Saturday, September 09, 2017

In which the pond refuses to divulge Polonius's many thought crimes ...


What a pointed and unjust juxtaposition.

There's that dreadful oscillating fan railing against the opinionistas ... and what you know, the wretched reptiles have chosen to bring Polonius out of the darkness and onto the front digital page ...only to have his reputation as an opinionista of the first water besmirched, defamed and defiled ... by being put beneath the useless opinions of a bloody oscillating fan ...

Even worse, just as the oscillating fan predicted, it seems more than likely that Polonius will be tending to peddle his Catholic prejudices as irrefutable fact ...


Yep, it's not 'won't someone think of the children', it's 'won't someone think of the suffering of the institutional Catholic church and its desire to be a law unto itself,' and how to dress this up as talk of religious freedom ...

Now think of an Islamic preacher who decided that he wouldn't or shouldn't dob in a terrorist planning a terrible act of terror ... or any other form of criminal activity... and pleaded that a strange injunction in his religion forbad the dobbing.

Imagine the gentle tolerance with which the reptiles of Oz would excuse the Islamic preacher, forgive him and say "that's fine and dandy Islamic preacher, we understand that asking you to dob would be a terrible thing, go about your fundamentalist business and if a few people suffer from the criminal activity you failed to mention or report, why that's your business and nothing to do with us ..."

And naturally what's good enough for an Islamic preacher in terror-related matters is surely good enough for a Catholic pedophile ...


Note the way that Polonius confidently asserts that the church is now cleansed ... in much the same way as your average Russian official will tell you there are no gays in Chechya ...

It's all deep in the past, and best forgiven and forgotten, and besides, have you noted how wicked the Uniting Church has been ... and how unfairly they focussed on the Catholic church ...

Perhaps a little pre-emptively, it might be noted that others have spoken on this matter.

The sneering secularists who litter that socialist haven that once used to lurk by the Yarra, L'Age, wrote an editorial, in full here:

It is understandable that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Australia is resistant to the recommendation by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that priests be legally compelled to report to police information received via the confessional. But the church's hostility is not reasonable, and legislators should implement this and other recommendations in the commission's Criminal Justice Report, one of the publications flowing from the four-year investigation. 
Transgression of the centuries-old seal of the confessional (the duty of priests to never divulge what penitents have confessed) is penalised with automatic excommunication. The commission has heard evidence of the misuse of the confessional. Priests guilty of serial child rape have used it to seek absolution before repeating their crime. Predatory paedophile priests have used it to groom victims. The commission concludes: "The report recommends there be no exemption, excuse, protection or privilege from the offence granted to clergy for failing to report information disclosed in connection with a religious confession."

Now as an aside it should be noted that the Seal of the Confession is a late-breaking device, and the earliest reference that the Catholic encyclopaedia can cite is c. 1151, which the Greg Hunters shamelessly stole when they wrote the wiki listing here ...

The L'Age editorialist couldn't see any excuse for maintaining the early medieval mumbo jumbo, which like much in the Catholic religion, has no foundation in the bible or in the words of Christ ...


Ah, the old 'won't someone think of the children' defence, or in the case of terrorists, 'won't someone think of the victims' ...

But being deeply conservative and somewhat evangelical, the pond prefers a theological reference, and since the King James version uses exotic language, the pond will break with tradition, so that the NIV can make clear the import of Romans 13:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Now the notion of Malware being a servant of god is a stretch for the pond - She really is a naughty deity - but it's hard to argue against when he's so clearly been an agent of wrath in relation to broadband in Australia.

And, the pond humbly suggests, the subtext in Romans is that if you discover a terrorist in your midst, give him or her up as a crim, and if a pedophile, think of the children and dob him or her in ...

In truth, your average Islamic preacher is encouraged to think this way, and not run cover when confronted by fundamentalists or perverts ...

But it wouldn't be the Catholic church if it didn't think it was exceptional and above the law and with the only real authority residing in that whore of Babylon, Rome ...

Forget that part of the Matthew 22:21 routine about rendering unto Caesar ...(Greg Hunt it here), which also turned up in Mark (Greg Hunt it here):

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” 
 But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” And they were amazed at him.

For the sake of clarity, the pond is merely suggesting that people give unto Malware what Malware deserves ... a vote for almost anyone else ...

No doubt it would be amazing to hear Polonius's thoughts on these biblical suggestions, but as everyone ever involved with Catholicism would appreciate, the thoughts of Jesus always run second, third, or last to the demands of the institution ...

The Catholic church has always been a law unto itself - it helps explain why so many sinners congregate within it - so let us see, in light of all this, how Polonius does his best for the institution ...



Now the pond is vastly relieved that everything is fine and everyone has heeded the injunction to sin no more, but it should be noted that not everyone shares Polonius's views on the subject, or on McArdle ...

Why the reptiles of Oz even published a piece by Chrissie Foster, which inter alia said:




The rest of the piece can be googled ...

Now it has to be said that the suggestion that Polonius be allowed to accompany McArdle to jail at first shocked the pond, ...

On reflection Polonius could still scribble his humbug and tosh from prison, and no doubt the authorities would be pleased to have one of their inmates perform useful community service ... excusing sinners as they go about their business of sinning, and excusing preachers of any stripe or conviction of the obligation to dob them in ...

What's that you ask, Islamic preacher? You have direct knowledge of a dire bunch of terrorists with plans to inflict a goodly number of casualties? Should you dob them in?

Of course not. Absolutely not. Think of them as you would think of sinners molesting children.

Go in peace and silence ... and remember Christ's famous biblical injunction ... pay your taxes if you must (can't you get a good accountant?) but whatever you do, don't ever be a dobber ...

And now, while on the matter of fixed and closed minds, a cartoon for Polonius ...




6 comments:

  1. Polonius Prattles: "It remains to be seen whether legislation to introduce same-sex marriage in Australia would have an adverse effect on religious freedom."

    Well a few days ago FD responded to the mind boggling thought that schoolboys might be told that they could wear a dress to school with a resounding WGAF - or words to that effect ( https://www.internetslang.com/WGAF-meaning-definition.asp ).

    And I'd like to just echo that response in respect of Prattling P's disingenuous inquiry: WGAF !

    As to "The plight of institutions that continue to teach that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ..." well what about institutions that continue to teach that there is no such thing as 'civil divorce' even though it was institutionalised in England by the 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act - which by default applied to the Australian colonies (and in Australia later widened by 'no fault' divorce in June 1975 - Thanks Gough). Does the Catholic Church still have an unchallenged right to teach that there is no such thing as 'civil divorce' ? Or in fact no such thing as divorce at all, only sacramental annulment.

    Has there ever been any problem at all with teaching the 'no divorce' line ? If not, then why not ? Can catholic wedding cake makers in Australia refuse to bake cakes for people who marry again after a civil divorce ? If not, why not ? Why aren't they screaming about this 'loss of religious freedom' ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Polonius' piece was extremely dishonest, even by his high standards. He first used analogy to link the supposed attack by Royal Commission on religious freedom with the same-sex marriage debate. (The notion that marriage reform will impinge on religious freedom is itself a dishonest claim peddled by champions of truthfulness such as Abbott. This gets Polonius double points). He then misused statistics, comparing the higher rate of abuse in the Uniting Church with the greater amount of time spent by the commission on the Catholics (which resulted from the greater number of cases). As you point out, Dot he also used one anecdotal report that abusers don't confess to claim that abusers never confess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whereas in fact many 'abusers' confessed many times and copped a painful penance of "go home and pray". Which some claim to have actually done. Many hundreds of times.

      "Father Michael McArdle was reportedly so distressed by his acts of child sexual abuse in Queensland that he would often seek the succour of the confessional. Over a 25-year period, before he was convicted in 2002, he confessed to sexually assaulting children an estimated 1500 times to 30 different priests. In keeping with Catholic tradition in Australia, the priests did not report his crimes to authorities, but moved him on to different parishes, to greener pastures."
      http://www.smh.com.au/comment/sexual-abuse-catholic-priests-must-confess-to-regain-our-shaken-faith-20170818-gxz0ln.html

      Notwithstanding, may I recommend alternatives to "truthfulness", Anony ? Firstly, there's Colbert's "truthiness" covering the process of taking in heaps of bullshit, and then there's 'truthful accuracy" for how bullshit is stated to successfully mislead.

      Delete
  3. It's a little off topic, but the Helen Lovejoy defence reminded me of something I've been musing on lately.

    We've heard a lot about how "traditional" marriage is a union with "the possibility of children", and providing a stable environment for raising them, and how the kiddies do better with two biological parents on the scene, yada yada yada...

    If, as claimed by the Noers, "traditional" marriage is about the children, you'd expect traditional marriage rites would say plenty to say about that. So I looked at the text of the Catholic marriage, and found how many references to children? Less than one. There is one line in the preface referencing children, but there is a note that that can be deleted if the bride and groom want to. So, one optional extra.

    So the Anglican's must be all over it, right? No. Their service has that same optional preface, and one reference in the closing, but really as a metaphor. There is a prayer for a long and happy life together which, again optionally, may include "see their children grow in body, mind and spirit." And that's it. Children are as important in the marriage service as the couple's neighbours. Just for comparison the word "love" is used 30 times.

    So, since traditional marriage rites lack any meaningful reference to children, it seems to me that someone in this discussion is indeed trying to redefine traditional marriage, but it ain't "teh gays". Seems that the proper rebuttal here is not "what about older couples or infertile couples" or whatever, but simply, "bullshit."

    Sorry, I realise that's too factoidy for the reptiles...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but did the marriage vows include a promise to "love, honour and obey" by the bride ? Or has marriage, in fact, already been unilaterally altered from it's universally accepted form ? Who authorised such a radical change ?

      BTW, the bride's traditional declaration: aisle, altar, hymn

      Delete
  4. "obey" is still in one of the rites (don't remember which, can't be bothered looking it up). But like children, it's an optional extra, if the bride wants it.

    I suppose there are some who feel validated by their "complementary" role and are happy to keep it in.

    ReplyDelete

Comments older than two days are moderated and there will be a delay in publishing them.