I read the same report and thought to myself that the anonymous author is decidedly anti-Catholic. It had the same voice as the report that appeared in the Herald Sun 16 April which I criticised for its bias. Here are the passages I believed riled Mitchell to yet another wild unreflective comment about the Catholic Church.

THE Pope yesterday berated US bishops for their poor handling of the child sex scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church, but laid part of the blame on the breakdown of values in US society.

He told a gathering of bishops they had "sometimes very badly handled" the problem of pedophile priests.

But, rather than blame the church, he pointed to a breakdown in the values underpinning society. "What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today?" he said.

It is clear that the writer of the report already has a fixed view (like Mitchell) about the issues of clerical sexual abuse. Instead of considering whether the Pope had a point in alluding to the hypocrisy of those in our liberal democratic society who don't spare Catholic clergy for their sins but in context have nothing to say about a society in which child pornography is rampant, and have nothing to say about about a social climate in which there are hardly any limits to sexual behaviour, he has to summarily dismiss the point and accuse the Pope of evasion.

It is shocking for priests to abuse sexually (and it is), but let's forget secular society, its climate, and those who do the same thing, and worse to children. Let's forget about the fact that according one Dutch commentator Holland has become a paradise for child pornography. Let's forget that child pornography necessarily means the deliberate systematic sexual abuse of children. Let's forget that the internet broadcasts pictures of those abused children into homes around the world. We'll wring our hands, utter pious platitudes, deliver tirades, but not on your Nelly reflect on the attitudes that underwrite child pornography. Oh, no, not that. That would be too uncomfortable. Let's get Catholic priests, smear the great majority of priests who have nothing to do with the abuse, and funnel as much parish money as possible into pockets outside the Church.

The literature shows that the priests guilty of sexual abuse abandoned Catholic sexual morality and succumbed to the sexual revolution going on around them. While they were busy with their abuse, many in secular society were busy with date rape and other sexual impropriety. Teachers in schools and universities were interfering with students. There were academic writings defending and advancing the sexual revolution. I have a copy of an article from a university student paper whose aim was to justify paedophilia. There were other articles at the time, and groups agitating for the acceptance of paedophilia. Nobody wants to remember any of this. It's only the small number of Catholic priests that are the target, which is only to say they were not the only ones. Far from it.

I wonder how many of the sixties, seventies and eighties generations can look back with a clear conscience while they blast away at the slow moving target of the Catholic Church.

I agree completely with the Pope, as many would who don't have a million-dollar microphone in front of them. Mitchell was unsparing in his condemnation. Here's the core of his confused tirade:

The Pope still doesn't get it...He is somehow putting child abuse by priests on a level of the availability of pornography on the internet...but the difference with a priest is the massive abuse of trust...Priests have abused children for centuries, well before the internet, well before this accessible pornography he's talking about. To link the two is ridiculous. It looks and sounds like an attempt to underplay what the priest has done. Somehow he is blaming society for the atrocities of his own priests and the attempts by the Church to cover it up. As I said, it's not supposed to happen, but the Pope is wrong and he still doesn't get it.

If anybody doesn't get it, it's Neil Mitchell. He has not even understood the point the Pope was making and which I have tried to make above. The issue is not the internet. It is social attitudes and hypocrisy. And what's this about priests abusing children for centuries? Please, let's have a bit of background on this. And while Mitchell is at it, he might investigate child sexual abuse in general, and not just that by Catholic priests. If you listen to what the Pope has said he is certainly not blaming society for 'the atrocities' committed by a very small minority of priests. Going off half-cocked is easier and not so unsettling.

Mitchell once again has preached anti-Catholic bigotry to the faithful, some of whom will lap it up, relishing the confirmation that the Church is corrupt from top to bottom and that every priest should be suspected of being a paedophile.

He roped in media priest Fr Bob Maguire whom he described as his "spiritual adviser" - which for many would not be a great recommendation for the priest. Fr Maguire does not represent orthodox Catholics. Indeed, he succumbed long ago to the discredited views of liberal theologians whose views he regurgitates in a mishmash manner. His appearances in the media do great damage to the Church and serve mostly to advance the ignorant bigotry that already exists. His performance this time was particularly damaging.

Mitchell got the support he wanted from Fr Maguire who rambled on in a confused manner about the burden of clerical celibacy that bad people from above (the Popes) have imposed on an unwilling clergy. He appeared in the end to blame Pope Benedict for clerical sexual abuse. There is too much in Fr Maguire's ramblings to take up here. But let me deal with his views on clerical celibacy as an example of his cockeyed thinking.

His proposition, to be brief, is that clerical celibacy is responsible for the sexual abuse. This is not only simplistic, it is wrong. If he was right, then surely there would have been so much sexual abuse that the Church with its out of controlled clergy would have collapsed centuries ago. The percentage of priests who are guilty of sexual abuse over a fifty year period is at most four percent, and probably two percent. Most importantly research has shown the numbers are no greater than in comparable institutions. This is not to mention that many non-clerical people in society are celibate either by choice or situation, and have no trouble controlling themselves. Celibacy is not the cause of sexual abuse, clerical or non-clerical.

These facts are there in the literature. Why don't Mitchell and Fr Maguire know this? Why doesn't Mitchell take the time to research an issue that he is so passionate about? He really has no excuse not to know. He knows about my website and the criticism I have levelled at him in the past. He will know what I have written here. Again, I will provide links below for him to read.

Neil Mitchell, let's see if you can get the details right for once.

 

GOODBYE, GOOD MEN: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church, Michael S Rose, Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington, 2002

AMCHURCH COMES OUT: The US Bishops, Pedophile Scandals and the Homosexual Agenda, Paul Likoudis, Roman Catholic Faithful Inc, Petersburg, 2002

Sexual abuse allegations, real and unreal
A sobering analysis

Clerical sexual abuse in Catholic Church the lowest
Prelate at last speaks out about the media's bias in reporting sexual abuse cases

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'
Research purports to reveal 'dark side' of homosexual culture
Pedophilia and homosexuality

Sexual abuse in social context: Catholic Clergy and other professionals
The facts about sexual abuse among Catholic clergy