Richard Dawkins, famed author of “The God Delusion” and proclaimed modern-day Darwin, has recently caused a bit of an uproar. In an interview with The Times, he stated that he couldn’t condemn what he termed ‘mild pedophilia.’
I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today.
Dawkins also related that he was victim to a pedophile at the age of 11, but that it gave him “no lasting harm,” and as such shouldn’t be subject to revulsion or condemnation.
Dawkin’s assertion is that of a modernist. Morality “evolves” over time, so one generation cannot judge the previous by their lack of ethics. This is pure fancy. Man has always recognized, to a large degree through Natural Law, that certain things are an affront to mankind. “Caning,” or the act of beating someone with a cane, rod, and possibly a switch or paddle, is not on the same level as pedophilia. St. John Chrysostom states that pedophilia is a crime which “openly outrage(s) nature.”
Mr. Dawkins, whether acknowledging or not, had a brush with a Sodomite. This person, as is the unfortunate case with the abuses within the Church, was a man not merely a pedophile, but a Sodomite as well. Does this mean all Sodomites are pedophiles, or that all pedophiles are Sodomites? No, but the link between the two definitely exists. In fact, pedophile advocates have likened their “civil rights” campaign to that of the Sodomy movement.
While defending ‘mild pedophilia’ of the past, Dawkins has been less-than-charitable in his regard of Catholics. He states that being sexually abused is better than being a Catholic:
Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.
He also called upon for Pope Benedict to be arrested under pedophile charges (crimes against humanity) when he journeyed to England in 2010:
Even if the Pope doesn’t end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn’t cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope’s visit…
Mr. Dawkins also displayed his ignorance and contempt for the discipline of Priestly celibacy and the Holy Office of the Papacy:
I feel sorry for the Pope and all old Catholic priests. Imagine having a wasted life to look back on and no sex
But Dawkins showed his worst colours when speaking at an atheist rally. Bringing up the subject of the Holy Eucharist, he vilely stated:
Do you really believe that when a priest blesses a wafer, it turns into the body of Christ? Are you seriously telling me you believe that? Are you seriously saying that wine turns into blood? Mock them, ridicule them in public, don’t fall for the convention that we’re far to polite to talk about religion. Religion is not off the table. Religion is not off limits. Religion makes specific claims about the universe, which need to be substantiated. They should be challenged and ridiculed with contempt.
He did have a gold nugget of truth hidden in one ramble:
If they (laity) don’t believe in transubstantiation then they are not Roman Catholics
Too bad he doesn’t tell Nancy Pelosi that.