Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Repentant Is He? Well That's Alright Then

I thought, here we go, the Mail is at it again, but as it turns the article was syndicated.

It was the headline that got my hackles up, the "repentant" pope is vilified, well it would wouldn't it.

Time is somewhat at a premium today, so I'm not going to delve into this thing as I might. Disagree as I may, perhaps it would be a tad uncivil of me to bad mouth a man, who by all appearances has never written a Madeleine McCann article, which I'm sure you would agree, has to count for something.

So just a little pasted here, the rest at the link.

Why is the unashamed child abuser Polanski lauded while the repentant Pope is vilified?

By Dominic Lawson

......The point is, I suspect, that whereas the Pope does understand that great wickedness has been perpetrated systematically by individuals within the Catholic priesthood, Polanski genuinely regards his conduct as blameless. He sees himself, not the 13-year-old girl he sodomised, as the victim.
Polanski, it might be said in his defence, is not a hypocrite. He never pretended to be a maintainer of any moral order.

This is why the behaviour of priests who abused children in their care, and any subsequent cover-up by the bishops, revolts us. more

Gender and numbers, they play a big part, Polanki's victim was female, and in the real world that still counts for something.

Polanski is one perp that's walking around, the Catholic Church has, I don't know how many thousands of perps walking around, with the likelihood of ne're but a handful ever being brought to book.

But it's the bit I've highlighted that is the salient point, individual bishops may well have covered up, in fact I would be amazed if they hadn't, but who led the cover-up for years, non other than the Nasty Nazi, Ratzinger, and that's the crux of the matter.

And personally speaking I think the article is crap, trying to juxtapose and compare Polanski to Ratzinger just doesn't work, apples and pears if you will.

And there is one other reason I'm running with this story, Lawson quotes an article by Richard Dawkins, which, if I post here, has a danger of being lost under the header I have used for this post. Consequentially the article in question is posted directly below this post, and if you arrived here via a search, here is the link.