The Timing of Codename: UnSub

As I mentioned the other day, Codename: UnSub ate the original book one of The Last Survivors.

Part of that devouring included the missionary priests who came to San Francisco, trained in hostage negotiation and the conversion of the newly disarmed. While we had considered parts of it -- mostly with how to get these people into San Francisco -- we never really talk about where we put them. How do they relate to the rest of the city? How do they make their mark? How do they deal with the Children of Thanatos?

Also, in Codename: Winterborn I made a mention of "the Burners." They set people on fire. That was it. It's the general shallow thinking of every other thug in San Francisco ... and most thugs in real life. It's taken from the concept of Bum Burning. However, most of these burners do not generally gather and operate in gangs. While they were in a throwaway scene in Codename: Winterborn, they are an entire subplot in UnSub as well as a major plot point.

While Codename: Winterborn ended with the beginning of 2094, literally at 12:01 on January 1, that's because I just wanted to end on a high note. Sure, I could have stretched it out with an additional three chapters, but... no, why? The arc in Winterborn's second half was to show exactly how Kevin's actions are the butterfly effect on acid. I established that when the priests showed up en mass. The priests and their side effects are another story.

So, since the chapters I had down were all about the priests and their introduction to San Francisco society, I would use them to introduce the readers to the society. It's a cheap maneuver, basically the Alice in Wonderland effect (or the X-Men film effect, pick one), but it works.

So Codename: UnSub backs up a bit. The prologue takes place right before Kevin meets the priests at the docks. It shows Kevin having a long conversation at arrow point with some burners, setting them up a little better. Chapter 1 takes place just after the priest pickup that is shown in Winterborn. And then we have a heartwarming Christmas chapter....

And then we have a dead body show up down the block from Kevin Anderson's place that's been beaten to death. Because San Francisco.

Why, yes, I have been to San Francisco, and I've had it swarmed by vampires in one series, and a distopian nightmare in another. Why do you ask?

But all in all, the main action in UnSub takes place a few months after the arrival of the priests. They'll be more of an established force within the city by the time the main action kicks into gear.

And then, the stage is set, and we're ready to nuke the entire city straight to hell. BWAHAHAAHAHAH.

DADT, Gay Marriage: Who cares?

Last week wasn't very good as far as blog posts went. And I'm sorry for that. This week, I've got three posts already written.  This one is considered "timely," as my Examiner.com editors like to say.

A while ago, I wrote an article about gay marriage in New York.  It was entitled: Gay Marriage, so what?  I suspect you can guess what my general conclusions were.

I collect all sorts of weird articles, and magazines.  On the one hand, I could read Guns and Ammo, then the Spring catalog for a major publisher, then Time Magazine (until they went anti-Semite), the list goes on.

One such magazine is Salute, the magazine of the archdiocese for the military services, USA.

Yes, the military has their own archdiocese -- their Cardinal is the Cardinal of New York City.

In their Summer, 2011 issue, there was a statement from Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, the Archbishop for USA military services. (An Archbishop is more hands on.)

His statement was two pages long, and here's an excerpt ...

"The church is unwavering in her commitment to the pastoral care of all persons in need, regardless of sexual inclination or anything else.  All people in need are served by Catholc Chaplains with zeal and passion for bringing the reality of the Risen Lord to all.  Whether Don't ask don't tell persists or not is immaterial to that bedrock principle.  The faithful .... must never forget that those with a homosexual inclination must be treated with the respect worthy of their human dignity."  [Typed by hand, any typos are mine]

In short: that's nice, we don't care if they're outed, it doesn't matter to us.

The message then cited Federal law (1 USC subection 7)... which I believe is commonly known as the defense of marriage act (DOMA).

So, "yes, you have DADT repealed. Who cares? We don't like it, but we're not going to marry gays, and you're not going to make us. We can continue, business as usual."  Everyone can move on.

Which is pretty much what I said the first time about gay marriage.

It's so nice when the Catholic Church listens to me.
[More below the break]

Redemption Comes Through The Jews… Excerpts

This was interesting when I found it on the Facebook page of Ann Margaret Lewis (of Murder in the Vatican), so I figured I would post a few excerpts.
I especially found it interesting that the numbers presented here are similar to the ones I posted a while ago.

You can find the full text here:

 
 Jewish Businessman, Sam Miller, Whaps Anti-Catholic Bias in News Media (Full Text)


Sam Miller, prominent Cleveland businessman – Jewish, not Catholic – is fighting mad about & concentrated effort by the media to denigrate the Catholic Church in this country.

.... There is a concentrated effort by the media today to totally denigrate in every way the Catholic Church in this country.... They have now blamed the disease of pedophilia on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as blaming adultery on the institution of marriage....

From the Sojourner’s Magazine dated August, 2002 ....“While much of the recent media hype has focused on the Catholic Church’s pedophilia scandal, relatively little attention has been given to the high rate of sexual misconduct in the rest of American Christendom. This is truly a crisis that crosses the borders of all religions.”
.... research by Richard Blackman at Fuller Theological Seminary shows that 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact. In a 1990 study by the United Methodist Church, 41.8% of clergywomen reported unwanted sexual behavior by a colleague; 17% of laywomen said that their own pastors had sexually harassed them. Phillip Jenkins concludes in his book “Pedophiles and Priests” that while 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia, 10% of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia.
This is not a Catholic problem. This is a problem of pure prejudice....

Obviously, this is not just a Catholic problem....

For Christians, the true scandal is not about priests. It’s about a manipulation of power to abuse the weak. When Jesus said, “Whoever receives the child, receives me”, he was rebuking his followers for putting stumbling blocks in front of the defenseless. Church is supposed to be a place where one can lay one’s defenses down; where one is welcomed, embraced, and blessed. This can only be authentically expressed in a culture that requires absolute respect for each individual’s freedom and self hood. Until all churches bow humbly under the requirement, the indictments by wounded women and children will stand.

Just what are these Kangaroo journalists trying to accomplish? Think about it. If you get the New York Times day’ ,after day; the Los Angeles Times day after day, our own paper day after day looking at the record, some of these writers are apostates, Catholics or ex-Catholics who have been denied something they wanted from the Church and are on a mission of vengeance.

Why would newspapers carry on this vendetta on one of the most important institutions that we have today in the United States, namely the Catholic Church?
Do you know ... the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday, at cost to your Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars. Needless to say, that Catholic education at this time stands head and shoulders above every other form of education that we have in this country. And the cost is approximately 30% less.
If you look at our own Cleveland school system, they can boast of an average graduation rate of 36%. Do you know what it costs you and me as far as the other 64% who didn’t make it?
Look at your own records. You (Catholic schools) graduate 89% of your students Your graduates in turn go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%, and all at a cost to you. To the rest of the Americans it’s free, but it costs you Catholics at least 30% less to educate students compared to the costs that the public education system pays out for education that cannot compare.
Why? Why would these enemies of the Church try to destroy an institution that has 230 colleges and universities in the United States with an enrollment of 700,000 students?
Why would anyone want to destroy an institution like the Catholic Church which has a non profit hospital system of 637 hospitals which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people not just Catholics in the . United States today?

Why would anyone want to destroy an institution like that? Why would anyone want to destroy an institution that clothes and feeds and houses the indigent 1 of 5 indigents in the United States, I’ve been to many of your shelters and no one asks them if you are a Catholic, a Protestant or a Jew; just “come, be fed, here’s a sweater for you and a place to sleep at night” at a cost to the Church of 2.3 billion dollars a year?
The Catholic Church today has 64 million members in the United States and is the largest non-governmental agency in the country. It has 20,000 churches in this country alone. Every year they raise approximately $10 billion to help support these agencies.
Why, after the “respected” publication, the New York Times, running their daily expose’ on the Church, finally came to the conclusion of their particular investigation, which was ongoing for a long time. And guess what: buried in the last paragraph, they came up with a mouse. In their article “Decades of Damage” the Times reported that 1.8% of American priests were found guilty of this crime whereas your own Cardinal Ratzinger in Rome reported 1.7% the figure I gave you earlier.
Then again they launched an attack on the Church and its celibate priests. However, the New York Times did not mention in their study of American priests that most are happy in the priesthood and find it even better than they had expected, and that most, if given the choice, would choose to be priests again in the face of all this obnoxious PR the church has been receiving.

Why wouldn’t the New York Times, the paper of record they call themselves, mention this? You had to read it in the Los Angeles Times. The New York Times refused to print it.
If you read only the New York Times, you would begin to believe that priests are cowards; craven; sexually frustrated; unhealthy criminals; that prey on the innocent. What a shame.
Sometimes freedom of the press should have some type of responsibility...
I believe that if Catholics had the figures that I enumerated here, you don’t have to be ashamed of anything. Not only are you as good as the rest, but you’re better, in every respect.

The Catholic Church helps millions of people every day of the week, every week of the month, and every month of the year. People who are not Catholics, and I sit on your Catholic Foundation and I can tell you, and what I am telling you is so. Priests have their problems, they have their failings just as you and I in this room do, but they do not deserve to be calumniated as they have been.

In small measure let’s give the media its due. If it had not come out with this story of abusive priests, (but they just as well could have mentioned reverends, pastors and rabbis and whatever), probably little or nothing would have been. done. But what bothers me the most is this has given an excuse to every Catholic hater and Catholic basher to come out loudly for the denigration of your Church.

If some CEO’s are crooks it does not follow that every CEO is crooked; and if some priests are sexually ill it does not follow that all are sick. And your Church teaches that you’ve got to take in the sick and a priest who is this way has to be taken in and cannot be thrown out the 21st story of a building. He’s got to be looked upon and given the same type of health that you would give anybody who has a broken leg or cancer or whatever....

If some priest was caught with his hand in the collection plate it would be front page news. But the fact that you have thousands of students being education (sic) free, as far as the rest of the country is concerned, doesn’t make news. Why? Because it is not newsworthy, it’s not dirty.

I’m not here to deny freedom of the press, but I believe that with freedom comes responsibility, and with rights you have an obligation. You cannot have rights that are irresponsible.

Unfortunately, our society today is protected by all rights and ruled by some of their wickedness. Anybody who expects to reap the benefits of freedom must understand the total fatigue of supporting it. The most important element of political speech, as Aristotle taught, is the character of the speaker. In this respect, no matter what message a man brings in, it shouldn’t collide with his character.
The other day was shocked when I opened up America, a Catholic magazine, and my good friend Cardinal Keeler, who is a very dear friend of mine, was being fingerprinted by the Baltimore police not for a crime, but as part of the new law put in place that all members of the Church hierarchy must be fingerprinted....

One of the biggest Catholic bashers in the United States wrote “Only a minority, a tiny minority of priests, have abused the bodies of children.” He continues, “I am not advocating this course of action, but as much as I would like to see the Roman Catholic Church ruined. I hate opportunistically retrospective litigation even more.”

Now he’s talking about our tort monsters. “Lawyers who grow fat by digging up dirt on long forgotten wrongs and hounding their aged perpetrators are no friends of mine.”

I’m still quoting this man, “All I’m doing” he said, “is calling attention to an anomaly. By all means, let’s kick a nasty institution when it is down, but there are better ways than litigation.” These words are from a Catholic hater.

I never thought in my life I would ever see these things.

Walk with your shoulders high and your head higher. Be a proud member of the most important non governmental agency today in the United States. Then remember what Jeremiah said: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.” And be proud, speak up for your faith with pride and reverence and learn what your Church does for all other religions. Be proud that you’re a Catholic.

NOTE: Even though of the Jewish faith, Miller has been a staunch supporter of the Cleveland Diocese and Bishop Anthony Pilla. It was published in the May-June issue of the Buckeye Bulletin.

Index: Atheists, Lent, and Evil Religions

Throughout Easter and a Lent, I did a lot of what my friend Jason called "High Intellectual" articles.

I'm never making that mistake ever again.

However, since it did have some interesting fan support.... if "fans" could be people screaming for your blood ... I figured I'd put it into a nice, compact little section on the blog. Think of it as a season in review that, with luck, I'll never inflict on anyone ever again.

The Snarky Theology series. My way of translating dogmatic theology into something that human beings can understand.

Snarky Theology 1: Catholic Cannibals. Looking at the theology of Swallow the leader. Eating your deity.

Snarky Theology 2: FAQs about Lent. Some fun facts about Lent that turned into a minor war.


The Flame war is postponed While I was busy having a flame war with an idiot on the blog, someone did soething stupid online. I fought back in the name of all sane people everywhere.

Snarky theology 3: Evolution, Creationists, and other Irritants. Evolution, what is it good for? My answer: who cares?

Snarky Theology 4: "Things that go boink in the night." Catholicism on Sex and Gays Pretty much what it says.

GOD H8TS JAPAN; Twitting with Phelps & Co.  Hint, it was published on 4-1-11


Snarky Theology 5: The Passion, Jews, and Good Friday. 


Snarky Theolgy 6: Easter: HE IS RISEN



The Guest Blog Index -- "Catholic fiction"

-- I had two weeks off from Snarky theology for two virtual book tours. One was a bit of Sherlock Holmes with Murder in the Vatican, and some Catholic science fiction from Karina Fabian's Infinite Space, Infinite God II

Murder in the Vatican Author Margaret Ann Lewis.

Guest blog (on writing historical figures in fiction) and Interview (on writing a book on Sherlock Holmes and Pope Leo XIII), and a Review of Murder in the Vatican, which can be found at Amazon.com


I did the same for Karina Fabian.

The Guest blog: where she talks about writing religion and science fiction

The interview, where I unleash my inner nerdom ...

And a review.


I think that was the most fun I had had that Lent. They were both a joy and a pleasure to have.

Evil Religions 2: Baby-raping Catholic Priests.

Finn's Law: Never Attribute to Malice What Can be Equally Attributed to Stupidity.

[Preface to the evil religion blog posts is here.]
I mentioned a while ago that some moron threatened me because I even implied that someone out in the universe could be more corrupt than the Catholic Church. I didn't defend anyone, didn't consider defending anyone. I merely posted some statistics from John Jay University and the Department of Education.

Objection: “The Catholic Church was abusing children in the 1950s” …
Answer: Were there priests abusing children in the 1950s? Yes. Was it the entire church? No. The church figured it could always be handled “in house.” Let's ship them away, let's put them away from any temptation, let's put them in the drunk tank to “dry out” for a few months. Then they'll be better. They'll be fixed.

Why would they do this? Why would anyone believe something that stupid? Aside from the fact that it was the 1950s?

Oh, BECAUSE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS TOLD THEM THAT PEDERASTS COULD BE FIXED.

I'm serious. The Church relied on medical professionals, on "science," instead of listening to one of their own priests, who told them to boot their asses to the curb.

Father Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of a group known as “AA for priests” (link above), noticed in 1952 that abusive priests were not being “cured,” and suggested firing them. The Church overruled him, and relied instead on psychologists. Even Boston Cardinal Bernard Law sent pederasts to psychologists for screening and treatment, and got clinical approval to put them back on the pulpit.

He got approval! By psychologists!

You see, a perfectly medieval church would have settled this the easy way. A whole bunch of villagers could have taken out the local pederast and thrown him in the river after a whole bunch of Unpleasant Things had been done to his body. But nooooo, Rome had to rely on "science" (psychology is a Bachelors of Arts degree, not of science). The Church was perfectly modern about it. Perfectly understanding about it …

And if anyone had just asked my opinion, someone would have been served an enema of hydrofluoric acid…


Actually, Ireland had the best response. One professor of mine, back at St. John's University, complained about a pederast who had been shipped “out of the way” from the Republic of Ireland. He shook his head and muttered repeatedly about how shameful it was. The pederast in question had been shipped to Belfast … the highly-violent, gun-toting, Catholic-killing slums of Belfast.

When I asked if anyone had heard from the priest ever again, the professor said, "Not that I know of, why?"

I didn't have the heart to explain to this fellow that they weren't “hiding” him; it's as close as they could get to an execution.

Anyway …

To get back to the conversation in general, I'm not sure how many people understood the concept of 100% recidivism in the 1950s. And I'm not sure how many do today. For example, I have a friend. He had been abused in grammar school, by a father-son pederasty team. My friend lives in Great Neck, New York, and ever since the bastards were put away, he and his fellow victims have been ridiculed, lambasted, accused of lying, of being bribed, of everything under the sun short of being serial killers. He still lives with this, today ... in secular Great Neck ... and all of this was over two public school teachers. Now, tell me, what would someone like him have gone through in 1950s America if the abusers were priests? Tell me the traumas wouldn't have been compounded with public attention …?

And if someone asked my opinion…

Moving on.

Objection: “Yes, but priests are still being moved around!”

Answer: Again, you mean the ones that aren't thrown in jail because the Catholic church threw them there? We can go for two possible answers. As I said above, priests within a closed system are protecting their own bad apples ... like Doctors and Policemen have been known to do ... and politicians, and lawyers, and most other human organizations on the planet ....

However, my thought? I suspect the answer is bureaucratic inertia.

Nope, I'm dead serious.

Consider: most priests now being hauled away in handcuffs entered the priesthood before psychological screenings were in place. All of their bosses entered when the accepted method of dealing with abusers was to send them to therapy. The whole upper administration is populated by people who were taught that psychology could fix these offenders.

Cardinal Law, mentioned above, is a prime example …

And, I want to ask this one more time: If these people were sent to shrinks, what freaking moron declared them fit for duty?

Finn's Law: Never Attribute to Malice What Can be Equally Attributed to Stupidity.

Objection: “Yes, but priests are all baby-rapers!”

I love this argument too. Why?

The biggest number I've ever seen on pederasty in the church is a possible 8% of priests of OF THE LAST FIFTY YEARS. It's probably 4% or less, according to John Jay University, who did a study on this... click on this link to find it.

Let's look a little closer.

About 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor, according to the first comprehensive national study of the issue.

The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984. [Author's note: before psychological screening was in place]

During the same time frame there were 109,694 priests, it said.....

The study, released in Washington Feb. 27, [2003] was commissioned by the U.S. bishops' National Review Board, ....

The study said the sharp decline in abuse incidents since 1984 coupled with the declining percentage of accusations against priests ordained in recent years "presents a more positive picture" than the overall statistics.

It said that 68 percent of the allegations were made against priests ordained between 1950 and 1979, while priests ordained after 1979 accounted for 10.7 percent of the allegations......

Regarding substantiated allegations against priests in ministry at the time, the most common action by church authorities was to send the priest for medical evaluation or treatment, said the study.

Although most of the incidents occurred before 1985, two-thirds of the allegations have been reported since 1993 .....

Hmm, so as time goes on, there seem to be fewer and fewer of these bastards. Funny that.

So, the US Bishops go to a secular authority in criminal justice, and make them look through all of their records. It's sort of hard to pull the wool over the eyes of people who work at John Jay University. And I suspect most Bishops get up around noon.

Trying to make a claim that there are sooo many hidden -- keep in mind, would you, that the 10,667 number is the number of victims that they are accused of abusing. Not convicted. Not investigated and cleared. Simply the accusations. Who keeps paperwork like that?

Welcome to the Catholic Church, we keep records on everything. Even accusations.

Objection: So what, why are so many pederasts priests?
Let me think, why would child molesters try to get into the priesthood … for the same reason they would be camp counselors and teachers, easy access. Protestants have a worse rate of pederasts, and the teachers…

Ah, teachers...

Statistics professor Charol Shakeshaft, of the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, estimates the between 1991 and 2000, 290,000 students were sexually abused by public school teachers and personnel. One in every ten American children has been sexually abused at school. And only 1% of allegations were investigated by the school board.

Catholic priests have had 10,667 allegations (not convictions, allegations) between 1950 and 2002. Of those allegations, 3% ended in a guilty verdict. 3%. So, hmm, at the end of the day, out of 4,392 accused priests, only about 131 were convicted over anything...

About 131 schmucks have been used as a stigma on an entire religion. Hmmm....

Now, obviously, some accusations turned out to be false, and some turned out to be not proven .... and let's assume that some were never reported, because some aren't. So, let's assume these numbers cancel each other out, and stick with 10,667 victims.

So, wait -- in nine years, public school teachers have abused twenty-nine times the number of children than an entire profession of priests over the course of sixty years?

On average, abusive priests have been accused of going after 810 kids per year, but the public schools have assaulted 32,000 per annum …

Wow, Catholic Conspiracies? Really? Rome has nothing on the teachers union....

Oh, and you will notice that it is unfair, and psychotic to make these arguments. Last week, we had a teacher note that by merely looking at the statistics is unfair and misleading, and worthy of someone in North Korea.

And he's right.

And blaming any group for what less than 1% of it's members have done over the course of five decades is just as unfair, and just as misleading.

Objection: “Yes, but priests abuse so many … ”
At the end of the day, do you know how much Catholic priest pederasty count for the worldwide crimes of pederasty? 1%. They account for one percent of all sexually abused children on the planet. And most of that is done by straight men who are married to the mother of their victims.

The priesthood, the Church, everyone, is raked over the coals because a minority of their priests are scumbags who should be set on fire, all of whom came in before psychology was able to screen for them in the priesthood.

Proper psychological the screenings were in place by the early 1990s, and we haven't had many, if any, problems with anyone who had been ordained after that. A proper system for reporting and investigating this crime was only recently established around the late 1990s, by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who now goes under another name. The Pope. And he's been rather pissed about the whole thing. John Paul II was also annoyed, but his indignation was limited since he was busy dying.

The only reason anyone knows about the Catholic priesthood and their scumbags is because the Catholic Church keeps record of everything, so these bastards can be hunted down.

Hmm ... Before psychological screenings, and there were only 131 psychopaths let through. That's not bad.

Granted, thanks to "medical advice," some thought they could be "cured."

Never Attribute to Malice What Can be Equally Attributed to Stupidity.

Objection: “Yes, but they should all be taken out and dealt with harshly.”
Oh, I'm an even bigger proponent of harsh treatment than anybody. See above for hydrofluoric acid. In fact, I would say “let's out and hunt down and murder every last one of the bastards, without trial.” My way would be to introduce painful methods of harm that would be recorded, and later shown to terrorists and Guantanamo Bay, and the terrorists would be given an option: this, or waterboarding.

But that's me. And I am a moderately deranged writer, who channels homicidal tendencies into novels, and I'm also the proud owner of a “Waterboarding Instructor” t-shirt.

But, courts and laws should be fair. We can agree to that, right? I mean, hell, if we wanted to, we could sign a law, and rid all statutes of limitations on all pederasts, forever. Period. I'm for that, how about you? Are you for that? Why not? Well, it doesn't matter, because no one listens to us …

Here's my problem. You have folks in the ACLU who cry out against pederast priests, and “lets go after them at every conceivable opportunity, no matter how old they are, or how old their crimes are”….

And they represent the North American Man-Boy Love Association at the same time. The motto of NAMBLA: Eight is too Late.

Conclusion.

You know what? Let's say the atheists are right. Let's say we get rid of all the churches on the entire planet. Let's get rid of the Catholic church.

Let all of the pederasts go into public school teaching, that way, they'll never get caught.

Now, if I were some people, I could take a look at the 32,000 abused children a year, and I could twist it, and I would say “Let's burn down the public schools, and shoot all the teachers.” This is more or less the logic I have seen applied to the Catholic Church in this regard..... but that logic is stupid, misleading, and psychotic. More than I am, anyway.

But, since I am a far more reasonable person than those nut cases, can I suggest that professions where children are easily accessible will always have problems, because pederasts will always try to get into those institutions, and it's hard to screen everybody?

But, for the record, I'm sending my kid to Catholic school. Or home schooling. Because my children have a better shot of being struck by lightning than being abused by a Catholic priest. And, in the occasion of a priest or Catholic school teacher abusing my kid, I know that the New York Times will come to my defense should he be doused in gasoline and set on fire.

At the end of the day, I think I can summarize my argument as follows: Doctors kill more people per year than car crashes, yet we still go to them. Some psychos gamed a bureaucracy that's slow to adapt, only the bureaucracy is made up of priests. It is an invalid argument to say that just because a small percentage were corrupt, and some were too stupid to know how to deal with them, every one of them is just as corrupt. Like every bureaucracy, it's slow and it's stupid. And .... everyone with me now ....

Never Attribute to Malice What Can be Equally Attributed to Stupidity.
The entire scandal is a fabrication – not that children were abused, but that the Church “did nothing.” When problems first appeared in the 1950s, Church officials consulted psychologists, who “treated” the accused and declared them cured. The priests who grew up with this method of dealing with pederasts were officials when the later scandals broke. Even Cardinal Law of Boston sent abusers to psychological therapy.

The true scandal is that the therapists were not sued, then hung, drawn and quartered for recommending that these priests be allowed back out among the general public.

Pope John Paul II did not let abusive priests go free under his watch. After the 1980s scandal, new screenings were put in place to keep new abusers from entering. When the second scandal broke at the start of the century, he had Cardinal Ratzinger establish a system for investigating these crimes. The problems of the scandals started when the Church broke from tradition – tradition would have had these priests immediately thrown out. Medieval tradition would have defrocked them, assuming the church could get to these priests before the local townspeople. When the Church tried a “modern” cure, that is when things started to go awry. Ironically, John Paul II was also criticized during his life for being too traditional in his thinking. We should be grateful that he was.

And, below you can see all of the rules and regulations the Church now has for stopping predator priests.

A Writing Rant: Cliches you may have never noticed.

I suspect that this, at the end of the day, qualifies as a rant. But it's a rant about writing, so I think this makes for an acceptable blog post. Comment if you think it doesn't.

*******

I live in a family of readers. We tend to write TV episodes as we watch them on television. Obviously, we record everything, otherwise we'd never hear a word. Sometimes, the writers out-think us, sometimes we like our endings better than the ones on the screen. And then, sometimes, we catch only an image, and we sigh, and we know exactly where everything starts to go downhill...

Have you ever wandered into a TV show, and without knowing anything of the story thus far, a mere thirty seconds can tell you more than you wanted to know? In fact, you know so much from that brief glance, you can, without any hesitation, write the entire episode?

This is pretty much how it goes in our house whenever we see almost any Christian clergyman on television. If it's some sort of religious figure, he's the murderer / pederast / psycho / bad guy. In fact, if there's a guest star who shows up as a priest, the only way my family is surprised is if the priest is not guilty of something. Also, if there's a choice between an old-fashioned, grouchy priest, and a hip, young good-looking priest filled with charisma, we know whodunit—the old guy, because killers are never charismatic, are they?

Now, unless someone can correct me, this rule only applies to some variety of Christian group, but, more often than not, it's a Catholic priest. Even on the television show 24, where Muslims terrorists were involved (literally) every other season for the first six years, no Imams were involved. I have never seen a Rabbi involved in a crime anywhere on television.

Under the heading of “these and other stupid things,” there are some interesting facts.

Snarky Theology 4: "Things that go boink in the night." Catholicism on Sex and Gays

This one may have slightly less snark.  We'll see how it turns out.

I hear from a lot of people that the Catholic Church is obsessed with sex.  I usually hear this from people who aren't Catholic, or Catholics who haven't been to church since they left their parents' basement.  I've been going to church every Sunday for about 20 years.  That's approximately a 1300 masses, with holy days ... and I'm adding this note at 2:30 in the morning, so don't nitpick my math ....

In all 1300 masses, I don't think I've never heard the priest talk about sex unless there was a reading that involved adultery, or someone begetting someone else.

This month, I turn 29. I believe I am one of the few male beings on the planet, and maybe the only person in New York City, who is deliberately a virgin.

I put special emphasis on deliberately, since being one involuntarily is not really that impressive for a nerd of my caliber. I've been given the option, and I have expressly said no.  I don't think this is a gloating matter, and I don't mean it to be "Haha, I'm more virtuous than you," I mean it more in the context of "Whew, I dodged a bullet."

My reasons for avoiding sex are numerous. For starters, I'm not married.  I have personal reasons (I've met too many people where sex has taken normal people with slight personality quirks, and turned them into full-on neurotic messes). I have practical reasons (my parents are both in the medical field, and I ask far too many questions when I'm at a microbiology conference--did you know that there are 25 difference STDs, 50 with varying mutations, and that condoms have an 85% failure rate against pregnancies, and viruses are many, many times smaller than a sperm cell? Oy!)

Also: I've got this strange notion from my philosophy and my faith that has said that, “Sex should be the perfect union of two people, so that they are linked biologically, psychosomatically, psychologically, and spiritually, making them one.  You don't do that with just anybody.”

Hey, I warned you I was a romantic sap. You should expect some of this tripe every so often.

But this is just me. What about the Church of Rome?

Oh, yeah, apologetics.

My last, "philosophical / religion" position, is the same position of the Catholic Church, which isn't half as obsessed with sex as the average American. To expand on that original premise, sex should be such a perfect union, only undertaken by two people in a committed relationship. And, sex should also fulfill all of its natural functions.  I briefly covered this topic before.

Thus, the Roman Catholic Church is the only one where sex is a sacrament.... Something blessed by Christ that gives god’s grace

Yes, you read that right. You get married, you are supposed to have sex. Children should be an end result, but timing is everything, isn't it? There are usually enough signs and portents in the average hormone cycle that self control is the best method of birth control available.

For the record: sterility doesn't really enter into the equation. The married couple having sex is doing everything right, it's just a matter of equipment failure.

And now you know everything about the Church's, um, position on sex … Tab A goes into Slot B.  The Church doesn't care where else it stops on the way, it doesn't care if whips, chains, exhibitionism, or anything else is involved, as long as the end result adds up to Tab A in Slot B.  It doesn't matter how it starts, it matters where you finish. 

And, personally, not only do I not care, I don't want to know.

In sum: sex that has no possibility of procreation is considered a deliberate violation of the natural order of things, and hence considered a sin.  Save sex for marriage, and after that, knock yourself out.  Have fun. Thank you, the end, goodbye ....

What? You mean I missed something?

Snarky theology 3: Evolution, Creationists, and other Irritants.

The third in our Snarky Theology series for Lent.  Round one was on how Catholics are Cannibals.  Round two was some simple (Perhaps even simple minded.) thoughts on Lent itself.  I had considered making this about sex, but after last week, I think I'll hold off on the incendiary topics for another week.

This week, let's take a look at evolution ... No, I don't think it's an incendiary topic.

Evolution: the premise that humans came from other species.  Monkeys seem to be at the top of the list of suspects.

Apparently, it's quite important to some people.

Seriously, deeply, psychotically important.

You have the really weird creationist museum. Which should either be there as comic relief, or set on fire. Pick one.

But I've noticed there's two sides to the so-called debate, where they take the idea of evolution and decide to apply it to religion.


Really, people? What is your problem?

 Creationists: The Bible is literal, but we have dinosaurs, which weren't in the bible.  Which indicates a time period before the Bible, but the Bible is the end all and be all of all of history? NOOOOOOOO.  How can we reconcile dinosaurs with the book?  I know, dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden!  Let's have Adam and Eve and a VELOCIRAPTOR! BWAHAHAHA!!

Evolunatics: God is dead! The Bible was meant as a literal chronology of all of human history, but we have dinosaurs!  It's all wrong!  All of it!  MUWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Then I roll my eyes, sigh, and shake my head.  At the end of the day, I look at both sides, and decide that this particular asylum isn't being run by the psychologically stable.

Snarky Theology 2: FAQs about Lent.

For those of you who aren't Catholics, or for those Catholics who don't care, Lent has already started.  In fact, it started last Wednesday.  I suppose standard procedure would have been to post it then, but I had someone post a link I wanted to respond to, and I needed a few days for my blood pressure to come down.

So, what is Lent?  Lent is a part of the Catholic calender that is, essentially, a forty-day warm up to Easter. I've already started living on yogurt and berries.

As part of my Lenten series of sort-of religious blog posts, here are some FAQs about Lent.

UPDATE Most of those questions originally in this post have been moved to my new job at Examiner.com -- in short, I get paid. :)

However, the below question wouldn't fit ... if only because the comment stream below.

Enjoy.

Snarky Theology 1: Catholic Cannibals.

Right now, I am not certain if I have have yet made this point explicit; but, just in case, I need to be clear about something.....

A Pius Man, this blog, and myself, are not here to convert anyone.

One more time.

I'm not here to convert anybody.

To start with, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. For another thing, the bulk of my friends are Jewish. It wouldn't go over well.

Not to mention that I wouldn't drag anyone into the mishegas that is the Roman Catholic Church, unless they were really patient.

Let's look at my religion for a moment.

I believe that a strange visitor from another realm came to Earth, with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. As He grew up, His powers developed, until He could walk through crowds as though He were invisible, could calm tempests, turn water into wine, walk on water and multiply food to feed a few thousand people. He's also such a pathetic Deity that He would later get nailed to a set of 2x4s.  Even more pathetic, when He does something interesting and comes back from the dead, it's done in such a low-key fashion that it could easily be reported as "someone misplaced the body. Oops."

Welcome to the church that follows Yeshua bin Joseph. AKA Yeshua bin YHWH. AKA Joshua Carpenter, AKA Joshua, son of Joseph. Better known by his Greek alias, Jesus the Christ.

Welcome to the rabbit hole I live in.

Now, the above is just how I phrase this sort of stuff.  I'm sure most Christians wouldn't phrase it quite like that.  However, if one is looking at it objectively, it's probably quite insane. According to sociologist Rodney Stark, the major reason Christianity received ANY converts was that the early Christians themselves were big on charity. They had a tendency to stay in areas that smart people left -- areas like plague-infested towns, when even the doctors fled.  When things were so bad that the intelligent people left the others to their fate, Christians were the only ones dumb enough to stick around. It's a good thing they were too, otherwise Christianity would be a small sect in some unknown corner of the world no one ever heard of.

But wait, there's more.

My particular subsection of Christianity, known as Catholicism (from catholic, meaning "universal"; IE: Catholics, everywhere you don't WANT us to be, and "We'll take anybody.... no, really, anybody"), has a special tenet.

One tale of fellow Jesus had Him grabbing the bread at the Passover dinner, and He said "Take all of you and eat it. This, my body" (apparently, the Aramaic version is far more direct about it). 

He also did the same thing with "the cup" (probably the one left for Elijah) and called it His blood.

We Catholics took this tale, and we took it literally. In fact, we play Swallow the Leader every Sunday.  It's technical term is transubstantiation. .... aka Swallow the Leader.

Yes, you got it, Catholics are cannibals.  We eat our Savior as a sacrifice, drink his blood.  Insert evil laughter here ....

No, not really much on the evil laughter, but still ...

One of the better uses of this transubstantiation concept comes from the pen of F. Paul Wilson, horror writer and Fordham University product ... um, graduate. At one point, Wilson had some fun with a vampire story -- since the Catholic mass serves the body and blood of Christ, the vampire took his daily feeding from the chalice.  Now, technically, Wilson is not a Catholic, since Fordham is, after all, a Jesuit school, and any relationship between the Jesuits and Catholicism is tenuous, at best (Sorry, inside joke.  See "Attack of the Vatican Ninjas" for details).

Amusingly, there are some people within the Catholic church who have problems swallowing this last bit of theology (pun intended). "Jesus is supposed to be ACTUALLY IN the bread and wine? No way!"

Yes, because turning water into wine, telling a tempest to shut up, walking on water and COMING BACK FROM THE DEAD are simply sooooo much easier to believe. But Jesus being actually in the bread and wine, using it as a guise for body and blood?  No way dude!

This is of course, right up there with Joseph Campbell complaining that if Jesus physically ascended into Heaven, we should still be able to pick Him up on radar ... If you're already part of the whole Christianity thing, and you're presuming that Jesus is, oh, the Divine Being, Creator of the Universe, etc, et al, then one would have to figure "Hmm, if God created the laws of physics, I wonder if He could bend and/ or break them."

Or, as my father put it, from God's point of view, "It's My game, My ballpark, My rules."

I have occasionally had people justify their lack of believe in this (or any) part of the faith under the heading of "cafeteria Catholicism," where they pick and choose whatever random parts they want to believe in. Which is odd, because by now, I think there's a Protestant group of every sort that has some variation on the faith.

Shop around a bit, you can become a member of whatever theological system you like.  Including a Christian group without Christ (they're called Unitarians). I also enjoy people who enjoy saying they are Catholic, yet believe NOTHING of the Vatican's teachings.  Which is odd, I didn't think Catholics were so cool that people hung around, despite not believing a word, or The Word.

Right now, there are so many varieties of Christianity, I think being a "shopper" within a faith is sort of like saying "No, I joined this militia because I couldn't find a gun club. I like the shooting, but this whole 'overthrow the government' part is just not my thing.  Honest. Why are you arresting me?"

Now, as I said before, I can objectively look at all of the above elements of faith.  From the outside, it looks positively insane.  There's a reason there are three references to Alice in Wonderland in the above text. And I can give you all sorts of reasons why I, a moderately intelligent fellow, believe in all of the above insanity.

Gutters #22

But that's about twenty pages (small print, small spacing, really small margins), of Really Boring Garbage. And, as I said, I'm not here to convert anybody. If I can explain to people what Catholics believe, and the reasoning behind it, I'll be happy. The phrase is "apologetics"; not saying "I'm sorry," but explaining why. In Greek, apologia meant a legal defense.

That's one reason I have occasionally referred to A Pius Man as apologetics in-between the bullets.

Though no matter how much I explain it, it'll all still look insane. There's a reason I used a description from Superman in reference to Jesus ...

Although in the first Superman film, his spaceship did look like the Star of Bethlehem. I guess we can blame that on Godfather author and Catholic, Mario Puzo. He must have made Hollywood an offer they couldn't refuse.

A Pius Synopsis

The below is basically how the fly leaf of a A Pius Man dustjacket would look like.
*******************************

A Pius Man is a mystery with too many suspects.

In Rome, an old terrorist is blown out the window of a hotel and crash-lands on a car at the gates of the Vatican. A figure in a priest’s robes is seen running from the scene. But the body on the windshield is just the beginning for a team of six unlikely investigators from around the world. Each pair of hands on this case has a past, and a few secrets … and an axe to grind. They don’t want to work together. They don’t want this case.

And one of them just might be the killer.

Is it....

Sean Ryan, an American stuntman turned mercenary and self-described “cleanser of the gene pool”? He’s supposed to be in Rome to train priests in combat, and old habits die hard.

Then there’s Giovanni Figlia, a homicide cop for the Pope who fears only paperwork. He was best known for starting soccer games with bishops in the Borgia gardens … until the corpse landed on the hood of his Jetta.

Could it be a former U.S. Army chaplain who was meeting with the murdered man on a weekly basis? Did the Jesuit priest who’s killed men with his bare hands know that his weekly luncheon date had just murdered a researcher in the Vatican Archives?

And what about Scott "Mossad" Murphy of Israeli intelligence’s “Goyim Brigade”? He and his partner are in the middle of investigating another murder at the Vatican … this one a high-ranking Muslim leader with connections to al Qaeda.

Into this mix comes Maureen McGrail, an Irish Interpol agent with a bitter past with Sean Ryan. She’s working her own murder case, related to the controversial canonization of Pope Pius XII, sometimes known as “Hitler’s Pope.” And guess who Interpol wants to send to Rome … ?

And the final, most distressing suspect is Joshua Kutjok....aka Pope Pius XIII, a right-wing African pope with rumors of blood in his past and the stated goal of turning “Hitler’s Pope” into the “Hero of the Holocaust.” To accomplish this goal, he’s already let terrorists into the Vatican Archives … would he kill a man who stood in his way?

In A Pius Man, six unlikely heroes must work together to unravel a web of intrigue and murder that entwines one of the most controversial figures of the twentieth century. Was Pius XII a Nazi collaborator who deliberately let millions of Jews die? Has the Vatican covered up the truth for more than 60 years? Or has someone perpetrated a decades-long smear campaign? And what will happen to six strangers trying to finally bring the truth to light?

The Catholics are Doing What Now? Exorcism and the Church.

The Catholic Church is running low on exorcists. Positions are now open for new applicants. Please register at your local parish, thank you.

Don't look at me like that, I'm not joking.

Okay, maybe a little.

Seriously, the Catholic Church is running low on exorcists. If you've been near a Catholic Church lately in America, then you may have heard the daily intentions going out for “vocations,” hopefully to the priesthood … there are some parishes who would like at least ONE priest who was born within the boundaries of the United States. Me, I prefer the ones from Ireland and Vietnam, but that's just me.

There are also similar calls within the priesthood itself for vocations ... to become exorcists. Why would they be running low?

Remember that funny look that you gave me at the start of the blog entry? That's pretty much how a lot of priests look at exorcists, especially in America, where we suffer from visions of Linda Blair every time we think of exorcism.

One thing that no one remembers is that The Exorcist was based on true story. There was case of an actual possession in Georgetown. The possessed in that case was a boy, not a girl, and he stills needs therapy to this day, and no priest was harmed during the performance of that exorcism. If you look at the credits of the film, there are several real-life priests involved in the movie; several of them were involved in the original incident.

But, at this point, you're probably wondering what sort of barbaric, medieval lunatic tries an exorcism nowadays.

If you're asking that, I would actually recommend that you read the book The Exorcist. You see, with the Catholic Church, unlike some other Christian groups, you have the largest collection of skeptics ever when it comes to supernatural events. During the European witch hunts of the early Protestant Revolutions / Reformation period, the Spanish Inquisition would listen to tales of people who confessed to being witches who went flying with Satan. The Inquisition politely told them all to get lost, a variation on CW Fields' “Go away kid, ya bother me.”

More recently, trying to get miracles verified requires a small army of scientists who can confirm or deny that something is a scientific impossibility. For example, Father Stanley Jaki, PhD, physicist and Catholic priest, once wrote about the miracle of the sun dancing in the sky over Fatima (early 20th century). Jaki concluded that the effect was produced by a rare, naturally occuring phenomenon of frozen ice particles in the sky that turn into a giant convex lens; this giant lens appears to make the sun jiggle around the sky, like looking at it through a a magnifying glass. Did Jaki conclude that it was no longer a miracle? No; because it is scientifically impossible for anyone to predict such a meteorological event, to heck with three small children in the middle of Portugal.

In the case of exorcism, the book The Exorcist catalogs what the subject has to go through in order to get a Cardinal to sign off on an exorcism. The movie covers it a little, but not as much as the book does. Blisters appear on the skin? The stigmata appears on their hands? Sorry, those can be psychosomatic. Do you smell strange odors around the “possessed,” even if they've bathed, and you've lined the room with car fresheners? That could be caused by mental suggestion. Can the symptoms be caused by schizophrenia? Tourette's? Multiple personality? Thank you very much, come back when you have a problem that can't be found in the PDR, theDSM-IV, and might look more akin to something out of Ghostbusters (“...[S]he sleeps above her covers... *four feet* above her covers.”).

The Catholic Church gets about 9,000 applications for exorcism per year. If they do two, that's a lot.

Just so we can all be clear on the terms, when I say possession, I mean a case that defies all scientific explanation. I don't mean “possessions” that are “cured” by every other storefront preacher in a backwoods somewhere.

If you're an atheist, you could have an argument for saying that what appears to be possession is just a form of advanced psychosomatic disease that we haven't figured out yet. It could be a variation of Clarke's law, only this time, any sufficiently advanced biology is indistinguishable from magic. Maybe it's some variety of alien head-cold out of Doctor Who that creates mood swings and personality changes and enables the cold victim to speak in tongues, cause visions, and other things that appear to be supernatural.

However, no matter the cause of possession (or “possession” if you like), they still happen, even under the strict Catholic guidelines. And exorcisms still work— Pope John Paul II performed a few of them himself. If you're an atheist, and think that cases of possession are some extremely bizarre disease that no one has discovered the cause of yet, just look at an exorcism as a case where one human being, through sheer force of will, can help another be cured of their affliction.

And if you're a believer, I promise you, the Vatican is not going crazy … well, not anymore than usual. I'm a member, so someone has to have a screw loose somewhere.