In Praise of the Hypocrisy of Paedophile Priests

The attitude of the BBC and the other ‘Liberal’ outlets to the ongoing saga of the Paedophile Priests has been as confused as it is comic - and biased.

Left-liberals such as those who control the BBC assume that people are naturally good and that anti-social behaviour arises because of social wrongs, ie people are essentially automatons which can be programmed by others. So paedophile priests are acting as they do because of some fault in their social environment, not because of inherent wickedness. If that is the case, why are they condemned? Ah, the condemnation is aimed at the Roman Catholic Church and its beliefs which are seen as a fault in the social environment.

Mohammed and his Child Bride

There is some justice in this attitude because the RC Church should by its own standards have done more in the past to weed out paedophile priests.  But the problem for left liberalism is this: On what does is it base its assumption that paedophile behaviour is wrong? After all this is an ideology which denies absolute right and wrong. All is relative, it says (except political correctness  for no defensible reason whatsoever, according to its own nihilism). What is right or wrong is up to the individual. Tolerance is the overriding ‘virtue’. So why should paedophilia in particular be condemned?

Mass Muslim Marriage in Gaza. Each couple was given $500 by Hamas.

After all, there have been plenty of cultures which have allowed it in the past: the ancient Greeks, for example tolerated, even encouraged sex between men and boys. There were no sexual hang-ups in Rome. Islamic societies have a relaxed attitude to paedophilia. The prophet Mohammed, the ‘perfect man’ himself married a 6-year old girl and had sex with her at the age of 9. A multicultural society based on cultural relativism cannot condemn paedophilia, even when the child does not consent.

Neo-Cons such as the Cameroons are slightly different. Although they believe that human beings can have tendencies to anti-social behaviour (’wickedness’) they assume that through social pressure ‘society’ will somehow iron out these difficulties and all will be well in the end. 'Society'  in the mass is thought to be good even if individuals aren’t. So paedophilia in priests is due to personal wickedness, but society can straighten it all out. 

Nietzsche

This too is nonsense. It is the assumption of 'Progressivism' which flies in the face of much of 20th Century history: the World Wars, Stalinism, Nazism, Mao, Pol Pot... It is simply taking (some of) the existing social norms, the rapidy diminishing inheritance of our Christian past and assuming that they are natural to society. As noted above, they aren’t necessarily. Nor can they be assumed or enforced in a secular society. Nietzsche remarked of the secularists that

‘They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality…In England, one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. We others hold otherwise. When one gives up Christianity, one pulls the right to Christian morality from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident’.

 But why Praise for Priestly Paedophile Hypocrites?

Because while left- liberalism, if it is to be true to itself, cannot condemn paedophile activity, and while neo-cons have no basis on which to condemn it, Roman Catholic priests do have a basis to condemn it; the teachings of Jesus, who said of child molesters that it would be better for them if a millstone were hung about their necks and they were drowned. Their morality is absolute.  And that is why the left is at such pains to attack and to try to undermine the Catholic Church, or at least to emasculate it like the Anglican Church. Its absolute moral standards stand in the way of the drive to the equality of moral relativism and multiculturalism. But to do this the left has to rely on the Christian morality it rejects as a standard by which to judge.

What is being put forward here is the argument that it is better to have standards of decency and to fall from them than to have no absolute standards at all (at root the left-liberal position) or to have standards that are simply rooted in nothing (the neo-con position ) and can and will simply be ignored if an individual who grasps or senses this  can get away with it (and more and more do).