I don't even know where to begin with that?! It helps prove that senators are dumb. I guess. Where to begin?

Maybe this is going out on a limb, but I bet the fact that Boston is the biggest city in Massachusetts "one of only two states in the U.S. with a majority-Catholic population (the other being tiny Rhode Island)"has a little something to do with it.

Good point. Being a native of the area, I would have to agree that the high concentration of Roman Catholics has something to do with it. Senator Santorum's constant ridicule of liberalism stokes the fires of division rather than seek concrete answers to basic problems confronting our society. As I have stated in the past, I do not hold the Roman Catholic Church entirely at fault. The Church hierarchy has always enjoyed a 'special' relationship with political officials and police departments. The Church by virtue of its rules on celibacy and sexuality attracted many troubled Catholic males to the refuge of the Seminary. Having seen first hand the decadent lifestyle of many a priest, I can say without question that the special bond between the Church and State protected the Church from scandal. Senator Santorum is naive to believe that liberalism is the root of the problem.

There is an interesting commentary in today's issue of The Age whereby the writer talks about the hypocrisy of life in Washington, DC. It's distressing to think that I have to rely on the foreign press to give me information that hasn't been filtered through some kind of publicist machinery. One such paragraph that stands out is:

They (the evangelical base of the Republican Party) have the active support of key Republicans in the Senate, including potential presidential candidates such as Rick Santorum. Senator Santorum said recently he would feel his marriage threatened if gay marriage were legal.

"I believe strong families are the foundation of society. Throughout my tenure in Congress I have been a strong supporter of protecting families and preserving family values. As the father of six children, I know that raising a family can be a struggle, therefore I have worked hard to pass meaningful welfare reform and tax relief to help struggling middle class families become more self-sufficient. In addition, I have championed initiatives to encourage increased participation of fathers in the lives of their children, and legislation to preserve the sanctity of marriage. As an advocate for building a culture of life and a civilization of compassion, I have supported several life-protecting bills in Congress including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act."

And what would be the correct thing to blame this on?

Individual failings, and a culture of cover-ups

That's exactly it, Aaman. The priests failed on an individual basis and Church hierarchy and the political system covered it up. Government officials who had knowledge of any act upon a minor are just as culpable as the bishops.

Silas, I'm not sure if you're a blogcritic, but that comment would be a good post

A citizen of a state that continuously elects Ted Kennedy to the Senate has no right to cast stones at another...

This may be a news flash to you, but Mr. Sullivan is not exactly the prototype of neutrality and good intentions. You may want to check what's under the lettuce of the forkful of his poison you're swallowing.

Intelligence test: You all know the answer to these questions. Let's hope you have the courage to admit it to yourself:

1) Between Christian Catholic and non-church going population, pedophilia will statically be higher is what group?

2) If you were a member of the media, which group would you be more interested in reporting about: Catholic priests who abuse, or non-churched people who abuse?

Aaman, I agree that Silas should post the comment.

What say you good sir?

1. I have no idea.

2. Catholic priests, because they are supposedly held to a higher standard.

Go here for David Savage's proposed definition of "santorum". (WARNING: rather raunchy adult humor.)

I have posted it. Thanks for the encouragement.

By the way, insofar as pedophilia is concerned it is interesting to note that about twice as many acts of pedophilia are committed on the opposite sex rather than same sex. Why is it, however, that we are predisposed to believe that homosexuals are the exclusive predators?

Pseudo, thanks for the condescending "news flash." As you'd see if you read my post, I found the link to the Santorum article on Sullivan's blog. I quoted Santorum, not Sullivan, so, bizarre references to lettuce aside, your insinuatingly homophobic comment is irrelevant.

By the way, a priest ordained into the holy service of helping to save the souls of mankind who turns out to be a child-raper is way more relevant as a news story than if it's some random guy down the street.

Nick, I think it's Dan Savage, author of the "Savage Love" column, who proposed a filthy new definition for Santorum.

But Pseudo does make a good point, not that one should be apologetic for the actions of bad priests but only 1 percent of priests in the past 50 years were ACCUSED of anything.

Studies have shown that 10% of ALL school children suffered some kind of sexual assault during the school years at school.

Studies have also shown that the number of accusations of bad stuff by priests in 50 years in 50 states is equal to the number of estimated cases of child rape cover up by Planned Parenthood in Illinois alone in 2000 alone.

Pseudo sez..
*A citizen of a state that continuously elects Ted Kennedy to the Senate has no right to cast stones at another..*

that little statement wins you today's Insidious Troglodyte Award ..not only does it demonstrate you have the empathy and compassion of a rabid pitbull on crack, but it also raises some Questions as to Mit Romney's bid for '08...you know, the GOP governor of Mass that you just lumped in there with you hyperbolic over generalizing hate speech

nicely done..and enjoy your Award..

Sloop John B. sez...
*Studies have shown that 10% of ALL school children suffered some kind of sexual assault during the school years at school.*

and
*Studies have also shown that the number of accusations of bad stuff by priests in 50 years in 50 states is equal to the number of estimated cases of child rape cover up by Planned Parenthood in Illinois alone in 2000 alone.*

where are these studies to be found?

i am curious if what you are calling "child rape" in the second statement doesn't include the classic "girls under the age of consent" fallacy, but i am more than willing to look at any decent research on the topic to check it out

as for the "priests" bit..very difficult to prove numbers when dealing with any major church..especially one with the ability to not only cover things up, but able to threaten to excommunicate the faithful parents if they speak up

point to note here , gentle Readers...the current Pope is the one across whose desk ALL the accusations of at least the last 10 years have travelled...including Cardinal Law's travails...

in many Nations, including our own, many of the things done by the Vatican on this matter woudl have the "german Shepard" brought up on at least Obstruction of Justice charges...

as for Santorum...far too easy a target, i'll gladly leave it for others to have some Fun with...

Excelsior!

Gonzo-

As far as the schools, I saw that figure in the media about a year ago... I'd have to google to try and find it.

As far as PP, I have the text, I don't think it's online on a free site... but I'll be honest, while it does you either PP data, or census data, it was done by pro-lifers, so you'll just discount it anyway. I'm working on refreshing the data for 2004, and that I will publish. You can take a look, or I could post links, of just straight up abortion numbers in most states and see in some states girls as young as 10 get abortions. There is no sex with a 10 year old that's not illegal.

PP's own studies show, younger the girl, older the lover, which is also commonly known. Usually younger the girl, more often its a family member.

Yes, it is mostly under age of consent, but the priesthood thing involved mostly teen boys, if you want to talk demographics. The numbers were based on people who had come forward or approached the Church because those records have since been publicly audited.

There is a problem, for which I do have sympathy. How do you try these cases? Even in the criminal system. It is not an unknown phenomona for people to claim a priest raped them to get the shut up. Cardinal Bernadin was accused and exonerated because the story didn't map up to where he was at the time. Not saying accusations are all false, but to assume some accusations might not pan out...

Do you bong ever priest who's accused? Well then it's pretty easy to shut up a priest you don't like then, isn't it?

Pete, I stand corrected.

Gonzo-

Found something about sex abuse in schools, but a different study that shows a little worse numbers...

"Do you bong ever priest who's accused?"

I've never smoked a priest of any kind. What's it like?

Isn't that study 11 years old?

Secondly, I think, as a Roman Catholic myself, that it is completely lame to to compare priests to the general population or teachers or anyone else except priests. These men are supposed to be acting as disciples of Christ. Rectories are not supposed to be houses of horrors.

ok..latest info is from a prosecuting lawyer in '94..and is anecdotal based upon their own experience..

it does cite a study done in 1991, some decent data there

but all of it is colored by the "salem witch trial" syndrome...the actual cases of evidentiary proceedings, or even criminal charges are much smaller than what you state

good food for thought, but hardly satisfactory on it's own...worth digging into more tho, thanks for the link

i think it is the stench of hypocrisy that taints allegations against priests so much...to a lesser extent with educators...but very similar, both in the violation of trust as well as the "salem witch trial" syndrome

most of the work i am familiar with shows that the vast majority of underage kids is with other underage kids

and a disturbing section within the abused child's own family, hence why many organizations cite privacy and protection of the minor as reasons for NOT doing more than performing medical services

no really good answers here to be had easily...each person will filter alot of this data via the Lens of their own Perception

but none of it changes the Fact that Santorum is a schmuck for the Post's title statement...among others

your mileage may vary

Excelsior!

Matt-

They aren't, but it's important to point of those priests are EXCEPTIONS, not the rules.

Pseudo spouts: A citizen of a state that continuously elects Ted Kennedy to the Senate has no right to cast stones at another...

For the record, I did vot vote for Teddy in the last two elections. But to demonize the entire commonwealth for sending Kennedy to Congress is a bit over the top. It's like branding Georgia a rogue state for sending Zel Miller. Before people in other states cast stones at us, it's best they look inside their closets. I'll bet yours is loaded with skeletons.

but Silas, they NEVER look into their "closets"

too many live there...not to mention relatives...

Citizen Cohn was just on earlier, i may be a bit bitter at the moment

Excelsior!

John,

I don't dispute the 10% figure for schools, but I bet that a good percentage of that comes from kids being abused by other students as opposed to teachers. The teacher-on-student abuse would be the only relevant corollary in this discussion.

Speaking of relevant, you seem to instinctually want to change the subject when we talk about priests raping boys. You want to steer the conversation to Planned Parenthood or the public schools. Neither are up for discussion, here. The subject is priests raping underage boys.

Of course, like you, I don't accept any level of child abuse. I just don't get why you're changing the subject.

Because I believe the associated media frenzy was more motivated by anti-Catholic bias than by child abuse because there are more egregarious offenders out there.

John,

Of course priests who abuse children are exceptions to the rule. Most priests, just like most people, don't abuse kids.

What appears NOT to be an exception to the rule is the degree to which individual diocese and the Vatican itself have been complicit in denying, obfuscating and burying these cases as best as they can. Cardinal Law at a position of honor at the Pope's funeral? Come on!

That being said, Pete. It makes one wonder what else is covered up or at the very least hidden in the vaults of the Vatican Archives. As a priest told me many years ago when I considered the priesthood as my refuge from the world: "The Mother Church has to be preserved no matter what the cost." From that day forward I have been troubled about my dear old Mother Church.

Silas, is your real name Dan Brown? ;)

No, Pete. The things Brown wrote about have been discussed behind the scenes for years. There's nothing new in his work. He's just taken the whole thing to a new level.

Mr. Blackwell, are all people who do not agree with you homophobic?

Thank you Gonzo, for the "Insidious Troglodyte Award". Admittedly, I went overboard on the Ted Kennedy comment. I thought that including it with comments about priests would mean that it would likely get overlooked. But thanks for not allowing me to get away with it.

By the way, Gonzo, I would likewise like to congratulate you on your "Dog-eared Thesaurus" award. Always make for a better read.

I'm glad Silas has joined the ranks of anointed official bloggers who initiate items on-site. Congrats (or should it be condolences?) Silas!

Pseudo: "Mr. Blackwell, are all people who do not agree with you homophobic?"

No, of course not. But your insinuating comment ("This may be a news flash to you, but Mr. Sullivan is not exactly the prototype of neutrality and good intentions. You may want to check what's under the lettuce of the forkful of his poison you're swallowing.") about Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay conservative, in a discussion about how another prominent conservative links homosexuality and pedophilia, set off my homophobia-dar.

If you weren't refering to his homosexuality when you wrote that, then what were you referring to? What "poison," pray tell, do you mean?

In the case of priests, you know, they were going after boys for the most part, and since we don't have women priests... doesn't that make it homosexual?

I know there's NAMBLA, is there a NAMWLA, or NAWBLA? You do know that the GLBT NGOs at the UN often INCLUDED NAMBLA until the pro-life crowd got wind of it, don't you?

NAMBLA isn't precisely unwelcomed in the GLBT community.

You do know that the GLBT NGOs at the UN often INCLUDED NAMBLA until the pro-life crowd got wind of it, don't you?

Information I come across doesn't mention any pro-life crowd but Muslims instead.

The NGO's at the UN, of which the GLBT community is a part of, is a world-wide organization, John. ANd this world has different cultures and different standards.

At this link here please see the story halfway down the page titled:
Muslim states oppose reinstating gay group

NAMBLA was part of the UN NGO, because different cultures have different age of consent laws and both groups (NAMBLA and the GLBT community) seek to change age of consent laws, but for different reasons of course. In the case of my community, it is because of Romeo Laws, of which Matthew Lymon is a perfect example of being a victim of. He was 18 and had sex with someone who was 2 weeks short of being 18. If his sexual partner had been female, he would have gotten 6 years in prison (still overkill for someone having sex with someone just a few months in age difference), but because his partner was same-sex, he got over 30 years in prison. His case is headed towards the supreme court, in the meantime, he is developmentally disabled and living in prison because he had consenting sex with someone just a few months younger than him.

We seek to address the discrimination that occurs with discrepencies in laws. One of these areas are age of consent laws.

Trying to link the GLBT community with pedophilia, John, is so 70's.

My community is fighting discrimination based on sexual preference. Because your religious community persecutes and oppresses EVERYONE who does not fit your religious mold, we can often find the GLBT community fighting religious dogma right alongside other groups, but that doesn't mean necessarily we endorse each others standpoint. It means your religious crap pretty much affects everybody.

Mr. Blackwell: Mr. Sullivan is unable to change his mind and will not change the subject regarding the defense of his chosen lifestyle. Part of that defense is demonizing anyone who may have a particular view that disapproves of his choices. His 'filter, illogically, only seems to be able to see those who disagree with him as evil, bad, horrible, etc. Ad Hominem attacks are one of his primary methods of discrediting those who disagree with him. Be careful about inheriting Mr. Sullivan's--or any other person's--filters and methods when trying to argue points.

This subject, for example, originally began quoting Santorum's premise that reprehensible individuals--who happened to be priests--may have been influenced by culture's liberal influences to the point where they unfortunately acted to satisfy their own selfish nature rather then serve and protect society. This is especially upsetting--rightly so--because of their sworn role to serve God and the Catholic Church. The end results of their behavior is only pain, sadness, and misery for their victims, and loss of faith in God and a growing distrust in institutions claiming to serve God.

However, as you can read from the reply posts--and I am guilty of this as the next person--most ignore the premise and went after Santorum personally with Ad Hominem attacks, Straw Man attacks, Argument by Selective Observation, Psychogenetic Fallacy, Genetic Fallacy, Argument by Selective Reading, or in my case, by attempting to Change the Subject.

Guess Santorum hasn't read his history. Priests were buggering young boys way before the age of liberalism. I am not surprised Santorum has come out with such a daft statement though; he does rather excel at them.

Pseudo,

I seriously disagree with your characterization of Sullivan and totally reject your argument that he resorts to ad hominem attacks. Where's your proof?

I also reject Santorum's "logic" (and yours) about homosexuality being a symptom of cultural sickness.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree.

Here's hoping all your kids (and Senator Rick's) are straight.

John, fags don't go after boys. Can I make it any plainer than that? I figured I'd use language that you could understand. You said:

NAMBLA isn't precisely unwelcomed in the GLBT community.

Back in Dallas I was asked by an anti-gay person whether I would allow my son to go scouting with a gay scout.

I told him to think twice before he allowed his son to spend the night at our place since I was a straight woman and all that...

Pete, I appreciate your responses. I apologise for letting Sullivan's opinion color my response. He is only one man.

I can hope for, but not control my children's lifestyle choice after they leave home. Until that point, I hope I have the freedom and parental rights to teach them that our Creator made them male or female for a specific purpose. I hope I am able push aside pride, selfishness, and fear in my own life in order to model to them a just and loving 'male' example--and the various male roles such as father and husband-- via interaction with their mother. I hope I can provide a nuturing environment for them that protects them from things and people that would just want to use them for their own gain. I hope I can leave them with the the ability to discern that while all men are created equal, not all ideas that proceed from the minds and mouths of men are equal. Lastly, I hope my children will know that the strength of someone's 'feelings' about this or that is no indication of whether it is right or wrong.

I can hope for, but not control my children's lifestyle choice after they leave home.

This is true. But just so you are clear, sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice. My lifestyle of being a stay-at-home dad is a choice. The partner I fell in love with, was not a lifestyle choice.

Until that point, I hope I have the freedom and parental rights to teach them that our Creator made them male or female for a specific purpose.

And I hope you have that right too. And I SERIOUSLY hope that none of your children are gay because it is beliefs instilled like that, which drive up gay youth suicide rates. Suppose your child is gay and is told that he has a purpose, but it doesn't match what's inside him? Think he can shrug off a 'lifestyle choice'? Doesn't work that way, if you want to teach your children such religious beliefs (that sex is from divinity), then you can do so, but sex is within us and can't be changed, so if it doesn't match your child's psyche, it can easily destroy him/her.

I hope I am able push aside pride, selfishness, and fear in my own life in order to model to them a just and loving 'male' example--and the various male roles such as father and husband-- via interaction with their mother.

Most every gay person had a father figure who interacted with their mother, so that has nothing to do with developing a person's sexual attraction but parental interaction is always a good thing, so go for it.

Lastly, I hope my children will know that the strength of someone's 'feelings' about this or that is no indication of whether it is right or wrong.

The values you want to raise your children with, are the values I was raised with. It is these values that have instilled in me a strong urge for family so with my same-sex partner we have built a family. Best of luck to you and your children, hopefully they can have the same.

I told him to think twice before he allowed his son to spend the night at our place since I was a straight woman and all that...

LOL, swing. But don't you know that the 13 year-old boy who beds down a housewife is 'lucky'? Most conservative men don't call that pedophilia... they call it training.

A priest was crushed underneath a rolling metal driveway barrier over here on the San Francisco peninsula -- only a few miles from 'Santora's Janitorial Supplies'. The birds are still yacking about it.

Being a Boston native (an Independent and a non-Catholic) I have never read anything as insulting, bigoted and ignorant as what Santorum wrote on the Catholic Online website. How about placing the blame for the priests abuses where it belongs: the Catholic church and the deviant individuals that used the power and authority of their robes to prey on innocent children. The culture in the city of Boston (and Massachusetts in general) had NOTHING to do with it. If Santorum knew ANTHING about Boston, he might have had a clue. What an a%&hole.

Jason-

Thanks for YOUR bigoted comments...

Who do we blame about sex abuse in schools? Opus Dei?

John, how is Jason's comment bigoted? Adult indivduals are responsible for their own actions. The priests were to blame for their own crimes, and the church for aiding and abetting them by covering it up and moving them around instead of doing what they should have done: removing the priests & taking care of the victims instead of trying to silence & threaten them. In no way is the state of Massachusetts, the city of Boston, or the New England area in general at all involved in this, unless you think they're putting something in the water that causes deviance in selected priests & Bernie Law.

You really need to back off this and calm down; you're starting to blog non-sequiturs.

How about placing the blame for the priests abuses where it belongs: the Catholic church

He adds the Catholic Church universally to blame as well as the deviants involved which I read to include those who abused power to cover it up.

It's not a strecth to read that as laying the blame on the entire Church.

IT IS THE CHURCHES FAULT!!! These priests were found out and hidden BY THE CHURCH!!! Who do you want to blame? The kids?

One of THE MOST POWERFUL people in the Catholic church in the U.S. knew what was happening and hid these pedophiles away!!!

If Bernard Law is NOT the face of the catholic church in New England than who is? And who would you blame?

and BTW...I spent 11 years in catholic school...was an alter boy and was never once touched by a priest...that must just be the NJ diocese though!

Andy-

I blame the Democratic Party.

Andy, I think John is trying (& succeeding) to push your buttons. I interpret what he's writing as some sort of humor, because he can't be serious.

John, the Catholic church is a very strict heirarchy. I was born into it, so may you have been. In which case you know as well as I that NOTHING happens in an archbishopric that the archbishop is not well aware of, and if it's a legal problem, the O.P.F. (then occupied by the current pope) & the pope himself are also well aware, and in fact, the O.P.F. dictates the course the diocese will take in response to whatever problem. So the pope knew what was going on, and approved of then-Cardinal Ratzinger directing Law to reassign problem priests and hush up the scandal any way he could, i.e. thru spiritual blackmail, slander, libel, or legal prosecution, which Law then proceeded to do. Law's own records are proof of that, and even the church doesn't deny it. Since the pope more or less IS The Church, yes - the Church ignored the crimes, committed further crimes of its own by covering them up, falsifying data, and stonewalling legal processes. That the Church & Law were in error & in danger of criminal contempt if not aiding & abetting charges is borne out by the pope & Ratzinger removing Law to Rome, out of reach of the Mass. Attorney General, because Law was indicted by a grand jury on these same charges. Should he ever set foot back in the states, he's subject to arrest and jailing, same as any other fugitive from justice, regardless of religion or party.

None of these people - the pope, Ratzinger, Bernard Law, the pedophile priests - have anyone else to blame for their actions but themselves. No political party, either R or D, had anything to do with it. Are you saying that these priests and Law should be exempt from prosecution, like in the middle ages? Above the law?

They knowingly & willingly violated one of their professed leader's most stressed statements, concerning innocents, children, etc., not to mention state & federal US law, and they did it for the most prurient and venal of reasons: to avoid a scandal, to save their own butts, and to try and keep the church from having to pay money. They lost. And the shame and sin are eternally on them (yeah, I'm not an RC anymore, but I can still talk the talk and I know what they're guilty of in church law as well as they do), as are their indictments. And if any further proof were needed, the church itself decided to settle, rather than have to really face the music and expose their records to public scrutiny in a court of law. Why? Because they knew what was in those records, and it would damn them all even more than what was known would do.

So stop this asinine nonsense about the pedophilia/church scandal being the 'fault' of Democrats. It's nothing of the sort, and you're making yourself look like a horses patoot by insisting on it. Either that or perhaps you're drunk or on drugs, I don't know. But you're not making sense if you're being serious.

This is a hoot. John Bambineck in comment 47 and 49 rants and raves about bigotry because the priest abuse scandal is put ENTIRELY upon the chuch. How bigoted and how sad, John says.

Then he lays a blanket of blame on the entire Democratic party.

I guess we like a little hypocrisy with our hyperbole in the morning.

So you hear that folks? Sexual abuse of minors in the church is not the church's fault and it is bigoted of you to say so. The Democrats are responsible for what people of faith do in their own buildings! What power the Democrats have and they don't even know it.

The Democratic Party is the easy scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in the world, apperantly. "Hey, the sky is falling! Damn democrats!"

Really, it's all the Republican's fault.

Indeed. It must be something the Dems put in all the church waterfountains & holy water fonts.

to reprise

And this is good old Boston
the home of the bean and the cod
where the priests have been buggering children
'cause the liberals incite them, by God!

(apologies to an anonymous member of one of the 19th cent. Boston clubs)

John Bambenek, I think you've been properly and rightfully spanked after you commented on my post #46. What's beautiful is that the more the defenders of right-wing extremism proclaim their thoughts and ideas, the more they expose themselves for the small-minded, hate-mongering fools that they are. Those that oppose the right (call them Democrats, liberals, progressives, anti-Bush..whatever) are starting to wake up and get involved and soon the wingnuts will find themselves surrounded by informed citizens that aren't going to standby and listen to their warped lies and hateful bigotry any longer. I'm going to enjoy the hell out of that!

My hateful bigotry? I'm not blaming a Church of 1 to 1.5 billion adherents for pedophilia.

Let's clarify some words here...

Homosexual - wants to have sex with someone of the same gender.
Heterosexual - likes the other sex.

You can have pedophiles who are homosexual and pedophiles who are heterosexual, and there are both.

And the facts about NAMBLA being a part of the GLBT fold are quite clear.

Nancy-

Blaming members of the hierarchy is different then saying the entire Church is at fault. And I think you overestimate the "strictness" of that hierarchy.

Let's clarify some words here...

Okay, but let's PROPERLY clarify them.

Homosexual - wants to have sex with someone of the same gender.

Wrong. Homosexual is attraction to the same gender. Doesn't necessarily correlate into 'I want to sleep with him'.

Heterosexual - likes the other sex.

Well no wonder your divorce rate is so high. All you do is LIKE each other?

I like tacos, but if I had to have them EVERY night I'm sure I'd be tempted to sneak out at night and sample a little chalupa. No wonder your divorce rate is what, over 50%? Try love sometime. :-)

And the facts about NAMBLA being a part of the GLBT fold are quite clear.

Since you keep on bringing NAMBLA up to lay a blanket condemnation upon millions of people who abhor child abuse, I did a quick google search on NAMBLA and came up with this:

From Prevent Abuse Now, they post an article they found in a boy chat forum (from a boylover). This is what he said:

First of all, boy-lovers are generally attacked for one of three reasons: 1. Our beliefs, 2. Illegal behavior, 3. Because of our sexual attraction to boys (sexual identity).

In turn, these attacks usually come from one of four places: 1. The mainstream gay community. 2. Religious fundamentalists, 3. Misguided survivors of sexual abuse, 4. Child Advocacy and protection groups.

He also says this:

"NAMBLA's 1996 National Membership Conference in Hayward, California also marked a turning point. It was at this conference that NAMBLA members voted to close their doors to NAMBLA chapter meetings, and discontinue their annual National Membership Conference. This is significant because it in effect said that it was no longer safe for BL's to look for any organized support, or attempt to build community, outside of the internet."

Doesn't sound like my community is supporting NAMBLA at all! Now, let's condemn all heterosexuals because some of them believe in the legality of prostitution and the Mustang Ranch. And that clearly goes against God. How's that for a blanket condemnation, John? You are part of a deviant, immoral group that must be stopped.

In post #50 Andy Marsh does a pretty good job of explaining that the Catholic church as an institution failed on the pedophilia problem when powerful people within the church (those that made the decisions on where they could hide the offenders) covered up rather than admit and deal with the issue. Noone has pointed the finger at Catholics (all 1.5 billion or whatever) they are the victims here. The Catholic church as an institution must take a portion of the blame. I don't think there's been much debate about that.

The Catholic Church, as an institution, INCLUDES those 1 -1.5 billion adherents... try agiain.

Steve-

That was humor... try again.

Ok, John, I will make this much of a consession to your terminology: if one considers 'The Church' to actually be all members, from highest to lowest, then no, the ENTIRE church is not responsible. The parishioners of East Littleneck, Where-ever are certainly innocent. That's as far as I'll go. They, like the victims themselves were betrayed by men, both priests & the heirarchy, who are & were under oath to God to protect the innocent. How these men manage to say mass, take communion, or even sleep at night, is beyond me, seeing as they're under a pretty heavy indictment by JC no less, that 'whoever offends one of these little ones, it were better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck...' etc. I'd be out of my mind w/terror for my soul, at the least - and I'm no practicing christian, but I do believe in divine justice. And IMO, I think it's unlikely God listens to excuses or self-justification. The fact is, the ENTIRE chain of command involved in every single diocese involved in these episodes - and that includes the late JP II & the current Benedict the umpteenth, as well as the involved bishops & archbishops - most certainly are both responsible & guilty. Their own actions and reactions in shielding various ranking church princes convict them all. And if you think the heirarchy isn't strict & pretty all-controlling, you obviously haven't been reading even the commonplace commentaries concerning Benny before he was elected pope, or the iron grip JP II kept over The Church during his tenure. Common evidence, common knowledge, published in commonly available sources, impossible for any literate person to have ignored in the past decade or so. To continue to be an apologist for these morally bankrupt church leaders is pretty sorry, as well as desperate & hopeless. The irony is JP II is already being considered for sainthood. Talk about coverups & ignoring inconvenient facts.

Figures they'd have there meeting right outside of SF!

I guess the stadium at Liberty University was booked, Andy.

In that these men represent the official authority of the church, if not the actual 'church universal', yes, The Church is very much guilty as charged. The unfortunate fact is, they have added tarnish to an already crumbling, discredited, and tarnished institution.

John, you numbskull (no really, you're not too bright), you're playing semantic games. People have clearly resonded that the members of the church are not to blame, the churches leaders/infrastructure/heirarchy is to blame. You seem to be avoiding the bigger issue here though. Do you agree with Santorum? Do you think that "liberalism" in Boston contributed to the scandal? Oce you answer that question we'll have a better idea what your point is.

I'd be interested in how ANY other force than the lusts/decisions of these pedophiles themselves would be involved. Does John think liberals published secret documents or sent out subliminal radio waves inciting these priests to do this? Or is he blaming the state for investigating & convicting criminals, while he exonerates the priests & heirarchy of any responsibility/complicity whatsoever? Either way, John, since Massachusetts is under a Republican gov, who oversees the projects of the D.A., and who wholeheartedly approved of the D.A. going after the church in this matter, and since Republicans are conservatives, you're still in a hole as far as logic goes.

Nancy,

The comments from Santorum strike me as part and parcel of the greater Republican strategy of demonizing the left/liberals and ultimately Democrats. Karl Rove recently took it too far with his comments about how same reacted in the wake of 9/11 and this is an extension of this effort. It's DISGRACEFUL though that a punk like Santorum would condemn an entire city/region by painting them all with a broadbrush in a matter that is so serious. Santorum and his ilk will pay for this, I'm sure of it.

Let's hope so, Jason. People like Senator Santorum feed the fires of hate under the guise of piety. All one needs to do is look at the reports his campaign files with the Federal Elections Commission to see how much of a hypocrite the man really is.

Silas, who is the sociopath? John? I don't think so; I think he's having knee-jerk reactions against both liberals & what he perceives as attacks on himself thru his church, perhaps. I don't know. The point you raise about whether law enforcement/politicians knew about this all along is interesting; has anything been said or addressed about this that has appeared in the media? My impression was that the church officials hid all evidence & documentation until the DA started getting nasty, and only after the victims & their families had finally had enough of the church bullying and slanders. What is NAMBLA? Sorry for the ignorance; what is that Buddhist saying about enlightening one ignorant person lights up a universe?

Why not here at Regents University then Steve?

andy, why would you expect me to know?

Silas, Nancy, from what I've read on the priest pedophile situation I have heard no reference to any politican that was aware of the problem. If so, especially in the Boston area, I'm sure that that politician would have been drawn and quartered. What we do know for sure is that there was a coverup that started in the highest reaches of the Archdiocese of Boston (Cardinal Law).

A question for Silas and it is delivered with respect for what you have endured and had the courage to openly admit: Do you believe that homosexuals that grew up in strict Catholic families (lots of those in Eastern Mass and I think that's the correlation BTW) were so ashamed by their sexuality that rather than deal with their sexuality they opted for the priesthood and that unhealthy suppression manifested itself in deviant sexual behavior?

No, Nancy, everyone remains quite silent on the issue of what politicians and law enforcement officials may or may not have known. Allegations of sexual abuse were known by law enforcement and politicians as far back as 1980. Mysteriously no one seems to be able to recall this little fact. The news media, New England in particular, has done nothing to expose this side of the cover up. I've asked many in law enforcement to come forward and they won't. It's all about preserving "their own."

NAMBLA is the North American Man Boy Love Association. It is a group of twisted pedophiles who seem to think that what they believe is in some way normal. What may have been accepted in ancient Greek and Oriental cultures is not accepted today, period. I know what damage is done to a kid who's been molested. From that first night in July, 1966 my life changed. I was the victim of a pedophile, NOT a homosexual. The perpetrator did not distinguish between boys and girls. He went after either sex.

When I hear people rant about pedophiles and liberalism my blood boils. I wish that there would be a study done on these predators. Once the data was disseminated we would learn that the majority of pedophiles come from conservative, religious roots.

don't get testy Steve...it was a joke...you through out liberty...I through out another backwards university...relax man! FUCK!

Jason asks: Do you believe that homosexuals that grew up in strict Catholic families (lots of those in Eastern Mass and I think that's the correlation BTW) were so ashamed by their sexuality that rather than deal with their sexuality they opted for the priesthood and that unhealthy suppression manifested itself in deviant sexual behavior?

ABSOLUTELY, Jason. Boys who were less than totally masculine were often encouraged by their families to go to seminary. I know, in my own case, that seminary was something that was presented as an option for me early on. My own grandmother was aware of the sexual abuse and did nothing for fear of bringing shame upon the family. So, how did she deal with it? She encouraged me to go to seminary and find forgiveness with God. OK, that sounds good. There was one problem - why did I need God's forgiveness? The refuge of the Church has been a tool used by strict Catholic families for centuries. It's unfortunate that the good priests who actually serve God are shadowed by these predators.

In the final analysis, Jason, the Catholic Church's unhealthy attitude towards all forms of sex has played a part in the problem. Sexual relations between two people who are in love and choose to be life partners are a very precious, beautiful thing. The Church, in its own misguided way, has made Catholics feel that anything beyond the heterosexual missionary style of sex filthy and tantamount to mortal sin.

Silas says - has made Catholics feel ...small correction if I may Silas...has tried to make catholics feel....fair enough?

I'm not testy andy. I know you don't expect me to know. You put a question on me, I put one back on you. I'm not offended, just put it back in your court.

Regarding the church, it is clear that strict 'sex is for procreation ONLY' and abstinance only programs are complete failures across the board. The Catholic doctrine on sex, not exclusively homosexuality but sex in general, runs counter to natural biological urges. Therein creates the problem.

The reason why there have been so many priestly abuses cases, is because the priests question their orientation, society condemns them, so they turn to the church for answers. If you all haven't figured out that the church cannot provide a qualified answer to sexuality, then of course you are going to be shocked that it's filled with the sexually dysfunctional.

That doctrine was added later; it isn't intrinsic to the original. JC didn't say 'only for kids' ... but Augustine did, and that nutcase, Jerome, who unfortunately had a good deal of pull in the 4th c.

Fair enough, Andy.

Indeed, Nancy. St. Augustine, as intelligent as he was, comes across as a deeply troubled man. His writings show that there was a conflict which raged within him. Same could be said of Jerome. The problem is that the 'doctors' of the Church had a field day twisting the intent of the original twelve Apostles. I wonder what would happen if we stripped away all the writings of the early Church fathers after the First Century. What dogma would remain? Would the teachings of Christ finally be revealed in their Truth rather than filtered through an established institution? I think Christ spent less time in the bedroom than all who have followed in His name.

If you strip away all the additions very strictly, you lose all that "only thru me" stuff, & a good deal of John & Luke, like the lineage, annuciation, temple presentation, etc. It actually reads better and makes more sense. Darn! I have a book that does this & explains what is cut & why, but can't remember the name. There's several of them, but IMO this one was the most lucid, best reasoned & supported. If I can find it, I'll post title & author.

And again I have to ask; It took Ted 3 years to find this? I heard him read the "prepared speech", full of nonsensical data. Obviously written by someone else. Pathetic show Teddy. Well done.