Vatican insists a man who shielded child rapists must help elect their new moral leader.

By now we all know the name Roger Mahoney (if you don’t, click here, here, and here).  It turns out that many Catholics, who align themselves with a church that claims the Pope is infallible, don’t like the Pope’s decision to have Mahoney help decided who gets to be the next Pope.

Cardinal Roger M. Mahony expressed “amazement” at calls that he withdraw from the upcoming papal conclave because of his record on clergy sex abuse, and said that the Vatican, acting through its ambassador to the United States, had instructed him to take part in the election of the next pope.

Amazement.  It doesn’t occur to Mahoney, apparently, that shielding predators of children from justice might just disqualify a person from having input on the next person who gets to dictate morality to the Church (and partially to the non-Catholics of the world through legislation and influence).

Congratulations dissenting Catholics – you have more moral sense than your religious leaders!  And if you have more sense than they, maybe it’s time to ditch them.

“I’m here because the Holy Father appointed me a cardinal in 1991, and the primary job of a cardinal, the number one job, is actually the election of a new pope should a vacancy occur,” the cardinal told Catholic News Service Feb. 28, two days after arriving in Rome.

Yeah, you were appointed in 1991…and then you did a bunch of crooked shit.  But the Vatican doesn’t care about that because you were appointed in 1991.  The thing is, a lot of people determine if someone is qualified to make leadership and morality judgment calls based on what they have done with their lives, not on whether they were appointed to a position before turning a cold eye to the victims of the priests in your charge.

  • Glodson

    At least he forgave us for calling him out for his crimes. Cardinal PedoProtector out of LA, such a magnanimous douchebag and poor excuse for a human being.

    He should have to cast his vote from prison.

    • Andrew Kohler

      I am still not recovered from reading three of his blog posts. Given that I already ranted at great length on this subject on “Poor, poor protector of child rapists” (second link in the first sentence of this post), I’ll just let that stand for my objection (it was rather cathartic to reread it!)

      Seriously, though. His blog alone should disqualify his involvement.

      • Glodson

        I don’t care if they want him to take part of not.

        Just so long as they accept mail from prison. Where he should be.

  • Art Vandelay

    Furthermore, why is Dolan getting a pass on this shit? He gets to vote for the next Pope as well, right? Hell, he may even be a candidate. This is the guy that handed out 10-20K cash bonuses to pedophile priests to leave the church quietly. He even paid them monthly salaries while they got back on their feet so they could find a new job as a camp counselor or a daycare teacher somewhere. Where is the outrage over this? Instead…

    http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1187247.1350661674!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/alsmith19n-1-web.jpg

    • Glodson

      What an asshole.

      Cardinal Chuckles there should be in prison to, the fucker.

    • baal

      He gets to sit between Romney and Obama? I don’t care for the three of them (though for different reasons and degree) but that’s a position of honor (between the presidential candidates). No clergy should be at that position let alone that one with his record.

      • Art Vandelay

        Right, you’d think while you’re running for leader of the free world, maybe chumming it up publicly with a pedophile protector would be bad PR, right? If anyone doesn’t think this country is completely infected by religion, they’re out of their minds.

  • cag

    If being morally reprehensible was a criterion for voting for the new pope, the vote count would be zero.

    • cag

      Gak, fail … should be “for not being allowed to vote”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X