This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Gay outrage over Cardinal's child abuse comment

Gay outrage over Cardinal's child abuse comment - Comments

Degsy's Avatar Comment 1 by Degsy

This is beginning to amaze me. It is tantamount to vast swathes of the population losing the ability to judge correctly. At present it appears if being baffled by this is enough. Call it like it is. At various stages of his career and ascendency to the position he now occupies, Ratzinger was complicit in the deliberate cover-up of crimes committed by those in the priesthood against vulnerable children. We are talking about the rape and torture of children. Enough said. Homosexuality has nothing to do with this.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:14:00 UTC | #459284

phasmagigas's Avatar Comment 2 by phasmagigas

funny how the pro CC comments in this link are invariably composed of entirely false arguments, ive yet to hear a single anti gay point that isnt entirely flawed.

eg: there is a connection between paedophilia and homosexuality: they are both perversions.

sometimes i do consider the validity of my own points of view but when the opposition is singularly (totally) composed of flawed reasoning and ignorance i know that my position is pretty solid. Not surprising that those against are always religious and always incapable of recognising the flaws in their own arguments.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:19:00 UTC | #459286

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 3 by aquilacane

As bogus as the Cardinal's claims are, were they even true the simple response is still:

Rat-Zinger covered up the rape and torture of children. Straight, gay, indifferent, this is still a crime.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:29:00 UTC | #459292

ianwhitehead's Avatar Comment 4 by ianwhitehead

What next, we are all guilty because of original sin?

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:48:00 UTC | #459296

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 5 by God fearing Atheist

Isn't the hole deep enough yet? Why do you fools keep digging it?

Dawkins and Hitchens already plan to bury you in it, don't you think you need to be sensible now, say you are very sorry, hand over the records to the polce, pay the trillions in damages with good grace, serve your gaol time, and when it is all over you might have something of your sick organisation left to try to rebuild some good will.

Na, keep digging twats, I want see a "collapse of the Berlin wall" in Rome.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:25:00 UTC | #459313

DeusExNihilum's Avatar Comment 6 by DeusExNihilum

Why is their "Apology" being accepted (such as in Ireland)? Why is that not scoffed at just as the Pope has scoffed at these allegations?

Would this tactic work for ANY other institution or person on earth?

"Yeah I fucked your bad!"

Of course not, yet the Pope gets to do that from his seat of power and opulent wealth and for some mind blowing reason there are swathes of people who are just TAKING it?!


And yeah, i'd like to see him back up his claims about homosexuality and paedophilia.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:28:00 UTC | #459314

walthecat's Avatar Comment 7 by walthecat

Ok, maybe it's shooting fish in a barrel, but I think the Daily Mash have summed this latest despicable act from the RCC rather well:,-say-experts-201004142638/

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:31:00 UTC | #459316

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 8 by SaganTheCat


And yeah, i'd like to see him back up his claims about homosexuality and paedophilia.

note the red herring:

"Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia

assuming the world is demanding an end to celibacy

followed by:

but many others have demonstrated,

(ooh good some evidence...)

I was told recently,

(what! rewind! told by who£ at least if you must appeal to authority you could chuck in an authority to appeal to)

that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia,"

thus ends the quote with the bit you need to know (assertion) at the end

No point in providing statistical evidence though, you can prove anything with numbers. They'll be saying theres a correlation between peadophillia and the priesthood next

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:44:00 UTC | #459327

Dark Matter's Avatar Comment 9 by Dark Matter


"What next, we are all guilty because of original sin?"

Indeed. So far they have blamed the victims:

They blamed Jews last week:

And now Gays this week.

I can only imagine that next week, they'll blame unmarried couples and at this rate they'll soon be blaming Condoms.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:53:00 UTC | #459334

SeculR's Avatar Comment 10 by SeculR

“Does the cardinal's comments carry any weight?”

Yes, about the same weight and stench as a pile of horse excrement. This man is outrageous in his pathetic attempt to lay the blame off onto homosexuality. The RCC has both literally and metaphorically been caught with its pants down and it doesn’t know what to do. Its PR machine is way below standard. They’re in enough trouble as it is, without trying to dodge the issue by blaming any group about which it collectively harbours an irrational phobia.

They must come to terms with reality and go public with all the documentation and offer up the child rapists within their midst and those complicit in the cover up. If they don’t, I think they will find it a whole lot worse, because this one is not going to go away. Better to volunteer for proper justice, rather than have it forced upon them.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:57:00 UTC | #459337

Rosbif's Avatar Comment 11 by Rosbif

Comment #479968 by Dark Matter

and if they can just add the blacks, terrorists, communism, Japanese cars, and the anti-gun lobby to the list of those at fault, they'll alienate everyone who's not a true Mrrcan.

3 separate conversations with catholics so far. Each used the exact same phrase at some point:

"but you can't blame the church for this"

and it seems they can accept the blame of everyone but the church. AAAAAAaaaaaaggggggghhhhhhh!!!

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:15:00 UTC | #459355

DeusExNihilum's Avatar Comment 12 by DeusExNihilum

@ CaptainMandate

You are quite right on all fronts, that statement of his made me roll my eyes a number of times, i thought they might roll out of my skull. But what I meant by "Backing up his claim" was something along the lines of "Show me studies, show me these "Psychologists/psychiatrists" (SP?). I want names, I want Data, not "He said, she said" lol

But i'm sure he's far too used to simply saying whatever he likes, attaching an authority, and people instantly accepting it without question..

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:07:00 UTC | #459387

HardNosedSkeptic's Avatar Comment 13 by HardNosedSkeptic

They'll be blaming atheists next. They'll say the priests who've been raping children are all secret atheists.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:36:00 UTC | #459396

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 14 by Diacanu

HardNosedSkeptic- gotta figure no one who TRULY thought Hell was under their feet would be fucking boys with impunity.

But, then that makes Joey Ratz an atheist too, because no one who TRULY thought Hell was under their feet would PROTECT boy fuckers.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:38:00 UTC | #459398

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 15 by Cartomancer

Needless to say I too find this cardinal's outburst disgusting beyond measure, and eagerly await the production of the scientific evidence he apparently has linking homosexuality with paedophilia. Or perhaps he's just quoting the bigoted, homophobic personal opinions of catholic psychiatrists? Surely not...

But, actually, my disgust goes further than this. Most people, thankfully, don't believe a word of his claptrap and call for him to actually produce his evidence. But it's the underlying assumption that homosexual individuals should have to justify themselves as not being paedophiles which I find most offensive.

Imagine what would happen if some religious figure came out and said that heterosexuality and paedophilia were linked, following one of the many cases of paedophile abuse by male clergy against girls (which actually form by far the majority of such cases worldwide). Would any catholic figure try this, and in so doing attempt to pin the blame on pretty much everybody? I sincerely doubt it, but such a thing is not beyond plausibility, given the damning condemnations of all sexual activity that have been penned by religious, especially christian, authors throughout the ages. Well, it's a slippery slope, isn't it? As soon as we condone sex of any kind, we set ourselves on a dangerous road and implicitly open the doors to condoning child rape. All sexual desires must therefore be suppressed, and celibacy is the ideal. Which, incidentally, the catholic church has condoned for centuries. See, haven't we been the moral ones all along? eh?

Were such a thing to happen, would 90-95% of the population then presume they had to provide evidence that they didn't in fact want to molest children? Of course not. The point is that because homosexuals are and always will be a visible minority group within society, people like this cardinal feel they are able to pick on us, even if they don't feel able to pick on the vast majority like they used to.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:55:00 UTC | #459406

Rodger T's Avatar Comment 16 by Rodger T

Its the supernatural that just aint natural.

It is fucking amazing how many of these idiots think that the churches paedophilia issue will just go away if they allowed priests to marry.

These scumbags molest kids because they are paedophiles not because they are unmarried.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:00:00 UTC | #459408

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 17 by Diacanu

Rodger T-

Lemme tell ya, I've gone without ladies for a good goddamned long time, and not once have I thirsted for the flesh of kids.
Not for a femptosecond.
Hasn't happened.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:03:00 UTC | #459410

prettygoodformonkeys's Avatar Comment 18 by prettygoodformonkeys

These guys become priests because they are pedos. They know (knew?) that the priesthood would protect them.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:10:00 UTC | #459413

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 19 by crookedshoes

I cannot seem to bring myself to care about what any two grown ups do with or to one another. I just couldn't care less. I mean, I do not remember the first day my eyes followed a females ass and I thought "nice" rather than "yuck girls have cooties". But if it had been a male's ass that I was looking at, instead of a females, would I be different than I am today? Should I judge everyone around me based on their integrity, honor, intellect, contribution to my world; or should I judge them on which ass made them think "nice"? I do not have the time or ambition to care about who you like.
Having said that; I do care very much about the systemic rape and torture of CHILDREN. I do not care about any correlation/causation with sexuality. I care about the reality that THESE PEOPLE HURT KIDS. Who did? Homosexuals? NO not homosexuals. Heterosexuals? NO not heterosexuals. HIM. RIGHT THERE, HE DID IT. The one who did it is the one I want strung up. GET the guilty ones and ensure it never happens at their hands again.
What if ten more pedophiles are caucasion than hispanic? Indict all caucasions? No. Go after the ONES WHO DID IT.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:18:00 UTC | #459414

forksmuggler's Avatar Comment 20 by forksmuggler

While I don't think celibacy causes someone to lust after kids--I think that's ridiculous, actually--perhaps a pedophile would be attracted to an institution like the priesthood because of the celibacy requirement in the hopes that they would not act on their urges. Seems to me a plausible explanation as to why these abuses are so widespread.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:33:00 UTC | #459416

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 21 by Diacanu


Well said.

As I said in another thread, if these guys really were gay, then why not just have sex with each other?

No one would bat an eye at that.

No one rational, anyway.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:34:00 UTC | #459419

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 22 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Comment #479950 by walthecat

Arrghh....You beat me to it. Superb link - funny and to the point.

On a different note, this thoughtful piece is well worth ploughing through in terms of refuting Cardinal Bell-End-For-Brains "argument":,002.htm

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:46:00 UTC | #459425

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 23 by Diacanu

D'oh, should've read walthecat's link before spouting off.

That'll teach me.

No it won't...

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:52:00 UTC | #459427

Stonyground's Avatar Comment 24 by Stonyground

Crookedshoes, you are right on the nail there but in this case I think that you are missing the point. The RCC are coming out with this stuff as a smokescreen in a pathetic attempt to deflect blame from themselves. Is there anyone left in the world that they have not singled out and tried to pin it on? The gays are just the latest target.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 17:56:00 UTC | #459429

Ivan The Not So Bad's Avatar Comment 25 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Elsewhere, in vaguely related news, Mike Huckabee spouts more utter madness from the perspective of the Southern Baptist branch of Christianity:

"Children are not puppies".

You couldn't make it up.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:05:00 UTC | #459434

evotruth's Avatar Comment 27 by evotruth

Comment #480051 by forksmuggler

While I don't think celibacy causes someone to lust after kids--I think that's ridiculous, actually--perhaps a pedophile would be attracted to an institution like the priesthood because of the celibacy requirement in the hopes that they would not act on their urges. Seems to me a plausible explanation as to why these abuses are so widespread.

It's a cycle of abuse! It's inevitable that a large amount of victims will become peadaphiles themselves. Like a priest will indoctrinate an Atheist child into their faith, they will indoctrinate them into peadaphilia too... This will only stop when priests are rightly viewed to be mentally ill and not fit enough to be in the company of children!

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:07:00 UTC | #459436

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 26 by crookedshoes

It is you that is right on. The logical next paragraph in my rant would have lead me (I hope) to make the point that you illustrate. The smokescreen is as pathetic as the crime it is covering up. And the attempted diversion is nothing short of damnable.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:07:00 UTC | #459435

squinky's Avatar Comment 28 by squinky

Vile words just keep spewing from the mouths of Catholic clergy like demonic projectile vomit in The Exorcist. Looks like the Vatican's chief exorcist, Father Amorth, was right when he said: "The Devil resides in the Vatican and you can see the consequences"

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:07:00 UTC | #459437

DamnDirtyApe's Avatar Comment 29 by DamnDirtyApe

I believe Al Pacino puts the type of defence the church is taking into context.

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:37:00 UTC | #459455

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 30 by Tyler Durden

25. Comment #480071 by Ivan The Not So Bad

Mike Huckabee on gay adoption:

"You don't go ahead and accomodate every behavioural pattern that is against the ideal. I mean that would be like saying well there are a lot of people who like to use drugs so let's go ahead and accomodate those who use drugs.

There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accomodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, we should accomodate
them. Where do we stop?

You know, children are not puppies. This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?" - Mike Huckabee

"against the ideal" - whatever does he mean?

Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:39:00 UTC | #459458