Here's another, even more incredible example. I wonder if any FReepers we know are contributors?
Posted on 09/29/2009 1:21:51 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Jim Lindgren over at the legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy has excerpted a fascinating George Orwell essay from 1944 about what a morally depraved yet talented artist Salvador Dali is. It discusses how the fans of his art claim “a kind of benefit of clergy” where they exempt him from the moral laws that constrain ordinary people. Here’s the line that got me:
If Shakespeare returned to the earth to-morrow, and if it were found that his favourite recreation was raping little girls in railway carriages, we should not tell him to go ahead with it on the ground that he might write another King Lear.
Well, apparently Orwell didn’t consider Woody Allen, David Lynch and Martin Scorsese, three of the latest film luminaries, according to the Guardian, that have signed a petition calling for the release of talented director — and child rapist — Roman Polanski.
When I first learned of the arrest of Polanski — he’d been sought since 1978 after skipping town prior to sentencing for the rape of a 13-year-old girl — it didn’t occur to me that people would defend him. I mean, heck, we all like Chinatown but that doesn’t mean you get a Get Out of Jail Free card, does it?
Apparently it is. There’s this odd clip from The View where Whoopi Goldberg tries to explain that Polanski merely raped the girl, not “raped-raped” her. Because apparently giving a 13-year-old alcohol and Quaaludes and repeatedly refusing to comply with her demands that you stop orally, vaginally and anally raping her isn’t “rape-rape.”
Although most of the sympathy for Polanski is coming from Hollywood and the more liberal media elite, some of it is creeping into the mainstream media coverage. I don’t think everyone who rapes 13-year-old girls gets the “it’s such a complex situation” treatment that we’ve been seeing on, for instance, Good Morning America coverage. Or note this headline from the New York Times:
Question in Polanski Arrest: Why Now?
At the Washington Post, media critic Howard Kurtz says the headling “shows how Polanski advocates have gotten their spin into the mainstream news coverage.” Here’s a Washington Post Style piece explaining how Polanski is in a fighting mood, full of quotes from his high-profile defenders. And here’s the Los Angeles Times version that advances the view of some that the arrest reveals “America’s dark side.”
If you’re curious in what the opinion media is saying about Polanski’s arrest, here’s an absolutely devastating take in Salon, by Kate Harding. Anne Applebaum, a columnist for The Washington Post, takes the view that Polanski has suffered enough, losing his mother to a concentration camp and his wife to the Manson murderers. She neglected, however, to reveal that her husband is the Polish foreign minister pushing for his release.
Anyway, all this to say that there is an interesting religion angle here. Turns out that some people have noticed the discrepancy between how different sexual abusers are treated. In other words, if only Roman Catholic pedophiles could have been Roman Polanski pedophiles! Here’s Father Thomas Reese writing in the Washington Post’s On Faith section:
Imagine if the Knight of Columbus decided to give an award to a pedophile priest who had fled the country to avoid prison. The outcry would be universal. Victim groups would demand the award be withdrawn and that the organization apologize. Religion reporters would be on the case with the encouragement of their editors. Editorial writers and columnist would denounce the knights as another example of the insensitivity of the Catholic Church to sexual abuse.
And they would all be correct. And I would join them.
But why is there not similar outrage directed at the film industry for giving an award to Roman Polanski, who not only confessed to statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl but fled the country prior to sentencing? Why have film critics and the rest of the media ignored this case for 31 years? He even received an Academy award in 2003. Are the high priests of the entertainment industry immune to criticism?
The statute of limitations is apparently shorter for Polanski than it was for Elia Kazan, I guess. Some religion reporters are paying attention to the double standard. Here’s USA Today’s Cathy Lynn Grossman. U.S. News & World Report’s Dan Gilgoff cites Reese and others before writing:
But what is noteworthy about the Catholics speaking out against Polanski’s generally liberal apologists is that they are overwhelmingly liberal themselves… .
More conservative Catholic blogs have been relatively quiet about the Polanski arrest, at least so far. For the moment, the debate over how to treat Polanski is mostly a family feud among political allies: the left’s serious Catholics and its Tinseltown honchos.
I’m not sure it’s true that conservative Catholic blogs have been quiet about the arrest but will have to pay attention as I complete my tour of the Catholic blogosphere today.
And they would all be correct. And I would join them.
But why is there not similar outrage directed at the film industry for giving an award to Roman Polanski, who not only confessed to statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl but fled the country prior to sentencing? Why have film critics and the rest of the media ignored this case for 31 years? He even received an Academy award in 2003. Are the high priests of the entertainment industry immune to criticism?
Todays leftists give themselves moral exemption from everything from paying taxes, to child rape to drowning mistresses.
Fr. Reese is hardly the voice of Catholic orthodoxy. From Wikipedia:
“Fr. Reese resigned after seven years as the editor of America due to pressure from the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Over a period of five years, the congregation objected to various editorial decisions made by Reese concerning certain issues addressed in the magazine, notably priestly celibacy and the ordination of women. Following his resignation, Reese spent a year-long sabbatical at Santa Clara University before being named a fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center in Washington, D.C.”
OT: Prepare yourself for this one
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/stunner-community-organizers-pray-to.html
RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
Since the left does not hold itself accountable to any moral code (apart from "Thou shalt not drop a dime on Commies in the work place." see Kazan, Elia) let alone any code of sexual morality, Polanski's committed no crime.
Hollywood cries out "Leave him alone!"
A priest on the other hand is the living embodiment of all those "outdated" moral codes, especially the sexual ones, that have kept man down since, well, since The Beginning.
See RULE 4.
I hope they get Polanski back to the states and send him to Stateville, or Pelican Bay. Let the prison population exercise some real "justice".
Corrected omission: and the Priests were protected from law enforcement by their Bishops and, in a number of cases, by parents who sold their children out for 30 pieces of silver.
In this case I was referencing those that actually committed the heinous crimes. I don't doubt that there have been and will be those that make charges to try and get monetary rewards.
Thanks for providing a great example of what I posted about defending the perpetrators usually at the expense of the victims.
Here's another, even more incredible example. I wonder if any FReepers we know are contributors?
You think that’s a real organization?
I've often suspected it is, but based on outside references made to the site, or on content hosted on the site itself, I have to assume it is what it claims to be - a Catholic accusation against the abused. I'd love for someone to prove me wrong.
That's not the important thing here. The important thing is "Do you agree with it?"
That would be an unbelievable statement if I did not consider the source.
This is hard to believe. But then again as Whoopi Goldberg says "it's not rape-rape".
NO WAY!
As I posted before about Polanski the same should apply to any child abuser. Send them to Stateville, or Pelican Bay and let the prison population exercise some justice.
The proof is right in front of you: it is an obvious spoof.
The website owner, Frank Patterson, fancies himself some kind of satirist:
http://www.puppyprofits.com/index.html
I'd show you a link to his hilarious "childtrader.com" but it's not in operation now.
How about this: Is this satire?
How about this one:
Is that one real?
NO WAY!
Funny how you & I are the only ones who will say that, don't you think?
It's sad.
A RC poster once said defending my church is defending my faith. I think the poster was being candid. Time and again we see no matter how serious the sin, or error, RC's will defend it or minimize it by saying "see these others did it to". As a Born Again Christian I do not have a desire to defend my church no matter what. It's my relationship with Jesus Christ that is all important.
IOW, if I'm right with Jesus and not my church it's okay with me. My church does not control that relationship.
This difference in view point is probably the biggest reason there isn't any meaningful discussion with RC's about doctrine/dogma. When Born Again Christians criticize their church they view it as a criticism of their faith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.