when did i start making so damned many posts about this stuff, anyway?

[rivendellrose]

beam_oflight reminded me that I hadn't commented on this yet! Leading atheists back plan to have pope arrested for pedophilia cover-up during visit to UK.

I'm not holding my breath, but it would be a grand day for justice if it happened. I'm anything but a fan of Christopher Hitchens as a person, but on this, at least, I am willing to agree with him. I do find it deeply amusing and gratifying, however, that Dawkins, who I quite like, is getting more press for the effort than the guy who's actually spear-heading it. (To those unfamiliar with Hitchens, I can only say that from what I've read of his books, he's everything people accuse Dawkins of being and that Dawkins himself actually isn't - needlessly aggressive, unpleasant, and, IMHO, far from a good public figure for the atheist movement. He also wrote this piece of moronic tripe about how women aren't capable of being funny, which is what finally tipped me over the edge from "eh, slightly annoying but whatever" to "I hate you, you annoying jackass.")

And since the news seems to be full of the Catholic pedophilia scandal lately:

BBC asks the obvious question: Is oath of celibacy to blame for pedophilia among priests? My money is on "no, but it sure as hell isn't helping."

And also from the BBC: The Vatican tries to blame priests' pedophilia on homosexuality, proving once again that they're both desperate and pathetically out of touch with research and statistics on pedophilia. Do some research, guys - the vast majority of pedophiles - yes, even the ones who abuse little boys - are hetero. Bzzzt! Thank you for playing, please try again... because nobody doubts there will be a "next time" so long as you don't change your ways.

Comments

[gaslightgallows]

Given the amount of emphasis the Catholic Church places on repression of sexual urges and the power of faith and prayer to overcome all, I suspect that many subsequently pedophilic priests were drawn to the priesthood in an attempt to overcome their natural (unnatural?) tendancy towards preying on small children. But when they were eventually placed in positions of trust among children, faith and prayer proved not to be strong enough.

A friend of mine pointed me to an old New York State law, still on the books, that considers a year-long absence of sexual relations in a marriage to be an instance divorce--not grounds for a divorce, but an actual divorce. She brought it up because she knows a good number of Catholic couples who are preventing pregnancy by voluntarily abstaining from sex within their marriages. This law means that they are now technically divorced. And living in sin. The point of this tangent? Unfortunately for the Vatican, celibacy doesn't solve any problems.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I suspect that many subsequently pedophilic priests were drawn to the priesthood in an attempt to overcome their natural (unnatural?) tendency towards preying on small children.

That's entirely possible. On the other hand, the cynical part of me would like to point out that becoming a priest is also a perfect way to ensure that a person would have the means and the opportunity to get away with abusing kids pretty much as much as they'd like - at least in schools and cub scout groups and so-on there's theoretically oversight to prevent this sort of thing (how often it works is another issue), and when people are caught they generally suffer the consequences. In the priesthood, apparently neither of those facts is true.

I'd like to believe these sick bastards ran into the clergy to try to escape their tendencies, but I honestly believe that's thinking too much of them. It looks to me more like they saw a position they could be in that would give them exactly what they wanted.

And no, celibacy doesn't solve a damned thing - in fact, I think it creates more problems. Some people are well-suited to a life of celibacy, some people even thrive on it. But a lot of people don't, and those people tend to do terrible, terrible things when they discover an outlet, it seems.

[darthparadox.livejournal.com]

It sounds like a great idea, but that whole "head of state" thing is going to get in the way. Sigh.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

The plan actually hinges on a potential legal loophole regarding the international acceptance of the Vatican as a state, and therefore the pope as a head of state.

That said, I don't actually think it'll work. I just really hope it's making that bastard think a little bit.

[alto2.livejournal.com]

I believe I will have to go introduce myself to Mr Hitchens and beat him upside the head with a very large stick. I'm a woman, and dammit, I am very funny, quite frequently. It is my stock in trade. And he can go fuck himself gently with a chainsaw.

the vast majority of pedophiles - yes, even the ones who abuse little boys - are hetero.

Also, and I think the even larger point here? The vast majority of gay folks aren't pedophiles!

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I believe I will have to go introduce myself to Mr Hitchens and beat him upside the head with a very large stick.

I would not be opposed. :P

The vast majority of gay folks aren't pedophiles!

Goodness no. The reason I focused on the reverse (that pedophiles aren't gay) is that a lot of people seem to have absorbed the idea that pedophiles are gay, which is just plain untrue.

[lacrimaeveneris.livejournal.com]

Gay folks? Mostly not pedophiles!!

In any case, I can't decide if I want to cheer for Hitchens or not. On the one hand, kudos to him if this works. On the other, I desperately wanted to choke him the one time I met him so... that colors my opinion of the whole thing.

:sigh:

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

Cripes, you've met him? My condolences. I've only read a few of his books and articles, and from that came to the conclusion that he's exactly the heartless, misanthropic shock-jock jackass that people (IMHO injustly) accuse Richard Dawkins of being. The article I linked to in my entry was the last straw that broke my last, whimpering attempts to respect him.

Aaaaanyway, yeah. What a mess.

[lacrimaeveneris.livejournal.com]

Yeah, he came and spoke at my undergrad. Very interesting, very intelligent, and very articulate.

I still wanted to choke him.

Dawkins always seemed mellow and kind of sweet. Haven't met him though. Just my luck to meet the jackass.

[rivendellrose.livejournal.com]

I haven't properly met Dawkins, but I've heard him speak (at my undergrad, amusingly), and have read most of his books, and I find him just as you described him - mellow and oddly sweet. The time I saw him speak he seemed quite bemused by all the attention, and very earnest about what he was speaking about.

The biggest thing I see as the difference between them is that, from their books and interviews and so on, I get the sense that while Hitchens says the things he says to shock people, Dawkins says what he says because he genuinely cares and is concerned about people. We're talking about a guy who has written about his own feelings of conflict knowing that while he resolutely refused to press his beliefs on his daughter, other people wouldn't have such scruples about their beliefs. I find that strength of feeling and conviction deeply endearing and compelling.

Besides, he's never once struck me as a misogynistic asshat, which Hitchens does pretty much every time he opens his mouth. :P