If you have spent decades building up a venerable and formidable career as a scholar of the theology of human sexuality, you should be aware that publicly defending Bill Cosby, Trump and Milo guarantees that younger generations will reflexively scoff at anything with your name on it. Maybe you don’t care, but that is what happens, and it’s a damn shame.
It is. I look at apologias for Milo from professors of moral theology, presumably respected, that strain to find the nuance in it all.
He seems to know the good but to be too weak to pursue it. I suspect he would not really defend sex with 14 year olds. I think he was being “honest” or hard on himself by saying he was the predator in going after the priest. All very complicated.
No. This is not “complicated.” Don’t insult us. Pedophilia can not be defended. The seriousness of the priest abuse scandal can not be waved away. End stop. There is no nuance, there is no “very complicated.”
Milo may be a victim of abuse. Milo may be wounded. We can and should have compassion on that, and no Catholic is permitted to judge him. But compassion does not mean that we can nuance what he said out of its sting. Nor can we claim, as Dr. Smith does, that Milo does not “promote pederasty.”
No. That is what he said. You can read the transcript.
There are certainly people who are capable of giving consent at a younger age. I certainly consider myself to be one of them, people who are sexually active younger. I think it particularly happens in the gay world by the way.
So let’s parse this. What Milo is saying here is that the notion of “age of consent” is arbitrary, that children who are under 18 are capable of giving consent. This is particularly true “in the gay world,” he says. People with SSA are better able to decide such things for themselves, much younger, than heterosexuals are.
What’s “complicated”? This is a defense of pederasty.
“I hate,” says Milo,
[t]his sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent, which totally destroys you know understanding that many of us have.
Oh. I see. There’s an “understanding” between a child and an adult in a sexual relationship. Well, we must all be “understanding.”
And what is the nature of this “understanding”?
Some of those relationships between younger boys and older men, the sort of coming of age relationships, the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are, and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable and sort of a rock where they can’t speak to their parents.
Oh. Pederasty is just about helping young boys “discover who they are.” Pederasty gives them “security and safety.” It “provide[s] them with love.” It gives them a “rock.” It’s all for their good!
At this point, someone brings up the priest abuse scandal, and Milo waves it off. If it weren’t for Fr. Michael, he says, “I wouldn’t give nearly such good head.”
See? Priests really can change your life.
But is Milo really defending pederasty? Let’s scratch our scholarly heads and nuance this.
“I don’t mind admitting,” Milo says, that he is “advocating cross-generational relationships.” (Read: pederasty.)
There are Catholics defending this. I could speculate on the motive behind it; I won’t. I’ll leave that to you, dear reader.
But I will say this: Given the troubles the Catholic Church has had in the recent past, one would think the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very last thing that a Catholic would want to do is defend these words.
Because of this, God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles.
This will not attract people to the Church. Catholicism: Church of pedophile priests and pedophilia apologists. That’s what people will say.
We can certainly have compassion on Milo Yiannopoulos. He certainly needs help and intervention. But we cannot defend or try to nuance what he said. Catholics who do so have no credibility, either as Catholics or (which they also claim to be) conservatives.
No one will listen to you anymore, and no one should.