The Vatican’s playbook

Via AP:

Dragged deeper than ever into the clerical sex abuse scandal, the Vatican is launching a legal defense that the church hopes will shield the pope from a lawsuit in Kentucky seeking to have him deposed.  Court documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press show that Vatican lawyers plan to argue that the pope has immunity as head of state, that American bishops who oversaw abusive priests weren’t employees of the Vatican, and that a 1962 document is not the “smoking gun” that provides proof of a cover-up.The Holy See is trying to fend off the first U.S. case to reach the stage of determining whether victims actually have a claim against the Vatican itself for negligence for allegedly failing to alert police or the public about Roman Catholic priests who molested children. The case was filed in 2004 in Kentucky by three men who claim they were abused by priests and claim negligence by the Vatican. Their attorney, William McMurry, is seeking class-action status for the case, saying there are thousands of victims across the country.

“This case is the only case that has been ever been filed against the Vatican which has as its sole objective to hold the Vatican accountable for all the priest sex abuse ever committed in this country,” he said in a phone interview. “There is no other defendant. There’s no bishop, no priest.”

The Vatican is seeking to dismiss the suit before Benedict XVI can be questioned or secret documents subpoenaed.

Do gynos have any business selling sex toys?

Physicians already take flack from some quarters for succumbing to pharmaceutical comanies’ PR campaigns and hoisting possibly unnecessary meds on their patients. This adds an entirely new dimension to product placement in the exam room: Dr. Andrew Schienfeild of New York has a deal with a Swedish sex-toy company to sell their products through his practice. Via Details:

These days the doctor has officially allied himself with Lelo, a Swedish company that designs deluxe, aesthetically gorgeous vibrators, cock rings, and butt plugs, and he’s selling the sex toys directly to patients as part of his medical practice. (So far, though, they are not covered by insurance.) He believes that he’s the first American in his field to do so, and he feels an evangelical sense of mission about it. The way he sees it, spirited erotic exploration is as crucial to a person’s health as nutrition and exercise are. “Sex is a very important part of life,” he says. “These products help us find out what we’re capable of.”

Does “Dr. Horrible 2” have a title?

Felicia Day says yes.

The party of family values

Orange County GOP consultant Erik Brown approved a $2,000 expenditure for “meals” at a bondage-themed West Hollywood nightclub. And it might just cost Michael Steel his job:

The RNC said Monday that Brown, who did not answer many phone calls and e-mails, is repaying the expenditure. But for committee players who spoke to POLITICO, the expense is the latest example of what they see as a careless attitude Michael Steele has taken in spending RNC funds during his chairmanship.

 “The RNC cannot attack Democrats for how the government spends taxpayer money when it is spending Republican donor money recklessly. Recent RNC spending stories suggest a tone-deafness at best and a misappropriation of funds at worst,” added Mike DeMoss, a longtime RNC donor who served as a liaison to the evangelical community for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

Ratzinger is innocent because he looks like Palpatine, or something

It is totally legitimate, fair-minded, and not at all childish to post this picture so as to illustrate E.D. Kain's point.

E.D. Kain claims Ratzinger is being unfaily singled out for crticism not because three offices he saw sheilded at least three (one, two, three) pedophiles from justice, but because he is ugly. I wish I were kidding.

Why a man who is so extraordinarily similar in faith and politics to his predecessor – the much beloved John Paul II – is a question that has been bothering me for some time, and I think I’ve stumbled on the answer. I think it is entirely an aesthetic obsession which motivates Benedicts fiercest critics. Let’s face it, unlike the charismatic John Paul II, Benedict has a somewhat sinister look about him. He has aged in such a way as to make him look less the cuddly grandpa and more the evil villain; he bears an uncanny resemblance to Emperor Palpatine.

 mean no disrespect to the Holy Father in pointing this out. It isn’t exactly something he has control over, nor is it any way to judge a man’s character. But it is easy for us to subconsciously find ways to despise something we find to be ugly or flawed, and I really do think that this entirely incidental feature influences the way people think about the Pope in ways which they’re not even fully aware of. If you doubt me, just look at the pictures critics use in their posts or articles – always the least flattering they can find. And how many people have it in their heads that – unlike John Paul II – Benedict is some arch-conservative? Is there any reason for this belief beyond a dislike of the man’s face?

There’s reason for belief in Ratzinger’s “arch-conservatism” in his record. He re-approved the recitation of of the Latin mass that includes a prayer for the conversion of the Jews to Catholicism,  barred even celibate gay men from joining the priesthood, and his opposition to contraception is so fervent he spread falsehoods about condoms exasperating the AIDS crisis in Africa. Then, of course, he invited Anglican clergy who disapproved of LGBT-inclusion and women’s ordination to join the Catholic Church, even suspending celibacy requirements to do so.

European bishops urge rape victims to report abusers

Via HuffPo:

Swiss bishops urge victims of clerical abuse to file criminal complaints and are considering creating a national registry for pedophile priests. Danish bishops launch an investigation into decades-old claims. Austria’s senior bishop celebrates a Holy Week Mass of repentance.

A week after Pope Benedict XVI excoriated Irish bishops for gross errors of judgment in handling cases of priests who sexually abuse children, European bishops are admitting to mistakes, reaching out to victims and promising to act quickly when they learn about abuse cases. Their mea culpas and pledges to be more transparent and cooperative in the future come amid mounting public outrage over the scope of the abuse and what victims say has been a pattern of coverup by bishops and the Vatican itself to keep the cases quiet.

“It’s about improving things,” Swiss Bishops Conference spokesman Walter Mueller said Wednesday, as Swiss bishops admitted in a statement that they had underestimated the problem and are now telling victims to consider filing criminal complaints.

In Austria, Cardinal Christophe Schoenborn was to celebrate a Holy Week Mass on Wednesday evening for abuse victims in what is being billed as a “sign of repentance” just days before Easter. Schoenborn was named Vienna archbishop in 1995, tasked to clean up the mess in the diocese after Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer was forced to resign as archbishop over allegations he molested youths at a monastery in the 1970s.

Several years later, the church was again rocked by the discovery of up to 40,000 lurid images at a seminary in St. Poelten, 50 miles (80 kilometers) west of Vienna, including child porn and photos of young candidates for the priesthood fondling each other and their older religious instructors. Amid renewed outrage over Europe’s sexual abuse scandals, Schoenborn announced over the weekend the creation of an independent, clergy-free commission headed by a woman to suggest ways to strengthen church guidelines for dealing with sexual abuse.

Switzerland, home of the Swiss Guard who protect the pope at the Vatican, is considering the radical idea of creating a central registry of pedophile priests to prevent them from coming into contact with children.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s recently proscribed that bishops only report rapes by their underlings only if the law of their country explicitly obliges them to.

“The resources of the mind are not commensurate with its ambition”

“Intellectual Ambition,” by George Santayana:

When we consider the situation of the human mind in nature, its limited plasticity and few channels of communication with the outer world, we need not wonder that we grope for light, or that we find incoherence and instability in human systems of ideas. The wonder rather is that we have done so well, that in the chaos of sensations and passions that fills the mind we have found any leisure for self-concentration and reflection, and have succeeded in gathering even a light harvest of experience from our distracted labors. Our occasional madness is less wonderful than our occasional sanity. Relapses into dreams are to be expected in a being whose brief existence is so like a dream; but who could have been sure of this sturdy and indomitable perseverance in the work of reason in spite of all the checks and discouragements?

The resources of the mind are not commensurate with its ambition. Of the five senses, three are of little use in the formation of permanent notions: a fourth, sight, is indeed vivid and luminous, but furnishes transcripts of things so highly colored and deeply modified by the medium of sense, that a long labor of analysis and correction is needed before satisfactory conceptions can be extracted from it. For this labor, however, we are endowed with the requisite instrument. We have memory and we have certain powers of synthesis, abstraction, reproduction, invention,–in a word, we have understanding. But this faculty of understanding has hardly begun its work of deciphering the hieroglyphics of sense and framing an idea of reality, when it is crossed by another faculty–the imagination. Perceptions do not remain in the mind, as would be suggested by the trite simile of the seal and wax, passive and changeless, until time wear off their sharp edges and make them fade. No ,perceptions fall into the brain rather as seeds into a furrowed field or even as sparks into a keg of powder. Each image breeds a hundred more, sometimes slowly and subterraneously, sometimes (when a passionate train is started) with a sudden burst of fancy. The mind, exercises by its own fertility and flooded by its inner lights, has infinite trouble to keep a true reckoning of its outward perceptions. It turns from the frigid problems of observation to its own visions; it forgets to watch the courses of what should be its “pilot stars.” Indeed, were it not for the power of convention in which, by a sort of mutual cancellation of errors, the more practical and normal conceptions are enshrined, the imagination would carry men wholly away,–the best men first and the vulgar after them.

Iceland bans stripping

Via Little About:

Club owners in Iceland are looking at legal recourse following legislation banning stripping in clubs and bars in the north Atlantic nation.

The legislation presented by a member of the opposition demanding a ban on stripping in bars and clubs was passed March 23. This has invited sharp reactions from strip club owners who are looking into whether they can sue the state for compensation.

I haven’t seen the legislation itself, and probably couldn’t make much sense of it because a.) it would be in Icelandic, and I don’t speak Icelandic, and b.) I don’t speak Icelandic legalease. But none of the sites I’ve seen have indicated whether or not the bill specifically targets female strip-clubs, or if Chippendale-like establishements would be effected. (Assuming there are any.)

Anyway. Tracy Clark-Flory reacts:

This week, the Guardian bestowed Iceland with the title of “the world’s most feminist country” and declared it a top contender for “the most female-friendly country on the planet.” The entire planet. This high praise was inspired by the economically devastated country’s passage of a law banning businesses from making money off employee nudity. So, it’s buh-bye, strip clubs. 

Just last year, Iceland outlawed prostitution, and now it’s squelching “adult entertainment” entirely. (Apparently the near-bankrupt country isn’t buying the pop wisdom that the sex industry is recession-proof.) The politician behind the bill, Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, explained: “It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold.” Johanna Sigurðardottir, Iceland’s prime minister — an openly gay politician, which is a first for a head of government — added: “The Nordic countries are leading the way on women’s equality, recognizing women as equal citizens rather than commodities for sale.”

What most impresses the Guardian’s Julie Bindel is that “the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons.” There is no question that Iceland has impressive feminist cred — nearly half of its lawmakers are ladies — but, forgive me, I’m hesitant to announce it the world’s most “feminist” and “female-friendly” country in response to a law prohibiting women from voluntarily taking off their clothes for money. It may not be a religiously motivated move, but it sure is a dogmatic one.

As does Feministe’s Jill:

While I like the idea of sending the message that women’s bodies aren’t for sale, I’m not sure this is the greatest way to do it. It seems less immediately problematic than outlawing paying for sex, primarily because prostitution bans drive sex work underground and put sex workers at risk. I don’t think there’s going to be an epidemic of underground strip clubs (although I’m sure there will be a few underground strip clubs), and I’m not sure that strippers will now face the kinds of immediate dangers that sex workers who sell sexual services negotiate every day.

Underground strippers probably will face dangers their legally-approved counterparts don’t. Some clubs employ bouncers to remove unruly drunks or men who make unwanted physical advances on dancers; it’s unclear whether or not illegal establishments would take the same precautions to protect their dancers if abuse victims are now afraid to go to the police. Anyway, Jill continues:

Stripping, for better or worse, is one of the better-paid jobs that low-skilled (and hey, sometimes high-skilled) female workers can get. And no, it’s not a sustainable career, and it’s a job that traffics in discrimination — it’s primarily for the young, the thin, the able-bodied, etc, and once you don’t fit into that framework it’s no longer an option.

Finally, Miriam from Feministing:

One thing missing from media coverage of the ban was the perspectives of the dancer’s themselves. Club owners were quoted, politicians, but no women actually employed by this industry in Iceland. That’s a big gap. They briefly mention in the Guardian piece that most of the workers were immigrants–that’s an important piece of the puzzle as well.Iceland and the press are claiming this as a feminist victory. I have to disagree.I don’t think banning strip clubs, or even sex work (which Iceland had previously banned), in the name of preventing the exploitation of women, works. History has shown us that criminalizing these industries simply drives them underground, where they continue to thrive, but with little regulation and definitely no protections for the workers. Instead workers are criminalized (often instead of the people seeking their services), which prevents them from seeking recourse for abuses they may face. Anyone looking for evidence of this can look to the United States and the sex work industry. The ban that exists in most of our country has not eliminated sex work. It’s driven it underground where the risks for the workers are much higher.

This is not a feminist victory.A feminist victory, in my opinion, would be a highly regulated industry that made sure dancer’s rights were protected. One where workers were paid good wages, were able to unionize, had full benefits, were able to set boundaries with customers and have those boundaries protected. One that ensured that these immigrant women were not being brought to Iceland against their will.A feminist victory would mean access to jobs and economic opportunity that meant women had options other than strip clubs and sex work if they so chose. We know that our current economic situation does not allow all people to have access to economic opportunity, meaning that sex work is not always a “choice.” But once again, driving the industry underground serves no one, and often harms the workers more than anyone.

Ratzinger and Nixon

The parallels:

It’s Not the Crime, It’s the Cover-up

On the Watergate tapes, Nixon himself declared, “It’s not the crime that gets you… it’s the cover up.” He understood that he probably could have survived the Watergate scandal if only he had admitted White House involvement early on instead of covering his tracks. The nation might have forgiven Nixon for mismanaging his campaign, but not for obstructing justice.

Similarly, the Pope’s greatest liability is not so much the sexual crimes committed by priests—terrible as those are—but his actions following the crime. In one case, a German priest, Rev. Peter Hullerman was ordered into therapy after repeatedly molesting young boys. Hullerman was then transferred to another parish, where he continued to molest boys. Supporters of the Pope blame the transfer on a close associate, Rev. Gerhard Gruber, but it remains unclear whether the Pope may have played some role in the priest’s re-assignment.

A sexist Facebook advert

The below image accompanied a Facebook advertisement for “The most addictive game ever.”

Before Xing it out and reporting it as “offensive,” I opened the link. It goes to a “Play Sushi” game, “Bridezilla: To death do us part.” Complain to them, if you will.