It appears, once again, that I am not sarcastic enough
Last week, I heard that the Catholic Church’s child-abuse-and-coverup scandals must be blamed in part on the liberal culture of sexual permissiveness. I also heard that the Holy Father himself was suffering some of the same unjust accusations once faced by Jesus (you remember, surely, the time He was accused of assigning Matthew, Andrew, Simon, Bartholomew and Thomas to new dioceses despite the fact that they had been molesting children for decades). Then I heard that criticism of the scandal was a bit like anti-Semitism. At that point, I turned to Janet and said, “I wonder how long it will be before some bishop or cardinal somewhere insists that the little scamps were just asking for it.”
So can we assume the forthcoming canonization of Roman Polanski is just around the corner?Posted by on 04/08 at 01:41 PM
Hard to say. On the one hand, opposing the canonization of Polanski at this point would be like re-enacting the Holocaust and re-crucifying Christ all at once. On the other hand, Polanski is also Exhibit A for the liberal culture of sexual permissiveness, which got the Church into this mess in the first place. So I’m guessing this one will take a while.Posted by on 04/08 at 01:57 PM
I’ve been told the Sparts through their connections to NAMBLA have come out in defence of the pope against these bourgeois attacks.Posted by on 04/08 at 02:25 PM
"It used to be that young boys wanted to enter the priesthood, and not vice versa :-(”
Quoted from the UK satire magazine ‘Punch’Posted by Eunoia on 04/08 at 02:28 PM
The only teeny-tiny justification Douthat would have for his “the pox on both their houses” shtick is the Roman Polanski matter. Plenty of people loosely classifiable as left flocked to defend him, declaring that statutory rape was no big deal in this case. So in this sense, “Hollywood culture” does have some issues, just as any in-group does. But this still doesn’t actually have anything to do with the widespread relaxation in sexual mores in the 1970s, unless Ross is prepared to argue that libertinism was unknown in the Hollywood set before 1968.
And I refuse to go dig any of it back up, but Church defenders in various comment threads started using “In most cases, the victims were adolescents, and hence not really children” from the get-go. How nice to know that there’s some subject on which the church hierarchy listens to the laity.Posted by on 04/08 at 02:40 PM
amorally morphed into
or visa versa ....Posted by on 04/08 at 02:55 PM
I blame abortion and the pill.Posted by on 04/08 at 04:11 PM
Wait until the girls and women start speaking up. (!!!!!)Posted by Hattie on 04/08 at 05:16 PM
"I worry that no matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.”
My experiences listening to big name journos traipse through Harvard for the past twenty years is that most of them aren’t cynical at all.Posted by gmoke on 04/08 at 05:26 PM
I find nothing cryptic about “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” It is all sounds so very priestly. I think Tarantino should have saved the Inglourious Basterds title for a film on the priesthood. And Jon Stewart was scathing on this topic last night.
I don’t think we lack cynicism, we lack sinisterism.Posted by on 04/08 at 05:47 PM
I’ve been told the Sparts through their connections to NAMBLA have come out in defence of the pope against these bourgeois attacks.
Yes, but where is the SWP on the critical Roman Polanski question? I expect more Fourth International-style sectarianism will prevent us from putting up a united pedophilia front.
Wait until the girls and women start speaking up.
That is such a Vatican II thing to say, Hattie. Precisely the kind of quasi-heretical sentiment against which the last two Popes have been trying to defend the Church.Posted by Michael on 04/08 at 06:16 PM
a possible “causa proxima”, so to speak, at least in a spiritual sense (you cain’t prove that it’s not).Posted by Ezra Hound on 04/08 at 06:29 PM
- Posted by on 04/08 at 06:50 PM
I got nothing. The bishop of Tenerife? Really?Posted by John Protevi on 04/08 at 07:20 PM
united pedophilia front.
Isn’t that like MLA-supported, or a humanities program at a few ivy league or UC schools? UPF! UPF!Posted by Ezra Hound on 04/08 at 07:30 PM
Yes, but where is the SWP on the critical Roman Polanski question?
The British SWP, or the US SWP? The former probably identify slightly more with Orwell, who covered the relevant ground in “Benefit of Clergy.” Then again, according to much of the Right Blogosphere, since all of communist Hollywood defends Polanski, so do the Democratic Socialists of America and ACORN. QED.
Wait until the girls and women start speaking up.
That is such a Vatican II thing to say, Hattie.
Well, at least the Küng wing of it as opposed to the Ratzinger wing. But yeah, can we make John XXIII pope again? He’s very well-preserved.Posted by on 04/08 at 08:02 PM
mds, “Plenty of people loosely classifiable as left flocked to defend him, declaring that statutory rape was no big deal in this case. So in this sense, ‘Hollywood culture’ does have some issues, just as any in-group does.” I dunno: looking at the list of Polanski apologists, I find very few names I would associate with “Hollywood culture”: Mr. Gilliam, Mr. Almodovar, and Ms. Hustvedt strike me as almost the opposite of Hollywood culture, really; Alain Corneau, Claude Lanzmann, and even the extpatriate Woody Allen aren’t exactly Hollywood either.
Is RD prepared to argue that “libertinism was unknown”? Not impossible--remember the Podhoretz essay that blamed online child pornography on the fact that Nabokov in the fifties had imagined the previously unthinkable act of pederasty?Posted by on 04/09 at 01:29 AM
Hitchens and crew are enjoying the Cat.-bash. as well--trying to bust the Pope sort of takes the heat off of pro-war neo-cons and neo-atheists (JP II it might be remembered routinely denounced BushCo involvement in the Iraqi war and yankee imperialism).Posted by Ezra Hound on 04/09 at 06:46 AM
This reminds me of Calvin Trillin’s outstanding coverage for The Nation of the Alternate Universe 1980 election pitting Reagan against Ted Kennedy; the AU Ted Sorenson [IIRC], standing up for his man against the smears and slanders, declared that “the only difference between Chappaquiddick and Calvary was that Calvary took place on dry land.”Posted by on 04/09 at 10:40 AM
Hitchens and crew are enjoying the Cat.-bash.
Well, this is territory Hitchens covered well before the debacle in Iraq. And he happens to be right about this one.Posted by Michael on 04/09 at 12:20 PM
Ah you mean Hitch’s 90’s thing on Mother Theresa, Missionary position or something? His typical sneering Humean-lite crap, sir, if not a rape in prose. He’s cool with Fallujah-like carpet bombing, deaths of thousands of civilians (not to say rapes/abuse) but a few dozen reports of priestly abuse and he’s the very paragon of justice, demanding trials, etc--. Nothin’ but nausea, like his palsie Dawkins, Maher, or lil’ Andy Sullivan, etc
While the RC Church certainly has problems (like the present one), Theresa dedicated her life to the very poor and diseased, dying in the streets of calcutta, and so forth--all reduced to nada in a few pages of Snitchens’ smarmy hack prose... American Air-Slate, y’all .Posted by Ezra Hound on 04/09 at 02:38 PM
OT: Not the most appropriate thread on which to bring this up, but since it’s happening right now:
Best wishes to your Rangers against the Flyers tonight; hope they manage to grab that last spot (Rangers just retook the lead with a couple of minutes to go in the 2nd).Posted by Nell on 04/09 at 08:43 PM
"(JP II it might be remembered routinely denounced BushCo involvement in the Iraqi war”
routinely is the operative word here. The Church went all-out to defeat Kerry. What was important to them was Roberts and Alito, and to hell with the Iraqis. We’ve now got five, count-em, five Supreme Court justices who take direction from a guy who claims to be a foreign sovereign.Posted by on 04/09 at 09:07 PM
Make that six Bloix, 6. Fully two-thirds of the SCOTUS are Roman Catholics.
Meanwhile Jon Stewart made a direct comparison between Hannity-Gingrich and Beavis & Butthead, and it was righteous.Posted by on 04/09 at 10:17 PM
Thanks, Nell—I find it hard to root for the Rangers sometimes, but I never have trouble rooting against the Flyers. If only the home team had scored a third-period PP goal after Hartnell cross-checked MDZ in the teeth.... Still, I’m liking the final score.Posted by Michael on 04/09 at 10:18 PM
Well, I have no idea what’s going on in hockey, but I clicked over to ESPN and see that the Rangers won. I guess I can jump on board the Flyers Hater Wagon with you, Michael, by the transitive property: I’m still pissed at Philly for losing to the freakin’ stankees in the World Series. So yeah, screw the Flyers.
This is very sad (and informative), but worth the read (don’t worry, it’s a quick read).Posted by on 04/10 at 12:46 AM
Wait until the girls and women start speaking up.
Well, according to news accounts yesterday and today, it isn’t the priests who are doing the girls, it is the swim coaches. A major suit was filed against USA Swimming who have banned for life 36 coaches without informing the public who they were and why they were banned. After the recent sentence of Andy King (40 years; a decade for decade of abuse), many other names of come to light.Posted by on 04/10 at 06:41 AM
The senate confirmed Scalia in ‘86, unanimously (ie, all Demos voted for him). Kennedy also was confirmed by unanimous vote. Rehnquist had the support of the majority of Demos, er, demopublicans (those who think Don Scalia a nutbag catholic-rightist should check out the decisions of Rehnquist the lutheran-nazi). blame Marbury vs MadisonPosted by Ezra Hound on 04/10 at 11:24 AM
The notion that the kids asked for it is nothing new. The big case in Oregon (the disgusting response to which fairly directly led me to the Episcopal church) featured a deposition in which the child rapist priest swore that he was a victim and that six year old boys kept diving into his lap.
And in the “who could have known back then” column, it has come out that a respected senior priest here (Eugene OR) fearing that the lay people trying to turn the guy in were being ignored got in his car (he died shortly after, so I gather that was something of an effort in his condition) and drove to Portland to demand that something be done, and the Archbishop flat out lied to him that he would take action. This was in 1969.
Perhaps there’s one archbishop for whom Pope Formosus would be a good precedent.Posted by on 04/11 at 04:34 PM
25, 26: Oh Lord won’t you buy me a split-screen TV ... like right *now*.Posted by on 04/11 at 05:28 PM
- Posted by on 04/11 at 08:46 PM
sorry about that - something went wrong with the link. Look in news/society.Posted by on 04/11 at 08:49 PM
Spyder at #24 - Sotomayor is of course Catholic, but I haven’t seen anything to believe that she shapes her views on the law to fit her religious beliefs, which is something that four of the justices pretty clear do. There’s nothing about being an observant Catholic that prevents a judge being an independent thinker - O’Connor was, as was Brennan. And perhaps I’m being unfair to Kennedy, who is not doctrinaire in the way that Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are.Posted by on 04/13 at 10:00 AM
And perhaps I’m being unfair to Kennedy, who is not doctrinaire in the way that Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are.
I often wish he were somewhat less of a “cafeteria Catholic” about legal doctrine, actually.Posted by on 04/13 at 03:31 PM
Was the recent ruling on the FEC issue typical of “cafeteria catholics”? Not really-- in principle catholic thinkers opposed usury, for one (eg, Aquinas). Roody Giuliani catholics, more like.Posted by Ezra Hound on 04/13 at 04:30 PM
On the plus side, a downed computer means more time for watching TV! Sarah Palin’s Alaska, anyone?
Many people would argue that Palin did great ecological damage to Alaska and would like to do more by drilling all over it. So, getting her to host a show about the natural beauty of Alaska is a bit like getting Jeffrey Dahmer to host a cooking show for the Food Network. Yes, there’s a big name attached, but is that the name you really want associated with your brand?
captcha: paid. No shit! Palin’s getting 250K per episode.Posted by on 04/14 at 02:23 PM
Oops - accidentally pasted that on the wrong thread. Stupid broken preview feature makes you cut and paste if you want to preview (an esp. handy feature if you have a link in your comment). Maybe I’ll try a re-post.Posted by on 04/14 at 02:43 PM
Chomsky is, afterall, prone to exaggeration.Posted by on 04/20 at 12:47 AM
Wow,What a post? ThanksPosted by PET CEMETERY on 04/28 at 10:23 AM