Kidnapping, Slavery, Human Trafficking, and Bingo

Three women who had been held against their will in a Cleveland, Ohio, house are free: and, happily, seem to be in good physical health.

Their kidnapping, years of virtual slavery, and eventual escape, are international news. I'll be back on Friday with another 'in the news' post, but this seemed worth posting now:

1. Not-So-Good Neighbors
   • Locks and Hindsight
2. Good Neighbors
3. Human Trafficking and Other Threats
   • Porn
   • The Internet and Bingo

---

Neighbors, Sex, and Slavery

The rules are basically simple:

• Love God, love your neighbor
  (Matthew 22:36-40, Mark 12:28-31)
• Everybody as your neighbor
  (Matthew 5:43-44; Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10:25-30; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1825)
• Treat others as we want to be treated
  (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31)

In my native language, English, "love" can mean quite a few things, like: 'I love hamburgers;' I love golf;' 'I love my wife;' I love golf;' or 'I love God.' In this case, I'm talking about the sort of love that's "to will the good of another. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1766)

Slavery

The Catechism has quit a bit to say about loving neighbors. (Catechism, 2401-2449)

Some of it is what we should do, some is what we shouldn't do. Among other things, slavery is not allowed. We can't do it for ideological or totalitarian reasons: or for commercial purposes. It's wrong, and we shouldn't do it. (Catechism, 2414)

It's true that the Church did not 'make' people stop practicing slavery. Individual Catholics have occasionally tried to force their notion of 'proper' behavior down the throats of unwilling subjects: but that's a bad idea, and we shouldn't do it. (Catechism, 1782)

It took almost two millennia, but eventually several nations started acting as if people owning other people was a bad idea. I think the idea is catching on. (May 6, 2012)

On the other hand, we do have occasional lapses. Old habits die hard.

Prostitution

Despite the goofy assumptions that are mistaken for facts in some American subcultures, the Catholic Church doesn't abuse women. Again, some Catholics have behaved badly.

Among other things, unjust discrimination in employment is against the rules. (Catechism, 2433)

If the Church is against discrimination based on sex, why isn't prostitution allowed? Given America's recent cultural history, that's not an unreasonable question.

A half century back, it seemed 'obvious' to some reformers that prostitution was a good way for women to make money: and was illegal because a male-dominated society wanted to keep women in a subservient status.

The Church is against prostitution, not because sex is evil: but because prostitution hurts the dignity of the person who acts as a prostitute. Prostitution reduces a person to a mere object intended for sexual pleasure. It's not good for the prostitute's client, either, and is particularly bad when children are used. (Catechism, 2355)

Yes, I know about the pedophile priests. Moving on.

Sex

Sex is good. That's not just my opinion. Genesis 1:22, 28, and 31 make it fairly clear that God designed humanity with our sexual nature: and thought it was good. At that level of authority, I don't think there's a point in arguing.

Here's a very quick overview of the Catholic Church's view:

• Sex is
  • Good (Catechism, 2331-2336)
  • Special (Catechism, 2348-2350)
• Lust is a disorder (Catechism, 2351)
• Rape is bad (Catechism, 2356)

Some folks don't act as if that's true, sadly: which brings me to some of this week's news.

---

1. Not-So-Good Neighbors

"Ohio abduction suspect was familiar figure in neighborhood"
Associated Press via FoxNews.com (May 8, 2013)

"In the tight-knit neighborhood near downtown where many conversations are spoken in Spanish, it seems most everyone knew Ariel Castro.

"He played bass guitar in salsa and merengue bands. He parked his school bus on the street. He gave neighborhood children rides on his motorcycle.

"And when they gathered for a candlelight vigil to remember two girls who vanished years ago, Castro was there, too, comforting the mother of one of the missing, a neighbor said.

"Neighbors and friends were stunned by the arrest of Castro and his two brothers after a 911 call led police to his house, where authorities say three women missing for about a decade were held captive...."

What three brothers did in that neighborhood was very wrong, and is now international news. The blame game may go into extra innings as folks vent their anger and frustrations. I think kidnapping is wrong. (Catechism, 2297) Forcing those three young women into slavery was wrong.

But I won't claim that the local police are to blame, that school bus drivers should all be deported, or that men who play guitars are evil. I don't have enough information to have an opinion about what law enforcement could have done: and the rest is simply silly.

I doubt that anyone will seriously propose that guitars be outlawed: but it's all too likely that some 'regular Americans' will decide that this appalling situation shows that non-WASPs should be driven out of 'their' country.

Locks and Hindsight

"...Castro's son, Anthony Castro, said in an interview with London's Daily Mail newspaper that he now speaks with his father just a few times a year and seldom visited his house. On his last visit two weeks ago, he said, his father would not let him inside.

" 'The house was always locked,' he told the newspaper. 'There were places we could never go. There were locks on the basement. Locks on the attic. Locks on the garage.'..."

Ideally, Anthony Castro might have deduced that his father's behavior was sufficiently inappropriate to warrant calling the police: with a complaint that his father had put a lock on his garage???

It's easy to be wise after the fact. I think it's more sensible to remember that kidnapping and imprisoning those women was a bad thing, and that we shouldn't do that sort of thing.

---

2. Good Neighbors

"Cleveland officials hail bravery of missing women"
BBC News (May 7, 2013)

"Police have praised the bravery of three women found alive on Monday evening in a house in Cleveland, Ohio, after they vanished about a decade ago.

"Amanda Berry, who disappeared in 2003 aged 16, escaped with a neighbour's help while her alleged captor was away.

"Gina DeJesus, who went missing aged 14 a year later, and Michelle Knight, who vanished in 2002 aged about 19, were also rescued from the property.

"A school bus driver and his two brothers have been arrested.

"The three women were taken to hospital for a check-up and to be reunited with their relatives before being discharged on Tuesday morning.

"A six-year-old girl also rescued from the house was believed to be the daughter of Ms Berry, Deputy Police Chief Ed Tomba told a news conference...."

I prefer to look at what neighbors did, as soon as one of them realized that someone needed help. As soon as Amanda Berry called for help: she got it, together with the release of her fellow-captives.

---

3. Human Trafficking and Other Threats

"Congressman calls attention to human trafficking in US"
Adelaide Mena, CNA/EWTN News (May 6, 2013)

"In a recent Virginia forum, U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) highlighted the largely unknown problem of human trafficking within the United States, offering suggestions for how to fight 'modern day slavery.'

"While many see slavery as a problem of history, Wolf said, 'slavery, of a different sort, still exists today.'

"He also stressed that human trafficking is a local issue, with girls being held in sex slavery within the state of Virginia.

"Wolf delivered his comments at a May 3 meeting with state and local officials in McLean, Va. The gathering, hosted by state delegates Barbara Comstock and Tim Hugo, was aimed at discussing ways to fight human trafficking in the state.

"According to the non-profit group Shared Hope International, over 100,000 American children are exploited through pornography or prostitution annually....

Representative Wolf may be looking at his reelection campaign, dispassionately interested in righting this wrong: or, more likely, motivated by a bit of both.

Depending on his constituency, he may be taking a risk. 'Good, decent, God-fearing folks' can get used to remarkably depraved things: and get huffy when someone rocks the boat, and that's another topic.

Porn

"...The congressman remarked that he has 'seen credible reports of nearly 80 establishments' in Northern Virginia that serve as centers for human trafficking and exploitation.

" 'We walk and drive by them every day,' he said.

"Wolf listed the internet and gangs as major components in the spread and success of human trafficking. He stated that sites such as Facebook and Backpage.com permit individuals to meet and take advantage of victims.

"The congressman also expressed concern that the opening of a casino in the Maryland National Harbor would lead to a growth in human trafficking in the region...."
(Adelaide Mena, CNA/EWTN News)

For some folks, pornography is 'stuff I don't like that relates to sex.' That can include anything from cosmetics advertisements and the auto parts store wall calendar to "The Moon is Blue." (1953) I really don't miss the 'good old days.' More topics.

As a Catholic, I think pornography is the deliberate display of real of simulated sexual acts. It removes the intimacy of partners, is a misuse of sex, and hurts the dignity of everyone involved. (Catechism, 2354)

Like prostitution, pornography was supposed to be a tool used by liberated women to make money: thereby freeing them from the trammeling bonds of male oppression. I think people should be able to earn money: but I also think porn is a bad idea.

Magazine ads for lip gloss and mascara are sometimes of debatable value: but that really is another topic.

The Internet and Bingo

I think Representative Wolf has a point, about online services like Facebook and Backpage.com being used by human traffickers. Happily, he doesn't seem to be trying to sell fear of Facebook. I don't see Facebook, or other social media, as a threat to society: but I'm one of those people who have a Facebook page, so maybe I'm biased. (Brian H Gill)

Wolf's concern about a casino interested me. I don't gamble, but I don't think gambling is inherently bad. Maybe the idea is that casinos are seen as 'ethics-free' zones: or, not. I've harangued about the Internet, Bingo, fear, and sin before. (November 18, 2012; September 28, 2012)

Related posts:

• "Untouchables, a Missing Bishop, and Charities at Risk"
  (July 13, 2012)
  Particularly
  • Caste, Human Trafficking, and Traditions
• "Street Performers and Making Progress"
  (May 6, 2012)
  Particularly
  • Prostitution and Slavery: Ancient Traditions, but Wrong
• "Men, Women, Differences, and Equality"
  (May 2, 2012)
• "Secret Service Sex SNAFU: My Take"
  (April 26, 2012)
  Particularly
  • Lanugage, Regional Culture, and a Universal Church
  • Sex, Tourism, and the Pope
• "Victims of Human Trafficking in Minnesota: How to Help"
  (June 30, 2010)

Street Performers and Making Progress

I lived in San Francisco for about 18 months, back when Disco was in flower. San Francisco isn't quite like Minnesota's major metropolitan area, Minneapolis-Saint Paul: and it's not just the climate.

Street performers were a facet of San Francisco life that took getting used to. Where I grew up, street vendors/sidewalk salesmen/hawkers weren't around. Neither were folks providing open-air entertainment.

Some of San Francisco's street performers might have made more money with a sign saying "WILL QUIT FOR MONEY." Others were very talented: and I'm told some made a modest living off what landed in their hat.

Sidewalk Entertainment: In Minnesota?!

I don't think we'll see street performers here in central Minnesota: not soon, anyway. It's simply not part of the regional culture.

I wouldn't mind at all if the upper Midwest changed its attitude toward street vendors and street performers. Aside from pepping up the downtown experience, I see hawkers and sidewalk shows as an opportunity for 'the other folks.'

Having parents who are studio executives, entertainment celebrities, or owners of a national network, doesn't guarantee a successful career in the entertainment industry. But I suspect that it's a little easier for folks in that position to get a foot in the door.

Sawing away at a violin on a street corner is no guarantee of a successful performing career, either: but all a person needs to get that sort of exposure is appropriate clothing, a violin, and something to hold coins. Or, if you're really good, bills.

Some Scrawny Kid from Hoboken

Maybe that's a bad example. Violins are expensive, and quite a few folks can't afford one. Let's say that someone likes to sing, and is good at it.

Some kid from Hoboken, New Jersey, started singing for tips at age eight: in a local bar. Later, he was kicked out of high school, got in trouble with the law, and became Frank Sinatra.

I don't think breaking the law is necessarily a good career move for anybody. Not in a 'big picture' sense, anyway. A society that lets some scrawny kid from Hoboken get a singing career started by trading songs for tips? I don't see that as a problem. I like the idea of letting folks have opportunities to exercise their talents.

San Francisco isn't Minneapolis

Street vendors and performers aren't the only way that San Francisco and Minneapolis-Saint Paul are different. For one thing, Minnesota's Twin Cities / "the Metro" is a collection of almost 200 towns and cities, packed around a few good landings, crossings, and a waterfall on some rivers. San Francisco is a city built around a harbor, surrounded on three sides by water.

Then there's culture. San Francisco is on America's west coast, and has been described as eccentric. Minnesota is at the north end of America's Midwest, and has lots of Scandinavians.

At one time Minnesota had a reputation for providing employment opportunities to oppressed women. Or selling girls into slavery. So much depends on how a person views places like New York City's Minnesota Strip. Folks in outstate Minnesota tended to give the Twin Cities most of the credit. In my experience, anyway.

These days, prostitution and solicitation are somewhat illegal in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. On the other hand, it's fairly easy to find 'sex shops' in the Metro, particularly near convention and sports venues. Not that they're involved in prostitution. Like I said, that's illegal.

But, as 'advanced' and 'enlightened' as some folks in this state are, I think Minnesota's largest city is nowhere near as, ah, relaxed as San Francisco. Not in terms of what the folks in charge seem to believe, and think they can get away with, about human sexuality.

No Rant, No Way

If you're expecting a rant about the abyssal vileness of wicked San Francisco, and how a wrathful God should smite the sinners and cast their city into the depths: You'll have a long wait.

Not - gonna - happen.

I do not need that sort of trouble. Matthew 7:1-5; Luke 6:37, 41-42; Romans 12:19; 1 John 3:15; and all that.

These days, by the way, human trafficking in Minnesota is more of the incoming variety, and I've posted about this before:

• "Victims of Human Trafficking in Minnesota: How to Help"
  (June 30, 2010)

As that post's title implies, I think prostitution and slavery are bad ideas: and I'll get back to that.

Street Vendors and Regional Culture

Over the decades, I've run into folks whose faith seems to consist mostly of fussing about music they don't like, movies they won't watch, and people who aren't pretty much just like themselves. I've discussed malignant virtue and why I converted to Catholicism before.

A Brief Distraction

Taking my cue from the 'everything that's not done in my neighborhood is Satanic' school of thought, I could assume that street vendors and performers are evil. After all, we don't do that here in Minnesota: and that 'wicked' city, San Francisco, is just simply swarming with street vendors. Or was, back in the '70s, when I lived there.

Some of my better memories of San Francisco involve street performers. Not the young woman with a violin whose vocal performance suggested that she might be tone deaf. There was a man who played classical guitar: and did a beautiful job. What most of them had in common was talent, a willingness to perform, and a small container on the sidewalk for contributions.

The chap with the barrel organ and white gloves in that photo isn't from San Francisco, by the way. He looks quite a bit like many of the folks living in my part of Minnesota: but he was in Vienna, Austria.

Another Brief Distraction

Apparently street vendors are called hawkers in dialects of English other than the North American version I speak. Whether they're called street vendors or hawkers, many parts of the world have folks with goods to sell who do business with pedestrians.

The way my brain works, the terms street vendor and hawker reminded me of software that translates from one language to another. For example, although I don't understand more than a few words of traditional Chinese, I can use Google Translate to change "The hawker had fresh fish." to "小販有新鮮的魚。"

Since I'm not at all fluent in Chinese, traditional or otherwise, I used the same online software to change "小販有新鮮的魚。" back to "The hawker There are fresh fish." Which is another reason why I won't be using automated translation software any time soon, and I posted about that yesterday.

Where was I? San Francisco, street performers, and silly ideas. Right.

Money Isn't the Root of All Evil

I hope most folks realize that "money is the root of all evil" isn't in the Bible:

"For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains."
(1 Timothy 6:10)

"Let your life be free from love of money but be content with what you have, for he has said, 'I will never forsake you or abandon you.'"
(Hebrews 13:5)

I've posted about wealth, poverty, and what the Church says, before; including these posts:

• "Success, Wealth, Poverty, and Getting a Grip"
  (September 27, 2010)
• "Wealth, the Vatican, the White House, Corporate Headquarters, and Cultural Values"
  (February 4, 2010)

As nearly as I can tell, it's okay to be poor, it's okay to be rich: what matters is what I do with what I've got.

Business Ethics

I've yet to find a serious objection to doing business in the Bible: or Catholic teaching. Based on what I've found so far, I doubt that there's a blanket prohibition against street vendors/hawkers, or street performers. There are quite a few rules about business ethics, though.

For example, there's "do not steal." (Exodus 20:15, Deuteronomy 5:19, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20) The Catechism has a somewhat detailed discussion of what "do not steal" means. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2401-2449)

Basically, "do not steal" means that stealing is wrong, and we shouldn't do it. Even it it's the sort of "legal" theft where someone takes property in a way that's legal: but unethical. (Catechism, 2408)

Like I've said before, after two millennia of folks trying to weasel out of a few simple rules, the Church has gotten pretty good at explaining how "do not steal" means "do not steal;" and why stealing is a bad idea. My opinion. (March 12, 2012)

Prostitution and Slavery: Ancient Traditions, but Wrong

Some folks seem to see the Catholic Church as an institution dedicated to preserving the status quo, and forcing people to live with dusty traditions. That's not the way it works.

The Catholic Church keeps insisting that some ancient principles are important: like "do not steal." Not because they're ancient: but because they're right.

The Church has been saying that other ancient traditions are wrong. Not because they're dusty old ideas: but because they're wrong. Like prostitution and slavery:

"Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure...."
(Catechism, 2355)

---

"The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."¹⁹⁴"
(Catechism, 2414)

I don't think it's too much of an oversimplification to say that prostitution and slavery are wrong partly because both involve folks treating other folks as something less than a 'real' person. The Church has insisted that we should treat human beings as if they're people. All human beings.

That doesn't mean that the Church doesn't want women to have jobs:

"The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:

"Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.⁴⁰"

(Catechism, 1935)

My wife or my daughters working outside the home is okay. Being prostitutes isn't.

Slow Progress is Still Progress

I don't think there are all that many folks in America who still think that owning other people is okay. Yes, human trafficking shows up in the news now and then. Occasionally someone with more money than sense gets in trouble because they've been keeping another person around the house as a sort of slave:

• "Mansion servant enslaved by uber-rich New York family for nearly six years"
  Eric Pfeiffer, The Sideshow, Yahoo! News (March 1, 2012)

What makes me hopeful about efforts to improve this world is that most folks in America seem to think that keeping slaves is wrong. That's progress.

Twelve Legions of Angels?

So, if the Church says that slavery is wrong, why didn't Jesus start a Spartacus-style revolution and keep going until blood of Romans and everybody who was 'too wealthy' ran in the street? Questions of morality aside, I think there are practical reasons.

I enjoy watching the occasional action-adventure movie where the good guys blow things up and justice triumphs. But life isn't the movies. (May 3, 2011)

The real Spartacus was remarkably successful at disrupting part of the Roman Empire. But after the smoke cleared, his revolt had killed quite a few people, and destroyed quite a lot of property. But Spartacus and thousands of his followers dead: and the status quo was pretty much intact.

Slavery didn't start getting unpopular (among non-slaves) until almost two millennia later - and is still practiced, sadly.

My Lord said that he could call in twelve legions of angels. (Matthew 26:53) But that he had good reason for not doing so. (Matthew 26:54) I'm inclined to believe Jesus. His Father had ordered an air strike that obliterated at least two cities and the region they had been in. (Genesis 19:28)

The 'Hammer of God' and Rebound

If the Catholic Church operated like some of the 'hammer of God' folks who make the news now and then, and was as incredibly powerful as some claim, slavery could have been wiped out. Quite often.

Killing everybody who owned slaves, or supported slavery, would end slavery. For a while. But that would be a messy process: and my guess is that slavery would reappear within a generation or two. There's that bit from Job:

"For mischief comes not out of the earth, nor does trouble spring out of the ground;

"²But man himself begets mischief, as sparks fly upward."
(Job 5:6-7)

I've used that quote before, and posted about original sin. (October 15, 2010, October 12, 2010)

Passing Along Simple Truth

What the Catholic Church has been doing for two millennia is passing along what we got from my Lord:

• Love God, love your neighbor
  (Matthew 22:36-40, Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10:25-27)
• See everybody as your neighbor
  (Matthew 5:43-44; Luke 10:29-37; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1825)
• Treat others as we want to be treated
  (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31)

We're still doing what we've been doing for the last two thousand years - teaching folks to love God and love neighbors.

When more people learn to love, and that we should treat others as we want to be treated, I think we'll see less slavery, less prostitution: and fewer dishonest salespeople.

It took something like 19 centuries for the idea that slavery is a bad idea to catch on. Maybe by the 39th century, another obdurate social malady will be on the wane.

It's slow going: but we are making progress.

Related posts:

• Culture and customs
  • "Men, Women, Differences, and Equality"
    (May 2, 2012)
  • "Martial Arts and the Battle for Purity"
    (April 15, 2012)
  • "Living as if God Matters"
    (June 12, 2011)
  • "The 1950s, California, and Old-School Thinking"
    (February 16, 2011)
  • "Time, Change, Culture, and This Catholic"
    (December 2, 2010)
• Economics and ethics
  
  • "Secret Service Sex SNAFU: My Take"
    (April 26, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Ethics and Foolishness
    • Contracts, Ethics, and Prostitutes
    • Porn, Prostitution: What's the Big Deal?
  • "Intercultural Dialogue: Great Potential; Big Risks"
    (March 26, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Cultures, Differences, and Danger
  • "Global Economics, Fundamental Rights: 'It's Complicated' "
    (March 19, 2012)
  • "Immigrants, Illegal and Otherwise, America, and Getting a Grip"
    (June 25, 2010)
  • "Is the Church For Capitalism? Yes: and No"
    (March 13, 2010)
• Sex and sense
  • "Caritas in Veritate: Progress, Ethics, and Sex"
    (January 23, 2012)
    Particularly
    • Sex is Not Lust: and Other Counter-Cultural Ideas
  • "Mephistopheles and an - Ersatz Hot Babe?!"
    (October 24, 2011)
    Particularly
    • Marriage is a Big Deal, Mephistopheles Notwithstanding
  • "Sex, Science, and the Home Schooling Parent"
    (September 17, 2011)
  • "Hippies, Prudes, Catholics, and Sex"
    (August 30, 2011)
  • "Sex Isn't a Product for Consumption?"
    (June 8, 2011)

Secret Service Sex SNAFU: My Take

Most arguments over a hotel bill don't turn into diplomatic incidents. This one did:

"Obama: Reported details of prostitution scandal fall short of Secret Service standards"
FoxNews.com (April 15, 2012)

"President Obama, in his first public remarks on the prostitution scandal involving members of the Secret Service, said Sunday that he will be 'angry' if the reported allegations against the agents turn out to be true. He said Secret Service personnel, like the rest of any U.S. delegation abroad, must 'observe the highest standards.'..."

"...Details are still emerging, but the behavior of the agents initially attracted attention during a dispute at the Hotel Caribe over payment for an extra 'guest.'

"According to a senior law enforcement official, an employee approached at least one Secret Service agent and demanded that he pay extra money for having an additional overnight guest in his room.

"The agent balked, which eventually resulted in a confrontation and forced diplomatic intervention.

"The official said the guest involved apparently was a prostitute...."

Ethics and Foolishness

Prostitution is a bad idea, and I'll get back to that. My first reaction to the story, though, was a sort of astonished disgust: that someone with the Secret Service would invite an "extra guest," and then refuse to pay!

Hiring a prostitute is one thing: expecting a free ride from service providers is just plain stupid. Particularly when the service is a hotel room, where you're a registered guest.

When the you're a registered guest, who's there because he's employed by a national government? That sort of world-class foolishness is the sort of thing I've come to expect from elected officials: not professionals who are paid to use their brains. And that's another topic. Topics.

Getting food, lodging or other accommodations at a hotel without paying is illegal in Minnesota. It's also wrong.

The Catholic Church and Rules

Like I've said before, the Church has a reputation for having rules about everything. We're not as hidebound as all that, and I've posted about being καθολικός before.

Some of the rules I have to live by, if I'm going to be a practicing Catholic, involve money and property. For example:

• It's okay for me to have private property
  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2403)
• I must use what I own ethically
  (Catechism, 2402-2405)

Use of private property is part of discussion of the Seventh Commandment: "you shall not steal." The Church says that forbidding theft includes legally taking property - by unethical means. (Catechism, 2408)

Contracts, Ethics, and Prostitutes

More to the point, in the context of this SNAFU¹ over a hotel bill, we've got someone who apparently wanted to violate the terms of a contract. That's generally not a good idea:

"Promises must be kept and contracts strictly observed to the extent that the commitments made in them are morally just. A significant part of economic and social life depends on the honoring of contracts between physical or moral persons-commercial contracts of purchase or sale, rental or labor contracts. All contracts must be agreed to and executed in good faith." (Catechism, 2410)

I suppose I could argue that the secret service agent didn't have to pay the hotel for an additional guest, since his contract to the hotel was valid "to the extent that the commitments made in them are morally just" - - - and she didn't count, since she's 'just a prostitute.'

My Lord's attitude toward people who 'don't count' is, I think, fairly obvious in Luke 7:36-50: particularly this part:

"Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, 'Do you see this woman? When I entered your house, you did not give me water for my feet, but she has bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair.

"You did not give me a kiss, but she has not ceased kissing my feet since the time I entered.

"You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with ointment.

"So I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence, she has shown great love. ¹³ But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.'

"He said to her, 'Your sins are forgiven.' "
(Luke 7:47-48)

Forgiveness, Not Denial

Before getting back to hotel bills and common sense, I think there's something about forgiveness that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle. Forgiveness is important. And forgiveness of sin isn't denial that sin exists. We get a look at that in John 8:3-11, where a woman got caught in the sin of adultery. It ends with these lines:

"Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, '"Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?'

"She replied, 'No one, sir.' Then Jesus said, 'Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.' "
(John 8:10-11)

Forgiveness is important. But Jesus also said "...from now on do not sin any more." Pretty good advice, I think.

Another point: given the nature of adultery, she had to be committing it with someone. That's led to speculation about just what Jesus was writing on the ground, and that's another topic.

A "Really Bad Idea"

"Report: Secret Service involved in second prostitution scandal"
CNN (April 26, 2012)

"A day after U.S. lawmakers were briefed on an alleged prostitution scandal in Colombia involving Secret Service members, a report emerged Thursday of similar allegations, this time in El Salvador..."

"...The men drank heavily at the club, and most of them paid extra for access to a VIP section where they were provided sexual favors in return for cash, the source told the station....

"...The owner said his club routinely takes care of high-ranking employees of the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador as well as visiting agents from the FBI and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, KIRO said. The owner said his reputation for 'security' and 'privacy' makes his strip club popular with 'those who want to be discreet.'

"The government contractor source said he told the agents it was a 'really bad idea' to take the strippers back to their hotel rooms, but several agents bragged that they 'did this all the time' and 'not to worry about it,' KIRO reported...."

I put a longer excerpt at the end of this post.²

I'm inclined to agree with the contractor: taking strippers back to the hotel was a "really bad idea." I think just being there was a bad idea, and that has to do with natural law.

Natural Law

Natural law is the idea that cause and effect exist: and that there's a moral order built into the universe, just as there is a set of rules that determines how physical processes happen. There's more to it, of course. (Catechism, 1954-1960)

"Morality," in this sense, is much more than the sort of zipper issues that seem to plague public officials and government employees. Acting morally means acting ethically - in all aspects of life. I've been over this before. (June 3, 2011)

I think part of the reason that more folks don't feel like natural law exists is that consequences tend to take longer when ethical standards are violated. For example, Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme made him a wealthy man: for a while. That's hardly the sort of 'write a bad check and get hit by lightning' sort of 'divine retribution' that some folks may expect.

I don't have to pay attention to natural law. I've got free will, like anybody else. I don't have to pay attention to rules built into the visible world, either. I could, in principle, decide that gravity doesn't exist: and step off the roof of a building. I'd enjoy wild, exhilarating sensations while rushing through the air: for a while. If the building was high enough, there might be quite a mess for someone to clean up, which is part of why I won't do that.

Rules, Assumptions, and Sex

I've read that rules about government employees and illicit sexual activity are there to prevent blackmail. I'm inclined to believe that.

Assuming that a government employee might be forced to work against the government is wrong - is an assumption. But I think it's a valid one. Starting with that assumption, it seem reasonable to reduce or eliminate opportunities for blackmail. That's where existing rules about doing stupid things come in.

Another approach to reducing or eliminating opportunities for blackmail would be to decide that existing rules about sexual conduct shouldn't exist. That sounded pretty good to quite a few folks, a half-century ago. I agree that many Americans have enjoyed wild, exhilarating sensations for the last half-century. But I think quite a few of us have hit the sidewalk, too: and the mess is getting increasingly hard to ignore.

That's not the same as thinking that sex is bad. Sex is build into humanity. It's part of what and who we are. (Genesis 1:27, Catechism, 355, for starters) God designed sex, and I don't think God makes bad things.

What we do with a basically good creation? That's been a mixed bag.

Porn, Prostitution: What's the Big Deal?

"I'm a feminist, and I'm for prostitution" may have joined "although personally opposed" as a dubiously-effective slogan. The idea that porn and prostitution is good for women makes sense: provided that someone pretends making money is all that matters, and that natural law doesn't exist.

I'm a practicing Catholic, so I'm not allowed to think that way:

"Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties...."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2354)

---

"Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure...."
(Catechism, 2355)

---

Bottom line? The Church won't let me see women as sex objects.

I'm not allowed to think of women as being inferior beings, either:

"The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:

"Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.40"

(Catechism, 1935)

Lanugage, Regional Culture, and a Universal Church

"The equality of men..." should, by politically-correct standards read something like "The equality of non-gender-specific persons of any sexual orientation...." "Men" is shorter, and means "people" in English. As I've said before, the Catechism is a translation into my native language. The original document is written for an organization that's καθολικός. (April 10, 2012)

I very sincerely do not want to get back to the 'good old days' when 'she's smart as a man' was supposed to be a compliment, and that's another topic.

Sex, Tourism, and the Pope

As for the unraveling story of government employees pretending that natural law doesn't apply to them? I think their behavior is very regrettable; and has been hurting them, their employers, and the people involved at the service-provider end of the situation. Maybe there will be a serious re-evaluation of the way Federal agencies and their employees behave. Then again, maybe not. There's an election coming up in November: just a thought.

I also hope that Catholics, at least, pay attention to what the Benedict XVI said about responsible tourism:

"Tourism Must Be Enlightened by the Word of God, Says Pope"
ZENIT (April 23, 2012)
"Calls for End to Human Trafficking"

"With a message from Benedict XVI, the 7th World Congress on the Pastoral Care of Tourism opened today in Cancun, Mexico, on the topic 'Tourism That Makes a Difference.'...

"...The Pope points out three areas on which the pastoral care of tourism must focus its attention.

"In the first place, 'we need shed light on this reality using the social teaching of the Church and promote a culture of ethical and responsible tourism, in such a way that it will respect the dignity of persons and of peoples, be open to all, be just, sustainable and ecological....'

"In the second place, 'our pastoral action should never lose sight of the via pulchritudinis, "the way of beauty." Many of the manifestations of the historical and cultural religious patrimony are "authentic ways to God, Supreme Beauty; indeed they help us to grow in our relationship with him, in prayer. These are works that arise from faith and express faith"...'

"And, in the third place, 'pastoral activity in the area of tourism should care for Christians as they enjoy their vacations and free time in such a way that these will contribute to their human and spiritual growth. Truly this is "an appropriate moment to let the body relax and to nourish the spirit with more time for prayer and meditation, in order to grow in personal relationship with Christ and become ever more conformed to his teachings"....'..."

Full text of Benedict XVI's message at Cancun:

• "Papal Message to Tourism Conference"
  (Release date April 23, 2012) (from the Vatican (April 18th 2012) via ZENIT)

Related posts:

• Sex
  • "Caritas in Veritate: Progress, Ethics, and Sex"
    (January 23, 2012)
  • "Mephistopheles and an - Ersatz Hot Babe?!"
    (October 24, 2011)
  • "Hippies, Prudes, Catholics, and Sex"
    (August 30, 2011)
  • "Sex Isn't a Product for Consumption?"
    (June 8, 2011)
  • "Rape isn't Nice, and We Shouldn't Do It"
    (May 17, 2011)
• Ethics
  • "Obedience, Yes: Blind Obedience, No"
    (March 12, 2012)
  • "The Spirit of Resistance"
    (February 26, 2012)
    Particularly
    • 'Legal' Isn't Always 'Right'
  • "Lie and Hype for a Good Cause?!"
    (November 28, 2011)
  • "Morality, Wisdom, and Getting a Grip"
    (June 3, 2011)
    Particularly
    • Morality isn't Just About "Morality"
  • "Public Officials with Ethical Standards: A Radical Idea For Today's America"
    (June 29, 2010)
• Natural law
  • "My Take on the News: The San Jose Articles, Natural Law, International Law, and Getting a Grip"
    (December 2, 2011)
  • "Natural Moral Law, Catholicism, Karma, and the Tea Party"
    (October 16, 2010)
  • "Archbishop of Minnesota, About Proposition 8"
    (August 8, 2010)
    Particularly
    • Assumptions and Objective Reality
  • "Social Media Guidelines from American Bishops"
    (July 21, 2010)
  • "Demonic Deception? Or What You Get When We Play God?"
    (May 5, 2010)
    Particularly
    • Natural Law

---

¹ Normally, I link directly to the Princeton WordNet definition for a term, or to another resource. My standards for this blog require me to note that the definition for SNAFU involves a term which is somewhat indelicate.

I include 'definition' links partly because I'm a recovering English teacher: partly because I think some folks who read this blog understand English very well: as a second language. Sometimes a native speaker uses unfamiliar words: or uses familiar words in an unusual way.

² Longer excerpt from the news:

"Report: Secret Service involved in second prostitution scandal"
CNN (April 26, 2012)

"A day after U.S. lawmakers were briefed on an alleged prostitution scandal in Colombia involving Secret Service members, a report emerged Thursday of similar allegations, this time in El Salvador...."

"Seattle TV station KIRO, a CNN affiliate, cited an unnamed U.S. government contractor who worked extensively with the Secret Service advance team in San Salvador prior to President Barack Obama's trip there in March, 2011.

"The source said he was with about a dozen Secret Service agents and a few U.S. military specialists at a strip club in the city a few days before Obama arrived, KIRO reported.

"The men drank heavily at the club, and most of them paid extra for access to a VIP section where they were provided sexual favors in return for cash, the source told the station.

"KIRO said the owner of the strip club corroborated the allegations. The owner confirmed that a large number of Secret Service agents, and some military escorts, 'descended on his club' that week and were there at least three nights in a row, KIRO reported.

"The owner said his club routinely takes care of high-ranking employees of the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador as well as visiting agents from the FBI and U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, KIRO said. The owner said his reputation for 'security' and 'privacy' makes his strip club popular with 'those who want to be discreet.'

"The government contractor source said he told the agents it was a 'really bad idea' to take the strippers back to their hotel rooms, but several agents bragged that they 'did this all the time' and 'not to worry about it,' KIRO reported...."

My Take on the News: Religious 'Freedom;' Killing the Victims; Another Hack Attack

Anti-Catholicism keeps up with the times. Now, in addition to being in league with Satan and helping Nazis, the Catholic Church is supposed to be constantly molesting children and causing (what else?) cancer.

I'm not making that up.

1. Religious Freedom: For Those With Presidential Approval
   • Don't Laugh: You Could be Next
2. 'It's Okay: She was Raped'
   • Old-School Family Values
   • Rape isn't Nice
   • Blaming the Victim
   • People, Customs, Ethics, and the Church
   • Rights and Obligations
   • Deadly 'Compassion'
3. Attack on Vatican.va: Here We Go Again
   • Assertions Aren't Facts
   • Self-Righteous Indignation
   • Vatican Radio Causes - Cancer?
   • Italy, Cancer, and Getting a Grip

---

1. Religious Freedom: For Those With Presidential Approval

"Bishops say mandate fight is about government defining religion"
Michelle Bauman, (CNA/EWTN News) (March 14, 2012)

"The U.S. bishops are emphasizing that their opposition to the Obama administration's contraception mandate is not about birth control or health care, but about the government’s attempt to impose its narrow definition of religion on the country.

" 'Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything,' said the administrative committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in a March 14 statement.

"Instead, they explained, it is 'about the federal government forcing the Church - consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions - to act against Church teachings.'

"The bishops stated that the debate is not about the Church trying to ban access to contraception, which is already 'ubiquitous and inexpensive.'..."

The Catholic Church has had run-ins with rogue rulers before.

Henry VIII of England made out like gangbusters after he set up his own private little church. (March 7, 2012) England's Henry II took advantage of a sort of reality check, and didn't match Henry VIII's spectacular reign. (March 9, 2012)

'It's different,' of course. This isn't 12th or 16th century England, and the American president isn't a hereditary monarch. Americans have a presidential election coming up this November, by the way.

Don't Laugh: You Could be Next

America has a long, if not perfect, record of tolerating folks who don't agree with whoever is in the White House at the moment. Americans even have a rule against setting up an official state religion. (October 5, 2011) That lot in Philadelphia had gotten thoroughly fed up with the official religions of Europe, and that's another topic.

Or maybe not so much.

Back to that article:

"...The HHS mandate controversy involves more than Catholics, they [the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] said, pointing out that it includes everyone who realizes that their beliefs may be the next target of government coercion.

"They added that the debate is not a matter of political parties, nor is it 'a matter of opposition to universal health care,' which the bishops have supported in some form since 1919....

"...'Government has no place defining religion and religious ministry,' the bishops said.

"They decried the administration's attempt to draw a new distinction between 'houses of worship' and 'ministries of service,' explaining that this distinction creates a 'second class' of citizens that are deemed unworthy to share in the 'God-given, legally-recognized right' to be able to follow their beliefs.

"They also warned that this redefinition of religion will spread throughout other areas of federal law, 'weakening its healthy tradition of generous respect for religious freedom and diversity.'..."
(CNA/EWTN News)

Freedom? Diversity? Pushing for universal health care - since 1919?!

If that's not like the Catholic Church you've read about: I'm not surprised. There's a lot that folks think they know about the Church that's just not so.

About religious freedom, I've said this quite often:

• Catholics must support religious freedom
  (Catechism, 2104-2109)
  • For everybody
    (Catechism, 2106)

The Catholic Church doesn't do the sort of politically correct 'diversity:' where everybody is free to agree with the professor. Our take on being 'diverse' is a little more - catholic:

• " 'We are Parthians, Medes, and Elamites...' "
  (August 5, 2011)
• "Local Parishes, Universal Church, and Living in Minnesota"
  (June 16, 2011)
• "Unity, Diversity, and Being Catholic"
  (August 26, 2010)

---

2. 'It's Okay: She was Raped'

Yes, I know about pedophile priests.

"Argentinean bishops decry approval of abortion in cases of rape"
(March 14, 2012)

"Bishops in Argentina condemned a March 13 ruling by the country's Supreme Court legalizing abortion in cases of rape.

" 'Abortion is the taking of an innocent life, and there is no reason that can justify the elimination of an innocent life, not even in the tragic and sad case of rape,' Archbishop Jose Maria Arancedo of Santa Fe, president of the Argentinean bishops' conference, told AICA news agency.

"Tuesday's ruling by the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling from the province of Chubut in 2010 that authorized an abortion for a 15 year-old girl who was raped. The measure now requires a sworn statement as opposed to a court order for abortions to be carried out in cases of sexual coercion...."

Quite a few years back, I had an interesting chat with someone from a pro-life group. It was one of those fundraising things.

He explained to me that abortion was okay in cases of rape. After all, he explained, we don't want the woman to suffer. I think he was quite sincere. And, in a way, compassionate.

Maybe a woman who had been raped would 'feel better' if, on top of a major physical violation, she had someone kill her baby. After all, she hadn't planned on getting pregnant: and might not even know the father.

Old-School Family Values

From an old-school point of view, killing children who don't have the 'right' father makes sense. In the case of unmarried women, it's a lot easier to use them as bargaining chips with other families, if they've got no kids on their official record. They're even more valuable, if the rape can be kept quiet: virgins are, I understand, much more valuable in forging alliances between families.

I said "makes sense," not "is right." There's a difference.

Then there's the practice of forcing the rape victim to marry the rapist. For the family's 'honor,' of course:

• "Suicide of Moroccan girl, 16, forced to marry rapist sparks outrage"
  Associated Press, via FoxNews.com (March 15, 2012)

I think that sort of horribly garbled 'honor' has encouraged the notion that respect, and adherence to what is right, is a bad idea. And that's another topic.

Rape isn't Nice

The Catholic Church has a word to say about rape: don't. There's more to the Church's position, including this:

"Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2356)

Again: Yes, I know about pedophile priests.

Blaming the Victim

Rape is wrong. But that doesn't mean that the victims of rape are guilty, and should be punished. Like the eight-year-old who was raped. And then disowned by her family:

• "Eight-Year-Old Raped - Time to Think and Pray"
  (July 25, 2009)

I hope that most Americans - and Argentinians - think that disowning a child because she was raped isn't a good idea.

It seems a little harder to convince 'civilized' people that killing a baby is wrong: even if the father is a criminal.

People, Customs, Ethics, and the Church

I'm 60 years old: the oldest man in this household. What right does the Catholic Church have, telling me that I can't marry one of my daughters off to someone who could increase this family's wealth?

In today's America, not many folks think that way. We've learned a few things about moral behavior.

"Morality," by the way, isn't just about sex, and I've been over that before:

• "Morality, Wisdom, and Getting a Grip"
  (June 3, 2011)
  Particularly
  • Morality isn't Just About "Morality"

Here's part of why I'm willing to let the Church tell me what's right, and what's wrong:

"The Church makes a moral judgment about economic and social matters, 'when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it.'²⁰⁰ In the moral order she bears a mission distinct from that of political authorities: the Church is concerned with the temporal aspects of the common good because they are ordered to the sovereign Good, our ultimate end. She strives to inspire right attitudes with respect to earthly goods and in socio-economic relationships."
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2420)

As for bossing my wife around, because the Bible says I can? I've read Ephesians 5:22. But I've read all of Ephesians, including Ephesians 4:21-30, and I've been over that before. (September 24, 2009)

Children and Obligations

When it comes to my children, the Church says I've got obligations. No matter what my native culture says to the contrary:

• I must teach them what's right, and what's not
  (Catechism, 1784, 2524)
• I'm not allowed to hire them out as prostitutes
  (Catechism, 2355)
• I'm not allowed to kill them
  (Catechism, 2268-2269)
  • Even if I off them while they're
    • Very young
      (Catechism, 2270-2275)
    • Sick
      (Catechism, 2276-2279)

On the 'up' side, the church says my kids aren't allowed to kill me, either. Not even if I get sick. I can live with that.

Those rules are restrictive, but I don't see any way around them. That's because the Catholic Church says:

• Human life is sacred
  (Catechism, 2258
• Human beings are always people
  • From the moment of conception
    (Catechism, 2273-2274)
  • Until death
    (Catechism, 2273, 2277-2279)

Deadly 'Compassion'

I can see how a father might, after learning that his daughter had been raped, might want to kill

• The rapist
  • For insulting the family
• His daughter
  • For disgracing the family
• His new grandchild
  • For lousing up a lucrative marriage he'd arranged

Or, if the father was a contemporary American, paying someone to kill his new grandchild 'for his daughter's sake.' Infanticide sounds so much nicer, when one puts it that way.

I don't think I'd want to kill a child, myself. Or have someone else do the job. Not even if one of my daughters - or my wife - was raped. That's no great virtue on my part. I know the difference between a rapist, and a child who was conceived as a result of the rape.

And I don't think that children are responsible for crimes committed by their parents. Certainly not in cases of rape.

Or incest: and that's almost another topic.

---

3. Attack on Vatican.va: Here We Go Again

'As is well known,' Vatican radio causes cancer, and the Catholic Church helps Nazis, and destroys books, and molests children, and all sorts of bad stuff like that. 'Everybody knows it.'

If you believe that, you probably figure the Anonymous attacks are justified.

If you wonder how such an utterly corrupt, foul, and pretty much completely icky, outfit could have lasted for two millennia: you may be like me. I decided to study the Catholic Church: and eventually converted to Catholicism. And that's another topic.

"Vatican confirms second hacker attack, Anonymous claims responsibility"
CSO Online (March 13, 2012)
"The hacker group justifies the attack by pointing to health risks of transmitters"

"The Vatican has confirmed that its website suffered a second hacker attack in the space of six days but declined to comment on the event....

"...The Anonymous hacker collective claimed responsibility for the attack Monday, which cut off access to the Vatican website www.vatican.va for several hours and violated data on the Vatican Radio computer system.

"Anonymous said the incursion into the Vatican Radio system was justified by the fact that the radio's powerful transmitters sited in the countryside outside Rome constituted a health risk to people living in the vicinity.

" 'Unfortunately it is a well-known fact that you use transmitters with a transmission capacity that greatly exceeds the legal limits, and it is also a sad fact that exposure to electromagnetic waves of high intensity is connected to the development of serious neoplastic diseases such as leukemia and cancer,' the group said in a message posted on pastebin.com...."

Assertions Aren't Facts

For the most part, that article's a pretty good report of the second attack on Vatican.va. However: "the fact that the radio's powerful transmitters sited in the countryside outside Rome constituted a health risk" seems to be more of an assertion, than a fact.

I don't doubt that folks in Anonymous believe that Radio Vatican hurts people. Whether the transmitter is, really, operating at above-normal output - and whether there's a connection between that and alleged statistical anomalies in the health of folks living near the Vatican - that's another matter.

I've been over this sort of thing in another blog, briefly:

" 'Cancer Causes Cell Phones!' - or, not"
Apathetic Lemming of the North (July 18, 2011)

(from xkcd, used w/o permission)

There's another uncontested assertion in that CSO article:

"...'Anonymous cannot allow these crimes to continue unpunished and we remind you that you are 'guests' on Italian soil,' the statement said. 'We would like to see tangible signs that you are showing an interest in these matters, perhaps by modifying the location and the power of some of your transmission equipment.'

"The earlier attack March 7 also cut off access to the Vatican website for several hours and disabled internal mail servers.

"Anonymous justified that action by citing the Vatican's role in helping Nazi war criminals to evade international justice, the destruction of books of immense historic value and the sexual molestation of children by members of the clergy...."
(CSO Online)

Folks in Vatican City are " 'guests' on Italian soil"??? Vatican city "is a landlocked sovereign city-state ... the smallest independent state in the world by both area and population." ("Vatican City," Wikipedia)

Vatican City is no more a "guest" of Italy, than Canada is a "guest" of the United States.

Moving on.

Self-Righteous Indignation

"Hackers reportedly launch second attack on Vatican website"
CNA (Catholic News Agency) (March 12, 2012)

"The loose-knit group of hackers known as Anonymous have reportedly launched a second attack on the Vatican website, after failing in its initial attempt to bring the site down on March 7.

"The latest attack on Monday has not yet been confirmed or denied by the Vatican. The vice director of the Holy See's Press Office, Father Ciro Benedettini, said the March 7 attack was not successful, as the hackers failed to post their distinctive logo on the Vatican website.

"On March 12, the hackers stated on their Italian blog that they expect the Vatican to publicly excommunicate them. They accuse the Holy See of damaging public health with the antennas of Vatican Radio and also claim to have broken into the site's database.

"According to the hackers, the attack was in 'response to the doctrines, liturgies and absurd and out-dated precepts that your organization (Roman Apostolic Church) propagates and spreads throughout the world in the interests of profit...."

I doubt that sincere claims that the Pope is a sort of evil CEO, oppressing the poor something fierce, will go away any time soon. 'Everybody knows' about that - and have for centuries:

• "Gluttonous Friars, and the Great Faustian Helicopter Chase"
  (November 28, 2011)

The stories can be good drama, but that doesn't make them true.

Vatican Radio Causes - Cancer?

"...the group blames signals from Vatican Radio radio for causing high cancer rates -- a reference to a 2010 report by the National Cancer Institute into deaths near Vatican Radio transmitters...."
(FoxNews.com/AP)

I remember when everything caused cancer. Saying that yet one more product 'caused cancer' was almost an industry for a while. I've ranted about that a bit, in another blog:

• "Autism, Childhood Vaccines, Bogus Research, and the Lemming"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (January 6, 2011)
• "Junk Science: Not Everyone in a Lab Coat Is Right"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (May 18, 2009)

My concern is that flimflam artists with research grants have made it difficult to take 'serious warnings' seriously. 'The boy who cried wolf' was, eventually, right. And that's another topic:

• "Lemming Tracks: This Time, the Doomsayers are Right"
  Apathetic Lemming of the North (April 12, 2011)

As for Radio Vatican and cancer? All I know is that on outfit that's in the business of finding carcinogens says they found yet one more thing that causes cancer.

Italy, Cancer, and Getting a Grip

I don't doubt that more than one person who lived in Rome died of cancer since Radio Vatican went on the air. Maybe there really is a link to the radio transmissions. But yet one more cry of "wolf!!!" isn't all that impressive. Particularly when used as an accusation against 'guests' who have the effrontery to have a sovereign state that patriotic Italians seem to regard as part of Italy.

If some Italians feeling that Vatican City shouldn't be an independent state doesn't seem so bad, try swapping out the names.

Imagine the furious protests that would result if some bunch of American 'patriots' attacked canada.gc.ca - justifying their attack by saying that Canadians are 'guests' of America, and should stop abusing children and causing cancer.

And yes: I think that claim would be crazy. Stark, raving, moonbat-crazy.

---

More posts about forcing Catholics to violate our conscience:
The Department of Health and Human Services vs. Conscience

---

Related posts:

• Tolerance, real and imagined
  • "Religion, Assumptions, and Getting a Grip"
    (January 1, 2012)
  • "The Establishment Clause; Religious Freedom; and Getting a Grip"
    (October 5, 2011)
  • "First Amendment Suspended for 9/11 Memorial Service: Wrong, but Understandable"
    (September 10, 2011)
  • "The Threat of People Who Aren't Just Like Us?"
    (July 23, 2011)
  • "Religious Freedom, Niemöller, and Muslims in America"
    (April 7, 2011)
• Sex, violence, and being Catholic
  • "Sex Isn't a Product for Consumption?"
    (June 8, 2011)
  • "A Social Worker, a Stubborn Latina, and Another Hispanic Baby"
    (May 21, 2010)
  • "Rape isn't Nice, and We Shouldn't Do It"
    (May 17, 2011)
  • "Legalized Rape, Brightly Burning Bras, and Fitting In"
    (May 8, 2010)
  • "Abortion, 'Health Care,' 'Life of the Mother,' and a Story About Two Guys"
    (November 20, 2009)
• Dealing with wealth
  • " 'The Scandal of Glaring Inequalities' "
    (February 27, 2012)
  • "Timothy, Amos, Money, and Getting a Grip"
    (August 4, 2011)
  • "Wealth, Poverty, Stereotypes, and Snidely Whiplash"
    (March 8, 2011)
  • "Is the Church For Capitalism? Yes: and No"
    (March 13, 2010)
  • "Wealth, the Vatican, the White House, Corporate Headquarters, and Cultural Values"
    (February 4, 2010)
• Anti-Catholicism
  • "We're Huge, Ancient, and Changing the World"
    (March 14, 2012)
  • "My Take on the News: "Jesus-Eating Cult;" Godly Scientist; Insulting Our Intelligence"
    (March 2, 2012)
    Particularly
    • "The Jesus-Eating Cult..."
    • Insulting Our Intelligence
  • "Return of the Pedophile Priests Rides Again: The Sequel"
    (November 18, 2011)
  • "Smashed Statues: An Opportunity for Prayer and Charity"
    (November 25, 2010)
  • " 'Going My Way,' and Why Anti-Catholicism is a Good Sign"
    (November 18, 2010)