Dawkins: Mild Pedophilia Okay, But Catholic – No Way!

Dawkins_the_Dummy

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.

Dawkins has also taken a stab at Southerners, explicitly referring to a young earth/6 day Creation as “redneck creationism.” 

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.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Dawkins: Mild Pedophilia Okay, But Catholic – No Way!

  1. Jadestar says:

    Note: St. John Chrysostom, contrary to what you said, did NOT condemn pedophilia. If you actually read the passage, you’d observe that he is talking about pederasty.

    What is derided as “pedophilia” today has always been acceptable in Catholic tradition. Marriages during the Middle Ages often had brides of twelve or younger. God didn’t make them capable of having sex and bearing children by mistake, did he?

    • Fence says:

      Pederasty refers to relations between an adult male an adolescent male in Sodomite fashion. The context of the article, by Mr. Dawkin’s own admission, is one of pedophilia/pederasty. While primarily condemning Sodomy, St. John Chrysostom also inadvertently condemns relations between the adults and the under-aged. It seems you did not read the article yourself.
      I would also direct you toward Church Canon 1083.1:

      A man cannot validly enter marriage before the completion of his sixteenth year of age, nor a woman before the completion of her fourteenth year.

      And Canon 1089:

      No marriage can exist between a man and a woman who has been abducted, or at least detained, with a view to contracting a marriage with her, unless the woman, after she has been separated from her abductor and established in a safe and free place, chooses marriage of her own accord.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s