A Priest, a Computer, and Writer Walk into a Bar...

There's a saying that's escaping my fogged memory at the moment equating writers who are controversial/offensive to their being relevant. However it goes, it seems I'm a little more relevant today than I was yesterday.

I apparently offended a person or two earlier today who may, or may not have understood my intentions behind a joke I made on Facebook. That honestly was not my goal as such, but I feel strongly about the issue behind it all and hope that the explanation I provided on there and reprinted here provokes thoughtful discussion on the subject because it deserves it.

The joke went as follows:

The Vatican announced the release of a tablet computer called the iPed. Unlike Apple's product, you can only touch it when no one's looking.

Designed to be both topical and potentially a little controversial, I was simply doing a mash up of items currently in the news and targeting it at the guilty parties alone: it was not an anti-religious statement or even a blanket statement that I believe to be true about all priests -- some are quite sincere in their calling and do much good in this world and have my complete respect -- and it was certainly not directed at followers of Catholicism, unless, of course, it's someone who finds pedophilia to be acceptable or a non-issue. To those individuals I say, if you were offended, then good.

So here's my reply reprinted from the thread and I'll let it stand as my statement on the matter.


And to reference Steve Martin, "Comedy is not pretty!"

-B


I am not, nor have I ever been a follower of the Catholic faith, but I respect every person's right to believe as they wish; when it comes to my particular thoughts on matters of faith/religion/spirituality, the vast majority of my friends do not entirely believe as I do -- I believe that Jesus is the Messiah but also observe the seventh day sabbath and the associated holy days as well as follow the laws of clean and unclean meats, etc -- and I'm comfortable with this and love them for who they are whether we see eye to eye on all issues or not. My friends represent a wide spectrum of cultures, races, and ideologies on issues of things of a religious nature, including those who think it is folly: I love and am interested in people, period, and focus on our commonalities as a starting point for bonding and accept, admire and often learn from our differences. I try to never force my particular beliefs on others but rather to simply be an example because I believe an individual's suppositions and the gift of free choice are very personal things and I respect everyone's entitlement to the decisions they make in that regard whether it is line with my personal views or not. There are INFINITE opportunities for contention in this life, so I prefer to avoid confrontations under most circumstances. I am always willing to DISCUSS beliefs, but I'm very rarely the first one to introduce them into a conversation and I absolutely refuse to argue issues; what purpose would it serve other than possibly salving egos?

But that doesn't mean I am without opinion and sometimes I express what's on my mind as I feel each of us have the privilege to do; and I generally try to do so with some forethought because all actions have the potential of consequence; some folks will agree and some won't and that's fine. The expression of an opinion is NOT NECESSARILY something to get bent out of shape about, even though the temptation to do so may often be there. So, as to your questions, Paul: I'm an equal opportunity offender; I have no problem offending the offensive no matter who they might be, and that's exactly who the barbs of my joke were SOLELY aimed at: those involved with the atrocities that have gone on for ages, whether they be the actual molesters or those who cover up for them; in my book, one is just as complicit as the other. Would I express the same sentiments if the perpetrators were Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pagan etc or even of my own personal faith, you ask? Without hesitation. If I were the one guilty of such offenses, I'd expect and advocate punishment so why should I hold anyone else to a lesser standard?

And I'm certainly not ignorant to the fact that, as you stated, corruption is everywhere; that's a given potential when humans attain power. In line with that, I'm also sure that other organizations have similar issues to varying degrees and, if so, those will come to light in their own time; even the Bible – the basis for all beliefs claiming Jesus as their Lord -- states in Numbers 32:23 “and be sure your sin will find you out” does it not? But the fact remains that at this present time, the magnitude of a longstanding problem within the priesthood of the Catholic church and the appalling and inexcusable confederacy of those in high office who sought to merely absolve the wrongdoers without, at the very LEAST, their removal from office has been brought full force to the attention of the world. It's no longer primarily the fodder of jokes or merely an urban legend as some seem to have long thought. And neither is it being sensationalistic in calling attention to it: it's reprehensible and those involved should be and NEED to be called into account for their actions.

A fundamental attribute and teaching of ALL religious beliefs is standards of morality, conduct and ethics, and those who serve in the capacity of that faith's leaders, expectedly, are to be both examples to and the guardians of the people that follow the practices of that belief and therefor are held to the highest standards as a result. So when someone BLATANTLY abuses their ordained authority and tramples upon the trust put into both the individual and the office — ESPECIALLY something perpetrated on children, as is the case here -- then I have a VERY, VERY serious problem with that and zero qualms with expressing such.

In fact, what really sticks in my craw in all this and where I lose further respect for those within that particular organization and how it's being handled is the blatant attempts to use methods of misdirection — likening it to the persecution of the Jews; forgiving the Beatles, etc -- and halfheartedly acknowledging that there is an abhorrently egregious problem within the ranks and not doing something to expunge it; I have a million times more respect for an individual or organization with a serious problem at hand that takes responsibility and acknowledges and deals with the issue rather than tries to sweep it under the rug or obfuscate the particulars of the matter. These are the types of actions that affect a person for the entirety of their life and handling it so callously does nothing to improve the situation or to justify the trust placed in either the organization or the individuals running it.

Bottom line: I'm less concerned with the organization than I am with those betrayed by it, but if the outcome of what has been brought to light does not result in a serious internal examination of past and existing policies and procedures and rectification of things -- if that's even a possibility at this point -- then The Vatican can only expect further repercussions and outcry by those who are watching. If they feel that they are bleeding from all this, then they need to put down the razor in their own hand; the only innocents in all this are the victims.