You Can Take Your Hypocritical Movie Grandstanding And Shove It

I am told, hectored, really,  that there's some new movie set in middle America in which a character makes a speech to the effect that all Catholics, even those who had no idea it was going on,  are culpable for those priests who sexually abused children.  Apparently, from what I gather, the movie doesn't have to do with priests sexually abusing children so I don't know the context or even if the attribution is accurate.  I haven't and almost certainly won't see the movie and don't know that, which is the reason I'm not posting the comment the claim is made in.

I do have to ask that with the revelations of pedophilie rape and the more recent revelations of the sexual abuse of women, what financial, business or social-professional relationships exist between the people involved in making these movies and the child rapists and sexual harassers of Hollywood and other areas of the movie and entertainment industry.   You know how incredibly incestuous the business and other relationships in show biz are.   What responsibility do they have for the ongoing revelations of sexual use of minors and women - no one seems to worry too much about vulnerable adult men who are targeted - within their own community?   Does everyone who was ever associated with Harvey Weinstein share his guilt?  They knew about that because they told jokes about it at the Oscars.   How about the guilt of Kevin Spacey?  Does everyone who appeared at the Old Vic get tainted by him?

And the jerk who sent me the thing is an ex-journalist of sorts, obviously he has colleagues and professional associations with ties to sexual abuse of one form or another, not to mention his .... uh..... "journalism" was in the field of rock and roll, I know that quite recently he was defending his love of the music of Jerry Lee Lewis, demanding to know if he should stop listening to that just because Jerry Lee in his earlier years had a yen for little girls.  Well, since he's asking, why not, given his support for judging people who had no idea that there was a pedophile crime scandal happening among Catholic priests as guilty as hell, why isn't he responsible for being a paying fan of Jerry Lee Lewis even as the whole world knew he married a little girl who should have not been married to an adult man or anyone.   That's been known more than half a century.

The same guy whined like a rusty door hinge when I pointed out that Gore Vidal was a pedophile, an admitted one, who took frequent trips to the child rape industry center of Thailand, he objected to me saying that, defending him on the assertion that Gore Vidal was a "great author" a view of the rapidly fading literary light of the 50s-00s who I am pretty sure no one will be reading at all in a few years, I don't think really counts as a defense against child raping.  I used to like to read his cynical articles in The Nation, but that got old, and then I found out about his pedophilia and I don't think I could read him much after that.  I should have realized that years before I did, when he gave a speech to raise funds for the defense of men accused of pedophilia in Massachusetts and Idaho, though I certainly was in favor of the accused to have a competent defense, I objected even at the time to associating being gay with pedophilia.

And he also got upset when I pointed out that Alan Ginsburg was quite out front with his support for Nambla and an advocate of men having sex with boys, he included that in his poetry.

So, do the people associated with the publishers and magazines that published Vidal and Ginsburg share the same kind of guilt that this recent release advocates for all Catholics, or even just Catholic priests who had no idea it was going on?  Did their readers?   Because if that's the standard for assessing guilt, there aren't going to be a lot of us who escape that accusation.

I would love to know what the professional and other associations with the guy who wrote the speech and the actress who gave it in the movie are in that regard.  I looked her up and see her father is a minister in a Protestant denomination, though I haven't been able to find out if that denomination has had any sexual abuse scandal associated with it.  But, hey, if you're going to blame people who didn't know the abuse was going on, who knows who is being abused by ministers in that denomination, unknown to the rest of us?   Or anyone, anywhere? How do you know that the author of that edifying speech you paid to hear isn't?

The opportunistic use of the sexual abuse scandal to smear all Catholics is especially cheap and hypocritical when it comes out of the American entertainment industry which has presented children as sex objects since its beginning, that has certainly become more and not less the case.  It is especially cheap and hypocritical from the pseudo-liberals who support the porn industry because there is no separating out the porn which really does have only legal adults being prostituted through it and that which has children under the age of consent (so variable in so many places, where those really exist) who are raped in the production of porn.  They support its free distribution and the distribution of the message it carries, the encouragement for men to view children and women and anyone they can screw as available to them for that use.  That's one thing the Church can't be accused of, it never said what was done was a great thing for free speech, free press, a great thing for the First Amendment, some kind of progress.

The American entertainment industry, its allies in the publishing industry, the media and among pseudo liberals, especially those with law degrees and black robes have probably overseen or encouraged the rapes of more children than were raped in all of the Christian denominations who ever had a priest or minister commit what their own religion condemned as a sin.  But you're never going to see a movie come out of Hollywood that admits that.  "The Academy" won't give it an Oscar, they wouldn't even give it a nomination. 

Update:  Only a total idiot who had never read what I wrote could think I was in favor of letting Bernard Cardinal Law escape and avoid answering for the things he's been accused of.  I thought the authorities who allowed him to leave Massachusetts and the United States were criminally negligent to allow him to travel when he should have had his passport revoked, I thought and think the Vatican should have sent him back to the United States to face the accusations made against him, I faulted Pope John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger, on that count, the Bush II administration and the administration of the acting governor, Jane Swift as well as all others involved in allowing him to flee prosecution.

I was certainly never a fan of Cardinal Law who was in thick as thieves with the Reagan and Bush I administrations as they were funding and backing terrorism in Central America (murdering tens of thousands of Catholics among others) and, if he hadn't taken it on the lam would have been with Bush II and probably even Trump now.   He was an absolute disgrace all round.  I despised Bernard Law before most of you online atheists ever heard of him.