Catholic Priests and Little Boys

Be honest. What was the first thing you thought when you read the title?

Sodomy? Buggery? Rape? Sexual repression?

Now ask yourself why you thought that and to what degree you think it understandable.

Did anyone think anything different? What on earth would that be? 

Who would disagree that when a person on the planet hears the term "Catholic Priest" their mind is quickly and easily drawn to the sodomy of young boys?

This product of a mental process is not a statement, so it will be difficult for anyone to argue for or against; it can't be refuted, as it claims nothing. The fact that when we hear about Catholic Priests in the news, we next receive the thought that the issue has to do with a claim by a man that was raped, is not a logical conclusion derived from deductive reasoning. It is not empirically verifiable, because it is not a construct that propounds to say anything about nature. It occurs too quickly to be reasoned.

Therefore, the mental process of identifying Priests with sodomy of boys cannot be a conclusion derived by inductive reasoning: eg. the sun came up every morning until now, therefore it will come up tomorrow. It may appear as a causal relation, but this is not itself a rational conclusion. All you intuitively know is that there is something connecting the two things.

The problem with not being reasonable,is that there is no proposition, no sentence making a claim from which we can proceed to analyse, criticise, propound or refute. It's just an instant, automatic association between two data; but why is it also accompanied by a strong mental feeling about something in the world, so that we would treat it as we would a solid fact?

This status alone, of thinking that Priests and sodomy go together, would provide one with a weak reason to develop the process further into a proper argument, if it wasn't for one thing. It is more than a feeling. It is more than a mental thing, a thought. It comes with a powerful kind of understanding that rivals reasoning. It is supported by our understanding of ourselves, humanity, language and logic.

More than a strong feeling of association or causal relation, this strange kind of non-rational understanding makes sense to us. It makes sense to us because of the tools of reason we already have developed over a life-time, which apply themselves to the feeling as Kant's categories apply themselves to phenomena. Those tools are rational arguments we have developed from watching and learning about human nature, society and also our language and logic use/misuse.

The addition of how we understand humanity strengthens our faith in the feeling that there is a  relation, possibly causal, between Catholic Priests and sodomy or any sexual intereference with little kids. That is because some of us know empirically how repressing sexual urges affects us. Many of us have experienced long periods of compulsory abstinence from sexual relations. We know how it feels, what it does to us, how it stretches our ability to cope and changes our perception of reality and even our morality. For some, it is too much to handle, and any thing with a hole in it will do.

Rape has nothing to do with power. To rape, you need an erection, which is derived by the anticipation, real or imagined, of impending sexual intercourse. Rape is about getting your rocks off. The power is a secondary bonus. It is also a necessary ingredient for rape. It is logically entailed that you be more powerful than your subject to rape them. Your prey must be weaker than you, or else you won't get off with them. Little boys and women are generally weaker than your average rapist: an adult male.

Therefore, Priests don't rape and fiddle with boys because it makes them feel powerful. If so, why don't they pay equal attention to adult clergy and support staff or parishioners? Because these are adults who can't be threatened from going to the police or fighting back.


Priests rape little boys because they need to get off really badly and little boys are easy to threaten and get your way with. They'll keep quiet. Their prey is often very impressionable, vulnerable, isolated, weak, the perfect target.

Now, why do Priests need to get off so badly? That is the real question. Answer that and you are half way to a solution or at least a proper explanation.

Priests need to get off really badly because they are sexually repressed, because the Church forbids them from arguably the most powerful of urges, sexual satisfaction. Priests are forbade to engage in anything sexual: whether sexual relations, self-gratification, marriage, intimacy with others, the whole shabang.

It is as simple as that.

Without reasoning, we all say to ourselves, "That explains the vast numbers of incidents displayed in the media every week". Imagine how many go unreported.

Solution: keep the vulnerable and weak away from the sexually excited or sexually repressed and powerful.

A maternity nurse once told me that my child was crying for just one of five reasons. She said the needs of a baby are simple. They just wan't the basics in life: sustanance, physical comfort, reassurance, warmth and maternal contact (mum's love).

Adult males are the same. Their needs have evolved, but are still few in number and fundamentally simple: sex, power, love, comfort, survival, pleasure. Take any one of these away and you are playing with fire. Take the most powerful one away and you are playing with fire and dowsed in petrol.

There's Politics and there's politics

Who cares about leadership challenges and internal divisions within the Labor Party on the high office of Prime Minister, the re-organisation of the Cabinet?

Who gives a shit about processes and bureaucratic mechanisms?

Who gives a toss about the personalities of Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott?

Who does? The Media does.

In fact what the recent debacle in Canberra has really revealed to us

bystanders (the voting public) is that the Media and Politicians have one thing in common that is at the forefront of their priorities:

politics, not Politics.


 

 Kevin Rudd was stabbed in the back by his own Cabinet team, his own Deputy, and his own political party, and voted out of the Prime Minstership of Australia. His former Deputy, Julia Gillard, then gave him the job of Foreign Minister. 18 months later he resigned from that job (a week ago) and challenged Julia Gillard for the top job of Prime Minister, and lost. However, he was this time supported by almost a third of this own party. Now the Opposition is pointing out to us all the clear division in the Labor Party and what this dissenting third means against Julia.

Now that I know all that, am I better off?

How has this development directly affected you as an Australian citizen?

Both the Media and our democratically elected Politicians have recently had nothing on their minds of more concern than who gets what job, who did what to whom, who's undermining whom, is he/she/it coming back to his old job.

WHO CARES!

Who cares except flacid-minded morons who watch daytime soap operas.

Not a single journalist has ever asked a politician why we have this kind of Government. Why do we have a Prime Minister, a Cabinet of Ministers and Political Parties when none of these are even mentioned in the Australian Constitution (a document that clearly sets out the purpose and composition of the Federal Parliament).

Not a single journalist is asking Politicians how they represent the needs of their electorate when this competes against the priorities of their political party.

No one is talking about how well the act of Government is working in this country. Is the Party system even democratic? Isn't 'representational democracy' an oxymoron? Saddam Hussein claimed to represent his own people. Yes we get to vote them out - but are we getting another one back in?

You could argue there are two dictators ruling Australia in turns: the Labor party and the Liberal-National Coalition.

Let's remember why we're all paying for this shit. Politicians only exist because of us. We vote them in, so that they can represent us, our needs, in Parliament: to consider what we want before they vote on legislation and agree on a policy. Our elected representatives don't actually do that. Instead they represent their own political Party, not us. If an MP's electorate wants a National Curriculum of Education but their Party doesn't, then they vote against it.



Parliament is instead all about representing the Party, then Business, then Lobbyists, and then powerful individuals, and finally, not us.

Does the Media question Politicians on these issues? Do they even discuss the issues amongst themselves? No.

The Media has an agenda, and like a political party, its bottom line is not the same as ours.

Instead of turning the news on and hearing yet another bland boilerplate statement, another string of dead slogans and empty cliches, from Government about how it administrates its boring internal processes, and then the broken record of the Opposition's response "this is just another sign of a failing Government" we should be hearing something completely different.

We should be hearing journalists asking politicians exactly how every single thing they do is only to govern us in order to make our lives better, easier, and safer or whatever the fuck we want them to do and only that. Many of us died for this country, supporting our government to keep our happiness and well-being secure. Politicians should keep this in mind. We don't care which automoton gets into what job. We care about the job being done properly. Just get on and do it.

We should be hearing politicians justify to us why they should stay in Parliament, how they are representing us and no one else.

We should be hearing the Opposition (or preferably any individual opposing voice) not just robotically negating every single thing the Government does, but detailing exactly how they would deal with the issue. Instead of only disagreeing with a policy, offering an alternative. Or explaining why they disagree.

You could argue against me that all this "politics" is exceptionally important, even critical, to good government. My counter-point is that it is not even being discussed.

 

No one is talking about the link between politics and Politics. Not a single freakin' person is talking about the importance to government of "politics". Just like none of the articles in Woman's Day talk about the importance of these articles to Woman's Day readers. It is taken for granted that the articles are strategically good, because people keep buying the damn magazine. But our government doesn't have any such, immediately responsive feedback system. We vote every three years and that's it.

So why the hell do the Media and Politicians report to us with nothing but bland, robotic, vendor machine, soap opera drama, appealing to our ignorance and our childish naivety?

Why?

Because they both think we're all a pack of idiot morons.

Are we?