But at least he is consistent. He lies when it suits his agenda, actively censors dissenting comments and will even go so far as to implicitly defend child pornography and human trafficking to attack Christianity.
The title of the article in question is, "Pope Benedict XVI: Its Not Our Fault We Raped Kids"
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/01/02/pope-benedict-xvi-its-not-our-fault-we-raped-kids.htm
Source of the actual Pope's statement is here:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9486
I would definitely not consider myself a defender of the current Pope and I'm not Catholic. I do believe that he is misrepresented and lied about both in the press and in criticisms of his speaking and he is treated unfairly.
Remember his "anti-muslim" speech in Germany in 2006? Where he was accused of saying that Islam is a violent religion unfairly? Something didn't seem right to me, so I looked up the actual speech. I was shocked to find what he actually said.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
He is saying the opposite and calling for a reasoned dialogue between faith and other views of the world. The religion of peace, in protest, bombed a few churches and set things on fire. Austin is doing the same thing here, except using words instead of dynamite.
This is especially pernicious, because he clearly knows better. I'll limit this to two glaring problems.
1) The implied "quote" from the Pope is inaccurate and libelous (below bold emphasis mine)
What the Pope Actually said was, "We were all the more dismayed, then, when in this year of all years and to a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests who twist the sacrament into its antithesis, and under the mantle of the sacred profoundly wound human persons in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime."
And, "Her garment is torn – by the sins of priests. The way she saw and expressed it is the way we have experienced it this year. We must accept this humiliation as an exhortation to truth and a call to renewal. Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance. We must be determined to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again. This is also the moment to offer heartfelt thanks to all those who work to help victims and to restore their trust in the Church, their capacity to believe her message. In my meetings with victims of this sin, I have also always found people who, with great dedication, stand alongside those who suffer and have been damaged. This is also the occasion to thank the many good priests who act as channels of the Lord’s goodness in humility and fidelity and, amid the devastations, bear witness to the unforfeited beauty of the priesthood."
And finally, "We are well aware of the particular gravity of this sin committed by priests and of our corresponding responsibility."
He isn't making excuses and his statements are clear in acknowledgment and responsibility for deplorable acts. This doesn't undo the actions taken against children, but to say the Pope is claiming that it wasn't done or that it "wasn't their fault" is like saying the current German government is denying the Holocaust.
The problem with a claim like Austin's, is that it is completely false. He is lying about what the Pope is saying, there just isn't any other way to say it.
2) Austin misquotes the Pope, then tries to attack something he didn't ever actually say.
Pope's statement, "There is a market in child pornography that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society.
The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times. From Bishops of developing countries I hear again and again how sexual tourism threatens an entire generation and damages its freedom and its human dignity."
Austin's response, "Well, I suppose that in order to be fair I should allow for one narrow sense in which Benedict might have something approaching a point: it does seem to be treated as more and more normal by society for children to be sexualized to a growing degree. We see sexualized clothing and attitudes marketed to younger and younger kids -- especially younger and younger girls. That isn't the same as "child pornography," though, and I don't think it would be legitimate to treat that as a valid intended meaning behind his words."
Um, I don't think we're talking about Target and junior high girls showing their midriff, or the words "hot stuff" across the bottom of sweatpants, intended for pre-teen girls. I think the Pope is talking about internet child pornography, which is more rampant than it has ever been, sexual tourism, human trafficking and the abuse of underage females for a fee.
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/sextour.html
This is a devestatingly serious issue in the world today, and if you look at the numbers, much more prolific than the handful of priests who have been abusive. This isn't seeking to dismiss or deflect from the inappropriate and criminal behavior of priests.
But we're not talking about America, we're not talking about the mall and Calvin Klein ads. We're talking about the (in many cases) forced rape of children happening 30-100 times a week per child for money.
I wonder why Austin is deflecting the actual comment away from the real issue at hand. Is he really defending the practices of sexual tourism as a red herring and not really all that bad? Is this another case of Christianity with its ridiculous sexual standards of conduct trying to interfere with the freedom of free thinking people?
Or is he just using a very emotionally charged topic, to take an unfair and cheap shots at a religious leader for his own agenda and ends?
He can do that if he wants to... but don't call it reasonable, logical, or correct in any forum.
I would think that human sex trafficking would be one thing that even a New Atheist like Cline would agree is bad. And if in agreement that a serious human rights issue is bad and should be stopped, why would he try to deflect or diminish the attention drawn to this, even by someone he ultimately disagrees with?
Does he hate theism and the Pope so much, that he is willing to implicitly support human trafficking for the sake of a cheap shot? That's disturbing, especially for someone who claims to value skepticism and clear thinking as a force for good in the world.
When propaganda for your cause becomes more important than saying, "child pornography and forced sexual tourism is wrong" then you're out to lunch.
No comments:
Post a Comment