Peter Tatchell has another post on the "Harrys Place" blog regarding the Pope's visit to Britain
"Why Should I Pay for the Pope"
http://hurryupharry.org/2010/09/09/why-should-i-pay-for-the-pope/
These are two of many actions by Pope Benedict that call into question his moral authority. He says women are unfit to be priests, childless couples should be denied fertility treatment, embryonic stem cell research is murder, using condoms to stop the spread of HIV is immoral and gay people are not entitled to equal human rights. Most shockingly, the Pope is accused of colluding with the cover up of child sex abuse by priests. Even today, he has not handed the Vatican’s sex abuse files to the police.
A few commentators (including myself) have pointed out that Peter Tatchell is a strange one to be denouncing the Pope's actions in relation to the paedophilia scandal:
Caged Horse 9 September 2010, 3:53 pm
How many times has PT called for a substantial reduction in the age of consent? Some might say him and Pope Benny are made for each other.
John P. 9 September 2010, 7:41 pm
I do agree with Christopher Hitchens that His Holiness should be served with a subpeonea for his role in the Church’s coverup
What coverup? Had there been such a coverup, then the pedophile problem would have never made the news, would it?
Benedict has only ( indirectly, by the way) been involved with a known pedophile cleric. That cleric was removed from his functions and subjected to a good deal of intense therapy. When that therapy ended, Benedict, thinking the guy was better, signed a letter reinstating him.
Afterwards that cleric recidivated.
How does that constitute a coverup?
I think The Church should approach the friggin’ therapist and ask for its money back.
Ivan 9 September 2010, 11:00 pm
Peter Thatchell, why bother arresting the Pope when in ten years, if fellows like yourself get their way the pedophile priests would be hailed as the avante-garde.
Just saying 9 September 2010, 11:31 pm
The idea that a self-obsessed pervert like Tatchell gives a toss for Holocaust victims any more than he does for the victims of child abuse is hard to believe. He is just an opportunistic hate-monger, a wanna-be Titus Oates. All Catholics should pray for his conversion.
http://dolphinarium.blogspot.com/2010/09/it-is-time-society-acknowledged-truth.html
Kilbarry1 10 September 2010, 4:09 am
@Ivan and Just saying
This is the text of Peter Tatchell’s letter to The Guardian dated 26 June 1997
ROS Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.
The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.
Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.
The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.
Peter Tatchell.
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/tatchell-reiterates-call-for-lower-age-of-consent/
Hanoi Paris Hilton 10 September 2010, 4:22 am
I vote for His Holiness to nominate Mr. Tatchell for fast track-beatitude and speedy sainthood. What could go wrong?
Ivan 10 September 2010, 5:38 am
Kilbarry thats my point, Tatchell thinks he is some kind of smarty pants, his agenda is too transparent for words. What’s the betting that he’ll care about the Holocaust, if ever Pope Benedict turns around and says that its OK to have active homosexuals in the clergy. We’ve all seen the Life or Nat Geographic articles where Stone Age numbskulls in Papua New Guinea battle each other to death, ending with the victors parading around with their dicks sheathed in bamboo. Perhaps following on his victory over the Pope, Tatchell could campaign for football hooligans to do the same.
M*o*r*g*y 10 September 2010, 12:59 pm
I see the unpleasant Legion of Mary brigades are out in force in the thread smearing Tatchell with unpleasant homophobic abuse.
what is it about theist morons and their fear of Teh Ghey?
Harry's Place actually rejected my reply to M*o*r*g*y but nevertheless, I think they published enough to cast doubts on Mr. Tatchell's credentials on this issue.
Kilbarry1 22:30 on 10 September 2010 – not accepted
@M*o*r*g*y
I see the unpleasant Legion of Mary brigades are out in force in the thread smearing Tatchell with unpleasant homophobic abuse.
I think Tatchell did a good job smearing himself in his 1997 letter to The Guardian. The kind of sick sexuality that he promoted/s(?) was popular in the 1960s and 70s but seemed to fade away afterwards. It was rather daring of Tatchell to support it openly in 1997 but I suppose he felt he was some sort of sacred (liberal) cow who could get away with anything. He wasn't far wrong either.
