Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: There is literally nothing about Sarah Palin that’s genuine Previous entry: Why Are All These Homosexuals Making Me Think About My Shapely, Toned Buttocks?

The next round of excuse-making for rapist coddlers

ChoadsCrime

I want to stop posting on this Catholic child rape scandal, I really do.  But the flagrant blame-shifting and rape apologism from devoted Catholic pundits who can’t imagine not having a church to justify their seething fear of female sexuality just keeps on keeping on.  I shouldn’t have even opened up Douthat’s apology for the rapist-shielding church, which I knew was going to be an attempt to get some kind of “moderate” defense into the mainstream media so that the central problems of the Catholic church—-namely their patriarchal, authoritarian values system that Douthat loves so much—-would go untouched.  I get the strong impression from Douthat and lackey Bill Donohue that if this means the rapes continue, then they will be okay with that price, even if Douthat shakes his head with disappointment. 

Douthat’s defense is more troubling than Donohue’s stampede of denial, because Douthat knows well how to play the “both sides” card while actually only blaming liberals.  Who apparently forced a bunch of right wing asshats in the Catholic church to rape children and to participate in the cover-up.  They can’t help themselves!  The liberals made them do it!

In reality, the scandal implicates left and right alike. The permissive sexual culture that prevailed everywhere, seminaries included, during the silly season of the ’70s deserves a share of the blame, as does that era’s overemphasis on therapy. (Again and again, bishops relied on psychiatrists rather than common sense in deciding how to handle abusive clerics.) But it was the church’s conservative instincts — the insistence on institutional loyalty, obedience and the absolute authority of clerics — that allowed the abuse to spread unpunished.

In other words, it was liberal values that caused the rapes, but conservative accounting errors. 

Of all the bullshit that Douthat spreads around, blaming rape on a “permissive sexual culture” may be the biggest honking lie he’s ever told.  Like Atrios noted, it demonstrates that Douthat, like his other patriarchal brethren, rejects the idea that consent is a relevant aspect of sexuality.  When your religion is one where a man raping a small child and a consenting couple of adults making love with a condom are basically the same, then it’s a quick jump to this sort of bullshit.  And let’s face it—-Douthat, Donohue and the Catholic hierarchy reserve far more of their energy condemning the latter than the former.  For instance, Douthat is using this scandal to insinuate that if it weren’t for legal condoms, the children would go unraped. 

His argument in fact is 100% backwards.  Bill Donohue has been all over the TV telling a lot of lies and trying to confuse the issue.  But in trying to promote one of his pet theories—-basically that we should blame the parents and not the rapists or the people who covered up for them—-he’s inadvertently tipping his hat to a historical reality.  And that is that in the 50s and 60s, pressing charges for rape was a much scarier deal, because it simply wasn’t treated as a serious crime in near the same way it is now.  Child sexual abuse was particularly buried.  In fact, Donohue is still trying to minimize the sexual assault of children like it was the 1950s.

Regarding sexual abuse, “kissing,” and “non-contact including voyeurism” (e.g., what it labels as “inappropriate sexual talk”) make the grade as constituting sexual abuse. Moreover, one-third of the cases involved “inappropriate fondling and contact.” None of this is defensible, but none of it qualifies as rape. Rape, on the other hand, constituted 12 percent of the cases.

Attitudes like this disgust your average person now, and it’s not because conservatives collectively decided that rape and sexual abuse were wrong and should be stopped.  No, the people responsible, the people who have made it possible for these victims to speak out, are the very people that Douthat and Donohue sneer at as encouraging a “permissive” sexual culture with our birth control and abortions.

Yep, the feminists. If you’re comfortable speaking out against child rape, thank a feminist. 

It was feminists, after all, who decided that a better standard of sexual morality wasn’t “does it fit the arbitrary rules laid down by our god that just so happen to reinforce male dominance over women”.  It was feminists who decided that pleasure, consent, and real world harm were better standards.  Moreover, it was feminists who pointed out that a system of male domination over women and children encouraged rape.  The fact that we went from a culture that was hush-hush about child rape to one where school children are instructed to tell on any adult who touches them inappropriately is because feminists spoke out about rape.  And then they saw the connection between rape of women and rape of children.  And they insisted that children be taught to respect their own health and well-being over the patriarchal pecking order that child rapists like these priests exploit.  Without feminism, you have prevailing attitudes like Donohue’s, where protecting male authority is so important that you squabble with rape victims over how raped they should feel.

But Douthat just blamed the very people who were brave enough to speak up about rape in the first place for causing rape.  I suppose we’re expected to just be grateful he’s conceded that it is a major crime, though I don’t really know how far he’s gone.  He suggests “common sense” would tell you how to deal with rapist priests if it weren’t for the culture of therapy, but under a strict patriarchy, “common sense” tells people to shut up and blame themselves for being such easy targets.  So, fuck you, Douthat. 

The one silver lining in this whole sordid affair is that we’re really learning how many people, when given the choice between really condemning a culture that supports child rape and sticking by their misogynist dogma, will pick the latter every time.  And get rewarded with a column in the NY Times for it!

 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 05:45 PM • (51) Comments

I suppose it is feminist’s fault that Douthat didn’t get lucky in college and thus had to take a job as a professional prude.

Comment #1: sancerre2001  on  03/31  at  12:58 AM

I suppose it is feminist’s fault that Douthat didn’t get lucky in college and thus had to take a job as a professional prude.

He did get lucky in college, with a girl who looked like “a chunky Reese Witherspoon”.  Unfortunately, she was on birth control and told him so, which ruined his boner.  His vendetta against women controlling their own sexuality has continued from that day to this.

Comment #2: Seraph  on  03/31  at  01:16 AM

Right, because in the silly season of the 70’s, all the older, stodgier bishops evaporated and the whole show was being run by inexperienced hippie-priests who were just too high on the vibe of the times to know better.

Comment #3: Kyso K  on  03/31  at  01:18 AM

If these guys can admit that none of what happened is defensible why are they trying so hard to defend it?

Comment #4: semi_factual  on  03/31  at  01:27 AM

The permissive sexual culture that prevailed everywhere, seminaries included, during the silly season of the ’70s deserves a share of the blame, as does that era’s overemphasis on therapy.

1. Yeah, because the seminary has always been known for being completely with its times.

2. Ross Douthat was born Nov. 28, 1979. He doesn’t know anything about the ‘70s. What he thinks he knows, he probably learned from, like, David Brooks.

Comment #5: RickMassimo  on  03/31  at  01:35 AM

So I guess 12% of sexual assaults on children that “qualifies as rape” is an acceptable figure to this fuccking asshole?

Comment #6: Mark  on  03/31  at  01:59 AM

It’s the same thing we see with racism. It’s not racists who cause racism - it’s all the fault of those touchy POC who point it out! And now it’s not rapists who cause rape, it’s victims who report.

Comment #7: Rebecca  on  03/31  at  02:26 AM

@rick: This blew my mind.  Doughy McChinfuzz is actually writing for the New York Times?  What are the credentials for a job like that - a legacy degree from an Ivy, a few years of irrelevant post-graduate blogging, and enough money left in the trust fund to bribe an editor?

Are people younger than me with no significant life experiences really considered interesting?  Have I completely missed the boat?

Maybe DoucheHat was just the best token conservative the NYT could come up with.

Comment #8: Dave Fried  on  03/31  at  02:33 AM

Yes, it’s completely believable that your church which is close to 2000 years old only started raping children 60 years ago, but at that time started with a vengeance.  Bullshit.

Comment #9: bellacoker  on  03/31  at  03:32 AM

OMG that Donohue link!

When most people hear of the term abuse, they do not think about being slapped, being chilly, being ignored or, for that matter, having someone stare at you in the shower. They think about rape.

With friends like that, the Catholic Church doesn’t need enemies. I hope he’s getting media exposure everywhere so he can bring up images of priests masturbating at young children while they shower in defense of the Catholic Church.

Comment #10: daisyparker  on  03/31  at  04:01 AM

bellacoker, before they were raping children, they were busy torturing and murdering.

Comment #11: Luke  on  03/31  at  04:06 AM

When your religion is one where a man raping a small child and a consenting couple of adults making love with a condom are basically the same, then it’s a quick jump to this sort of bullshit.

This.

I’ve actually found myself in discussions with Catholic apologists over sexual morality, and gotten arguments like “If sex outside of marriage isn’t wrong, then wouldn’t that make it OK to have sex with children?”

Consent isn’t even on their radar.

Comment #12: DaveL  on  03/31  at  06:51 AM

This shit pisses me off on like five different levels. First, while I’m an atheist, my entire extended family is Catholic. The Protestants have been hating us for generations, so my first instinct is to dismiss this. But in fact the church hierarchy are actually actively refusing to deal with a crisis of child rape or sexual molestation or whatever you are gonna call it. I can’t defend that shit, for chrissake, and anyone who tries to defend it, and the pathetic response by the church, starts to stink. I guess Douthat is practicing denying he ever ripped one, it was those liberals and feminists.

And the statements about feminism piss me off even more. And it is getting impossible to be both feminist and neutral toward Catholicism. And the constant partisanship and meddling in US politics, combined with the utter lack of a convincing response to this cancer, will probably drive more US catholics away. So be it.

Comment #13: atheist  on  03/31  at  07:22 AM

These are the same people who equate homosexuality and bestiality, do we expect them to know the difference between consensual sex and rape?

Comment #14: Albert Cirrus  on  03/31  at  07:47 AM

I get the strong impression from Douthat and lackey Bill Donohue that if this means the rapes continue, then they will be okay with that price, even if Douthat shakes his head with disappointment.

Wow, Douthat sounds just like Dana: “disappointed” about enabling of child abuse by the hierarchy (tsk, tsk, tsk) combined with the 5-year-old’s favourite spurious excuse “but ... but everybody else was doing it.”

And it seems even a so-called “moderate” Catholic conservative can’t escape the scapegoating:

Again and again, bishops relied on psychiatrists rather than common sense in deciding how to handle abusive clerics

Notice how he condemns generic psychiatrists (implying it’s all the fault of those liberal NYC-type Freudians and Jungians), while avoiding the uncomfortable fact that the Church in reality consulted the sort of tame Catholic therapists who believe that Teh Gay is something that can and needs to be cured and who were glad to tell the Church what it wanted to hear (“All better!”).

I also love the language he uses to downplay the hierarchy’s baked-in authoritarian streak:

But it was the church’s conservative instincts — the insistence on institutional loyalty, obedience and the absolute authority of clerics — that allowed the abuse to spread unpunished.

Oh, I see now Ross, all that is just “instincts”—the poor hierarchy are helpless victims of evo-psych, having no control over the way they run their institution. Sort of like the rapist priests, if you think about it.

I don’t believe for a second that Douthat isn’t aware of his Church’s organisational structure and history, nor that he doesn’t understand that those “instincts” are actually the product of centuries of design and intent. Douthat may be sneakier than a thug like Donohue in his apologism, but he’s just as big a scumbag for trying to shift the blame.

Comment #15: Gracchus.  on  03/31  at  08:55 AM

Yeah because the abuse all started in the 70’s. I guess Doubtdumb thinks all those folks who reported being raped by priests in the 60’s, 50’s, 40’s and even earlier were just lying.

And I keep wondering where the bottom is for these folks. First they tried to play it off like these were isolated incidents until the victim count got above 50,00 (I think it’s 200,00 worldwide now). Then after being forced in court to defend their reprehensible actions, they produced documents showing their crappy response (numerous priest transfers to prey on other kids) to abuse allegations. Now, it’s blame shifting (“the feminists cried rape and ruined our church!”), claiming that they’re the ones being persecuted and comparing the pope to Jesus Christ. Do I dare ask what’s next? Because I honestly can’t see how their response to the horror show that is their church could get any worse.

Comment #16: DC Fem  on  03/31  at  09:29 AM

Star Storm, I deleted your comment because we have a ban on violent or hate speech at Pandagon.  There’s two major rules: no hate speech, no thread-jacking.  I’ve found that’s all we need, and I think we can criticize Douthat without suggesting his life should be on the line.

Comment #17: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  09:46 AM

This blew my mind.  Doughy McChinfuzz is actually writing for the New York Times?  What are the credentials for a job like that - a legacy degree from an Ivy, a few years of irrelevant post-graduate blogging, and enough money left in the trust fund to bribe an editor?

No bribes needed—at that level of the business it’s not so much what you spend as who you know (see also Jonah Goldberg at the LAT). And, as I noted in the earlier thread about Brooks:

The NYT may think including Bo-Bo (and Douthat) is a good compromise to fulfill the “requirement” for the paper to have conservative columnists who aren’t drooling morons (hi, Bill Kristol!), but the practise of publishing douchey intellectual cowards has a downside to brand credibility as well.

The NYT is caught in a bind: on the one hand, it doesn’t want to be branded by conservative pundits as “that liberal paper”; on the other hand, it’s difficult to find conservative columnists in America who aren’t either obvious idiots or who are calling outright for the elimination/exile of one or more entire classes of American citizen—the paper has its standards, after all. It’s not just gonna hire any graduate of a wingnut welfare think tank or phony-balony Xtian college, just as it knows its readers won’t accept a pundit who’s only been published by Lord’s Dominion Press.

Fortunately for the Times, the mainstream Ivy/publishing social network usually spits out a handful of intellectually dishonest conservative punits who are slick enough to present the superficially “moderate” image the paper requires. If Douthat plays his cards right (i.e. very close to the chest), he might last as long as Brooks.

Comment #18: Gracchus.  on  03/31  at  09:48 AM

I’ve actually found myself in discussions with Catholic apologists over sexual morality, and gotten arguments like “If sex outside of marriage isn’t wrong, then wouldn’t that make it OK to have sex with children?”

So are they saying that if you marry her first, it’s okay to rape a small girl?  Because in some places, that’s done.

Comment #19: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  09:49 AM

Atheist, I’m in the same boat (non-believer with Catholic family).  Two things keep me wanting to slam my head against the wall.  One is the utter hypocrisy of the US Council of Bishops (and their friends/defenders) running around the Capitol crying, “Blah blah culture of life, blah blah what about the babieeeeez”.  Meanwhile when confronted with harm done to actual children they point fingers and everyone else.

The second is the focus on what is and isn’t sexual abuse as if its the SEX that’s the one and only problem and the total abuse of TRUST and AUTHORITY have nothing to do with.  That’s why you get the bizarre , “hey he was only watching kids shower” defense.  So what?  It was still a horrible betrayal of the kids trust.  Which I guess goes back to what everyone else was saying about consent.  Sorry I’m babbling with incoherent rage.

Oh, and those psychiatrists?  In “Deliver us from Evil” (which I can’t recommend highly enough) the pedophile priest is sent to a real psychiatrist, who tries to get the authorities involved.  I can’t remember if he actually called the police or told the priest to turn himself in.  But at any rate, he wasn’t giving the priest a pass.  So yeah, it was the in house “therapies” that weren’t working.  And besides which, if a priest comes to your attention again and again, wouldn’t you stop using therapy and try something else?

Comment #20: carovee  on  03/31  at  09:59 AM

<i.Notice how he condemns generic psychiatrists (implying it’s all the fault of those liberal NYC-type Freudians and Jungians), while avoiding the uncomfortable fact that the Church in reality consulted the sort of tame Catholic therapists who believe that Teh Gay is something that can and needs to be cured and who were glad to tell the Church what it wanted to hear (“All better!”). </i>

Excellent point.  From what I understand, real psychologists so far think pedophilia is untreatable, and can only be managed.  But overall, from what I understand, there are low, low rates of fixing men who get off on abusing those down the totem pole from them.  And not for lack of trying!  Obviously, women in domestic violence situations would very much like to go to therapy and have their men fixed so they can stay with them, but what they find instead is that abusers are very good at charming and acting fixed so they can return to their normal patterns.  I’m sure child rapists are similar.

Comment #21: Amanda Marcotte  on  03/31  at  09:59 AM

Obviously, women in domestic violence situations would very much like to go to therapy and have their men fixed so they can stay with them, but what they find instead is that abusers are very good at charming and acting fixed so they can return to their normal patterns.  I’m sure child rapists are similar.

Which brings up a further thought: devout women of all faiths are urged to seek counseling for marital difficulties (which includes spousal battery) first with clergy and church-approved therapists. I can imagine exactly the type of advice and “help” they’d get, too, especially from a celibate priest and especially with the kind of charming abuser you describe.

The way that child molestation has been handled by the RCC is truly horrific, but amazingly it’s only the ugly tip of a huge, dirty iceberg.

Comment #22: Gracchus.  on  03/31  at  10:06 AM

The one silver lining in this whole sordid affair is that we’re really learning how many people, when given the choice between really condemning a culture that supports child rape and sticking by their misogynist dogma, will pick the former every time. And get rewarded with a column in the NY Times for it!

You meant “latter,” no?

Comment #23: Ben Alpers  on  03/31  at  10:13 AM

From #20

One is the utter hypocrisy of the US Council of Bishops (and their friends/defenders) running around the Capitol crying, “Blah blah culture of life, blah blah what about the babieeeeez”.  Meanwhile when confronted with harm done to actual children they point fingers and everyone else.

Yeah this bothers me a lot too. The Catholic Church has become much more political in the past few years, much more partisan. I hope it all blows back on them. And no you don’t sound incoherent carovee.

Comment #24: atheist  on  03/31  at  10:14 AM

And the statements about feminism piss me off even more. And it is getting impossible to be both feminist and neutral toward Catholicism.

The enormous silver lining of this papacy is that it lays bare the problems with the Catholic Church in ways that the equally retrograde, but much better packaged, papacy of JPII did not.

Maybe DoucheHat was just the best token conservative the NYT could come up with.

The NY Times can’t really hide behind this excuse. There are plenty of less odious conservative voices in the blogosphere (whence they plucked Douthat): e.g. Daniel Larison, Russell Arben Fox, and some of the others who blog at Front Porch Republic.  Though to be fair, less-odious-than-Douthat is a pretty low bar.

Comment #25: Ben Alpers  on  03/31  at  10:25 AM

@Gracchus: the problem with hiring a well-connected child of privilege to be your paper’s token conservative spokeshole is that while he* can turn a decent phrase, he tends to be even more clueless when it comes to things that affect real people than even his compatriots on the Right.

The closest Doughy has ever come to being molested was his Final Club** initiation at Harvard.  Which evidently allows him - in his small, small world - to totally understand what young, disabled children feel like when they, after being placed in a situation entirely beyond their control, are molested by an adult with nearly absolute power over them.

* usually

** just guessing; if he wasn’t, it’s just more fuel for resentment

Comment #26: Dave Fried  on  03/31  at  10:27 AM

Oh, okay. Sorry about that, Amanda… probably for the best though. I still stand by my “Soulless Bastard’ statement, though.

Comment #27: StarStorm  on  03/31  at  10:39 AM

So are they saying that if you marry her first, it’s okay to rape a small girl?  Because in some places, that’s done.

I think they’re saying, if you marry her first, it isn’t rape.

And now I want to go scrub out my mouth.

Comment #28: firefall  on  03/31  at  10:55 AM

“The printing Press as An Agent of Change”  is, overall, an amazing book. I recommend it. But it can be hard to read in its unabridged form because it has these jokes that you have to be a scholar of history to get. Like, “these two guys had lunch at that time and we know how that ended” three decades later in a completely unrelated issue, ha ha ha.

One of the “all historians know this” aside in that book applies here. In early modern Europe they did not say “child reap” or “paedophilia”. They called the sexual abuse of children ““the priestly vice”.

This is a very Roman part of the church. And when I say., “Roman” I don’t mean “Italian guys”. I mean the Roman and Greek empire were clear about the relationship between a powerful man and a supplicant or dependent male. And when you grew up and became the powerful man then you would have little male supplicants of your own. Because women are just nasty and having sex with them weakens a big strong manly man, while being the penetrator in a male relationship confirms your manliness. And you knew you were grown up when you went from penetrated to penetrator.

This is not new in the Church.  (Oh! And now I get to push Blaspheme!!!!!)

Comment #29: just sayin  on  03/31  at  11:05 AM

The Catholic Church has become much more political in the past few years, much more partisan.

I don’t see it. It was partisan during WWII and supported Hitler, Franco and Mussolini. It was responsible for linking up ex-Nazis with the CIA, helped with ‘reconciliation’ so that war criminals could be put to good use by the West against communism, and thus took an active stance in the Cold War. In the 70s and 80s it defended dictatorial right-wing Latin American regimes and explicitly opposed left-wing democracies. As a hierarchy the RCC was always partisan, and always on the wrong side of history too. It is only rank and file priests and nuns (my aunt amongst them) who took social justice seriously, in Latin America, Africa, Haiti, here at home. The actual RCC, its leadership, never was on our side. It always sided with the oppressors. Any good it ever did was in spite of its structure and intents, not because of them.

Any perceived renewal of partisanship on the part of the RCC should just be seen as a return to form, and the impression you have probably has more to do with their increase in temporal power compared to just a couple decades ago (as a sideeffect of the qhole Religious Right’s renewal in America) than with a change of policy.

Comment #30: BlackBloc  on  03/31  at  11:10 AM

Donohue’s newest dance is that evidently It wasn’t actual pedophilia since most of the victims were post-pubescent.

Comment #31: Mighty Ponygirl  on  03/31  at  11:33 AM

#30

Any perceived renewal of partisanship on the part of the RCC should just be seen as a return to form, and the impression you have probably has more to do with their increase in temporal power compared to just a couple decades ago (as a sideeffect of the qhole Religious Right’s renewal in America) than with a change of policy.

Interesting, BlackBloc. Maybe I have just been naive, or sheltered in my extended family of relatively liberal Catholics. It is certainly possible.

Comment #32: atheist  on  03/31  at  11:35 AM

I feel that both sides are at blame. Child-raping priests, and apologists who would dress their kids up in Fredericks for Kids! and drop them off at the priests’ home.

Ponygirl @31 - church apologists have fallen in love with the term “pederists”. This describes a homosexual that is attracted to young (young) men. They believe the victims were sexually confused young men who invited the attention for the attending percs.

You see, once they weed out the gays, children will be safe again.

These people see rape and child sexual abuse as a matter of people not being able to control their own sexual urges, not as violent behavior based on the thrill of power. Imagine thinking that sex with a child was “sex”, as we consider the word sex.

Comment #33: I Heart Puppies  on  03/31  at  11:41 AM

Because women are just nasty and having sex with them weakens a big strong manly man, while being the penetrator in a male relationship confirms your manliness. And you knew you were grown up when you went from penetrated to penetrator.

To be extremely pedantic, that’s not exactly accurate.  Well, the part about women is right.  As far as male-male relations went, there actually wasn’t much penetration in ancient times (pre-Christian, say).  They did this thing where they’d rub their cocks between each other’s thighs.  Actually penetrating someone was considered not quite right, and being the penetrator was only a little less bad than being penetrated, and there were words for either role.  It was all wound up with a student/teacher relationship, where older men (older started around the time one grew a beard, so late teens, say) instructed their younger proteges in, uh, many things.  They figured that if these men couldn’t have a singularly intellectual/spiritual relationship, an intellectual/sexual one was the next best thing: Platonic, doesn’t mean what you think it means. These same men also all had wives (who were totes icky and to be avoided, so that part is true), so it’s not homosexuality as we think of it. 

That’s not to say penetration never happened.  Sexual mores are broken everywhere and everywhen.  And what I’ve outlined above is likely a purely upper class way of doing thing—it is strictly tied to education and intellectual development.  How ruling men related to their servants, tenants, and slaves may be different, as were relations among the lower classes. 

This has not terribly much to do with the Catholic Church and it’s ongoing problems with sexual abuse of children, though, but I thought I’d clarify some things.

Comment #34: rowmyboat  on  03/31  at  11:49 AM

When I think of priests sexually abusing boys, I think of easy going, unrepressed sexuality.

Comment #35: Wallace  on  03/31  at  12:06 PM

JohnGor—And of course, they don’t acknowledge their own culpability in such a thing.

If the Catholic Church believes that gay people are all pederasts at heart it’s because the Catholic Church is warping gay people.

If you grow up a devout catholic and you’re gay, you’re going to feel vaguely uncomfortable in your community even before you begin to understand who you are.

When you go through puberty and your sexual identity begins to form, there is going to come a point where you are going to have to confront your identity with your faith. If you seek advice from a priest, he’s going to tell you that God’s plan is for you to not be sexual, that you are to enter the priesthood and become truly celibate: not to have any meaningful human contact. You are being told this at one of the most formative moments of your sexuality. If they can effectively stall your sexual development when you’re 13/14, then that’s where your sexual development is going to stay. And as you grow older, if you’re not allowed to express and explore who you are as a sexual being because you’ve been locked into a confessional booth and told you can’t think those thoughts or be that person, then the best you can hope for is that you only get a LITTLE bent.

This is going to happen to anyone: but because the Catholic “plan” for gay people is very scripted, we’re seeing a lot of this specific behavior.

Comment #36: Mighty Ponygirl  on  03/31  at  12:06 PM

Actually, BlackBloc, the Church did step away from political power a little tiny bit with Vatican II.  It’s part of what really pissed off the Correctors, that plus the inversion of the power pyramid putting the laity above the ordained, and part of what JPII and B16 want to fix.  They want to return to the world of being a Medieval Power and an idiot laity who blindly obey or face excommunication and the rack.

As such a worldly power, they are already claiming that B16, as the head of state, has immunity.  That bishops don’t really work for him (apparently they are independent contractors).  And that that 1962 document doesn’t prove ANYTHING.  Can’t let anyone sue them and get the riches of the Vatican!  After all, the Pope has worked very hard to get where he is, and he DESERVES. HIS. PRADA.

It really doesn’t matter what pretty words they use to claim they care about the children now.  Their current defense is that they were bad in the past, but since the Big Meeting, they’ve become a model of how to behave, and that they’re not getting any credit for that.

Never mind that Bernard Law is in a cushy, extradition-free palace at the Vatican.  Never mind that Francis George ignored the recommendations from the Big Meeting and allowed Daniel McCormack to abuse more children—children that would have been protected had George listened to the laity.

THEY HAD A MEETING.  WHAT ELSE DO YOU PEOPLE WANT?

Accountability?  Not remotely on their radar.  They think people are just greedy and trying to steal their money.  The fact that the only justice any of these people can receive for the abuse and the trauma and the horrible betrayal of trust is monetary because they can’t get any other form of justice eludes them.  They truly believe that the ordained are better than any other human being, and they will continue to protect their brethren; children be damned.

Comment #37: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/31  at  12:11 PM

the problem with hiring a well-connected child of privilege to be your paper’s token conservative spokeshole is that while he* can turn a decent phrase, he tends to be even more clueless when it comes to things that affect real people than even his compatriots on the Right.

To be fair, the cluelessness resulting from entitlement and privilege isn’t limited to the NYT‘s conservative writers. A quick look at the Style and Vows sections will confirm that.

Comment #38: Gracchus.  on  03/31  at  12:23 PM

Yeah, it comes right down to the complete inability to understand or value consent. And I think that better than anything describes why we have such a terrible rape culture and why more conservative areas seem to have it worse.

And I think it highlights the terrible reality of how the idea of women’s consent mattering is still “new” for a lot of our culture. For older generations and those being raised in conservative religions (i.e. most of them), the idea that a woman is a person and that consent might be important is still bafflingly new. Sure, they may have some vague idea that rape is a bad thing, but they understand it exceedingly narrowly and most of the reasoning is “black man on white virgin” rather than any model of consent.

What is positive is that we’re starting to more and more realize that there’s something “off” about these arguments that are baffled about consent. More and more youth and people are realizing that consent is kind of a big deal and are more accepting of the idea that women are people (albeit a lower social caste of people). It’s not perfect, which is why you’ll have liberal men arguing that a right to choice is important without actually understanding why or why date rape is still hard to get public sympathy for (what if you consented once to him, you’ve consented infinity times to him), but it’s starting to seep.

Not bad for a movement that only really gained steam in that regard in the 1970s. Thanks, feminists.

Comment #39: Cerberus  on  03/31  at  12:35 PM

I’ve often thought the sexual revolution was indirectly related, but not in the way that Douhat suggests.

Basically, the Catholic Church, by requiring oaths of celibacy, has set up a system that self-selects for people who are ashamed of their sexuality so much that they are willing to swear an oath of celibacy. (They may swear it with the full intent and desire to be celibate, or they may swear it because they intend to live a sexual but closeted life.)

The sexual revolution eroded the population of people who feel shame about their sexuality.  The pedophiles, on the other hand, still feel such shame and/or a need to hide their sexual desires, so they are “over-represented” in the priesthood.

Comment #40: misplacedpatriot  on  03/31  at  12:41 PM

I don’t know about the 70s, but nowadays we therapists are required by law to report any reasonable suspicion of child abuse to the police or Child Protective Services—even if it was committed by members of the clergy.  As I recall, the therapist in the latest case involving the former Pope advised the diocese that the predator-priest was still dangerous, but the diocese ignored the advice.

So, yeah, Douthat can suck it.

Comment #41: Captain Bathrobe  on  03/31  at  12:44 PM

Time to work the refs.  My letter to the editors:

Dear Editors,
I’m shocked and appalled that the New York Times support and pays for a child rapist apologist to publish his disgusting defense of the sexual molestation of young children.  The Catholic Church has spend decades hiding, sheltering and defending child predators.  Now the New York Times is publishing Ross Douthat’s defense of these actions. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/opinion/29douthat.html

While the New York Times defense of Harriet Miers was misguided in spite of all evidence of her fallacies and lies about Iraq, the publication of a person defending sexual assault on children is beyond the pale.

I will be contacting your advertisers to ask them if they feel it is in their best interest to associate themselves with a company that feels sexual assault on children is an acceptable, defensible action.

Perhaps I’m overstating, but Douthat’s continued employment seems sickening to me.

Comment #42: cynickal  on  03/31  at  12:54 PM

I know it’s wrong but everytime I end up burning my retinas er, reading his column I end up wanting to give Douthy a punch to his doughy breadbasket.
Could also be the picture where he looks like a minor character actor from the movie Dune crossed with a dude who home records country-western songs about jesus, a-rahabs and guns.

/rant

Comment #43: Danica Lefse Queen  on  03/31  at  01:03 PM

Maybe I have just been naive, or sheltered in my extended family of relatively liberal Catholics.

You and me both (mother was in the CSN, which is the Catholic union, my aunt as a nun worked for social justice in Haiti). But the historical facts are pretty damning, especially if you come at it from a left-wing (rather than merely liberal) perspective. People I would have called comrades if I’d been born at the time were killed because of the church leadership. I can’t just let that go.

Actually, BlackBloc, the Church did step away from political power a little tiny bit with Vatican II.

Sure, but it seems every step of the way since then has been an attempt at reverting back to pre-VII. IMO it was just a fluke, like the New Deal was just a fluke in the United States government’s otherwise unending support for robber baron capitalism. Something that happened because of a very specific historical moment that lasted very shortly, and is not indicative of lasting trends.

Comment #44: BlackBloc  on  03/31  at  01:04 PM

Sure, but it seems every step of the way since then has been an attempt at reverting back to pre-VII. IMO it was just a fluke, like the New Deal was just a fluke in the United States government’s otherwise unending support for robber baron capitalism. Something that happened because of a very specific historical moment that lasted very shortly, and is not indicative of lasting trends.

You are not wrong.


How the hell do we get another FDR, anyway?

Comment #45: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  03/31  at  02:20 PM

What are the credentials for a job like that - a legacy degree from an Ivy, a few years of irrelevant post-graduate blogging, and enough money left in the trust fund to bribe an editor?

Close.

From what I’ve seen, it goes like this:

1.  Get into an Ivy or other prestigious university.  (Legacy is a good way, but not the only way; elite private schools are another good source.)
2.  Get on the university paper.  College papers love to have a conservative columnist, because that gets them lots of letters to the editor and gets people reading.  Also write for the university’s conservative publication.
3.  Use the “cred” from #1 and #2 to enter the conservative pundit field, by getting a job at one of those think tanks or conservative magazines that get propped up by outside money.  If you do a good enough job, they’ll pay you to publish a book or two.
4.  Use the “cred” from #3 to get stints in mainstream media whenever they feel they need a conservative opinion (which in turn makes organizations in #3 appear more legitimate).

At no point is any actual life experience necessary, which means that what’s getting produced is just better written versions of those college-paper op-eds.

Comment #46: jfpbookworm  on  03/31  at  03:21 PM

I wonder how many of those children who were “only” molested did their best to avoid being alone with the priest thereafter, and otherwise would have been raped once the pedophile finished “grooming” them.

Comment #47: keshmeshi  on  03/31  at  04:06 PM

These are the same people who equate homosexuality and bestiality, do we expect them to know the difference between consensual sex and rape?
Comment #14: Albert Cirrus on 03/31 at 05:47 AM

Exactly.  And since I was going to type this, I figured I ought to use the previous words.

*sigh*  I really don’t know what to do about it.  The Money-because-Justice-isn’t-allowed point was pretty good, too.  But what to do about the Douhts of the world?

Comment #48: Crissa  on  03/31  at  05:26 PM

But what to do about the Douhts of the world?

Uhm….Get a rope?

Nah, I can’t say that.  Sorry, Amanda, I was just following a train of thought to its logical, but absurd, conclusion.

I dig cynickal’s idea of going to the paper’s advertisers, though.  If we all let the corporate interests who pay for advertising in these fishwraps know what we think of nonsensical screeds trying to blame crime victims instead of the criminals themselves, we might actually get somewhere.

Comment #49: Mezosub  on  03/31  at  07:15 PM

“So are they saying that if you marry her first, it’s okay to rape a small girl?  Because in some places, that’s done”

Yes, that is what they are saying
I heard that “defence” used about the Texas FDLS

Comment #50: jefft452  on  03/31  at  10:13 PM

tyyi bnuy Prom Dresses 2010 including designer Jovani evening dresses, cheap and affordable evening dresses, sexy prom dress, wedding, bridesmaid and mother of the bride evening dresses

Comment #51: hoodly  on  04/05  at  07:35 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.