On the plus side, the second election debate suggests that even some open borders nuts have now internalised the concept that not everyone should be let into the country. Then again, it was the Pope they wanted to keep out.
As far as I can make out, the main charge against His Holiness is that he didn't take paedophilia seriously enough, unlike liberals who...
Or maybe it's the other thing: the Church wasn't harsh enough on priests who really were paedophiles. The Vatican scheduled them for counselling by senior clergy, rather than the punishment favoured by the intellectual classes, which is counselling by a psychologist. Or, to put it another way, the difference between hipster sophistication and Papal depravity is the difference between counselling based on a bunch of superstitious, unscientific garbage, and counselling based on Christianity.
I would point out the absurdity of people who wail about mythical vigilante mobs criticising an organisation for not indulging in extra-judicial punishments, but it's eclipsed by the even greater humbuggery of the same folks complaining that the Church didn't do enough to keep paedo priests away from children, even as they denounce the dirty masses for not being thrilled at the idea of unrepentant predators being housed on estates full of children. Hey, if you're down with Gary Glitter being free to do all but mail snaps of his naked backside to the families of Ian Huntley's victims, you're not best placed to criticise the Church for not opening its own version of Gitmo (and I still say a higher proportion of the suspects at Gitmo are terrorists than priests are predators).
Still, we can take one lesson from all this: let's compare the Catholic priesthood with the liberal equivalents. All of which means....
No, wait, I hear a squeaking from the corner: Mr Liberal would like to point out that Catholicism looks down on sexual excess generally so priests who abuse kids are, like, totally huge hypocrites.
See, that's the problem with child rape - everything would be OK if the assailants had previously spoken out in favour of child rape but they didn't so clearly this invalidates everything Catholics have ever said about anything.
Now we're getting to the truth of the matter. Our right on pals wave the bloody shirt of priestly child abuse (and only priestly abuse) because they hate the whole idea of morality. They can't say anything positive about the lifestyles they promote, so instead they try and drag everyone else down. If only the Church would join them in the sewer, these priests could sign up for the Roman Polanski Misunderstood Artists Program and Tom Hanks would win a Oscar for playing one.
On the other hand, I'm guessing everyone expects liberals to be degenerate filth anyway, so that must be why teachers and social workers sodomising their charges is yawnerooney, but why do they get so mad when I point that out?
As far as I can make out, the main charge against His Holiness is that he didn't take paedophilia seriously enough, unlike liberals who...
[Dawkins] wrote then that 'we live in a time of hysteria about paedophilia, a mob psychology that calls to mind the Salem witchhunts of 1692'.Yes, indeed: until about 10 minutes ago there was no better way to mark yourself out as an urban sophisticate than to sneer at those pesky witch hunters out there chasing mythical 'paedophiles'. Apparently, all those times groovers referred to 'paedo panic' what they actually meant was that they strongly supported enhanced screening for suspected paedophiles.
Or maybe it's the other thing: the Church wasn't harsh enough on priests who really were paedophiles. The Vatican scheduled them for counselling by senior clergy, rather than the punishment favoured by the intellectual classes, which is counselling by a psychologist. Or, to put it another way, the difference between hipster sophistication and Papal depravity is the difference between counselling based on a bunch of superstitious, unscientific garbage, and counselling based on Christianity.
I would point out the absurdity of people who wail about mythical vigilante mobs criticising an organisation for not indulging in extra-judicial punishments, but it's eclipsed by the even greater humbuggery of the same folks complaining that the Church didn't do enough to keep paedo priests away from children, even as they denounce the dirty masses for not being thrilled at the idea of unrepentant predators being housed on estates full of children. Hey, if you're down with Gary Glitter being free to do all but mail snaps of his naked backside to the families of Ian Huntley's victims, you're not best placed to criticise the Church for not opening its own version of Gitmo (and I still say a higher proportion of the suspects at Gitmo are terrorists than priests are predators).
Still, we can take one lesson from all this: let's compare the Catholic priesthood with the liberal equivalents. All of which means....
No, wait, I hear a squeaking from the corner: Mr Liberal would like to point out that Catholicism looks down on sexual excess generally so priests who abuse kids are, like, totally huge hypocrites.
See, that's the problem with child rape - everything would be OK if the assailants had previously spoken out in favour of child rape but they didn't so clearly this invalidates everything Catholics have ever said about anything.
Now we're getting to the truth of the matter. Our right on pals wave the bloody shirt of priestly child abuse (and only priestly abuse) because they hate the whole idea of morality. They can't say anything positive about the lifestyles they promote, so instead they try and drag everyone else down. If only the Church would join them in the sewer, these priests could sign up for the Roman Polanski Misunderstood Artists Program and Tom Hanks would win a Oscar for playing one.
On the other hand, I'm guessing everyone expects liberals to be degenerate filth anyway, so that must be why teachers and social workers sodomising their charges is yawnerooney, but why do they get so mad when I point that out?
2 comments:
"Or, to put it another way, the difference between hipster sophistication and Papal depravity is the difference between counselling based a bunch of superstitious, unscientific garbage, and counselling based on Christianity. "
Well, that's a little harsh. Some counsellors do a bang up job:
"A counsellor told him he was 'too gentle' and needed to 'let his anger out'."
Brilliant!
Love this quote ...
"Or, to put it another way, the difference between hipster sophistication and Papal depravity is the difference between counselling based on a bunch of superstitious, unscientific garbage, and counselling based on Christianity."
And let's not forget the Cleveland child abuse scandal - where 121 children were suspected of being abused based on the evidence of doctors whose method of diagnosis amounted to spreading the childs buttocks and stimulating their anus.
I don't recall there being quite the same liberal witch hunt after Dr's Higgs and Wyatt - but maybe I missed it.
Post a Comment