June 13, 2011 | 127 comments
April 6, 2011 | 21 comments
February 22, 2011 | 48 comments
February 14, 2011 | 78 comments
February 7, 2011 | 43 comments
The missing word in the paper’s obsessive coverage of the pedophile priest scandal.
(Page 2 of 3)
The Times may believe that, but other experts —and probably most Americans — would disagree. Besides, that’s not exactly the issue. The issue is whether there’s a connection between the homosexuality of the priests and the molestation of the boys.
The pedophilia story really begins more than forty years ago, when the Roman Catholic Church began accepting known homosexuals into the priesthood. The traditionalists objected, but the sixties were when enlightened, progressive, sophisticated life began. Like children who think they are the very first to discover sex, the sixties’ liberals thought that any restrictions on what homosexuals could do must be wrongly discriminatory. For a liberal, everything goes. So, everything went, including homosexuals to seminaries.
In the years since then, we — the Catholic Church in particular, but all of us, really — have reaped the fruits of what was sown in those turbulent years.
There are, in fact, at least three scandals here. One, that a priest molested boys thirty years ago, is scandal to be sure, but alas, hardly news now, given the number of such stories over the past decade — including one in California that came to light only this past week.
The second, and underlying, scandal is that it’s the homosexuals allowed into the priesthood in the sixties who have been causing most of the trouble.
Are all homosexuals child molesters? Certainly not.
Are most child molesters in the Catholic Church homosexuals? Almost certainly.
But try finding that story in the New York Times.
Isn’t this the key question: Are homosexual priests more likely to molest children than non-homosexual priests? If we don’t know, shouldn’t we find out? Because if they are, wouldn’t it make sense to pay special attention to the assignments given to homosexual priests?
In fact, wouldn’t it make sense to pay special attention to the assignments given to homosexual priests until it was certain that they were not more likely to molest children than normal priests?
Not, apparently, to the New York Times. That would require it to be critical of supervisors who failed to identify priests who were homosexual and who assigned them to positions where they could abuse children. It’s much easier for the Times simply to pile on after the abuses have happened, and write about a cover-up.
What is the primary public-policy goal of a news story that exposes a cover-up? Presumably, to put future offenders (or their superiors) on notice that eventually they are likely to be detected and perhaps punished. The hope is that that knowledge might make those in positions of authority more vigilant in assigning, supervising, and punishing priests who might abuse children.
But wouldn’t identifying the likely perpetrators, or a class of people likely to be perpetrators, and supervising them more carefully before they perpetrate be even more likely to serve the public policy of preventing abuse of children?
Again, surely yes.
And that is the third, and most serious, scandal. There is almost surely a cover-up here. But it’s a cover-up by the New York Times of a group of people whose lifestyle the Times celebrates. The Times seems to be more interested in protecting its friends in the homosexual community than the youngsters in churches — and in any other institutions where they might fall victim to predatory homosexuals.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?