Not at all. No confusion. Your interpretation implies that all priests are abusers. That isn't so. A child abused by one priest would probably also be around other priests who are seen as possible sympathetic allies. In fact, it is likely one of the first people an abused child would talk to is a priest (unless all priests were perceived to be part of a corrupt system, but that's beyond the scope of the lyrics).
Really? A child abused by a priest would go to another priest for solace? More likely they would keep this inside and not tell anyone until years later, or if they did it would be (as the song mentions the do nothing authorities and administrators). If my interpretation implies are priests are abusers, it comes from the preceding lyric condemning, in Irish Industrial Schools, "...nuns cold mothers and their Christian brothers kick the shit out of very frightened children." He's painting with a broad brush no?
EDIT: The first several times listening to the track I did come away with the impression the child was turning to Morrissey because he is clearly the narrator in the first portion of the song. I'm almost there in buying into the narrative voice change mid song, but again by using "my" instead of "their" or "your" it lends itself to ambiguity (IMO).
I’m almost done ranting about this song, so Worm you’re a good sport for putting up with my rubbish!
True, he wrote two different songs about schools. But 'Pupils' doesn't indicate a reversal of opinion on his part, merely a different perspective on the same institution.
“He grabs and devours, kicks me in the showers, etc.” Now, with Teachers, he is at least not condemning those same educators he railed against in The Headmaster Ritual. Is it a tacit indifference? Or just telling both sides of the story? Later, he writes a song about population control through child kidnapping and murder. No, I don’t think he condones it, but what is his position on children nowadays? Besides tiny children who tell you that you smell?
Also, he doesn't "mock" the handicapped in 'Monster'. I have no idea where you got that idea from, although that's another song whose language is heavily steeped in irony so I suppose it may seem ambiguous. But if you want to bring that one up, it's a good example, maybe the best one actually, of how he refuses sentimentality completely. The compassion is there. He wrapped it in different words, that's all. References to "monsters" and ugliness are society's judgment against the girl, not Morrissey's.
“Sleep on and dream of love
Because it's the closest you will
Get to love”
To me that is an observation which is mocking. Hell, the title is mocking. Monster? I won’t argue this song because I’ve always felt Morrissey walked the lyrical tightrope brilliantly. He savages the handicap while leaving you with the overarching impression that he is taking society to task for
their perspective. That being said, he still calls the person a Monster.
I believe songs like The Headmaster Ritual and November harkens back to an era of lyrical brilliance which was once plainly ordinary for Morrissey, but he is finding harder and harder to achieve these days. Will no one grant me his recent tracks are at the very least lyrically lazy?
And courting controversy? Yes, I guess, but writing a song even hinting-- without Swiftian or Biafran irony-- that it's no big deal to "kick the shit" out of poor underprivileged children is something else entirely.
I’m giving you the first part of the song. He clearly delineates the brutality. It’s the “my sentimental heart” forward which when
I hear the song I find troubling. Would it have drastically changed the song if he had used “their sentimental hearts?” I think not. Look with a song about child abuse, shouldn’t one at the very least be overly cautious with the lyrics? Unless of course you want to cause a stir? And yes, he loves controversy: Meat is Murder, National Front Disco, come on now.
You really are a good sport Worm, and I love the tete a tete.
