© 2007
- 1
- 2
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Shankardada2 @ 11/07/2007 10:31:30 PM
Comment: Homosexuality should not to be condemned. But celibacy should be.
Posted By: Vegasman @ 11/05/2007 2:37:40 AM
Comment: Glad to see you are so "well read" of the Bible. Can I safely assume that you haven't violated any of the teachings of the Bible? You don't eat any pork products (also forbidden in Leviticus)? Even something simpler, never violated any of the Ten Commandments? (Never used God's name in vein? Never disobeyed your parents? No work of any kind on the Sabbath? Never coveted anything of your neighbors? Wow!!! You are a saint!!! God bless you. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone! Please pick up your stone now and stone everyone else around you.
Posted By: TELLTHETRUTH @ 10/26/2007 8:45:32 PM
Comment: thurnherr........ethnicity and religion are not synonymous with sexual orientation. they are apples and oranges. it baffles that homosexuals rank a sexual orientation with ethicity and/or religion. i am not homophobic. and i'll refrain from patronizing u by saying "some of my best friends are gay". (i hate that lame rhetoric). yeah im on the side that feels at birth a person may have a proclivity toward the same sex but i dont agree with such a lifestyle. anatomically its not natural. and for that i offer no excuse. so i do take sissue with the act. but value u as a person. when persons are allowed to comment on articles, etc, on a post board forum u cant wear your emotions on your sleeves. yes some may use the forum to spew venom but thats part of the "post forum" freedom. and that freedom is enjoyed by posters. certainly not by the editorial staff of newsweek or anyother media. appealing to newsweek is not the solution. (unless its one of their writers bashing gays in an article. and that would be unacceptable). lighten up. "john q public" will not be converted. the fight is not with newsweek but with people around u that may be homophobic and insensitive to your humanity. just remeber your sexual orientation is not and will not be akin to ethnicity and religion. and the country u choose to live in waxes puritanical when it comes to certain issues. it is what it is for now. u cant honour free speech then have doubts. what u really mean is u believe in censorship when it involves your own backyard. (no pun intended). bottom line? grow up and stop whining. or better yet call priest stenico here and seek refuge.