I hate being right all the time

For years I have foretold that the day would come when the Church will be damned by the world, not for failing to prevent pedophilia, but for trying to prevent it.  Pedophilia was a useful club for the Manufacturers of Culture to feign outrage at the Church and land some solid punches because, luckily for them, bourgeois opinion and the actual moral teaching of the Catholic tradition aligned and priests and bishops were guilty of real sin.  Accordingly, the Lord permitted our Manufacturers of Culture, like the Assyrian who cared nothing whatever for God, to be a punishing rod in the hand of God against a Church that richly deserved his chastisement.

But the fact remains that our Manufacturers of Culture, like the ancient pagan Assyrian, are enemies of God, not people who care about children.  The proof of this was seen a couple of years ago, when our elites made abundantly clear that molestation was just ducky–if you are the right sort of Roman.

Now it’s being made even clearer as the Manufacturers of Culture in the Country that Used to be England try to walk the tightrope of figuring out how to go on pretending to be outraged about Jimmy Savile (a big powerful media perv who was a Catholic–and therefore useful for attacking the Church–but also shielded by the BBC and an an awful lot of the Manufacturers of UK Culture–and therefore somebody who needs to be “explained”).

Result: The Guardian publishes a puff piece trying to argue that pedophiles are just one more “orientation”, doncha know.  So the normalization campaign appears to be under way now that the fake dudgeon has passed its sell by date.

The good part: It appears the Church–though not the world–has learned its lesson and profited from the lesson of the Assyrian’s rod.  Judgment, as is the way with our Lord, begins with the House of God.  It does not, however, end there.  Woe to that culture that tries to normalize this monstrous evil.  God brought the Assyrian against Israel for chastisement, not to destroy Israel, but to save her.  The pagan Assyrians trusted in raw power.  Israel trusted in God.  How well did it work?  Well, have you seen any pagan Assyrians lately?

  • Alias Clio

    I don’t think the column you link to is trying to defend sex with children as a right or a need. I do think the writer wants to suggest that there might be wiser ways of handling child abusers than the methods now adopted, which consist of a) ignoring it; b) imprisoning the offender while crying out for his execution; and c) releasing him (or the occasional her) out into the world as a registered sex offender, none of which tackle the problem of how to handle such people *before* they commit an offense. It is at least somewhat heartening that in spite of the wide range of views that some twisted souls hold on the subject, there are support groups of people who advocate learning sexual self-control rather than changing the law to suit their desires. I don’t know that I’ve seen this in any other discussion of sexual deviance.

    Even the suggestion that pedophilia be re-classified as an “orientation” is not altogether wrongheaded, in that what these fellows mean by orientation is an unchangeable proclivity as opposed to a passing fancy. The Church in the 1970s made the mistake of assuming that pedophilia was the latter, not the former, with lamentable results. Note, too, that the height of the enthusiasm for legalizing pedophilia was in 1976, not today, as the article points out. Similar petitions were being circulated in the US and Canada as well, at around the same time. No one today is sending petitions to Parliament asking for the repeal of laws against pedophilia, or if they are, they’re keeping very quiet about it.

    That said, I did take issue with the “we are the reasonable people here” tone of the article, along with the annoying references to the fact that children are more likely to be molested in the home and by people they know, while dodging the fact that step-fathers and boyfriends are far more likely to be guilty in this respect than biological fathers who were involved in raising their children from infancy. As for the age of consent in England once being as young as 10, yes, certainly – but most people married well into their 20s until the Industrial Revolution. Only aristocrats or other large property-holders married off their children so young; such marriages were generally left unconsummated until puberty; and a man who had relations with children or even adult single women ran the risk of serious trouble from the child’s male relatives, as well as the law. Orphans, especially poor ones, were less well-protected, but that is one of the tragic facts of human history. So yes, the column annoyed me, too.

    • kenneth

      If there is a legitimate point the article fumbled towards, it hopefully is a plea to do some better science on the causes and effects of pedophilia in order to deter it more effectively.

      BTW, it is WAY the hell too soon, on this issue, to be casting the Church as a white knight and noble defender of virtue amidst a sea of secular relativism and broken moral compasses. It’s a lot like Don Rumsfeld lecturing Obama about abuse of executive power and unjust war….

      • Andy, Bad Person

        BTW, it is WAY the hell too soon, on this issue, to be casting the Church as a white knight and noble defender of virtue amidst a sea of secular relativism and broken moral compasses.

        Yeah, let themselves get established for another 2000 years before they worry about that.

      • Mark Shea

        White? Knight? For some of us, saying, “The Church seems to have finally turned a corner and is learning from its sins” doesn’t not mean “The Church is now perfect.” But then, I’m not filled with a burning need to make sure that the Church is never forgiven.

        • kenneth

          I’m just not grasping the prediction which says the Church will be damned for trying to prevent pedophilia. The Church isn’t the only outfit falling short in child protection, but it ain’t exactly in the vanguard of the anti-pedophila movement either.

          I think it’s premature to say they’ve “turned the corner.” I think there’s people of good will pushing toward that, but cases like Bishop Finn and the lay folks who defend him as a victim don’t inspire a lot of confidence that the corner has been turned. The drafting of policies won’t turn the corner if the culture of leadership has not taken the problem to heart. Most of the bishops in this country were either men who oversaw the culture of abuse or were groomed for leadership by that generation of men.

          I think we can speak of corners being turned if we can go a couple of years with no more high-level “misunderstandings” ala Finn, AND if we see some bishops drop a dime on abuse suspects BEFORE the cops and media come calling.

          • Mark Shea

            You seem to think it is still 2002. We are presently in much more danger of zero tolerance lunacy than of any bishop trying, much less getting away, with covering up a creep. Institutionally, the Church has learned its lesson and is trying to figure out ways to make sure it doesn’t happen again (YMMV depending on where in the world you are). Meanwhile, public schools are orders of magnitude more dangerous and our Manufacturers of Culture turn a blind eye–while drooling over Roman Polanski.

            • kenneth

              Bishop Finn’s criminal cover-up was not 2002. His conviction came down three or four months ago, for events in 2010 and 11. So we’re still more than a little premature in saying no bishop would try such a thing. Sure, it’s one guy, but he had all the benefits of working within the Church’s supposed new enlightened atmosphere of abuse awareness. He had very clear, very good policies telling him how and when to do the right thing. He deliberately ignored that using the same exact cultural thinking of the old days.

              Finn is of a generation of men elevated primarily for their theological conservatism and (more importantly), their dedication to a tribal “us against the world” identity of Catholicism. They have all the tools and awareness to deal with abuse properly, and say all the right things, but their actions time and again reveal that they don’t buy it themselves. In their eyes, demands for public accountability and law enforcement is “zero tolerance lunacy.” I don’t see any evidence at all that his attitude is an anomaly among U.S. bishops.

              Given this reality, even 2002 cannot be considered as some done and gone era. It takes years for abuse victims to come to grips and come forward, and if someone like Finn could do what he did essentially yesterday, it’s a very sure bet plenty of skeletons will yet tumble out of the closet from that era.

              This attitude that it’s all done and ancient history and that abuse is now just a problem of Hollywood and public schools ensures that we will be having this same discussion in another decade and sooner. There will be another bishop, perhaps next year, perhaps as we speak, who will try to make a situation “go away” by some hinky internal investigation and legalism.

  • “joe”

    Yes, we know who the real victims are.

    • Mark Shea

      Yes,the abused children. What part of “Church that richly deserved chastisement” don’t you understand. Ah! But you are just blowing smoke to cover for the Beeb’s perfidy. Hypocrite.

  • Liz

    What a frightening article! And the comments posted by some people were even scarier! God help us all!

  • Benny

    I am Assyrian! There are quite a few of us around the world!

  • Dave P.
    • Mark Shea

      One senses they no longer share the values of the Assyrian Empire and have been fairly well assimilated by the God of those they conquered. :)

  • Josh

    I heard about that story on the radio and thought “I remember Shea saying something about this…” What a terrible decision that author and editor made.

  • Bob

    Wish this were true:
    “It appears the Church–though not the world–has learned its lesson …”
    Unfortunately, this is true: http://tinyurl.com/8tqbggf

  • Will

    One bishop was convicted of sitting on information for several months. Still a bishop.

    • Bob

      Which is the problem, that he’s still the bishop.

  • Tamara Horsburgh

    I agree with Alias Clio’s post. I think the word “orientation” is not meant to condone – God forbid – having sex with children, but to acknowledge that there are people who have this inclination and need to have intense help in learning to control it. There are pedophiles who have the “feeling” bit don’t act on it – thank God. We, as a society, need to learn HOW these people manage to not act on these feelings, and work with others not to.

    • James H, London

      But the whole point is, we’ve already had one ‘orientation’ approved by society. Follow the logic:
      1) Some people want to have some kind of sterile sex, but it’s vigorously opposed and those people only do it in secret;
      2) Someone manages to get the message out that these people can’t help it, they’re made that way;
      3) We’re therefore called to have sympathy for them, because no-one wants to be ‘judgemental’;
      4) Sympathy leads to tolerance;
      5) Tolerance becomes acceptance;
      6) To safeguard and widen acceptance, you have to oppose non-acceptance;
      7) In order to oppose non-acceptance, you have to promote it as a good;
      8) In order to promote it as a good, you have to suppress the contrary view.

      We’re already all the way to stage 8 on homosexuality. This article takes paedophilia from (2) to (3), but it’s not in some fringe or academic publication or specialist or local newspaper – it’s the freakin’ Manchester Guardian, one of Britain’s most respected papers! It’s effectively the voice of the Labour Party! Absent any non-negotiable moral code, why should there not be a change from (3) to (4), over the next 10 years? So far, the most logical objection is lack of consent on the part of children – but the article already implies that some paedophilia is mutually consensual.

      Vile.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        Exactly. Claiming that a certain paraphilia is a “séxûal orientation” is the first step to trying to normalize it. This process is currently underway with “Objectum-séxûälity” If pedophilés can convince the world that they “were born this way” that will open up the door to legitimizing their disorder. Yes, many people still find pédophilia disgusting, yet there was similar widespread disgust over homosexûal activity only a few decades ago. Such can be worn down slowly over time.

        This whole “Let’s just understand them and be nice without letting them hurt children” thing is most likely just a Trojan horse to get us to accept pedophîlia as inborn. The next step will be, “Oh, but how can these poor people be expected to live without sèx just because our uptight, moralistic culture disapproves of their natural, inborn attraction to young people? Šexûal expression is a human right!” Within a few decades, anyone who openly opposes pedophilîa will be labeled a “Hater” for wanting to deprive these poor, perfectly-normal people of their innate human rights… yadda, yadda, yadda.

  • Robert DeKelaita

    Your understanding of Biblical history is primitive and simplistic. Don’t fall for simplistic answers and don’t offend those of us who are a part of the Biblical world and are Assyrians. We are proud of our history and proud of the fact that we are still around to correct false assumptions.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X