Friday, May 22, 2009

Catholic amorality personified: more braying from Jackass Donahue

The pompous, self-righteous and overall vile president of the Catholic League does it again, unleashing a wave of careless downplaying towards the huge scandal revolving around the Irish Catholic Church's mistreatment and abuse towards children in reform schools and other religious institutions over the past 70+ years. Once you've read the reports and know just what's been happening under tight wraps since the 30s that the Church was only too happy to hush up for so long, you simply cannot read the following statement from Donahue withot being – at the very least – incensed. Shaking with outrage at the most.

Reuters is reporting that “Irish Priests Beat, Raped Children,” yet the report does not justify this wild and irresponsible claim. Four types of abuse are noted: physical, sexual, neglect and emotional. Physical abuse includes “being kicked”; neglect includes “inadequate heating”; and emotional abuse includes “lack of attachment and affection.” Not nice, to be sure, but hardly draconian, especially given the time line: fully 82 percent of the incidents took place before 1970. As the New York Times noted, “many of them [are] now more than 70 years old.” And quite frankly, corporal punishment was not exactly unknown in many homes during these times, and this is doubly true when dealing with miscreants.

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. As for the charge that “Irish Priests” were responsible, some of the abuse was carried out by lay persons, much of it was done by Brothers, and about 12 percent of the abusers were priests (most of whom were not rapists).

The Irish report suffers from conflating minor instances of abuse with serious ones, thus demeaning the latter. 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.

By cheapening rape, the report demeans the big victims. But, of course, there is a huge market for such distortions, especially when the accused is the Catholic Church.

What a heartless, amoral, pompous bastard. That people like him claim to be the "moral light" of this world does well explain why it's such a cesspool of evil, inhumanity and generalized misery these days, and has been for so very long.

Let's examine his bullshit point-by-point, shall we?

First of all, addressing his assertion that Reuters' saying that "Irish Priests Beat, Raped Children" is a "wild and irresponsible claim": Reuters is probably the very last news agency on the planet that anyone can ever accuse of being "wild and irresponsible" in its claims. If anything, it's drawn controversy over the years for reportedly being too relaxed and mechanical in its reporting, even going so far as refusing to employ the word "terrorists" to designate religious or political extremists. So really, it's a safe bet that if Reuters designates a scandal as "Priests Beat, Raped Children", you can bet your ass it's just like it sounds – and quite possibly even worse.

Then, the disturbed crank tries to understate all the decades of abuse – how? By claiming that "fully 82 percent of the incidents took place before 1970". So, what – only the remaining 18% of the crimes against children reported in the last 39 years are worth mentioning? Anything that happened before the 70s is pretty much "ancient history" and shouldn't be known, much less frowned upon (or worse)? The fact that it's "old", excuses it from current, modern-day outrage and disgust?

I don't even see how anyone can use that pathetic, weaseling sort of excuse to try and "pardon" past offenses: the fact that they happened long ago is totally irrelevent. They happened, went unknown and unheard of for decades, and now are finally being exposed. That is all that matters. It takes true amorality – even immorality – to say that because something happened longer ago than most remember, "who cares?". It takes jackasses like Donahue.

It's also interesting how he then refers to the ritualized beatings, kickings and such as mere "corporeal punishment", and the victims as "miscreants". Yes, because screwing up the fabrication of a Rosary, or fooling around a little as it's normal and expected for children to do, always deserves a good kicking or two. It's only natural, right?

He then proceeds to belittle the graveness of "mild" (and I use the word grudgingly) forms of sexual abuse, such as forced kissing, voyeurism, and "inappropriate contact" and fondling. He claims these do not even constitute sexual abuse. Um, a lesson in logic, dumbass: they're an abuse of one's inherent right to privacy and intimacy regarding their own person and body, and constitute an abuse of a sexual manner or orientation. So, yes, it's perfectly-titled "sexual abuse". Go in the streets and plant a slobbery one on any young girl you pass, or grab their breasts or rears or other places, or such acts, and then tell me those do not constitute sexual abuse. But then, black-and-white idiots like Donahue only see rape as "sexual abuse"; anything less than that is irrelevent in their view. This lack of grey area in their sight is part of what makes them such filthy assholes to begin with.

That's far from all – next, the insensitive idiot starts to use statistics as an excuse! Apparently, "only" 12% of the cases were true rapes. You get that? "ONLY" 12%. Yes, I'm certain the dozens or hundreds of poor little girls who were molested and had their netherregions violated in all sorts of beastial ways, would be thriiiilled to learn they only made up 12% of all abuse charges.

And next, comes possibly the most disgusting sentence in his entire statement:

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.

I just had to blockquote that. Really, phrases like this one are the precise illustration of Catholic, general religious, and vile morality displayed by inhumane assholes like Donahue. So abuse is only abuse when it involves rape, or some other serious and/or violent physical assault? Being slapped around by those who are suppose to care for you, being in unheated buildings in a place that can get as cold as Ireland does, being starved of attention and affection from your guardians at such a young age when support and affection are precisely what you need above all other things, or even having some filthy peeping tom check you out while you're supposed to be at your most intimate – none of that matters to Donahue, evidently. As long as it's not rape or violent assault – "who cares?".

There is nothing in the reports that "demean the big victims" or "cheapen rape" in the slightest as this fucktard says. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse; its victims will suffer, and if their tormentors are part of the Irish Catholic Churches, they will apparently live old and safe, protected from prosecution by their dear Church, and even the Irish government to an extent (as it's agreed to cap lawsuit losses at just under $200 million). The only thing that demeans any of it, are the overzealous diatribes and tons of bullshit spun by the likes of Jackass Donahue and other Defenders of the Faith. They are the embodiment of the evils of religion in the truest sense of the words. It is a shame to imagine we belong to the same species. Same planet, or plane of reality, even.

Overall, not only does this egregious tripe downplay the suffering of those poor girls, but you'll notice how he's completely omitted the mention of the boys' abuse, which the reports state was much, much worse. But then, asking the likes of Bill Donahue to be honest is kinda like asking Richard Dawkins to turn Creationist, or Bush to become a good leader, or me to be polite and civil towards these sorts of blatantly inhumane jackasses. It's a scientific impossibility. It's just not gonna happen.

(via Pharyngula)


Post a Comment

You can post any sort of feedback or questions you like, just as long as you abide by the rules detailed in the About section. =)