Wednesday, April 3, 2013

The smoke of Satan...

From Walter Russel Meade:

Sex Abuse Scandals Rock the BBCA massive sex scandal has just hit the BBC with the publication of a new book accusing two former Doctor Who producers of using their power to take advantage of underage fans throughout the 1980s. The Daily Mail reports:

"The next year, on the promise of Doctor Who photographs, [the book's author] Marson visited the studio again. He says he was then assaulted by Mr Downie, who died in 2006.

The encounter took place in a BBC lift, he says, and ended with him fleeing and trying to hide beneath a desk.

In another incident, Mr Marson says a wealthy fan supplied Mr Nathan-Turner with male escorts in exchange for visits to the studio and souvenirs.

He adds both men were on the look-out for teenage fans who would have sex with them because of Doctor Who – dubbing the fans ‘doable barkers’."
This is bad enough on its own, but the scandals aren’t limited to Doctor Who. As the Daily Mail notes, this story is emerging shortly after accusations that longtime BBC television host Jimmy Savile molested as many as 450 people in his lifetime, making him one of the UK’s “most prolific sex offenders,” according to the NSPCC charity group.

The more we hear about what was going on in the era of sexual liberation, the more the Catholic scandals look like a symptom of the times rather than a special pathology of the Church. The BBC was apparently a hotbed of abuse for underage female and male fans, and revelations about abuse in schools, the Boy Scouts, Jewish organizations and other institutions in which adults regularly interact with youth keep coming to light.

It’s almost enough to make a person think that when a society casts sexual restraint and self control to the winds, the young and the weak become victims of a culture of exploitation and gratification. It’s almost enough to make someone wonder if unbridled and socially glorified libertinism rather than celibacy is the leading cause of the sexual exploitation of minors.

But no… Thoughts like that are much too depressing. That train of thought leads to the dismal conclusion that some sort of, well, original sin has twisted human nature so that terrible things happen in all our institutions, however modern and freethinking they are. Let’s stop that kind of thinking as quickly as possible; it’s much more comfortable to think that good resolutions, lots of police, and a healthy attitude toward recreational sex will make everything right. Eventually.
The horrendous (homosexual) sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was a small part of a much larger orgy of sexual immorality and criminality that exploded in the West with the sexual revolution. It is what, in fact, the Church predicted, but could not stop, even in its own ranks.

The sexual revolution brought sexual predation everywhere-- in the home, in schools, in the workplace (BBC), in churches, on the streets.

And the hypocricy has been nauseating. The New York Times, scourge of the Catholic Church for the failure of some of her bishops to crack down on abusive priests, recently hired former top BBC executive Mark Thompson as its CEO. Thompson appears to have looked the other way during the sexual abuse committed at the BBC by host Jimmy Sayville.

Bottom line: the only way for a bishop who covers up for a sexual abuser to avoid being excoriated by the New York Times is for the bishop to be hired as CEO at the New York Times.

The hypocrisy and the filth are repulsive. The Church scandals are just a wisp of a huge cloud of the smoke of Satan billowing out of the sexual revolution and seeping into nearly all crevices in our society.

The irony is that those who most feverently excoriate the Church for sexual abuse are those who have most passionately stoked the smoke.

63 comments:

  1. You reckon child sexual abuse has increased with the sex revolution and the loosening of morals... I suspect that it has always been with us and the apparent increase is either due to it being reported more frequently or because it's being taken more seriously as having actually occurred. Instead of being labeled as fantasy, as Sigmund Freud did.

    The scandal of sex abuse in the Catholic Church wasn't that it occurred. The scandal was that it was ignored by the hierarchy, with offending priests being transferred from diocese to diocese or country to country, to continue their predation in fresh congregations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the relative amount of sexual abuse has probably been constant through time. It's hard to say. I still don't think most people know the extent of it. Most people still find sex between adults and children to be shocking precisely because we think it's an unthinkable transgression. Actually, it's very thinkable. Lots of people are doing it--clergymen, teachers, coaches, scout leaders, relatives, doctors. It's not all that rare.

      But I must disagree with your second point. The Catholic Church is singled out for its sexual abuse problem as if it is unique. Statistics show that the sexual abuse problem is no more prevalent within the Church than elsewhere. The fallback point is always to say, as you did, that the real scandal is the coverup. But that fails for the same reason--other institutions cover it up too. Penn State's initial investigation cleared Jerry Sandusky.

      Read this article too. Teachers and coaches are shuffled from school to school just like priests.

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/27/passing-the-trash-deals-allow-bad-teachers-and-coaches-to-become-mobile-molestors/

      JQ

      Delete
    2. Union rules make firing teachers very difficult. Yes, teachers can be fired from raping kids, but the process can take years and cost a lot of money because of protections teachers enjoy as part of their contracts. Some school districts don't have the money to go through the whole process. Maybe teachers' unions could be more sporting and allowed an abbreviated process for firing teachers accused of sexual abuse but they won't hear of it.

      >>"The teachers union in most cases is the first posse that runs to the defense of the predator,” according to Terri Miller, executive director of Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation (S.E.S.A.M.E.) – an organization dedicated to fighting educator sexual misconduct. “Essentially, it’s administrators and teachers unions who are usually the people … aiding and abetting child molesters in our schools.”<<

      Teachers unions cover for bad teachers too. I'll let you read more about it in the article.

      The old the-coverup-is-worse-than-the-crime explanation fails. The real reason leftists and atheists such as yourself go nuts about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church is because they never liked the Catholic Church in the first place. They love teachers, teachers' unions, the BBC, and that child-molesting Polanski fellow, which is why they will never give them the same treatment they give the Church hierarchy.

      This is precisely why we think that this society has a blatant anti-Catholic prejudice. While you may think that critics of the Catholic Church have all the facts on their side, it's obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes that child molesting priests and the bishops that abet their crimes are despised in a special way that other molesters are not. If your problem with these creeps were that they like fondling kids, that would be fine. I'm with you. But I think your problem with them is something else entirely, because you seem blind to the other molesters in your midst.

      JQ

      Delete
  2. Poor beset upon Catholics. Why in the world do people insist that the Catholic Church be held to a higher standard than members of the entertainment industry? Perhaps it’s because they claim to represent God and give themselves the final say on all guest ions of sexual morality, thus exposing themselves to charges of hypocrisy that aren’t applicable to the entertainment industry.

    How Catholics can be too stupid to realize this is beyond me.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KW, so the Catholic Church has taken a firm stand against child molesting but the entertainment industry has yet to weigh in? Aren't we all against child molesting?

      This is the constant refrain of the Left. Hypocrisy is their favorite rebuke. We have morals that we don't always live up to. They have no morals so they can't be called hypocrites.

      But I think they can be called hypocrites. Child moelesting priests? Bad. Child molesting film directors? Give him a break, it was a long time ago and he makes good movies.

      KW, you're pretty obsessed with race, aren't you? Let's say there's a racial group that is despised in society. Everyone just knows that they're thieves, drug dealers, and all around gangsters. It's common knowledge, ask anybody! But as it turns out, crime statistics tell a different story--the incidence of crime among this racial group is about even with the population as a whole. Now, would you call that racism? I would. We call it racism when people associate crime with the black race, and they actually do have a higher rate of criminality. Nonetheless, we condemn the attitude as racist. Now think how mindlessly racist it would be if black crime rates were at parity with the crime rate of the population at large.

      JQ

      Delete
    2. KW,

      "Perhaps it’s because they claim to represent God and give themselves the final say on all guest ions of sexual morality, thus exposing themselves to charges of hypocrisy that aren’t applicable to the entertainment industry."

      So producing programs for kids and teens and then luring some of those kids into sexual encounters does not count? I guess boy scout leaders, police, and teachers must also be exempt then, too? Right?
      Deft argument as usual, KW.
      Your brilliant mind once again beams wisdom to all who would receive it.
      Moron.

      Delete
    3. "Perhaps it’s because they claim to represent God and give themselves the final say on all guest ions of sexual morality..."

      You summed it up well, here, KW. What upsets you about the Catholic Church is not its fondling clergy, but that it takes a stand on issues of marriage, sex, and family. If the Church would get hip to homosexuality, divorce, abortion, and contraception, you would love the Catholic Church, and suddenly the pedophilia thing wouldn't be such a big deal.

      Why does it bother you what the church says about these things? You aren't a member, and even if you were, you'd still have the freedom to ignore the church's moral pronouncements. You could be just another divorced Catholic (there are many), or condom-using Catholic. None of these things are illegal, by the way. I can see only one reason at all why you care about these things, and that you require constant affirmation.

      Joey

      Delete
    4. JQ, the parallels you draw with race are spot on. The hysteria about child-molesting priests reminds me of the obsession of racist southerners with protecting their women from black rapists.

      Joey

      Delete
    5. Actually, black men are more likely to rape than men of other races. That's one of those truths that we're supposed to keep mum about. So the prejudice against priests is more heinous. Catholic haters are worse than the KKK.

      Here's a fun link from the Westboro Baptist Church called priestsrapeboys.com

      "Priests Rape Boys: an air-tight, three word case against the Catholic church. The Catholic Church is the largest, most well-funded and organized pedophile group in the history of man! No further proof need be given on the Judgment Day against every single person of authority in that monstrous organization of perverts. The case is as open and shut as a murder case where the murder is actually witnessed by the judge and jury themselves."

      KW would fit right in in this church. I can see him picketing soldiers' funerals.

      The Torch

      Delete
    6. How would KW fit in that church if he is not even a Christian?

      Hoo

      Delete
    7. Neither is Fred Phelps.

      They'd really appreciate his anti-Catholic hate, however. That's why he'd fit in.

      Joey

      Delete
    8. Fred Phelps claims to be a baptist. So he a least considers himself a Christian, although maybe you don't. KW, in contrast, does not even pretend to be a Christian, so your characterization fails.

      Hoo

      Delete
    9. Nancy Pelosi claims to be a Catholic.

      More importantly, you're being way too obtuse to understand this thing called basis of comparison. KW is a ranting, raving, anti-Catholic lunatic who uses the sex scandals of the Church to justify his bigotry, just like Fred Phelps. That's the basis of my comparison. They sound like ideological twins, the only difference being that Phelps thinks people should leave the Catholic Church for his own, while KW thinks that people should just leave the Catholic Church.

      Joey

      Delete
    10. Yes, Nancy Pelosi is a self-described Catholic. And who are you to say that she is not? Her faith is her own business, not yours.

      Hoo

      Delete
    11. Nonsense. She is a public figure who wears her faith on her sleeve. She is a Catholic concern troll. She represents herself as a Catholic in order to justify policies that are frequently un-Catholic or even anti-Catholic.

      Her "faith", and I'm not sure she has any, is my business.

      Joey

      Delete
  3. liberals don't hate child molesting priests because they're child molesters. they hate them because they're priests.

    naidoo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyApril 3, 2013 at 8:50 AM

      Precisely.

      Delete
    2. Precisely? How would you know?

      Take me, for instance. I am a liberal and I do not hate priests as a group. I have no prejudice against them.

      Back to the drawing board, geniuses.

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. I would not tar all liberals with that brush. Libertines, hedonists, and the like? Sure.
      The issue I take with neolibs is the same I take with neocons. They refuse to see the source and solution to the problem: Hedonism.
      The Churches, for all their faults, DO see this as the issue. Perhaps that is why the incidents of sex abuse are lower within those groups than the secular equivalents (teachers, scout leaders, police, etc), even when held to a higher standard and watched like hawks.

      Delete
    4. Okay, Hoo. I'm sure you come to the defense of priests all the time. The association of priests with pedophilia in our society is strong because it is hammered home by the media every. single. day. This is blatantly unfair when one considers the larger pedophilia crisis in schools, for example. Yet no one sees teachers and the public school system in the same light as priests and the Church.

      There is a double standard there. Can you at least admit that?

      Joey

      Delete
    5. Joey,

      I won't take your bait. I won't defend one profession over another. I condemn pedophiles whether they are priests or school teachers. I think you should, too.

      Hoo

      Delete
    6. That's not "bait", and I do condemn molesters whether they are priests or teachers.

      I asked you a simple question. Can you at least admit that there' a double standard?

      Joey

      Delete
    7. Joey,

      I will answer for myself: I do not have a double standard. If you perceive a double standard elsewhere, take your case there.

      Hoo

      Delete
    8. I didn't ask you about your own personal double standard. I asked you about a media double standard. I see you are evading the question.

      Joey

      Delete
    9. I do not perceive a double standard in the media. Conservatives are quick to blame the media for all kinds of transgressions. Chip on the shoulder, guys?

      Hoo

      Delete
    10. Thank you for confirming for me that you DO have a double standard. I didn't even ask you about that but you tipped your hand and now I know.

      Joey

      Delete
    11. I have a double standard in what sense, Joey? You are not expressing yourself well.

      Hoo

      Delete
    12. The media does not treat all child molester the same way, nor do they treat all institutions beset with pedophilia the same way. Some are worse than others. The fact that you don't see the media double standard tells me that you share it.

      The racial analogy is apt. If every black rapist was made the center of a media circus while white rapists were ignored, that would be a double standard. If a clueless white person said they didn't see a problem with the media coverage, that would indicate that the person has seen the slanted coverage and likes it just fine the way it is.

      Joey

      Delete
    13. Joey, it's your word vs mine. You think that the media has a double standard and I don't. That divergence of opinions does not establish my double standard with respect to anything. It only establishes our disagreement.

      Hoo

      Delete
    14. Hoo, the incidence of sexual abuse in the public schools is roughly one hundred times that of the Catholic Church.

      Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-1933687.html

      Does the media have a school sex scandal to church sex scandal ratio of 100 to 1?

      No. The public doesn't perceive teachers as sexual predators the same way they perceive priests as sexual predators because it's priests, not teachers, who are singled out. The reality and the perception of reality do not match.

      The reason you see media coverage as fair is because you share the same double standard that the media feeds you. Everything looks okay from where you're sitting.

      Joey

      Delete
    15. Joey, you crack me up. You have a perception that the media has a double standard. That in itself would be hilarious, but on top of that you think that anyone not sharing your paranoia also employs a double standard.

      Anyway, that's how it looks from my perch.

      Cheers,

      Hoo

      Delete
    16. Hoo, the incidence of sexual abuse in the public schools is roughly one hundred times that of the Catholic Church.

      That would be persuasive, but for the fact that Shakeshaft's study doesn't exclusively cover child sexual abuse. It covers child sexual abuse, harassment, and a collection of other undesirable, but lesser offenses. Lumping them all together and claiming that "child abuse in the public schools is 100 times worse than in the Catholic church" is grasping at straws.

      Delete
    17. it's not paranoia. it's you refusing to accept that reporters take your side and reenforce your preconceived notions. you like having your preconceived notions reenforced.

      if the media were honest and evenhanded, obama wouldn't be the president and liberal policies would be on the trash heap.

      naidoo

      Delete
    18. That's how you see it, naidoo. Not sure it's an accurate picture of reality, though.

      Best,

      Hoo

      Delete
    19. Hoo: You're wrong.

      "The figures suggest 'the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests,' said Shakshaft, according to Education Week."

      http://wizbangblog.com/2011/07/08/sexual-abuse-of-students-in-schools-is-likely-more-than-100-times-the-abuse-by-priests/

      That's physical. sexual. abuse. You're grasping at straws, not me.

      Facts don't faze you.

      Joey

      Delete
    20. One hundred times more sexual abuse warrants one hundred times more media coverage. We don't see that and that's why I call it a media double standard. You seem quite content with this double standard, which tells me that you don't care if one segment of the population is singled out for demonization. You're blind to the bigotry because it's your own.

      Joey

      Delete
    21. Joey, the 100-times ratio simply makes no sense. According to America's Catholic bishops, 4,400 of 110,000 priests were accused of molesting minors from 1950 through 2002 (Washington Post). That would be 4.4 percent of the clergy.

      Clearly the fraction of abusers in schools can't be 100 times that (which would make it 440 percent). It can't even be 20 times as high, for that would make pretty much every teacher an abuser, which does not strike me as a plausible scenario.

      Perhaps the higher instance of abuse in schools (assuming it is higher) can be related to larger number of teachers per students: a student might have one or two priests in his or her childhood but dozens of teachers. You have to factor that in before you make a comparison.

      Hoo

      Delete
    22. yes, facts are a pain, hoo. you struggle not to believe.

      naidoo

      Delete
    23. I am a rational person, naidoo. I do not take on faith numbers that clearly make no sense.

      Hoo

      Delete
    24. you are unwilling to follow the evidence where it leads you, which is beyond your comfort zone. no one is asking you to take it on faith. you're being asked to believe the best study known. you have no other study to counter it, yet you refuse to believe. you are an ideologue who will always find a reason to doubt.

      you do realize that the figure for priests is for priests who have been accused? accusations are simply that--accusations.

      naidoo

      Delete
    25. naidoo,

      Am I not allowed to think for myself and ask a few questions? Feel free, by the way, to answer them. If you have seen the data, of course, not just the spin in the press.

      As to the figures being accusations, it still makes no sense to have 440 percent of teachers accused. :)

      With much love,

      Hoo

      Delete
    26. It appears the Shakeshaft study included sexual misconduct from fellow students in her estimates. If so the "100 times" figure isn't a comparison of teachers to priests, but the school environment to priests.

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126385,00.html

      I will have to track down this study and investigate further...

      Delete
    27. You didn't ask a single question, Hoo.

      I already read the Fox News item you linked to. I understand that Shakeshaft's study lumped many types of abuse into one all-encompassing term, but when she speaks of the one hundred times figure, she is speaking of the physical variety.

      "[T}he physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests," said Shakeshaft. She's not talking about inappropriate comments, she's talking about teachers getting it on with students.

      Obviously, there are a lot more teachers in the world than priests, which goes a long way to explain why there is one hundred times as much abuse coming from profession than from the other. That doesn't explain, however, why there isn't one hundred times as much media coverage of teacher sex scandals. Just by casual observation, I'd say the reverse is nearly true: the media's emphasis on priest sex scandals in about one hundred times more. That's only a mild exaggeration.

      It might explain, however, the level of vitriol aimed at the Catholic Church. Why don't we hate teachers as much?

      The AP and New York Times can't write a story about the Catholic Church, in any context, without mentioning that the church has been "mired in the sex abuse scandal." It simply doesn't happen. Reporters do not insert a similar reference into any story done on education.

      Here's one on the cheating scandal in Atlanta, in which teachers changed students' answers on standardized tests:

      http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/29/us/georgia-cheating-scandal/

      Funny how they didn't casually drop a reference to teachers molesting kids. It's kind of irrelevant to the cheating scandal, of course, but that doesn't stop reporters from inserting it into every story on the Catholic Church.

      And for crying out loud, no one is asking you to take anything on faith! Ha! Ha! Ha! What you mean when you say this is that you refuse to accept basic facts.

      Joey

      Delete
    28. Joey said: "You didn't ask a single question, Hoo. I already read the Fox News item you linked to. "

      Hoo didn't post that comment I did.

      Shakeshaft's "100 times" claim may not be "about teachers getting it on with students" as you assume but student on student abuse. That would make the claim that teachers are just as likely to abuse children as priests, at least based on this study, bogus.

      Delete
    29. I was referring to Hoo's comment, "Am I not allowed to think for myself and ask a few questions? Feel free, by the way, to answer them."

      I was answering for Naidoo. I saw a few assertions of Hoo's part but no questions.

      There may be some student on student abuse in schools, but I think you're reaching.

      Joey

      Delete
    30. I'm reading through Shakeshaft's report and here is how she defines educator:

      "In this review, “educator” includes any person older than 18 who works with or for a school or other educational or learning organization. This service may be paid or unpaid, professional, classified or volunteer. Adults covered by this review might be teachers, counselors, school administrators, secretaries, bus drivers, coaches, parent volunteers for student activities, lunchroom attendants, tutors, music teachers, special education aides, or any other adult in contact in a school-related relationship with a student."

      If a volunteer from the PTA sexual abuses a student it is recorded as an educator-on-student incident for Shakeshaft's purposes. I need to keep reading through this, but I'm not sure how much can be concluded about "teachers" from this summary paper.

      Delete
    31. Joey said: "There may be some student on student abuse in schools, but I think you're reaching."

      It was more than some. From Shakeshaft's report:

      "Of students who experienced any kind of sexual misconduct in schools, 21 percent were targets of educators, while the remaining 79 percent were targets of other students."

      Most misconduct, the vast majority even, is student on student.

      Delete
    32. @Lying:

      Oh wow. Only 20% of the sexual molestation in schools is done by teachers.

      I feel much better about the whole thing now.

      Delete
  4. Priests are no more likely than any other group with access to commit these acts. The singling out of clergy for derision is typical of the modern mindset: To scapegoat the obviously 'old fashioned' view for modern problems.
    Meade is 99% there. The only thing I disagree with is the typical neocon solution of 'more police'.
    More police? How about enforcing the laws we have? How about we don't need the 'more police' if we have the morality to see and report this kind of thing as wrong? If the author is correct, aren't the police (being human and within this society) just as susceptible to this kind of deprivation? Aren't they, at least in part, responsible for covering up or ignoring these filthy escapades?
    What is required is not more police, but more morality. The more morality, the less police are required.

    As to the points made that this type of sin has always been, that is totally true. The issue is the licence granted to this behaviour. This is especially true for teens. Teens who engage in sex for favours are obviously morally lost. The source of the problem, if you like, is manifold. The media constantly portrays sex as a tool, the schools teach kids to 'experiment', premarital sex has been normalized, and 'gay' teens are lauded for 'coming out' while still in school uniform. We worship youth in this culture. Is it any wonder that weak minded perverts find youth to be the ultimate sexual conquest?
    Have a look at a fashion magazine, folks. See how many 14 and 15 year old girls you can find posing half naked with older men.
    This problem may be older than the Churches, but it certainly has a neo-pagan flair about it.
    The issue is civilizational, not religious or sectarian.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "... the Catholic scandals look like a symptom of the times rather than a special pathology of the Church."

    Exactly.

    Catholocism has its inherent problems (and they are deep and important), but the "priestly sex scandals" were not due to the Catholicism, but to the abandonment of it, in favor of the aping the "spirit of the age".

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think some of the male teachers in my high school went into education for the poontang. Fo' shizzle.

    Joey

    ReplyDelete
  7. Catholics also seem to be stuck on the talking point that priests are no more likely than anyone else to be molesters, while totally ignoring the fact, that unlike other institutions, the Catholic Church has for decades protected the molesters with cover-ups, payoffs, transfers, and denials. No other institution has institutionalized child molesting like the Catholic Church.

    The smoke of Satan indeed, we all know what priests prefer to puff on.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're wrong KW. That's been established. Other institutions have done exactly that. Nearly every institution that has faced such a problem has responded by hiding it in shame. Public schools and the Boy Scouts have done the same. So come up with a new argument.

      Joey

      Delete
    2. Even if it were true (which I doubt), how would a coverup in one organization excuse a coverup in another? Particularly if the organization is a church that is supposed to lead its members by moral example?

      Hoo

      Delete
    3. "Even if it were true (which I doubt), how would a coverup in one organization excuse a coverup in another?"

      It doesn't, and I didn't say that it did.

      When faced with actual statistics about priestly pedophilia, reasonable people are forced to admit that priests are no more likely than other types of men to molest kids. The position they always fall back on--Bachfiend and KW have said the same thing on this very post--is that the Church is still uniquely guilty because they cover it up.

      "Catholics also seem to be stuck on the talking point that priests are no more likely than anyone else to be molesters, while totally ignoring the fact, that **unlike other institutions,** the Catholic Church has for decades protected the molesters with cover-ups, payoffs, transfers, and denials."

      Not true. Not true at all. I can't think of an institution that has faced a sexual abuse crisis and not covered it up--not the BBC, not the Boy Scouts, not the public schools, not Penn State. The fact that KW thinks otherwise tells me more about the way the media reports such scandals than it does about scandals.

      Joey

      Delete
    4. Joey,

      I didn't write that the Catholic Church is 'uniquely guilty' of covering up child sex abuse. I didn't mention any other organizations. Go back and reread my comment.

      Delete
    5. Okay, you didn't say uniquely guilty. KW did. But you're still resorting to the defense that the coverup is worse than the crime and that's why people make a big deal out of the Church's scandals as opposed to other scandals.

      A reasonable person might ask why other institutions that covered up child abuse aren't given the same treatment?

      Joey

      Delete
    6. Joey,

      A coverup of child sex abuse is worse than the original crime, particularly when there's no attempt to stop it happening again in the future, as happened when offending priests were transferred to distant dioceses, where they were unknown.

      In Australia, yesterday a Royal Commission into child sex abuse started its public hearings. It's expected to last years, with already 5,000 people wanting to give evidence of their experiences. And it's not just limited to the Catholic Church. It's a wide ranging enquiry.

      Hopefully, the commissioners will eventually publish a list of recommendations which will prevent it in future.

      Delete
  8. Let's face it: the RCC has been a corrupt and criminal organization from the get-go. Priests have been raping and blackmailing their flock since forever. At some point the big bosses decided the lower priests have to be celibate so their kids couldn't inherit what the big bosses wanted for themselves. They have been selling salvation to the rich from the start and that is how the RCC became the richest organization in the world. Yeah, Satan has been blowing a lot of smoke up the ass of the RCC. Anybody intelligent who willingly is a member of that criminal outfit deserves lots of scorn.

    In the good old days nobody dared accuse priests of their crimes, afraid their salvation would be on the line. What has changed recently is that authority has lost respect and above all fear. That is why it seems as if the scandals are a recent thing, while in fact it has always been there, and probably a lot worse in the past than now.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Let's not lose sight of the victims here.

    I've found that there are usually two types of people who exhibit shock and dismay about the sexual abuse in the RCC. The first group is angry and appalled that priests would do this, but mostly they are worried about the victims. The second group just hates the Church, and always has. This is the latest in a long line of excuses to bash the Church. If it weren't child abuse, it would be something else: the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. They can hardly contain their Schadenfreude because the abuse weakens the Church, which is what they really want.

    They can use the hypocrisy argument to counter every argument the Church has ever made. If the Church says that euthanasia is part of a creeping death culture, this type of person will always respond, "I wish these pedophile-loving hypocrites gave a crap about the kids that are abused!" This second group of people has an agenda that doesn't include the welfare of children.

    Also, Planned Parenthood covers for rapists. Don't you guys just love Planned Parenthood?

    TRISH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. schadenfruede is the correct word. i have never seen such giddiness over pedophilia. it means that the people they hate are embarrassed, and that is, in their minds, a very good thing.

      naidoo

      Delete
    2. I agree. Schadenfreude is a good word to describe liberals' reaction to every story about a child molesting priest.

      Joey

      Delete
  10. Michael said: "The horrendous (homosexual) sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was a small part of a much larger orgy of sexual immorality and criminality that exploded in the West with the sexual revolution. It is what, in fact, the Church predicted, but could not stop, even in its own ranks. "

    What sets the horrific homosexual predation perpetrated and covered up by the Catholic Church is:

    1) The institutionally protected predation by the Catholic Church has gone one much longer than the "sexual revolution". The Church's abuse predated the abuse in the BBC. It predates the BBC. The Church's abuse predates the British Empire!;

    2) The BBC does not hold itself as the terrestrial voice of divinely-mandated moral standards whereas the Catholic Church does; and

    3) the Catholic Church's abuse apparently is not lessened one iota by the fact that the perpetrators are part of the most devout and longest-lived Christian community on the planet and are more deeply steeped in Christian moral teachings than just about anybody else.

    In other words - a complete dedication to Christianity had no impact whatsoever on the rate or acceptance of homosexual child abuse. And the role of the priest and the structure of the Church provided excellent cover for these monsters - cover that has lasted for centuries.

    And how terribly pathetic are Michael's attempts to reduce the horror of the Church's institutionalized protection of its homosexual child abusers by repeatedly pointing his self-righteous finger and crying "but but but they did it too!"

    So the REAL bottom line is this: being raised deep within the teachings of Christianity and dedicating one's life to the Catholic Church have provided no defense whatsoever against being a sexual predator or against endless hypocritical rationalizations in defense of those predators.

    ReplyDelete