The American Spectator : The Curious Incident at the New York Times

Vlad the Impala| 4.13.10 @ 7:02AM

There's another word missing, which explains why the Catholic Church didn't immediately defrock any such priest: and that is the belief in REDEMPTION. Basically a central tenet of the Catholic Church that the priests could change their ways and overcome their predatory urges.

One wonders about the prevalence of child molsters employed by the Times.

GracieZG| 4.13.10 @ 9:39AM

Got a good belly laugh with this response, thanks.....

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:41AM

"De-frock" is an inaccurate term lifted from Anglican canon law. The Catholic Church does not "de-frock", it "laicizes", which is to say, it releases a man from the duties and obligations of his ministerial order, but does not eradicate the mark of ordination or eject the man from holy orders.

In this, the Catholic theology of ordination differs from that of the Eastern Churches, in which a man can indeed be expelled from holy orders and "returned to the lay state".

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 2:19PM

"Laicize"..."Holy Orders"...

Ya' gotta' love all this made-up, Catholic mumbo-jumbo!

Jamie| 4.14.10 @ 3:04PM

Don't criticize something you don't understand; makes you look stupid, ignorant and arrogant.

EDWARD DEL COLLE| 4.13.10 @ 4:04PM

vlad, you should heal thyself. all these letters that go back and forth from diocese to rome are concerned about mother church. the children seem an inconvevience. these rapists are criminals! what is wrong with you? in the case of the raped boys in ireland they were forced to sign confidentiality agreements by the man who is still the cardinal. mother church also gave refuge to bernard law of boston to avoid answering questions. wake up, Lame , the impala

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:31PM

I would take you more seriously if you avoided run-on sentences and learned the location of your shift key.

E. Powers| 4.13.10 @ 7:51PM

Having read all the putrid comments on this blog, I feel I must go take a shower, and then listen to calming music.

I feel like I have been wading through a mental sewer. The aggressive, hateful, know-it-all, blow-hard tones of some of the writers makes me sick.

Dramamine, anyone? You'll need it if you read any further.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:24PM

Do you have anything to say, or do you think bandwidth grows on trees?

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:55PM

Yeah, it's me again, just running my mouth again. They don't call me motor mouth for nothing. I'm a disgusting old fart who can't shut his mouth. Sorry.

But please don't judge me too harshly. I've been diagnosed with bipolar 2,4, and 8, and I'm a double amputee sitting here in this gd wheelchair with nothing else to do . . . except listen to these voices playing over and over and over and over and over and over and over in my hellish head.

God help me!

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 10:01PM

Stuart, I had no idea you were in such a fix!

What you need is someone to come by and visit you once in a while. Sympathize with you. Give you some verbal comfort. Maybe you can join a bipolar support group and work out some of your frustrations by talking to real people.

I will keep you in my thoughts . . . and prayers.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 10:06PM

I had no idea I could bi-locate, either. I'll just chalk it up to my overwhelmingly awesome sanctity. When I die, my remains will smell sweet for ages, and those who mocked me will stand with downcast visage in their foolishness.

Nobama| 4.14.10 @ 3:49AM

What the hell?

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:50AM

Don't know if this is a glitch with the headers but Teflon93---I myself---did not write the 10:01 PM post above, having been long abed.

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 10:02AM

Oops! Another word improperly employed.

Change "abed" to "dead."

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 10:39AM

I didn't write the above comment attributed to "Teflon93" either.

There is either a software glitch or someone is dishonestly posting under my moniker.

SoCon| 4.14.10 @ 2:15PM

Teflon, someone's using your moniker because you are not only brilliant, you are good, too. Leftists fear good people like you, Teflon--that's why the troll is trying to discredit you.

Beware the deceiver.

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 8:35AM

Mr. Koehl and Teflon93,

We seem to have struck a nerve here, huh? The same intolerant bigot appears to be trying to hijack our names, in a feeble attempt to discredit us.

Speaking the Truth, in Christ, will do that.

God Bless!

Nick (from Detroit)| 4.14.10 @ 9:58AM

I am not the Nick from the above 8:35AM post. I repeat: I am not the Nick from the above 8:35AM post.

A very clever demon has infested this site and is creating havoc with our names and reputations.

I am changing my screen name pronto. The next time you see a post by "Nick," you will know it's the impudent, left-wing imposter.

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 11:07AM

Give it up, bleeding heart, commie troll.

Only liberals are stupid enough to believe your posts. Everybody knows you guys don't believe in demons.

SoCon| 4.14.10 @ 2:17PM

Liberal Screeder or other moronic Axelrod astro-turf trolls of the same ilk.

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 4:59PM

SoCon,

Could be LR.

It's definitely someone I have slapped around mercilessly. But that's a long list!

SoCon| 4.14.10 @ 7:56PM

So true, the list is lonnng! Ha.

Lil' Sis| 4.14.10 @ 8:44PM

Dramamine, never tried it but willing after reading these posts as well.

Besides, every one knows that NYtimes never uses the word 'homosexual' because it has negative connotations and because people will automatically imagine a male-on-male sex act that will make them throw-up a little inside so that use 'gay' and 'lesbian' instead which I personally find sexist because, technically a lesbian is both gay and homosexual so some how they exclude them from the gay community when they refers to them as "...gays and lesbians."

Alway a day late and a comment short ;D

Toddy| 4.14.10 @ 9:11PM

Guess you got your 2 cents in; your comments are worth about that much, too. Sorry.

Nathan R.| 4.15.10 @ 6:50PM

Attention:

All of you angry old men who are hell-bent on putting all the sexual molestation in the Catholic Church on gay priests, read the following:

Are Gay Priests the Problem? by by Father Edward L. Beck, ABC NEWS Online, Thurs. April 15

Unlike most of you commenters, Father Beck presents an objective look, and concludes that gay priests are NOT the problem.

Wally| 4.15.10 @ 11:04PM

Most of the abuse was perpetrated against boys; who else but GAY men molested them? Nuns pretending to be priests? God help the braindead among us.

Did you even read the words you wrote? Obviously, your ability to think analytically doesn't exist.

SC Mike| 4.13.10 @ 7:07AM

The NYT cannot acknowledge that the troublesome priests are homosexual because that would lend credence to the Boy Scouts’ policy that openly gay males may not occupy leadership positions within their organization.

Such discrimination can be wise, but the Times dare not let that be widely known.

H. Block| 4.13.10 @ 9:15AM

Pope Benedict on homosexuality and pedophilia in the abuse crisis:

'I am deeply ashamed, and we will do what is possible so this cannot happen again in the future. I do not wish to talk at this moment about homosexuality, but about pedophilia, which is another thing.' (April 2008)

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:25AM

A smart man, Pope Benedict, but it is apparent he does not understand the clinical definition of pedophilia, or why pedophilia is a very small part of the clerical abuse problem.

If some 4% of Catholic priests abused minors over a fifty year period (according to the John Jay Study), then true pedophiles were only about 10% of that number. Unfortunately, like true pedophiles everywhere, their appetites were voracious, and they accounted for close to a fourth of all the victims.

The majority of victims were not prepubescent children of both sexes, but pubescent and adolescent boys--in other words, the perpetrators were not pedophiles but homosexual men.

Robert Pinkerton| 4.13.10 @ 12:44PM

There exists an old-fashioned but exact word for such victimizers identified by their preference in victims, and that is pederast.

uncle curmudgeon| 4.13.10 @ 1:37PM

Just so, Mr. Koehl. Most of the academic and media elites cling to the pedophelia lie in spite of the overwhelming evidence of what these mosnters really are: not just homosexuals, but chicken-hawks.

Patrick| 4.13.10 @ 6:42PM

The problem is that the legal definition is at odds with the clinical definition.

Legally, pedophilia is molestation of any minor.

This is in contrast to the clinical definition, which only determines prepubescent molestation. The clinical terminology for older children is "ephebophilia" , which is where the homosexual factor resides.

As such, the homosexual activists in the "Hell's Bible" love to proclaim neutral results in terms of clinical pedophilia, while making no distinction with the legal definition.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:34PM

There is no "legal" definition of pedophilia, because there is no "crime" called pedophilia. There is statutory rape, and sodomy, and sexual assault, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, etc., etc.--but no pedophilia. When lawyers discuss pedophilia they rely on the DSM IV definition.

As for "ephebophilia", it's a neologism that does not actually describe any psychological or legal condition.

Kenny| 4.13.10 @ 7:36AM

It appears that the Vatican’s strategy for dealing with the homosexual sex scandals that have rocked the Church is to apologize, but not to admit to mistakes that would force high level resignations.(Think of the notorious Cardinal Law who is now living in Roman splendor. )

Rather, Rome approach seems to be to talk -- but not too loudly -- about reforming its seminaries to prevent new homosexuals from entering the priesthood while assuring that the ones who flooded into the clergy since Vatican II will be allowed to quietly die out.

Another reform touted by the Vatican is that it is now formal policy that bishops are to immediately notify the civil authorities if/when they have evidence that one of their priests has raped or molested a child. That something like this wasn’t always axiomatic staggers the imagination, and makes you wonder of the mindset of those in charge.

But the homosexuals pose an additional problem. If they were to be purged or aggressively kept out of seminaries, who knows what stories they could tell. And remember, aside from those sexual scandals, a perhaps even greater scandal in the Church was the leadership’s allowance of dissent priests & bishops to undermine official Church teaching on a whole host of issues year after year. Only God and his recording angles can calculate the damage done here, but I have to believe that the two scandals have more than a small degree of positive correlation to them.

To some Catholics, the Vatican reforms to date are pragmatic and sensible. To many others, however, they are an insult; the reforms are looked at as being too little, too late.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:28AM

Why should it stagger the imagination, when it is still common policy in various public school districts not to notify the authorities about suspicions of abuse, but rather to attempt to "address the issue" by quietly settling with the affected families and reassigning the offending teacher somewhere else? In any case, notifying the authorities does not ensure that criminal proceedings will ensue: district attorneys will insist on things like evidence, a viable case, and a victim willing to testify under oath. Only a small percentage of sexual offenders are actually prosecuted for their crimes; a smaller percentage still go to trial.

As for the underlying homosexual problem, Kenny is absolutely correct, but one reason the Church is presently under attack is its resistance to the homosexual agenda. Were the Church to aggressively purge homosexuals from the ranks of the clergy, be sure the Times would be in the forefront of accusing the Church of homophobia.

Oh, wait. Never mind.

T.A.| 4.13.10 @ 9:59AM

Excellent point re: public school districts. In Clark County, Nevada an accusation by a girl against a male teacher will lead to immediate suspension and an investigation. However, the district looks away or investigate only under extreme circumstances if a gay man is involved in any misconduct.

JP | 4.13.10 @ 9:22AM

Kenny,
The abuse problems are just part and parcel of a much larger pattern of dissent within the Church. I have wondered for years why such orthodox Christians tolerated such behavior. It mystified me even more when priests like the retiring Bishop Mahony get elevated first to Bishop, and then to Arch Bishop.

I think the worst scenario that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI faced was a permanent split in the Church. I know many Rad Trads (Radical Traditionalists) have demanded for years that the Church clean itself of all hetrodox Catholics ( the gays, heretical theologists, radical feminists, etc...). They argue it is best to carry on with a small remnant than with a huge organization that is plagued with dissent.

The problem with the remnant Church concept is that it goes against the idea of Universality . Is the Church only for the "saved" or is it for the sinners? The ultimate problem is one of fidelity. I think Benedict XVI has done yeoman's work in rifting out the criminal element within the priesthood. Most of the abusers committed thier crimes decades ago, and they have passed on. Many others now find themselves behind bars. I reallly don't think either Benedict or John Paul II had an inkling of how deeply the abuses penetrated the priesthood. People need to realize how de-centralized the Church is. Until the entire affair made national headlines in 2001-2002 the Bishops had administrative authority in dealing with the priests. It wasn't until the light was shown on how Cdl Law dealt with the Boston area abuses (therapy and priest shuffeling) did then Cdl Ratzinger get Pope John Paul II's permission to centralize the administering of the handling of abusive priests.

jp | 4.13.10 @ 7:38AM

The homosexual angle to the abuse scandal is the key to the entire sordid affair. But, we dare not bring this up. We somehow have to create out of thin air a new category. I have had decent people tell me with a straight face that these men who abused teenage boys were in fact hetro. This is the kind of PC that gets people hurt. What no one wants to admit is not only are the abusive priests homosexual, but also a number of the bishops who covered for the priests.

It is clear to many that the US Bishops cannot be trusted to handle such crimes. And now the very people who have lobbied for more freedom for US Catholic Dioceses as the same people who are now enraged at the Vatican. The abuse scandals occured within the local dioceses, and the priests were supervised by the local bishops. There are over 400,000 bishops worldwide and over 1 billion parishoners. The Vatican's CDF office is only staffed with 40 priests.

But now, with people insisting that the Vatican is somehow responsible for what went on in places like Milwaukee and Framingham, we will see a re-centralization of Vatican authority. The exact opposite of what many want. Be careful for what you wish for.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:09AM

Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Patrick| 4.13.10 @ 6:48PM

I'd think that would be the MOST appropriate time to be thinking and talking religion.

People are more prone to unexpectedly meet their Maker in times of trouble. Be prepared always.

chester arthur| 4.13.10 @ 8:03AM

The Liberals have no credibility on child molestation. For example, I still remember how they gave every break to the liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, the late Congressman Gerry Studd. The Democrats didn't even expel him from Congress. The voters from Massachusetts re-elected him several times.
The obituary in the Washington Post spent several columns praising him as the first openly homosexual member of Congress, with about two mild sentences referring to what he did to Congressional page boys.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:07AM

As I said in an earlier thread on the same topic, when liberals ostracize Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, when Obama's "Safe Schools Czar" is forced to resign over his close association with NAMBLA, then we can talk. But liberals are always too ready to point to the mote in their neighbor's eye to recognize the beam in their own. And, of course, if you're a liberal, there are no enemies to your left.

P. Smith| 4.13.10 @ 8:30AM

The fact is most homosexuals were molested as children by pedophiles; it is a self-propagating system of perversion that the media and the scientific community wish to ignore.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:08AM

Documentation for this rather sensational piece of news, please?

P. Smith| 4.13.10 @ 10:25AM

NARTH-National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality

Joseph Nicolosi & Elizabeth Moberly are good sources.

Both will basically say that homosexuals tend to have flawed relationships with one both parents. Pedophiles are experts at seeking these children out and taking advantage of them.

Nicolosi has stated in the past, that it has been his experience that most male homosexuals had poor relationships with their fathers, and then were taken advantage of by an older man as either a child or young teen. There is ample evidence that the homosexual community has, and has always had a fixation on young boys.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:38PM

You did a good job of answering a question I did not ask, and evading the question that I did. So, we'll start over: is there any evidence that the majority of homosexual men were abused as children by adult males?

As for the obvious fixation of homosexuals on young and young-looking men, that was noted by me, but has explanations other than "pedophilia"--specifically, the narcissism inherent in same-sex attraction and the need of homosexual men to feel both young and desirable. It's a form of arrested development.

Harold B.| 4.13.10 @ 9:10AM

The above statement is not true.

Sexual orientation originates in utero. When a heterosexual boy is sexually molested by an adult male, the boy remains heterosexual. The homosexual abuse by an adult male does not make him homosexual. This just does not happen.

Juvenile heterosexual males are known to experiment sexually with one another briefly in puberty, but this experimentation does not turn them into homosexuals. As I said earlier, sexual orientation is formed in the womb.

jd| 4.13.10 @ 9:27AM

And where is your proof for such a statement as orientation being in utero? Fact is, no scientific evidence exists. So where is your proof?

Harold B.| 4.13.10 @ 10:19AM

Here is a brief summary of one study:

Hormones in Womb Affect Sexual Orientation

"The level of male hormones in the womb can influence an unborn child's future sexual orientation, according to new research from a University of California, Berkeley, professor.

Marc Breedlove, professor of psychology, found that higher levels of these male hormones, or androgens, can create a greater than normal tendency for both males and females to develop a homosexual orientation. "

This is just one of many studies linking hormones in the womb to sexual orientation.

The majority of gay people will tell you that they were aware they were "different" in early childhood, and by the time they were five or six, they knew their emotional and sexual interests were focused on members of their own sex.

Gay teenagers experience terrible suffering because of their sexual difference. Obviously, they do not "choose" to be gay.

This seething hatred for gay people is a mystery to me. Instead of hating them, we should show more compassion and try to understand their plight. They must live on a daily basis in a hostile environment, knowing they are outcasts from the norm.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 10:28AM

Not exactly junk science, but close to it. It does not, as I said, explain how large groups of boys can be trained into homosexuality--as the example of the Turkish Janissaries demonstrates. As I said, the phenomenology is complex, and reductionism doesn't result in enlightenment.

As for the "seething hatred" crap, spare me the pity party. Nobody is seething here, just recognizing facts. If the facts disturb you, then don't suppress them, but work to change them.

Miss Alabama| 4.13.10 @ 11:03AM

According to history , military expeditions provoked homosexuality. It’s not unusual to see in communities like Janissaries, who were banned from marrying, get involved in homosexuality.

It is a well-known fact that heterosexual prisoners, denied sexual intercourse with women, will engage in homosexual acts.

Homosexuality was rampant in Greek armies.

I disagree with your statement that "large groups of [heterosexual] boys can be trined into homosexuality." They were not trained. They were denied sexual gratification with females, so they turned to each other for sex.

I support Harold B.'s contention that homosexuality is mostly genetically determined, and more and more geneticists are reaching this conclusion.

JP| 4.13.10 @ 1:17PM

"According to history , military expeditions provoked homosexuality. It’s not unusual to see in communities like Janissaries, who were banned from marrying, get involved in homosexuality."

That is a bit of modern misconception. The Athenians obviously had a large bi population (see Socrates and his followers). But the most other cities did not. And the armies of Alexander had plenty of hetros as witnessed to the hundreds of thousands of women who were raped in thier armies wake. Homsexuality may have been a choice for some, but for the majority of the Macedonian soldiers captured female slaves were of thier choosing.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:52PM

On the one hand, the Greeks were tolerant of homosexuality, particularly as a mentoring device between adults and adolescents. But they had little tolerance for men who were exclusively homosexual. The Spartans, for instance, accepted "philanthropia", and housed the "homooi" ("peers") in all-male barracks, but also expected them to get married and have many children. The only example of an exclusively homosexual military unit among the Greeks was the Theban Sacred Band of 300 pairs of homosexual lovers. Alexander wiped their clock at the Battle of Cheironea--all 300 pairs were killed, side-by-side.

The Romans, for their part, despised homosexuality even as they tolerated it among the aristocracy--provided it was discreet. A standing law from the Twelve Tablets decreed death for any man making homosexual advances whilst serving in the army--a rule that was strictly enforced. Rumors of homosexual tendencies could dog a politician and ruin his career, which is why Julius Caesar, accused of being the catamite of the King of Bithynia, was extremely sensitive about the issue and perhaps overcompensated by cuckolding most of his political rivals.

The Macedonians, from Philip II and Alexander III down to the lowest ranker, were sexual omnivores who would poke anything that moved on two or even four legs, assuming that they were sober enough at the moment to hit the target. They were semi-civilized barbarians, which is why the Greeks loathed them.

Patrick| 4.13.10 @ 7:11PM

First, there is a wide gulf of difference between genetic and hormonal.

Second, there is no "on/off switch" for homosexual or heterosexual in genetics or anything else. I am sick of lazy reductionism of any and all things to one variable.

Homosexual behavior, like most behaviors, have numerous variables and vectors. Just as you won't find a "depression gene", you won't find a "homosexual gene". Just because someone is prone to depression doesn't mean they suffer from it.

Of course, lazy reductionism is a hallmark of liberalism. Let's think of another example: Global Warming.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:20PM

I am very curious as to how any study could determine the hormone levels to which gay men (the studies are mute on lesbians) were exposed in utero. One would have to assume a lapse of many years between conception and self-identification as homosexual; how, then, does one go back and measure uterine hormone levels?

What has been done is a study of the effects of in utero hormone variations in animal analogues (e.g., rats), but, alas! rats are not people, and rat behavior is rather more simplistic than human behavior.

So, such studies, while interesting, are pretty much useless except as propaganda bombs to drop on the scientifically and statistically challenged population.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:41PM

Denial of normal outlets is a form of training, particularly when combined with indoctrination that makes homosexuality seem not only normal, but "cool".

If you want to support Harold B.'s contentions, fine--but produce a sufficient body of peer-reviewed research to make the case. So far, we have nothing but tenuous hypothetical genetic links combined with some deductions based on limited empirical observation--all of which taken together has so many exceptions as to make the rule worthless.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 2:21PM

"...It does not, as I said, explain how large groups of boys can be trained into homosexuality..."

No, the Catholic seminaries do a fine enough job of that.

Patrick| 4.14.10 @ 7:41PM

The 1970's are over.

Pope Benedict made it quite clear a few years ago that those suffering from homosexual attractions are not to be ordained.

Of course, knowing that would require certain people to take those Kirk Cameron movies out of your DVD player for a minute.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 9:35AM

And of course, these perverts NEVER hide their homosexuality, do they???????

Face it: The Catholic Church IS ordaining gay priests; it IS a fact.

The Catholic dreamworld you inhabit is bizarre.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 11:01AM

You provide evidence for nothing you say, Doctor Bigot.

No wonder why you're so afraid to lay claim to where you attend services.

JP | 4.13.10 @ 10:50AM

"This seething hatred for gay people is a mystery to me. Instead of hating them, we should show more compassion and try to understand their plight."

This is exactly the formula that the shrinks gave to many bishops during the 1970s-1980s. It was something that the polite liberal society of that era demanded for gays. Now these very same people are blaming the RCC for taking up thier advise. Can't have it both ways.

jd| 4.13.10 @ 11:03AM

You do know that the panel of psychologists who gave the recommendation for taking homosexuality off the mental disorder list were comprised of 4 homos out of a panel of 7. Don't think they had an agenda to pursue? So citing a Berkeley profession of psychology is all you have for scientific evidence? And spare me the pontificating of seething hatred of homosexuals. Fact is, I don't seethe about homos per se, just the abuse of boys that occurs as a result of THEIR HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR.

Paul| 4.13.10 @ 1:31PM

I am familiar with this conservative canard that attempts to undo the verdict of history (almost 40 years ago) that homsexuality is not a pathology. But you've lost that argument, and your children and grandchildren will happy to tell you so. Just ask them. Say something like, "Gay people are evil becuase they choose their behavior," and they will (a) laugh at you (b) correct you or (c) stare at you that same way I stared at MY grandfather who opined publicly that it was wrong for people of different races to get married.
Don't worry, you don't have to change your mind. The people who think like you are dying out; and you are being replaced with people who think like me.
The APA was right. But they should have classified "fundamentalist religious thinking" as a clinical pathology.

RAMIII| 4.13.10 @ 1:48PM

Paul, this comment was absurd. You are ACTUALLY trying to compare interracial marriage with homosexual behavior.

How dare you insult those who marry a member of the opposite sex with a different race, by comparing them with people who behave in a sexually deviant way, which even biology teaches you is errant. Your logic is deeply flawed.

Paul| 4.13.10 @ 2:36PM

Your inability to see that interracial marriage and same-sex marriage are the same, i.e., the joining for life of two adult humans who love each other, does not make my argument illogical. It is intstead of failure of your comprehension.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:34PM

Actually, they are quite different. Interracial marriage remains marriage--one man, one woman. In cultures other than the United States, interracial marriages were quite common. In antiquity, race did not count for as much as citizen status, and citizens married citizens regardless of color. It wasn't black vs. white, it was free vs. unfree.

Since race as a barrier to marriage really only existed in the United States as a result of our unique history and the "peculiar institution", one cannot say that there was a universal aversion to it.

On the other hand, in no society, at any time, in any place, ever recognized marriage between two people of the same sex. Even cultures largely tolerant or indifferent to homosexuality (e.g., ancient Greece) only recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Polygamous cultures might recognize the union of one man and several women, and the rare polyandrous cultures recognize the union of one woman with several men, but one looks in vain for a culture in which a man can join in marriage with one or more men, or a woman with one or more women.

Therefore, gay marriage is an oxymoron, a term which contradicts itself. Gay marriage is not so much wrong as impossible, because whatever you want to call such unions, you cannot call it marriage.

In every language, marriage is a perfectly good word with a specific meaning that just happens to exclude what you want. And you have no right to redefine that word, or the social institution it represents, just because it is inconvenient for you.

Paul| 4.13.10 @ 2:44PM

Oh, and biology teaches me that same-sex behavior is rampant in the animal world. Hundreds of species exhibit it. (OK, source freaks, try "Biological Exuberance" for starters. Google will give you plenty of relevant examples.) And if you try to say that I'm trying to rationalize same-sex behavior on the basis of what we can readily observe in the animal kingdom, my repsonse is that YOU are the ones who brought the issue up to begin with.
Bigot: "It's not natural!"
Thinker: "It's everywhere in the animal world."
Bigot: "Aha! Comparing yourselves to animals!"
Thinker: "Why do I waste my breath on someone who doesn't even know his argument has already been destroyed years ago?"

Nick| 4.13.10 @ 3:28PM

Paul,

Animals also eat their own vomit, and dung, and their own young.

Do you practice these "natural" acts observed in the "animal world?"

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:31PM

Eating one's feces is also common in the natural world; shall we do that?

You might want to Google "naturalistic fallacy" and avoid further embarassment.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:35PM

Do you really want to compare yourself to a rutting animal? If so, do be my guest, but most of us hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Miss Alabama| 4.13.10 @ 3:29PM

Paul, you are so correct in saying that the people who think like J.D. and other bigots on this blog are "dying out." The fact that these old reactionaries will not be around too much longer is a consolation to me and many of my free-thinking colleagues.

We are going through a moral evolution as far as trying to understand people who are different from the norm. However, the majority of posters on this sight are going to adhere to their blind prejudices.

I laughed out loud at your last sentence: " . . .they should have classified 'fundamentalist religious thinking' as a clinical pathology.

We--by "we" I mean people with open minds-- abhor the sexual abuse of children committed by Roman Catholic priests, and we denounce them vociferously, but we are not going to excoriate the entire gay population for the crimes of the clergy-- and we are not going to condemn the entire priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church because, in consideration of the huge scope of child sexual abuse, the priests are only a small part of the problem, and only a small percentage of priests are guilty of sexual molestation.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:32PM

No, you and others like you will condemn the Church because she opposes the homosexual rights agenda.

When may we look forward to your full-throated condemnation of NAMBLA, which seeks to legalize and normalize the very behavior you claim to abhor in the Church?

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 2:05PM

Neat how you refer to the Church as "she".

There's that none-too-subtle, paganistic Mary-worship, again!

Missy| 4.14.10 @ 2:21PM

Why do you hate women, Dr. Right?

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 2:26PM

I don't.

My post is a direct reference to the Catholic practice of worshiping Mary as a goddess.

As I've explained, this practice originates in the Church's absorption of the pagan peoples of Europe. Many of these pagans worshiped earth-goddesses. The Church thought that merging Mary with these earth-goddesses was a neat-o way of helping the pagans adapt to Catholicism.

Over the centuries, this pernicious practice took on a life of it's own, to the point that in many Catholic Churches worldwide, images of Mary predominate over images of Jesus.

It's nothing but vile paganism.

Do ya' get it now?

Missy| 4.14.10 @ 3:01PM

Liar. Mary is NOT worshiped as a goddess in the Catholic Church; she's an intercessor who petitions Jesus Christ on our behalf.

Your vicious posts show your hatred toward Catholics and only serve to divide people of faith further. Shame on you.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 9:32AM

It's nothing but Doctor Bigot's lies, the bitter fruit of Reformation-era anti-Catholic propaganda.

Here's what the Church teaches regarded devotion to Christ's mother:

971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship."515 The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration."516 The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.517

Note that the Church teaches veneration for Mary is NOT similar to the worship of God.

Christians love what Christ loved and Christ loved his mother, whom Scripture says all generations will call blessed.

Doctor Bigot's hatred for Mary is not Christlike at all, Christ having even made provision for Mary's well-being in the midst of his agony on the Cross.

Doctor Bigot is also ignorant of the fact that the Orthodox Church venerates Mary as well and has since the earliest days.

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 4:50PM

Doctor Wrong,

The Church is the Bride of Christ. That is why it is referred to as "She."

When were you "educated" in Catholic schools?

If it was in the '70s and '80s, this would explain your ignorance of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. As opposed to what you think it teaches.

I grew up in the Church in that time period, so I know what I'm talking about. 15 years ago I started learning what the Church really teaches, and I'm still learning.

It takes some humility, and a lot of prayer. You should try it, Doc.

Missy| 4.14.10 @ 8:02PM

Humility? Not a chance with this cretin, Nick.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 9:24AM

Ahh, Doctor Bigot finally found his Fundamentalist talking points.

So you think your parents worship Mary, Doctor Bigot?

The Catholic Church is often referred to as "she" because the Church is the Bride of Christ.

The application of the indefinite pronoun has nothing to do with Mary.

Indeed, St Paul refers to the Church as feminine in 2 Cor 11 when speaking to the Corinthians:

[1] Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.
[2] For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

St Paul was of course too Catholic for Doctor Bigot's tastes.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:36PM

I cannot make up my mind whether you are truly stupid or just willfully disingenuous.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 2:28PM

That's OK.

Let me help you: I'm willfully correct.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:53PM

While we are on the subject of medieval attitudes, don't you adopt one yourself by conflating illness with evil?

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 9:38AM

You're a fool.

I could not care less what a bunch of morons at the APA say of think about homosexuality, or if my children "laugh" at me (they won't; they agree with me).

My guide is the Bible, not the APA. Fools at the APA cannot undo God's word, and neither can you.

Your type of relativistic thinking is destroying western civilization.

Missy| 4.15.10 @ 1:36PM

Yeah, we're the ones destroying western civilization; not you, the one who chooses to aid and abet those on the Left who are trying to destroy the Catholic Church. Projection is a pillar of Leftist thought, Doctor--think about it.

You're just another useful idiot for Leftist atheists, and as such--YOU are destroying western civilization. Self-righteous fool.

Teflon93| 4.16.10 @ 9:30AM

Doctor Bigot being incapable of persuading his parents to renounce the Bride of Christ, there is little danger he'll persuade anyone else, Missy.

No one else in this thread has seen fit to pick up what passes for Doctor Bigot's arguments---despite them all being anti-Catholic talking points and most being over four centuries old now.

I'm beginning to believe the Lord is using Doctor Bigot with all his bug-eyed, spittle-flinging invective to completely discredit anti-Catholics.

Can you think of a worse spokesman for the cause than Doctor Bigot?

Missy| 4.16.10 @ 4:16PM

No, I can't--he's too irrational to be a spokesman; who would take him seriously?

This is obviously intensely personal for him; I can't help but feel compassion for Doc Right.

"Bug-eyed." Perfect Description. lol

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:34AM

"Sexual orientation originates in utero. "

Neither is there any proof for this assertion, either. Sexual orientation appears to be a complex phenomenon that may have a genetic component, but there there is no doubt that homosexual activity is very much influenced by environment, and that one can easily cause large, randomly selected groups of boys to develop into homosexual adults.

The Ottoman Turks, for instance, recruited the Janissary Corps from among young Christian boys. At its peak, the Corps consisted of more than 20,000 men--all of whom were homosexuals. Raised exclusively among men, introduced to sex by older Janissary men, they all naturally developed a homosexual proclivity. There is no way that genetics could account for this, nor could the Ottomans have known a priori which boys would be inclined to homosexuality. In short, they were raised to be homosexuals.

Moreover, the phenomenology of lesbianism is very different from that of male homosexuality, and nobody has claimed a genetic predisposition in women.

John - TMF| 4.13.10 @ 11:13PM

Stuart,

You are knocking them out of the park, but I just wanted to pitch in with a fat one of very recent discovery.

The US Military operating in Afghanistan noticed an extremely large number of cases of various disease and injury pathologies only seen in prisons and gay communities in the US amongst Pashtun tribesmen. (note: this was a Fox News article, but finding the link in the search engines is a trip through stuff that won't get through my parental content filter... yeesh) These include venereal diseases of the rectum, mouth, tearing, etc. (not wanting to get to graphic, here.. but the high level details are important).

When asked if they were engaging in "homosexual" behaviors, the men became enraged... even violent. The upshot was that they were, indeed, engaging in homosexual acts with other tribesmen.

It seems that Pashtun men do not consider homosexual sex, homosexual, as long as "love" is not involved... and it is the preferred method of sexual relief since interaction and intercourse with women is reserved for procreation. Any erotic involvement with women is shunned as unclean or undesirable.

This sexual activity is definitely not "genetic". It is social, cultural, and conditioned.

Oh, and the psychology of homosexuality was explored and explained in painful detail by Sigmund Freud. No one has actually ever proven him wrong. I doubt that they ever will.

As to the issue as it concerns the Roman Catholic Priesthood (remember I am Catholic of the Roman variety...) I find that when one removes marriage and family from the equation, in a society where families are barely of population replacement size, the impulse to discover the calling is low. Moms and Dads want to be Grandmas and Grandpas. When a couple has two children, or even three, giving up genetic eternity for the rigors of chastity looks mighty unattractive.

The talent pool of normal socially well adjusted heterosexual males becomes exceedingly small. Our parish has lost 3 priests and one transitional deacon because they were unable to maintain a life of sterile companionship.

Love the sinner, despise the sin...

Peace,
The Mighty Fahvaag

Stuart Koehl| 4.14.10 @ 6:03AM

Anyone capable of reading between the lines would have discovered this in British memoirs and histories of the Northwest Frontier. The British lived among the Pashtun for many years, and became familiar with this aspect of their culture--which is also found among the Bedouin, among others.

P.Smith| 4.14.10 @ 8:49AM

I have a friend that spent a year in Iraq, he said he was shocked at the number of Iraqi men who were involved in homosexual behavior; he had always thought that sodomy was frowned upon in the Muslim world. I told him that Mideast cultures are nearly completely corrupt, and that all cultures become distorted eventually, this is why reformation is so important. We must get rid of the chaff that builds up over time, or we will be suffocated.

tonypal| 4.13.10 @ 9:35AM

Would you please cite to the peer reviewed studies that prove conclusively that sexual orientation originates in utero. Apart from anecdotal evidence found in a study of a very small sample of twins from several years ago, I'm unaware of anything other than assertions from the homosexual lobby of a genetic component to sexuality.

Now before you get your underwear tied up in a knot, I'm not saying that sexuality isn't genetic. But when you make s statement without providing facts, all you have is an assertion. So please enlighten us, as it would certainly be helpful.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:33PM

Climategate taught us "peer-reviewed" is not synonymous with "true", no?

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:37PM

The system only works if everyone in it is devoted to truth, and not to the furtherance of some agenda divorced from it.

Sara| 4.13.10 @ 12:03PM

What does it matter how gay men become gay? Whether it is by nature or environment, it has no bearing on the issue of pedophilia.

The issue is whether gay "priests" molest boys. Or for that matter, whether straight priests molest girls. Gay or straight: No molester of children should be allowed in the vicinity of children again. They can't be cured, apparently. No molester has a right to call himself a priest, since priests have the well-being of their parishioners at heart, not their own gratification. Molesters are merely posing as priests, Boy Scout leaders, school teachers, Protestant ministers, etc.

I don't know the actual statistics on priests who have molested children. But in our part of the South, we have a rather large Catholic population, and I've never heard of any molestation by a priest in this area. My husband was brought up Catholic and went on many outings with priests who were friends of his family. He never heard of anyone, male or female, being molested by a priest. I grew up Protestant and never heard of any molestation of children by Protestant ministers either. In the fifties our parents believed molesters were strangers with candy. Most often it seems they were close to or members of victims' families.

We have had in recent years a middle school music teacher who went to prison for molesting boys, a Baptist music minister who is in prison for a single, decades-old incident of sexual impropriety with a teenage girl, and a recent set of allegations against a middle school coach, who apparently molested and photographed boys in his charge, as well as dealing in child pornography. But no priests.

So, it seems to me the instance of molestation among Catholic priests is rather overblown, since any such incidents among other professions and denominations is rarely reported in the national media.

There are so many good priests. My heart goes out to them.

Tim*| 4.13.10 @ 8:38AM

Sex Abuse in Public Schools Ignored :
" Sherryll Kraizer, executive director of the Denver-based Safe Child Program, told the Colorado Gazette in 2008 that school employees commonly ignore laws meant to prevent the sexual abuse of children.

“I see it regularly,” Kraizer said. “There are laws against failing to report, but the law is almost never enforced. Almost never.”

“What typically happens is you’ll have a teacher who’s spending a little too much time in a room with one child with the door shut,” Kraizer explained. “Another teacher sees it and reports it to the principal. The principal calls the suspected teacher in and says ‘Don’t do that,’ instead of contacting child protective services.
Before you know it, the teacher is driving the student home. A whole series of events will unfold, known to other teachers and the principal, and nobody contacts child services before it’s out of control. You see this documented in records after it eventually ends up in court.”

Pingback| 4.13.10 @ 9:09AM

The Curious Incident at the American Spectator links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

Curious Incident at the American Spectator April 13th, 2010 · No Comments If you’ve ever wondered what a lobotomy in print form looks like, search no further than this tedious, rambling piece in The American Spectator by Daniel Oliver. The author strokes his chin, at great length, over the question of why, in all The New York Times ‘ recent reporting on sexual abuse by priests,…

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 9:18AM

And at last we get to the heart of the matter.

This USCCB commissioned study by John Jay bears out all of the author's points:

http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

In the data, you can see sexual abuse incidents by ordination year of the accused priest (confirming the vast majority were ordained in the 60s and 70s), by gender of victim (most boys), etc.

The New York Times tries to spin all of this into the evil, sexually repressed Catholic Church, but it is not the Church which:

a) supports a gay rights agenda which includes removing---not strengthening---prohibitions against adult-minor sex;

b) opposes any and all efforts to discriminate against active homosexuals including in adoption, childcare, teaching, etc;

c) insists that homosexual behavior must not only be tolerated but celebrated if not fully preferred to heterosexual behavior;

d) distorts reality constantly in order to present homosexual behavior in only the most gauzy, warm light;

e) actively opposes any and all efforts designed to reduce the incidence of homosexual behavior and help those with homosexual impulses to control them.

It was LISTENING to The New York Times which got the American Church in trouble in the first place.

Meanwhile, the Times' and others' silence regarding much higher incidence rates of sexual abuse of children in public schools, athletic programs, etc is no doubt due to the fact that:

a) most of these incidents involve homosexual acts;

b) reducing the incidence rate would involve limiting the ability of homosexual teachers and coaches to prey upon their charges.

Again, one must take pains to note that this does NOT mean that the majority of people with homosexual impulses are inclined to molest minors; merely that the majority of those who molest minors have homosexual impulses.

The Church rightly focuses on the behavior, not the impulse---so should we.

The New York Times doesn't give a fig. And rest assured that any child molestors at The Times will go unmolested in its coverage of sexual abuse.

Doctor Right| 4.13.10 @ 3:50PM

So the Catholic Church "...opposes any and all efforts to discriminate against active homosexuals including in adoption, childcare, teaching, etc...". huh?

That's a tad too ironic, dont'cha think???

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:18PM

Once again, Doctor Bigot, you use words without knowing what they mean.

Here is Catholic teaching on homosexuality:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

You disagree, I take it?

Jamie| 4.14.10 @ 4:11AM

Good smack down, Teflon; I'm tired of Doc Bigot, too.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 2:07PM

L'il Book of Catty-Chisms: RULE # 2314-09-1456-09

[Amended by St. Steve the Sissy in 1247]

Homosexuality is to-die-for...Literally...Unless you're "in the club".

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 2:10PM

No, I don't disagree. Why would I?

You act as if the Catholic Church discovered homosexuality, and invented the definition.

The question is NOT "What is homosexuality?"

The question is "If the Catholic Church's own teachings forbid the approval of homosexuals, and the ordaining of same, then WHY does the Catholic Church ordain so many homosexuals (and pedophiles) ???

Dude, you're swimming in a sea of contradictions.

Jamie| 4.14.10 @ 2:26PM

What's happened to you, Doctor Right? You've become unhinged.

I feel sorry for you.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 9:40AM

?????

Sorry, but where I come from, sexually abusing children, and enabling those who do so, is emblematic of being "unhinged".

And I noticed you avoided the question. What a good Catholic you are.

Missy| 4.15.10 @ 1:51PM

Typical leftist: "Do it for the children." You sound like the baby killers at Planned Parenthood.

You don't give a damn about the kids who were abused; this is just a convenient opportunity for you to spew your ugly hate at Catholics.

You really are a coward; first you hide behind the hateful deviants at the NYT, then you hide behind the kids. You're a sadsack, Doc; your acerbic bitterness is obvious and makes you appear unhinged.

Doctor Right| 4.16.10 @ 8:19AM

"Planned Parenthood"..??

Yeah...That makes sense.

Missy: Please seek professional help. You're a hysteric.

Teflon93| 4.16.10 @ 9:27AM

Whereas you, Doctor Bigot, are simply hysterical.

Come clean: you're a Catholic sock puppet, aren't you?

NOBODY could do as poorly attempting to seriously hold up the anti-Catholic side as you're doing.

Come on, 'fess up---it's been three threads now.

Missy| 4.16.10 @ 4:10PM

You're a laugher, DR! I'm hysterical; as opposed to you who have been ranting and raving at complete strangers on an anonymous web-site. For days! It's that projection thing again, Doc; you just can't help yourself, I guess.
I don't know whether to laugh at you or feel sorry for you!

I know what "blind rage, blinded by rage, blind hatred, blinded by hatred" mean now.

It's Doctor Right's inability to see himself as he really is that makes him seem so irrational. I don't know what happened to him to make him so enraged, but the guy's seriously gone off his nut.

Prayer, meds and anger-management therapy are advised--in that order.

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:17PM

The Catholic Church doesn't ordain "so many homosexuals (and pedophiles)."

As you've been corrected again and again, Doctor Bigot, the vast majority of sexual abuse incidents involved teenagers, not prepubescent children. Since you obviously lack access to an encyclopedia, here's the entry for pedophilia from Encyclopedia Brittanica:

pedophilia

psychosexual disorder in which an adult's arousal and sexual gratification occur primarily through sexual contact with prepubescent children.

According to the John Jay study, over 80 pct of the allegations of sexual abuse began at age 11 or older:

"The majority of victims are males between the ages of 11-17, and just over half (50.7%) of all
individuals who made allegations of abuse were between the ages of 11-14. The average age
of all alleged victims is 12.6. This number has increased over time, however. In the 1950s, the
average age was 11.5; in the 1960s it was 12; in the 1970s it was 12.87; in the 1980s it was 13.2;
and by the 1990s it was 13.87."

Note that the mean age at the start of the abuse increases over time, not decreases as one would expect were the Church ordaining more pedophiles.

Moreover, as this graph amply demonstrates, the total number of allegations dropped 90% between 1982 and the present.

http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/prev3.pdf

And since reference works elude you, here is the definition of "bigot":

–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Thank you for demonstrating it is accuracy, not lack of charity, which compels me to refer to you as Doctor Bigot.

SoCon| 4.14.10 @ 8:06PM

DR is not arguing in good faith, Teflon; the question is why?

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 9:38AM

That's an easy one, SoCon---Doctor Bigot does not argue in good faith because he cannot.

1. He repeats lies about what the Church teaches and when corrected with the actual authoritative teaching from the Catechism he complains about the Church having a Catechism.

2. He claims to believe only what Scripture teaches and yet when asked for Scriptural evidence for specific beliefs provides none.

3. He claims the Church teaches things which contradict Scripture and when provided with the Scriptural evidence for what the Church teaches ignores it.

4. He claims we Catholics are using "talking points" but faithfully regurgitates Jack Chick's corpus when challenged, with no evidence he even understands the charge he's making.

Doctor Bigot's parents are Catholic and one must necessarily wonder if he is taking out the anger on the Church that he holds for them. It is a not uncommon motivation for cradle Catholics fallen away in adulthood.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 9:41AM

Never heard of "Jack Chick"...Sounds like a pervert. Friend of yours, maybe?

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 9:44AM

Your armchair psychoanalysis is amusing.

I'm not angry with my parents; I love them. I simply want to save them from enslavement to a paganistic religion masquerading as Christianity, and that condones the sexual abuse of chldren.

Your Church is rotting...As it should. Everything built on lies eventually crumbles.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 9:46AM

Matthew 23:9

"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

Check, please!

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 10:59AM

Ahh, so Jesus called St Joseph "Joe" or "Hey you" or "That guy over there", right?

The commandment requires us to "honor thy mother and the provider of the other half of our chromosomes."

Scripture clearly errs, then, with all the references to men as "father":

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/.....=First+100

1 John 2:

[13] I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.

John was wrong and unChristian, right?

2 Peter 3:

[4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Peter was wrong and unChristian, right?

2 James 1:

[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James was wrong and unChristian, right?

Hebrews 12:

[9] Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

1 Thessalonians 2:

[11] As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,

Colossians 3:

[21] Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

Ephesians 6:
[4] And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Romans 15:

[8] Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Paul was wrong and unChristian, right?

And so on. And so on.

Blow the dust off your Bible, read it, and stop making a fool of yourself, Doctor Bigot.

Missy| 4.15.10 @ 2:08PM

Doctor Right claims to love and honor his parents yet DESPISES the Catholic faith in which they reared him and still hold dear to this day. His antipathy toward his parents' beliefs must bring great harmony to family dinners and holidays together. Ouch!

Sounds like Doctor Right is a source of pain and disappointment for his parents. He is a living, breathing rejection of what is precious to them.
I feel sorry for his parents; I hope they have other children who honor and respect them.

Doctor Right| 4.16.10 @ 8:23AM

Nice try. More obfuscation.

I suppose, in order to placate Catholics around the world who NEVER study scripture (such as yourself) and don't understand it (such as yourself), we should do the following:

IGNORE the exhortation of Matthew 23:9 and call EVERYONE "Father"!

But hey...Ignoring scripture is what Catholics generally do, so why stop now?

You really a a drone.

You're unable to grasp the simple fact that Jesus wasn't referring to your biological daddy; he was referring to fake, phony frauds who wear fancy vestments and insist on being called "father" because they pretend to speak for God.

I hope one day I can meet the Pope, so I can call him "Mr. Ratzinger".

Teflon93| 4.16.10 @ 9:24AM

Once again, since Doctor Bigot is apparently so deceitful and so blinded by hatred he can't even recognize this response to his Reformation talking point merely two posts above:

Ahh, so Jesus called St Joseph "Joe" or "Hey you" or "That guy over there", right?

The commandment requires us to "honor thy mother and the provider of the other half of our chromosomes."

Scripture clearly errs, then, with all the references to men as "father":

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/.....=First+100

1 John 2:

[13] I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.

John was wrong and unChristian, right?

2 Peter 3:

[4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Peter was wrong and unChristian, right?

2 James 1:

[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James was wrong and unChristian, right?

Hebrews 12:

[9] Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

1 Thessalonians 2:

[11] As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,

Colossians 3:

[21] Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

Ephesians 6:
[4] And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Romans 15:

[8] Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Paul was wrong and unChristian, right?

And so on. And so on.

Blow the dust off your Bible, read it, and stop making a fool of yourself, Doctor Bigot.
Ahh, so Jesus called St Joseph "Joe" or "Hey you" or "That guy over there", right?

The commandment requires us to "honor thy mother and the provider of the other half of our chromosomes."

Scripture clearly errs, then, with all the references to men as "father":

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/.....=First+100

1 John 2:

[13] I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father.

John was wrong and unChristian, right?

2 Peter 3:

[4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Peter was wrong and unChristian, right?

2 James 1:

[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

James was wrong and unChristian, right?

Hebrews 12:

[9] Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

1 Thessalonians 2:

[11] As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,

Colossians 3:

[21] Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.

Ephesians 6:
[4] And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Romans 15:

[8] Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Paul was wrong and unChristian, right?

And so on. And so on.

Blow the dust off your Bible, read it, and stop making a fool of yourself, Doctor Bigot.

Missy| 4.16.10 @ 3:49PM

You're kidding, right? The Pope's bodyguards shouldn't let you anywhere near him--you're a threat to his life.

You're scary.

Juan| 4.13.10 @ 9:19AM

"The fact is most homosexuals were molested as children by pedophiles; it is a self-propagating system of perversion that the media and the scientific community wish to ignore. "
P. Smith's quote is correct.
I can add this. Evil begets evil. The Bible will tell you that no one is created evil by God. Evil is a chosen act, not an intrinsic part of the human being. Evil is a rebellion against God.
They are not what they think they are, nor what they say they are. Those overcome with evil are self-deluded, and, they are liars. The rest of us must stop allowing them to publish and promote their lies.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:38AM

It would be more accurate to say that most pedophiles were molested by other pedophiles as children. There is no indication that the majority of homosexuals, male or female, were molested at all. As I said, the phenomenology is complex.

Paul| 4.13.10 @ 1:22PM

Then clearly, you were molested by a fundamentalist bigot as a child. It is the only way to explain your choice or persisting in the evil of propogating the rubbish your read in the bible as some sort of moral truth.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:17PM

That "rubbish" happens to be the backbone of liberty in our civilization and the font of such goodness as exists in this world.

If you'd like to see what rule by the mores of the atheist yields, Paul, you have only to look to the tender rule of Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, and Kim Jong-Il.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:59PM

Now, it's really interesting that there are only two types of countries in the world where homosexuals truly are persecuted--and even killed for their sexual proclivities. These are, of course, the few remaining communist states (Cuba and North Korea) and the rapidly multiplying Islamic states (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.). Back in the day, homosexuality was treated as a crime against the state in the USSR and the PRC, as well as all of their satellite states. China still treats homosexuals as pariahs.

So, when push comes to shove, homosexuals have relatively little to fear from Christians or Jews, and a great deal to fear from officially atheistic socialist states and officially Islamic states. The Left and radical Islam--strange bedfellows indeed.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 8:11PM

I suppose the rationale is that the Communists and Islamists may kill them, but at least they won't make them feel guilty.

Dying for something one cherishes holds the allure of martyrdom; being informed one cherishes the wrong thing to no good end holds no such allure.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:40PM

Actually, they like to pretend they are oppressed today--despite having a privileged place among the social elites and one being one of the top socio-economic cohorts in the country. They enjoy feeling like martyrs, provided it is a comfortable and not too demanding martyrdom.

SoCon| 4.14.10 @ 4:42AM

Excellent posts, gentlemen. Thank you.

Teflon, you're inspired.

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:54AM

Thank you, SoCon, you're too kind. Stuart's posts are the ones I look forward to, entertaining, informative, and always interesting.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:55PM

If this is what qualifies in your book as reasoned discourse, it's not a good reflection on your side of this argument.

But thanks for playing, anyway.

charlotte thomson iserbyt | 4.13.10 @ 9:26AM

It is obvious the leftist media, etc. are going after of Pope Benedict XVI since they fear him and his more traditional views. How unfair to target him when he wasn't Pope while this abuse was going on, and he, even shortly before he became Pope, was the one who virtually single-handedly took care of the problem to the extent that last year in the USA there were only six cases of sexual abuse by priests. Even one is too much but take a look at the statistics for sexual abuse in the public schools:

The following information regarding sexual harrassment of students is very important and must be made public. I found these statistics at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....Statistics

Sexual harassment and abuse of students by teachers
[edit] Prevalence

In their 2002 survey, the AAUW reported that, of students who had been harassed, 38% were harassed by teachers or other school employees. One survey, conducted with psychology students, reports that 10% had sexual interactions with their educators; in turn, 13% of educators reported sexual interaction with their students.[7] In a survey of high school students, 14% reported that they had engaged in sexual intercourse with a teacher. (Wishnietsky, 1991) In a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 found that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000. And a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education found that nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students reported having been targeted with sexual attention by school employees. Indeed, one critic has claimed that sexual harassment and abuse by teachers is 100 times more frequent than abuse by priests.[8

This information should circulate worldwide.

Marc Jeric| 4.13.10 @ 9:42AM

What happened with the Men and Boys Love Association? Are they still trying to take over the Boys Scouts? Still voting 100% for Democrats?

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:34PM

Ask Arne Duncan, Obama's Secretary of Education. He apparently has warm relations with NAMBLA, if not shared goals.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:01PM

It's not Duncan, it's Kevin Jennings, the "Safe Schools Czar", homosexual activist, and apologist for NAMBLA.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 8:12PM

Thank you for the correction---and my apologies to Mr. Duncan!

Nobama| 4.14.10 @ 4:40AM

Jennings is a real piece of work; who else but a NAMBLA apologist would Obama appoint to look after our children?

Disgusting liberals.

Alan Brooks| 4.13.10 @ 10:02AM

Show us a gay male who isn't attracted to boys ( at least underage teenagers), and you will show us a eunuch.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 10:33AM

Living in the metro DC area, possibly the third largest gay community after San Francisco and New York (estimates are 15% of District residents are gay, vs. 2.5% nationally), I have observed that the gay culture seems to be oriented around youth and youthful-looking sex partners. Gay literature abounds with older man initiates young boy stories, and the gay press seems sympathetic to say the least to organizations such as NAMBLA.

I remember as a (very young looking) sixteen year old just come to Georgetown University back in the 70s being hit on shamelessly as I walked through Dupont Circle. I never went there again without a female companion for protection.

Miss Alabama| 4.13.10 @ 12:52PM

As usual, Mr. Brooks, you are demonizing gays.

Have you ever heard of heterosexual males who are attracted to underage females?

The vast majority of gay males do NOT molest underage boys and do NOT have any desire to do so.

Since I have a gay son, I have read extensively on the subject of homosexuality. And by the way, my gay son is one year younger than his heterosexual brother. They both had same parents, played with the same neighborhood boys, belonged to the same sports teams. Yet my gay son told me when he was 17 yrs old that he knew since he was a kid his sexual preference.

I tend to believe this sexual preference developed in my womb. Environment can be ruled out entirely since both of my sons experienced the same environment.

Another thing: My brother is gay, and many scientists believe that the propensity for homosexuality sometimes runs in families.

JP| 4.13.10 @ 1:12PM

The main question is whether homsexuality is compatible to the priesthood -it is not. The traits that make a good father are also the traits that make a good priest. Married men are called to be chaste within thier calling as husbands and fathers. It is no accident that this crisis the Church is going through mirrors the crisis of marriage. Priest, acting in Presona Christi are fullfilling a male role. Christ, while many say had feminine charactaristics, was obviously very male. A male who is confused about his gender or attraction cannot fullfill his role as a Catholic priest anymore than a female can.

This isn't gay bashing.

GW| 4.13.10 @ 3:32PM

A gay son and brother!!! You must be a terribly ugly woman to turn 2 men gay!

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:14PM

A stunning example of Christian charity, GW.

When you put your mind to "What would Jesus do?", remember your response here and do the opposite.

I will pray for you.

GW| 4.13.10 @ 9:01PM

As much as I appreciate the feigned morality wrapped in sarcasm, I still don't think accepting homosexuality to be an example of Christianity, buddy.

Stuart Koehl| 4.14.10 @ 6:05AM

We are taught to hate the sin and forgive the sinner. Christ came to save the sheep who are lost.

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:56AM

There is a lot of distance between "accepting homosexuality" and berating a woman for supposedly causing it:

Your comment: "You must be a terribly ugly woman to turn 2 men gay!"

Can you imagine Christ saying any such thing?

If not, then Christians oughtn't either.

Doctor Right| 4.13.10 @ 3:52PM

There is ZERO evidence that homosexuality is a genetic trait, despite what gay groups would have you believe.

Gays are made, not born.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:02PM

It would be more correct to say that there is no evidence of any one cause, which is the case in most complex behavioral phenomena.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 2:13PM

Actually, I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology. It's safe to say I've forgotten more about biology than you've ever known...

...So I'll stand by my original assertion.

Jamie| 4.14.10 @ 2:35PM

DR, you may be intelligent but your incivility and immaturity negate it.
You are embarrassing yourself.

I used to like you, too.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 9:48AM

Jamie:

My pomposity was intentional. I was poking fun at "Stuart Koehl" for making a similar claim about his VAST Bible knowledge a few posts back.

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 6:12PM

Doctor Wrong,

Do you believe in Darwinian macro-evolution?

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 9:49AM

No. Darwinian evolution is a sham. There's not a scintilla of evidence to support it.

The fact that ypu obviously think there is is evidence of how deeply Darwinism has infected our society. People accept it on faith...Like a Religion!

Nick| 4.15.10 @ 12:22PM

Doctor Wrong,

You really are delusional.

All I did was ask a question, based on your claim that you have a BA in biology. In case you didn't know, a lot of biologists believe in evolution.

That you think that I believe in evolution, based on my simple question, is a testament to your inability to think for yourself.

I do not believe in Darwinian macro-evolution, for the record. In fact, I can pick it apart the same way I do your lies, Doc.

Stuart Koehl| 4.14.10 @ 6:27PM

Now, that's truly lame. It reminds me of the tag line from the hilarious "Dr. Science" series:

"I have a Masters Degree--in Science!"

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 9:50AM

I was intentionally making fun of your own pompous boast regarding your VAST knowledge of Biblical history...The fact that you didn't recognize that is exemplary of your own bloated narcissism.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 10:49AM

Bloated narcissism? That's hysterical, coming from the person who has demonstrated no command of Scripture---indeed, even passing knowledge of it---who has no grasp of history whatsoever, and who isn't even remotely conversant with the existence of Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy!

Stuart doesn't have to boast at all---one need merely read his posts to learn.

What has anyone learned from you, Doctor Bigot, besides the fact that your ignorance is invincible?

Doctor Right is a Bigot| 4.15.10 @ 11:15AM

Ignorance? Perhaps; but ARROGANCE for sure!

jd| 4.13.10 @ 5:22PM

Again, NO scientific evidence exists that homosexuality is genetic. It's obvious now that you admit a personal bias towards homosexuality because your son and brother are gay, that you want people to believe that homosexuality is genetic so as to assuage your feelings on the matter. Nurturing and the environment in fact DO play a role in homosexual orientation. The point of this article is that during the Second Vatican Council, priests were in fact recruited for the priesthood who displayed homosexual tendencies. Potential priest candidates who voiced opposition to homosexuality and who agreed with the Magisterium were denied entrance to seminaries. Bottom line is, homosexuals should not be recruited for the priesthood.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:37PM

Men with homosexual tendencies having free will, nature and nurture are ultimately irrelevant.

What matters is what you DO.

We do not demonize those with homosexual tendencies in the Church but rather encourage them to the same standard of rightly-ordered sexuality as applies to ALL of us.

Indeed, is that not why Oscar Wilde found his home in the Church?

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:44PM

True indeed. The Christian faith elevates marriage as a sacrament and the only proper outlet for sexual activity. Single heterosexuals are called to continence, in the same way as homosexuals. All are called to chastity, even within marriage, for chastity is more than hewing to the sexual straight-and-narrow, it is a call to wholeness, a properly-ordered life in which to cultivate true holiness (a path opened to everyone, whether single or married, gay or straight). That many heterosexuals fall short of the mark (the Greek word is "hamartia", which is also the Greek word for "sin") is merely an indicator of the fallen state of mankind, not an excuse for those who wish to indulge their baser instincts.

Paul| 4.13.10 @ 3:02PM

Show us a straight male who isn't attracted to girls (at least underage teenagers), and you will show us a eunuch.

Nick| 4.13.10 @ 5:38PM

Paul,

So what are you?

Attracted to underage girls?
Or, a eunuch?

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:45PM

I can only assume Paul does NOT speak from experience, and thus is engaged in base stereotyping of us poor "breeders".

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 2:15PM

I'm a straight male (so I can't be a Catholic priest), and I'm NOT attracted to any underage girls.

You're sick.

Jamie| 4.14.10 @ 2:36PM

Corrosive hatred consumes you, sir.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 9:59AM

Criticism is NOT hatred. You sound like Jesse Jackson.

Please grow up.

Doctor Right is a Bigot| 4.15.10 @ 11:13AM

You don't offer criticism, you bring hate.

You're like Jesse Jackson; just another liberal POS.

Doctor Right| 4.13.10 @ 10:05AM

FROM: His Holiness, Benedict XVI

TO: Loyal Catholics everywhere

RE: Update: The latest kerfuffle

Dear Faithful:

Mein Gott! Vas ist das nonsense!

It would appear that the evil, anti-Christ American press is up to their old tricks again!

Apparently, some of the heathen at the NEW YORK TIMES are making a mountain-out-of-a-molehill regarding these alleged allegations emanating from all over the European continent. Their "story" is so ridiculous that it is beneath me to recount it, but for your benefit, I will do so regardless.

These "journalists" are trying to libel our Most Holy Mother Church by making a comnnection (as if!) between the so-called "scandal" in America of a few years back and this current broohaha in Europe.

In case you don't remember that particular scandal, it allegedly, supposedly involved Catholic priests who supposedly, allegedly molested children, and included the absurd insinuation that somehow, allegedly, supposedly, some of the Bishops and Cardinals in the USA actively worked to suppress the news! (Ridiculous, isn't it?) And how these same Bishops and Cardinals kept transferring allegedly perverted priests from one parish to another without informing the parishioners, so the alleged perverts could molest again and again!!! (Yeah, riiiight!!!!)

Some in the press, particularly the apostate NEW YORK TIMES even had the unmitigated gall to suggest that the Catholic Church was more concerned about it's reputation than about punishing allegedly, supposedly sick creeps who allegedly molest children, AND the people who allegedly, supposedly enabled them!

Well, how anyone could arrive at such a conclusion is a mystery to me...A mystery no doubt inspired by the dark lord himself. And now, the crown prince of darkness is apparently at it again! Only this time, the alleged, supposed scandal is in Europe.

The anti-Christian fervor is reaching a fever-pitch. In response, I am asking all of the faithful to follow these easy steps when one finds it necessary to fend of these unscrupulous alleged allegations:

1. BLAME the New York Times!

2. Repeat over and over that children are routinely molested in public schools. If questioned about the relevance of this claim, repeat it again.

3. Label anyone who criticizes the Catholic Church on this issue as a "Catholic Basher". (This advice came from two reliable Protestant Ministers, "Reverend Al" and "Reverend Jesse", who have used a version of this tactic to GREAT effect for many years)

4. Finally (and most importantly), always remember to stress that I, the Holy Father, had NOTHING to do with it!

In the words of an old army buddy of mine, the wise Sgt. Schultz, "I see nuthink! I know nuthink!".

Sincerely,

His Eminence

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 10:34AM

Up your nether fundament, Doc. And rotate.

Doctor Right| 4.13.10 @ 10:51AM

Are you channeling Gabe Kaplan?

Jeannine| 4.13.10 @ 11:07AM

Doc Right,
Don't you even bother to read what the other posters wrote before you wrote down your boring, been-there vitriol that doesn't even enhance the flow of this blog?

Move on buddy & learn how to blog somewhere else!

Doctor Right| 4.13.10 @ 11:23AM

"been-there"..??

I beg to differ; this is cutting-edge satire, the type that's hardly ever seen on these pages.

You've never "been there".

In answer to your question, I rarely read other people's posts. Most of them are long-winded and meandering on a good day. On a bad day (like whenever the Catholic Church is discussed), the pathetic apologists come crawling out of the woodwork to offer their lame, repetitive talking-points in defense of the indefensible...BORING!!

And if you don't like my posts, here's some advice:

Tough. Don't read them.

Since you obviously have nothing to offer, take your own advice, and blog elsewhere.

Tim*| 4.13.10 @ 9:35PM

Doctor Reich,exposes his Anti-Catholic Obsession once again.
Apparently,your Mommy & Daddy's Catholicism is frustratrin' your fragile psyche.

See A Therapist Whack Job.

Nobama| 4.14.10 @ 4:36AM

The 'good' doctor does seem a tad batty here--must have his panties in a pinch over ObamaCare.

Or he's just a bigot.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 12:46PM

Wow, Doctor Right's making progress---he's now offering evidence.

Next step in his treatment: offering evidence that he didn't make up.

Doctor Right| 4.13.10 @ 3:46PM

Mr. Slippery:

You can't handle evidence:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new....._get_.html

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289553

Let's hear your pathetic, altar-boy, sycophant comments now.

Your "Church" is crumbling under the weight of it's own inherent contradictions.

Nick| 4.13.10 @ 3:56PM

Doctor Wrong,

Last week you stated, in another thread, that this pederast scandal made the Catholic Church "rotten to the core."

That would make the U.S. Army "rotten to the core", because of the (few) war crimes committed during the Viet Nam War, no?

I think Viet Nam vets would disagree.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 10:25AM

Dumb analogy. It doesn't work.

Nice try, though.

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 11:02AM

Doctor Wrong,

What a devastating rebuttal!
I don't know how I will recover.

Oh...I know. The only thing "rotten to the core" is your ability to think logically.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:08PM

Yawn.

Doctor Bigot keeps promising the smoking gun that proves the Catholic Church to be---what, Doctor? You never really say.

Then we follow the links:

"But a key 1980 memo on the case was copied to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then the archbishop of Munich and now the pope. It shows that he not only led a meeting in January of that year approving Hullerman's transfer, but also was kept informed about the priest's reassignment, the New York Times reported Friday.

Cardinal Ratzinger was later put in charge of handling thousands of abuse cases on behalf of the Vatican and was in a position to have stopped the priest from coming into contact with children and to have him prosecuted.

Hullermann was removed from his congregation in 1979 after three sets of parents told his superior he'd abused their sons. He resumed parish work in February 1980. In 1986, he was convicted in 1986 of molesting boys at another Bavarian parish, according to the Times.

This week, new accusations of sexual abuse by Hullerman emerged, both from his first assignment in a parish near Essen, in northern Germany, and from 1998 in the southern German town of Garching an der Alz."

Once again, we're talking a memo from an unnamed source---the ambulance chasing lawyer who's made millions off of suing the Church, most likely---from THIRTY years ago, when everyone still believed that therapy cured homosexual pederasts.

The second link is a weeks-old story referencing the shoddy New York Times article dealt with in another thread:

"Recent media reports accuse the Pope of protecting Reverend Lawrence C. Murphy in 1996 when he was accused of molesting up to 200 deaf boys between 1950 and 1974.

These are new facts in the ongoing series of scandals, and perhaps criminal investigations, putting a critical eye on the Roman Catholic church.

Until now, reports in the media mainly focus on secretive priests, bishops and archbishops who claim to know nothing about cases of abuse.
But new documents obtained by the New York Times and discussed in the article Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys, accuse the current Pope, Benedict XVI, of knowing about abuse. "

This has been dealt with in that thread, the net-net of it being:

1. There is a pro forma letter in Latin signed by Cardinal Ratzinger which apparently is sent out whenever the CDF considers a case for laicizing a priest---which at the time they could do only when the priest had been accused of violating the Confessional.

2. The canon judge responded that he was not pressured to drop the investigation.

3. The priest in question died before he could be investigated.

4. This prompted Cardinal Ratzinger to overhaul the procedures for canon law trials of accused priests.

Doctor Bigot is crumbling under the strain of spewing hate against Catholics without evidence.

Tim*| 4.13.10 @ 9:53PM

Wrong Doctor Reich !

The New York Times is crumbling under the weight of it's own Left Wing Agenda.

You're The East End of a West Bound Horse.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 10:26AM

I'd LOVE to see the NYT crumble.

But that doesn't mean they're wrong about pervert Catholic priests.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 10:42AM

In which case a broken clock is significantly more reliable than you are, Doctor Bigot.

Pingback| 4.13.10 @ 10:48AM

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing - E.D. Kain - American Times - T links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…My RSS Feed Apr. 13 2010 - 10:42 am | 0 views | 0 recommendations | 0 comments Pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing By E.D. KAIN Julian Sanchez has a rousing rebuke to this nonsense at the American Spectator. Daniel Oliver resuscitates the tired old and much scorned notion that homosexuality and pedophilia are somehow linked, and ponders why – in all the reporting over the sexual abuse in the…

Sandra| 4.13.10 @ 10:54AM

“But in fact, the third reason would probably be the one given by the Times. The people at the Times think -- or say they think -- that homosexuality is irrelevant to pedophilia. Bill Keller, the Executive Editor of the Times, wrote in March 2002 that "there is no known connection between homosexuality and pedophilia."

That is true in TRUE Pedophilia only, not for Pederasty. These are all Pederasts! Homosexuals attracted to younger men (not younger women, not little boys, and not little girls) So for a Pederast to be assigned to a ‘girls high school’ is telling EVERYONE that this is a Pederast and keep him away from young men!

A homosexual can be as chase as a heterosexual, that was not and is not the problem. The problem are from homosexual men in higher offices that "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" over the complaints and the heterosexual men that worried more about "outward appearances of scandal" than concern over those entrusted to them to shepherd and lead.

It is not "Catholic bashing" to have reported this information at the time of occurrence as news reports.

It is "Catholic bashing" to go back and re-dredge every possible accusation, (true of false, proven or unproven) over the years with editorial bias, as "news." Especially as "pay-back" for pushing so hard against the Democrat's Partisan take-over of medical care, finance, automotive and insurance industries in just over a year.

Jamie| 4.14.10 @ 4:21AM

Excellent post, Sandra--you're spot on!

Pingback| 4.13.10 @ 2:08PM

“Pedophilia,” “Homosexuality” and the Catholic Abuse Scandal « The NLGJA Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…done out of sexual desire or out of power and rage? Writer Julian Sanchez does a nice job of fisking a disjointed attack on the New York Times by the American Spectator ’s Daniel Oliver where Oliver laments the fact that the NYT never connects “homosexuality” to “pedophilia.”As Sanchez points out, Oliver–and other writers and activists–goes awry by not…

Believer4| 4.13.10 @ 2:15PM

The following is a dialogue by Richard Sipe; an expert on sex abuse within the Church. His web site is www.richardsipe.com
On July 20, 2007 the LA Times published a long article under the banner Trail of Abuse Leads to Seminary.1. It is classic because it is a piece of history that could have been written about any one of number of seminaries I know of. It outlines the system that selects, trains, and hides sexual activity of men that can and sometimes does end in sexual abuse of minors and the vulnerable. As of 2004 these are the recorded numbers:
10 percent of the (Camarillo) graduates ordained have been accused of molesting minors.2.

30 percent of the graduating classes of 1966 and 1972 have been accused of molesting minors.
11.5 percent of the LA priests active in 1983 were subsequently reported for abuse.3.

75 percent of all the LA parishes have had at least one priest-abuser on its staff and some parishes had 5 to 8 on their staff.4.

Remember these figures only represent priests who have sexually abused minors. But the figures raise three important questions. Certainly most priests do not abuse children, but would it not be presumptuous to think that these men are the only priests who have sexual activity after their graduation? Some priests have affairs with women or men, some priests father children, some priests masturbate or use pornography, etc. in ways that are not illegal.
Second, the figures are telling. As more and more evidence comes out the more accurate percentages of clergy abusing minors appear to be between and 9 and 11 percent. This is considerably more than the 4.3 percent (or between 3 and 6 percent) recorded by the John Jay Survey5. or the less than the .02 percent claimed by the Vatican in 2002.6.
Third, what if anything, do seminaries that should be the principle training ground for celibacy, do to undermine or neglect that goal? “The John Jay survey determined that the quarter-century from 1960 through 1984 was particularly troublesome for alleged abuse by clerics nationwide.”7. Records show that 15 percent of priests who graduated (from Camarillo) during that period and served in LA were accused of sexual abuse.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:10PM

The John Jay study completely refutes this:

What you've missed is the spike in sexual abuse from certain seminary classes in the 60s and 70s---this is off the chart and continued to be throughout their active ministries. The steep decline since 1982 completely refutes your thesis above---had the incidence rates helped up, the chart at 2.3 ought to look like a flat line and not a steep decline from the 1982 peak.

http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/prev3.pdf

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:39PM

It should also be noted that the archdiocese of Los Angeles cannot be taken as a proxy for the whole Church in this regard for the same reason one wouldn't take the diocese of San Francisco as such.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:40PM

Oh, and I'll throw in one more reason: Cardinal Mahony, probably the most liberal cleric in the American Church and a bungler of momentous proportions when it comes to doing his duty.

Patrick| 4.13.10 @ 10:27PM

Cardinal Mahony was just the biggest of the ultra-liberal clergy. Archbishop Weakland is still further left than he is.

Thankfully, both are now retired.

Just remember this Catholic saying folks, "In the end, the dirt takes 'em all."

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:58AM

My goodness---I didn't think it was possible to get to Mahony's left; Ho Chi Minh would have found Mahony too socialist for his taste.

Patrick| 4.14.10 @ 7:48PM

Archbishop Weakland was the driving force behind the "Hootenanny Mass", and that was BEFORE he was elevated to the episcopate by Pope Paul VI.

Things went downhill from there.

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 11:22PM

Patrick,

Isn't Fr. Greeley a big supporter of Archbishop Weakland?

Nobama| 4.15.10 @ 11:10AM

Greeley is another liberal POS!

Nick| 4.15.10 @ 12:11PM

Nobama,

He is still a priest. He does stand "In persona Christi." Even if he does hold heretical views.

Christ will deal with His priests. It not up to us. Understanding is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, remember.

Nobama| 4.15.10 @ 2:18PM

I honor the priesthood, Nick, but not those who defile it. Greeley and priests like him are a huge threat to our church, and have made it so difficult for the faithful. Just look at this thread; it's a horror to read what is being said about the Catholic Church. It breaks my heart.

I have nothing but contempt for priests like Greeley; my only consolation is that God will take care of them later.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 2:41PM

We should remember what Christ said in John 6:

[70] Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
[71] He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.

GW| 4.13.10 @ 3:40PM

I blame Catholics themselves. First off, for failing to recognize the reformation movements and distance themselves from an establishment responsible for countless unChristian acts throughout the ages. Second, for praying to Mary, a nobel woman, but a human incapable of saving absolving anyone's sins. Third, for buying into the nonsense the pope is "holy" and above reproach. Only God is holy, only Jesus can save mankind. The problem is in the heirarchy of the Catholic church. It's unwilling to recognize Christianity as a way to live your life instead of a ceremonial religion where you say and do the right things to get to heaven. And what's with indulgences anyway? They can't get you or anyone to heaven. As Jesus said, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." [John 14:6]

GW| 4.13.10 @ 3:43PM

Let me relate this to the priest/sex abuse scandal. Obviously, an any Christian sect there are bad apples, and no man (whether a priest/preacher/rabbi,etc) is beyond reproach. The difference is the lack of remorse and the in the inability for the church to admit it's mistakes. To Catholics, priests are "holy" and above critique, whether it be in their personal lives or biblical doctrine. I think Galileo and Luther would agree.

Nick| 4.13.10 @ 4:00PM

GW,

You are very ill-informed about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:49PM

The Catechism:

2389 Connected to incest is any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. The offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing.

1578 No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed no one claims this office for himself; he is called to it by God. Anyone who thinks he recognizes the signs of God's call to the ordained ministry must humbly submit his desire to the authority of the Church, who has the responsibility and right to call someone to receive orders. Like every grace this sacrament can be received only as an unmerited gift.

1463 Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.

Canon Law of course has numerous provisions pertaining to penalties for those religious who commit various offenses contrary to GW's claim above. For example, were a priest to strike another priest, he would incur excommunication by the very act.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 10:31AM

The fact that you continually quote Catechism when discussing scriptural/spiritual matter and issues is amusing, and sad.

Since we have the Bible, we DON'T NEED any man-made gobbledygook like the Catechism to tell us how to deal with sin and sinful behavior.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has always tried to keep their members as ignorant and uninformed of scripture as possible because they know full well that scripture contradicts their Church's principles.

Keep it comin'!

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 10:48AM

First, the question was as to the teaching of the Church. Unlike the more dishonest children of the Reformation, the teaching of the Catholic Church is written down and accessible to all.

Second, as we have seen in other threads, Doctor Bigot is unable to provide Scriptural support for the things he claims to believe, particularly about the Church and about Scripture itself.

For example, Doctor, I asked you for the Scriptural evidence for the New Testament canon (since at the time of the Gospels Scripture consisted solely of the Old Testament)---you whiffed.

I asked you for the Scriptural evidence that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in being, per the Nicene Creed most Protestants and all Catholics adhere to. You failed there too.

Someone else asked you for the Scriptural reference to sola scriptura, particularly as regards the New Testament. Whiff.

Another asked you for the the Scriptural reference to sola fide, which indeed is refuted in James' epistle. Whiff.

Still you make the claim, at which point one must conclude you either to be dishonest, deluded, or both.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 3:25PM

I've provided ample evidence for everything you've asked. You simply choose to ignore it.

You, on the other hand, offer up generic scriptural passages and think that they somehow provide jusitification for the Catholic Church as it presently exists. NEWSFLASH: They don't.

There is NOTHING in scripture that proves that Peter was ever a Pope. NOTHING

Dr. Right 1; Teflon93 0

There is no scriptural justification for believeing that Mary is God's mother. Zero.

Dr. Right 2; Teflon93 0

There is no There is no scriptural justification for extra-scriptural l'il books or articles of faith. NONE.

Dr. Right 3; Teflon93 0

There is no scriptural justification for creeds or councils that supersede scripture. ZERO.

Dr. Right 4; Teflon93 0

There is no scriptural justification for the idea that Mary remained "intact" AFTER she gave birth to Jesus, or that she did not have additional children. And yes, there is a distinct difference between "the brethren" and "his brothers".

Dr. Right 5; Teflon93 0

You insist, wrongly, that I'm a protestant who adheres to reformation-thinking. WRONG

Dr. Right 6; Teflon93 0

Dude, I've kicked your a** up and down these boards for days. You've proven yourself to be nothing but pathetic, zombie-like apologist for the Catholic Church. You've buried your head in the sand, metaphorically, grabbed your rosary beads, and decided to avoid reality.

You offer nothing but one Catholic school-boy talking point after another. You mistake the ability to quote scripture (or cut-n-paste it) for the ability to understand it.

Catholics, for the most part, have the shallowest understanding of scripture. Since most of their Church is in complete contradiction with scripture, they have no choice but to inhabit a fantasyland ("Catholic World", maybe?) of their own making, and you're manning the ticket counter.

I, for one, am glad to have had my eyes opened by the Truth, and to have walked away from Catholicism unscarred (and unmolested!). You, on the other hand, were lost long ago in CCD. All that stained glass, pomp, ceremony, and gilded architecture got to you, I guess...

But hey...Keep it coming, please. Making you reveal your inner apologist is amusing.

BTW...Since we have documents proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Benedict knew all along...Do you think he'll do jail time?

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 4:27PM

Doctor Wrong,

So, judging by this diatribe, you are a Christian who doesn't believe in the Holy Trinity? How exactly does that work?

Also, the first Christians appointed bishops, priests, and deacons to their churches. How does your church accomplish this? Who is your bishop? What schooling does he have?

Finally, what Bible do you use? How was it compiled?

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 5:06PM

Oops! I was wrong. A couple more questions.

What does your Bible say about abortion? How about stem-cell research? Or, nuclear weapons?

I don't expect an answer, since whenever the questions get tough, you runaway. Like a coward.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 10:06AM

The word "Bishop" comes from the Greek word "Presbyter" which means "Elder". The qualifications of "Elders" are specifically spelled-out in the New Testament. You may be shocked to understand that one of the qualifications is that they MUST be MARRIED!!! (with a believing spouse and believing children).

The Pope is NOT married. None of the Cardinals are married. None of the "Bishops" are married, either.

Per scripture, we (the Church I attend) appoints our own "Elders" from among the congregation.

I use whatever Bible is in the pews. At home, I have everything from the NIV to the King James. It helps to have more than one, so you can cross-reference the passages.

Nick| 4.15.10 @ 11:57AM

Doctor Wrong,

If you are going to call yourself a Christain, you really need to get more educated.

Presbyter means "Priest." The Greek for the office of "bishop" is "Episkopos." By what authority do you appoint your "Elders?" What about Deacons?

I see you skipped over the hard questions.

Why don't you believe in the Holy Trinity? What do your bibles teach about abortion, stem-cell research, and nuclear weapons? Who compiled the KJV?

Doctor Right| 4.16.10 @ 6:49AM

You are 100% dead-wrong.

I am 100% right.

Deal with it.

Missy| 4.16.10 @ 3:45PM

Was Doctor Right sexually molested by a priest when he was young? If so, it would explain his irrational outbursts on this thread.

We weren't there and we aren't to blame, Doctor Right. Only God can save you from your suffering; ranting at strangers serves no rational purpose.

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:33PM

"There is NOTHING in scripture that proves that Peter was ever a Pope. NOTHING"

Matthew 16:18:

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Moreover, in EVERY list of the Apostles, Peter is listed first and Judas last.

St Peter chaired the Council of Jerusalem (Acts I):

15And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

21Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

22Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

23And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

25That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

26And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

It was to St Peter whom St Paul made a journey well out of his way after his conversion---not the other way around.

The nativity scene is straight from the Gospels; are you questioning Christ's humanity or his oneness with the Father?

"There is no There is no scriptural justification for extra-scriptural l'il books or articles of faith. "

Where is the Scriptural reference which lists the books in Scripture? You still haven't provided it.

"There is no scriptural justification for creeds or councils that supersede scripture. ZERO. "

Where in Scripture does it say the Church cannot meet?

Which councils do you reject and on what basis?

Since the Trinity was defined at Nicea and in Constantinople in the 4th century, do you reject the Trinity?

"There is no scriptural justification for the idea that Mary remained "intact" AFTER she gave birth to Jesus, or that she did not have additional children. And yes, there is a distinct difference between "the brethren" and "his brothers". "

Unfortunately, your Greek's as awful as your theology and history. Hint: the same Greek word is used shortly after in the text clearly referencing hundreds gathered. You don't think these ALL were Christ's blood siblings, do you?

Where does Scripture say Mary had other children? Where does it say that Mary had sexual relations?

"You insist, wrongly, that I'm a protestant who adheres to reformation-thinking. WRONG "

Sola scriptura and sola fide are doctrines which do not appear before the Reformation and are products of it. You adhere to both.

I suspect you also adhere to dispensationalism, which didn't appear until the late 19th/early 20th century.

Time to rescore.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 10:14AM

Aaaaah, "Thou art Peter...", ay? That old, reliable chestnut!

WRONG! I already proved your lack of knowledge on this quote days ago. You're misinterpreting his name (or nickname; his real name was Simon). "Peter" comes from the word "Petras", which in Greek means "stone". Christ was making a play-on-words with Peter's name to indicate that he needed Peter's strength and faith to help and build his Church.

PLEASE explain, with examples, how from this quote, you get:

1. A multi-trillion dollar organization that's...

2. ...Centered in Rome, with...

3. A "College of Cardinals", and...

4. ...All sorts of cutesy pie creeds and booklets, and...

5. ...Unmarried priests, and...

6. ...Nuns, and...

7. ...Rosary beads, and...

8. Praying to idols, and...

9. Mary as the "Mother" of God, and...

Well, I could go on, but you're going to be VERY busy consulting Catholic websites to justify all of this nonsense.

Well...I'm WAITING...!

BTW...WHY would a Catholic NOT want to rely ONLY on scripture? Hmmmmmmmmmm..???

Also...You're WRONG again about Protestantism. I'm not a Protestant. The Church I attend does NOT adhere to any Protestant principles. And again...If you think that adhering to ONLY scripture for guidance arose from the eformation, you're completely ignorant.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 10:46AM

Doctor Bigot clearly cannot address my prior post---or any of my prior posts---in any substantial way.

When Christ chooses to rename someone, it is significant. Simon was no longer Simon but Peter---"Rock"--- from that day forward, just as Paul was no longer Saul from the moment of his conversion.

Moreover, Doctor Bigot's theology is ridiculous. Christ NEEDED St Peter's strength and faith? REALLY? Christ is God---he needs no such thing.

Moreover, St Peter's faith, while exceeding that of the other Apostles as his prominence throughout the Gospels attests, was not quite so great as to be sufficient prior to St Peter's transformation by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost recounted in Acts. St Peter lost heart and sank into the sea. St Peter denied Christ thrice---something anti-Catholics like Doctor Bigot rejoice in, believing themselves the apostle's superior. Silly Peter. Weak Peter.

THIS is whom Christ needed?

Christ needed a man, a flawed but good man. The Holy Spirit took the clay Simon was made of and hardened it into the rock of Peter, the foundation of the Church.

Anti-Catholics like Doctor Bigot vastly prefer St Paul to St Peter for their Reformation leaders built a cult around St Paul's conversion experience. Not for them is to quietly drop what you're doing and follow Christ, as St Peter and most of the Apostles did. No, one must be struck by lightning in order to be truly converted. Scripture says otherwise, but whenever Scripture does, that Scripture is simply ignored.

Scripture says Christ would found the Church on St Peter. That being inconvenient for Doctor Bigot, he inserts his own false, manmade tradition that what Jesus REALLY meant---but what he never says---is that Jesus needs St Peter's strength and faith.

Jesus says one must devour his flesh and blood or have no life within him in Scripture; that being inconvenient for Doctor Bigot, he lays Scripture aside for his own false, manmade tradition---Jesus was only speaking metaphorically, of course, although Scripture has Christ repeating his point a half-dozen times with "verily" for augmentation.

The same with history.

Doctor Bigot claims to hew to the extra-Scriptural Reformation traditions of sola fide and sola scriptura, the former contradicted by James in his second epistle most forcefully, the latter to be found nowhere within Scripture (and for good reason---at the time of the epistles and Gospels, the New Testament hadn't been written, much less compiled, much less canonized yet, thus all references to Scripture within them are to the Old Testament ONLY).

And yet Doctor Bigot claims he is no Protestant.

Which is fine, since few Protestants surely would claim Doctor Bigot at this point.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 4:24PM

You're like a broken record.

I am NOT a Protestant.

If I am a Protestant, then ALL the early Christians, including Simon Peter, were Protestants.

And YOU still have yet to justify with ANY scriptural example the practices, traditions, and customs of the Catholic Church...

...Because you CAN'T!!! You're an empty-suit.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 4:26PM

By the way, dummy...I don't believe in "sola fide".

That's for Baptists to argue.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 2:45PM

Should you ever bother to read the next verse, Doctor Bigot, you'll see:

Matthew 16:

[19] And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Now let's see the Scripture reference where Christ takes away this binding and loosing authority.

Where is it?

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 8:22PM

Doctor Bigot having been corrected many times now, in other threads as well as this one, hopes repetition takes the sting out of his unflagging errancy.

1. Dollars didn't exist until the Dutch coined them several hundred years ago. By Doctor Bigot's "Scriptural" standard, the dollars his little Sunday club pulls in make their worship unScriptural.

2. The epistle to the Romans demonstrates amply why Rome was favored among the Early Church. It was for their faith and the lack of heresies emerging from them. Were you at all conversant with the Early Church Fathers---38 volumes worth of material---you would know this. Instead, you're ignorant and thus make foolish statements.

3. The College of Cardinals is the body which elects the Vicar of Christ on Earth. The proceedings are to be found in Acts with St Peter governing over the election of Mathias to replace Judas. As Doctor Bigot would know had he ever read Acts.

4. The Cutesie Pie Creed must be the baby food Doctor Bigot eats now that he cannot digest Catholic Truth. The Nicene Creed, on the other hand, is the product of one of the first seven ecumenical councils. Doctor Bigot occasionally claims to believe in the Holy Trinity, apparently ignorant of the fact that this dogma was formulated in Council in the 4th century in response to various heresies regarding the nature of Christ.

5. There have always been unmarried priests, as anyone who cares to review the Gospels is aware. Church Tradition holds that St Peter had been married prior to his becoming an Apostle. Christ himself was unmarried. Beyond the issue of who had and had not married, St Paul in particular urges celibacy in the epistles attributed to him. The Church views priestly celibacy as a discipline, not a dogma, and has in various times and places allowed for married priests. Indeed, as Stuart will point out, Eastern Catholics---in full communion with Rome---have married priests. Anglicans now entering the Church will be allowed to retain married clergy.

6. The primary example for sisters is of course Mary, mother of the Lord. The development of the various orders began with St Anthony and continued throughout the Middle Ages. Of course, women dedicated to religious orders have been with us since time began.

7. The prayers of the Rosary, as seen in a previous thread, are all Scriptural. The Hail Mary is a summary of the Annunciation, where the archangel Gabriel informs Mary she is to become Theotokos---a Greek word Doctor Bigot is not fond of because it means "God-bearer" and thus explains why the Church calls Mary "the mother of God". The Our Father is the Lord's Prayer. The beads themselves are used to count. One can use one's fingers, a studded ring, or anything with 10 elements to count. The Rosary is not a required discipline and is not part of the Order of the Mass.

8. Catholics don't pray to idols---strictly forbidden. The veneration of images---particularly common with the Eastern Catholics and our Orthodox brethren---is no different than treasuring a picture of one's grandparents:

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

Of course, anyone who appreciates Michelangelo's Pieta or Sistine Chapel realizes as much.

9. Already addressed---the words of the Anunciation are "Theotokos"---"God-bearer". Mary gave birth to Jesus, who is one with the Father. Christ's conception was through the Holy Spirit, the 3rd person of the Trinity. Mary is simultaneously Daughter, Wife, and Mother of God----Daughter of the Father, Wife of the Holy Spirit, Mother of the Son. Christ loved his mother and took pains even to see to her well-being while in his agonies on the Cross. You'd never know that from Doctor Bigot's contempt for her.

You've been requested many times, Doctor Bigot, to provide pre-Reformation evidence for the false doctrine of "sola scriptura"---you have failed to do so.

Moreover, you have been asked to account for what makes up the canon of the Bible from the Bible---a necessary predicate for sola scriptura.

In addition, you have been asked to explain precisely how New Testament Scripture is defined within the New Testament, given at the time of the events recounted it hadn't even been written yet. Thus when Christ or the Apostles invoke Scripture, it is always Old Testament Scripture.

The answer is simple if inconvenient for you:

Christ came to found his Church, not to write a book.

Nobama| 4.14.10 @ 8:15PM

Wow! I can see the "Truth" has done a lot for Doctor Right. Can you imagine how much more of an obnoxious flamer he would be without it?

Sure glad I don't have to know the d-bag.

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 10:55AM

Doctor Wrong,

"Since we have the Bible, we DON'T NEED any man-made gobbledygook [...]"

If the teachings of God are so self-evident, and the Bible so self-explanatory, then why are there 30,000 Christian denominations in this counry?

Christ prayed to the Father that the Church should be One: "And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name whom you have given me: that they may be one, as we also are."
-The Gospel of SAINT John, 17:11

Wally| 4.14.10 @ 2:40PM

Paging Doctor Right. ......crickets.......

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 3:08PM

"why are there 30,000 Christian denominations in this [sic] counry?"

EASY answer: Because people will believe whatever they want to believe. Sometimes it's what they're taught, sometimes it's what allows them to rationalize their behavior.

I have NO idea why people are this way, only that they ARE this way.

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 4:21PM

Doctor Wrong,

YOU are one of those people!

That doesn't answer my question though. If all we need is the Bible, why don't we all believe the same thing?

Christ wanted His followers to be One. As in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I pray you find your way back home, someday.

You put the "[sic]" on the wrong side of my typo, by the way.

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:36PM

Since the Gospels and the Epistles weren't compiled until the late 1st/early 2nd century, one must ask where sola scriptura stood throughout the Apostolic Age.

There is no indication in the epistles that the Church was to die with the apostles.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 4:15PM

The Gosepels were written with 30 years of the death and resurrection of Christ.

Again...If you're NOT following only scripture, you're following man-made gobbledygook.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 10:15AM

Sorry, but it's a stupid question.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 10:31AM

In Doctor Bigot's lexicon, a "stupid question" is any question he cannot answer.

There are a LOT of stupid questions!

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 4:19PM

This is an immature question.

You might as well ask why there's so many different kinds of birds? ANSWER: Because there are!

Of course Christ wanted his followers to be one!

WHY is it hard to grasp that people will gravitate toward that which satisfies them, as opposed to that which satisfies Christ???

If we were all perfect, I suppose we'd all believe EXACTLY what Christ wanted...But we're not perfect.

Again...Why is this hard to understand, and HOW does this somehow justify Roman Catholicism???

SoCon| 4.14.10 @ 8:23PM

Since you claim to be a Christian, which one applies to you, Doctor Right; you a brain dead drone who just mimics what you've been taught or do you use your beliefs to rationalize your behavior?

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 10:18AM

Neither.

I'm not a Catholic anymore, so I'm not a drone.

Also, I have no allusions about my "behavior". If defending God's word offends, too bad. Aside from that, like everyone else, I'm a sinner who is redeemed by Christ's sacrifice, if I choose to accept him. I did.

Doctor Right is a Bigot| 4.15.10 @ 11:04AM

No one cares about your personal demons, moron.
You need psychological help, and bombing this site with your ugly vitriol won't fulfill your need.

Docvtor Right | 4.15.10 @ 4:14PM

"Ugly vitriol"? Because I disagree with the Catholic Church and the rest of the spiteful, angry apologists on this thread???

Dude...You're making me laugh!

Docvtor Right | 4.15.10 @ 4:14PM

"Ugly vitriol"? Because I disagree with the Catholic Church and the rest of the spiteful, angry apologists on this thread???

Dude...You're making me laugh!

Docvtor Rigvht is a Bigvot| 4.15.10 @ 5:03PM

Made you laugh TWICE I guess. Look in the mirror, vitriolic bonehead.

Doctor Right is a Bigot| 4.15.10 @ 11:08AM

You referred to 30,000 "Christian" denominations, not Catholics, bonehead. You are a drone; you mindlessly follow the cacophony of discordant voices in your head.

ROB| 4.13.10 @ 4:01PM

Now I get it GW. Galileo, of whom it was said he wished to castrate the friars and called the sitting Pope Simplicimus (surely you get this, no), thought priests were "above critique". Give us a break.

JP | 4.13.10 @ 5:44PM

GW,
Obvious you believe all of what you posted. I don't know of any Catholics who do.

ROB| 4.13.10 @ 3:56PM

Let me get this straight GW. Homosexulas who are catholic molest boys and its because they are catholic and not because they are homosexual. Whoda thunk it.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:12PM

How do you blame all the sexual abuse scandals in the Protestant communities, GW?

http://www.reformation.com/

Awful lot of cases there.

More comparitive info here:

http://www.catholicleague.org/.....ontext.htm

Your response?

GW| 4.13.10 @ 9:08PM

My response is simple. Protestants don't defend or cover-up when one of their own sins. They also don't believe the pope to be holy or above reproach. I said as much in my original statement. The Catholic Church's mentality toward its heirarchy is frightening to be quite honest with you. When the colloquial term for the pope is "holy father" and is worshipped on par with Jesus, then you know the institution has a problem. This is why the writer and other Catholics show outrage whenever the church is rightfully attacked for covering up pedophilia.

Quit reading talking points from Catholic Monthly and think for yourself.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:30PM

On what planet do you live, GW? Not only is sexual abuse by clergy as prevalent (if not moreso) than in the Catholic Church, but the odds of escaping detection are significantly better because of (a) the decentralized nature of most denominations; (b) the self-selecting nature of Protestant ministry; (c) lay stewardship of congregations; and (e) the cult of personality that frequently evolves around charismatic ministers, allowing them to use their congregations to cover up their misdeeds. A simple Google search will reveal many examples, most of whom are not televangelists (just to preempt that line of argument).

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 10:35AM

Your response is the opposite of logic.

The decentralized nature of man other churches is PRECISELY what prevents wide-spread abuse and cover-up scandals.

A large, multi-billion dollar organization like the Catholic Church has a LOT to lose when their dirty laundry is aired in public, so they lie, obfuscate, and cover-up...Especially when they know that these problems are systemic.

A small, independent church (which is what God intended) has no such problem.

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 10:51AM

Scriptural evidence God intended small, independent church(es), please.

Leave your man-made Reformation-era baggage behind, Doctor.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 1:57PM

Scriptural evidence that God intended a centralized, humongous, worldwide MEGA-Church with multi-billions of dollars run by closeted homosexuals???

I can't teach you what your brainwashed mind will refuse to accept. You're an incurable Catholic...You're lost.

Wally| 4.14.10 @ 2:41PM

....Pot call kettle......

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:42PM

Note, Doctor Bigot could provide NO Scriptural evidence for his claim. Again.

Matthew 16:18-19:

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

and Matthew 28:

18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

See the epistles with their reference to unity---the intent was one Body of Christ, not many quarreling and fundamentally opposed sects. Otherwise St Paul wouldn't have bothered criticizing the Corinthians, nor to praise the Romans.

The 38 volumes of writings of the Early Church Fathers and the first seven ecumenical councils speak to the unity of the Catholic Church in the 1st millennium.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 11:06AM

I'm sorry, did I miss where Doctor Bigot explained how a tiny little disunified church was supposed to "go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?

Did I miss where Doctor Bigot explained the historical fact that within a single generation of Apostles the Church had been planted throughout the Mediterranean world, over vast distances, to the very heart of the Roman Empire itself?

Did I miss where Doctor Bigot explained how in subsequent generations this Church---against the very will of God according to Doctor Bigot---managed to spread to the whole of Europe, to far flung outposts in Asia, even indeed over oceans to the Americas?

Did I miss all that?

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 4:11PM

No one said "disunified". They said "decentralized".

You have demonstrated (repeatedly) a knack for purposefully mis-stating what others say to try and twist your lost argument into something coherent.

Additionally, NONE of the things you mentions either explains or justifies the customs, practices, and traditions of the apostate Catholic Church.

You know this, too. Which is why, like a good catholic drone, you keep repeating it ad nauseum, hoping that the use of big words and cut-n-paste paragraphs from Catholic websites will hide the lack of intellectual rigor in your incoherent argument.

In short...You're a clown. A caricature.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 7:53PM

You've provided no Scriptural evidence for "decentralized", Doctor Bigot.

But why change now?

You provide no evidence---Scriptural or otherwise---for any of your many lies.

Thus you have no credibility.

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 5:48PM

Doctor Wrong,

"A small, independent church (which is what God intended) has no such problem."

Like when God instituted the Levitical Priesthood? And Sacred objects and furniture? Or, when He instructed Solomon how to build His Temple?

No, God was totally against ceremony. And rituals. And vestments. And incense. And choirs. And a hierarchical priesthood.

As a "Bible Christian", have you ever read Exodus, Leviticus, I & II Kings, or I & II Chronicles?

How about when Saint Paul established churches in the pagan world? And when the question of whether Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to be Christian, Saint Paul went to Saint Peter (Cephas, The Rock) to decide. And Saint Cephas decreed that Gentiles did not have to be circumcised.

Like Saint Peter did when he decreed that Christains didn't have to observe the Jewish dietary laws.

Have you ever read Acts or Saint Paul's Epistles?

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 10:19AM

You're confusing the Old Testament with the New Testament.

What God intended for the Hebrews has NOTHING to do with what he intends for us now.

Doctor Right is a BIGOT!| 4.15.10 @ 10:59AM

STFU! Bigot.

What would an ugly hater like you know about the Bible? Expect to be flamed whenever you post here from now on, a$$hole.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 4:04PM

TRANSLATION:

"You mean...When Father Murphy put his hand in my jammies, he WASN'T checking me for a hernia????"

Missy| 4.15.10 @ 5:10PM

Were you groped when you were an altar boy, DR?
Is that the reason for your unhinged diatribes against the Church?

If that's true, I'm sorry for your traumatic experience(s) and your rage is understandable.

Teflon93| 4.16.10 @ 12:37PM

What twisted fantasies you have, Doctor Bigot.

Now go get your Bible and answer some of the dozens of questions I've asked.

You can start with where Scripture a) defines itself; b) attests to itself as the sole rule of faith; c) claims superiority to tradition.

Go.

Nick| 4.15.10 @ 11:40AM

So, the answer is NO, you haven't read those books, huh?

Kind of odd, for a "Bible believing Christian", don't you think?

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 4:06PM

Yes, I have. And obviously far more than you have.

To fail to understand that Christ fulfilled the Law given to the Jews, thus invalidating it for future generations, indicates a SERIOUS lack of understanding on your part, Nicky...

In other words...You have NO clue what yiou're talking about.

Missy| 4.15.10 @ 5:12PM

Nicky? Really, you're so juvenile.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 7:50PM

Wrong again, Doctor Bigot.

Christ rebukes you:

Matthew 5:
[17] Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
[18] For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Indeed, consider what he tells the rich man in Matthew 19:

16] And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
[17] And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
[18] He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
[19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Note that the rich man asks not for the promise to save Israel, but what to do to have eternal life: keep the Commandments.

Christ reinforces this in Matthew 22:

35] Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
[36] Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
[37] Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
[38] This is the first and great commandment.
[39] And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[40] On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

He summarizes the Ten Commandments, bulwark of the Law, into these two.

There's nothing about "invalidating it for future generations", indeed, after 40 days of instruction at Christ's feet following the Resurrection, the disposition of such aspects of the Law as to whether Christians required circumcision were settled not by recourse to Christ's teaching but to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If Christ had banished the old Law, contradicting his earlier claim and making him a liar based on what he told the rich man, no such controversy could have arisen.

And thus Doctor Bigot once again proves unacquainted with Scripture.

Nick| 4.16.10 @ 12:45AM

Doctor Wrong,

You seem to be unaware that Christ was a Jew. And that He instituted Temple worship.

But, according to you, He did away with all that ritual, which he had commanded to be observed for a millenia.

You are so ignorant of first century Christianity.

Why should you do any reading, when you have all these fantasies about what a Christian should be, right?

Nick| 4.13.10 @ 11:35PM

"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt."

You have removed all doubt, GW.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 1:58PM

GW:

The last Catholic with an original thought was Martin Luther.

Talking-points are all they have.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:08PM

Your knowledge of Church history is pretty pathetic. I don't suppose you've ever heard of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches or the Church of the East--all non-Roman (not even in communion with Rome), all as ancient as the Roman Church, all with practices and beliefs quite similar to the Roman Church, and yet not at all like Protestants in any respect.

How do you explain this, if the great sin is "popery"?

You have done little with your post except prove that anti-Catholicism is the last respectable prejudice (though I note in passing that anti-semitism is making a strong comeback in some quarters).

GW| 4.13.10 @ 9:15PM

Well, considering the way reformists like Martin Luther were treated, I hardly feel your lame post proves anything besides a failed understanding of the history of the Catholic church. The abuse scandal and it's coverup shows the mentality that has been in the church for centuries. Any criticism is heresy. I worship Jesus Christ, not an institution.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:32PM

I'm Catholic, but not Latin. I'm also an historian, so we'll just take for granted that I have forgotten more Church history before breakfast than you ever knew.

And I will ask you again, how can you justify your baseless statements against the counterexample of the Eastern Churches?

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 10:36AM

You're also a pompous blowhard.

Church "history" has nothing to do with what's right and what's wrong.

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 10:52AM

Excellent, Doctor.

So now you'll stop bringing up sexual abuse cases from 30 years ago?

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 1:54PM

Your ability to obfuscate is legendary.

Then again, you did say that you're a Deacon at St. Somewhere's so shoveling B.S. must come naturally.

I think all those sleepovers at Father Flanagan's playhouse messed with your brain...

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:43PM

I'm not a deacon and never claimed to be. Post the link and justify your claim or retract it.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 12:46PM

Yet another lie Doctor Bigot promulgates and when called on the carpet lacks the testicular fortitude to admit.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 1:59PM

By the way, it's "a historian", not "an historian".

Some scholar...

Jamie| 4.14.10 @ 2:48PM

Petty b!tch.

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:46PM

If you're going to try to correct someone's grammar, at least bother to look it up first:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/

Remember, using a or an depends on the sound that begins the next word. So...
•a + singular noun beginning with a consonant: a boy; a car; a bike; a zoo; a dog
•an + singular noun beginning with a vowel: an elephant; an egg; an apple; an idiot; an orphan
•a + singular noun beginning with a consonant sound: a user (sounds like 'yoo-zer,' i.e. begins with a consonant 'y' sound, so 'a' is used); a university; a unicycle
•In some cases where "h" is pronounced, such as "historical," use an:
An historical event is worth recording.

Indeed, using "an" with the soft h is the historically-correct usage.

You are God's gift to the Catholic Church, Doctor Bigot.

Patrick| 4.13.10 @ 10:33PM

And the Reformers were all puppies and kittens to the Catholics too....

Rene| 4.13.10 @ 4:25PM

The Spirit of Vatican II (dissent from Chuch teaching) + homosexuality = The sexual abuse scandal.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:50PM

As I noted in a similar thread last week, sexual abuse of minors was known in the Church for centuries. It has been known in all Churches, in all denominations, and in all faiths, as well as in all secular institutions as well. It has something to do with the Fall, and not that much with Vatican II or its "spirit".

When Pope Paul IV burned more than a hundred homosexual priests in Rome in the 16th century, was that due to the "spirit of Vatican II"?

Patrick| 4.13.10 @ 10:40PM

Well, the difference is that Pope Paul IV took action and meant business.

Those who profess the SoVII, which is often completely contrary to what was actually written in the Vatican II documents, are often those who are most complicit in the cover-ups.

Stuart Koehl| 4.14.10 @ 6:09AM

But even so, did not put a dent in the problem, because it is rooted in the sinfulness of fallen humanity, and not in any particular creed. In this, the Church is no better than the people who comprise her.

Patrick| 4.14.10 @ 7:57PM

Correct. I believe that Rene was simply stating that the highly permissive, liberal bishops were given free reign to pursue an agenda contrary to moral law. This is particularly true in matters of sexual relations.

This agenda had a multiplicative effect upon the sins a given priest was permitted to commit before serious action was taken.

Jim | 4.13.10 @ 5:07PM

Homosexuality is a deviant behavior (departing from the norm). It can also be considered a Paraphilia - a sexual deviation or perversion.

How are paraphilias treated?

"Cognitive, behavior, and psychoanalytic therapies are used to treat individuals with paraphilias. Some prescription medicines have been used to help decrease the compulsive thinking associated with the paraphilias. Hormones are prescribed occasionally for individuals who experience intrusive sexual thoughts, urges, or abnormally frequent sexual behaviors. Almost always the treatment must be long-term if it is to be effective".

Considering homosexuals are estimated to be about 5% of the population, then to classify them (the act) as " deviant" would be accurate.

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:09PM

Five percent is far too high--though only half of Kinsey's notorious pulled-out-of-his-butt guestimate of 10% (remember, he used prison inmates as his sample population). The general consensus is 2.5% of the adult male population is exclusively or primarily homosexual.

David| 4.13.10 @ 5:50PM

It is ridiculous to say that one's sexual "orientation" was formed in the womb. It is a "preference" for males that you developed while growing up.

Would you say that a hetero's "orientation" for nice "breasts" was developed in the womb? Would you say that a hetero's "orientation" for nice "legs" was developed in the womb? Of course not. Some men are breast men - others leg men, etc.. Men prefer different types of women and develop those preferences during their lifes' experiences.

If homosexual behavior is normal and natural as you claim, then why will any gastroenterologist tell you that our rear-ends are not made for sex? If you respond, please answer that question.

David| 4.13.10 @ 5:55PM

Miss Alabama, you are convinced that your youngest son became a homosexual in your womb, because your older son is a hetero and both had the same environment. You also have a homosexual brother. I have known of several such situations.

I suggest that you do a little digging and find out just what type of relationship your youngest/homo son had with your brother, and how that relationship was different from the one your brother had with the older/hetero son. Just a thought.

Patrick| 4.13.10 @ 10:42PM

Alfie's Home anyone?

Chris| 4.13.10 @ 7:40PM

"Are most child molesters in the Catholic Church homosexuals? Almost certainly. "

Please provide some data to back this up. for example .. "what percentage of KNOWN abuse cases are from KNOWN homosexual priests?" If it is as you say, then it would seem to be a fairly cut and dried issue. If not .. well then, thats another thing altogether.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 8:05PM

Check out the John Jay study here:

http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnj.....ident2.pdf

The salient points:

"Unlike in the general population, more males than females were allegedly [abused]. In
fact, there was a significant difference between genders, with four out of five
alleged victims being male."

Note that priests are 100% male, meaning 80 pct of the abuse was homosexual in nature.

and

"The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small
percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children."

Detail here:

http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnj.....ident3.pdf

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:11PM

I would add to this a number of studies that show homosexuals are disproportionately represented within the Latin priesthood--with estimates ranging from 15-25%, as opposed to 2.5% for the general population.

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 8:15PM

"Men with homosexual tendencies" would be more to the point, Stuart; they are required to be celibate. I haven't seen evidence indicating they aren't celibate, at least the ones in active ministry today.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 1:51PM

You haven't seen "...evidence indicating they aren't celibate"..????????

Man, you REALLY are a drone.

Since when does bagging pubescent boys qualify as "celibate"..???

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:48PM

I'll type veeeeerrrrryyyy sloooooooowly lest Doctor Bigot once again get the vapors and be unable to follow a line of thinking.

What proportion is larger, Doctor Bigot, 15% or 6%?

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 12:16PM

Since Doctor Bigot is stumped by math, here is the reasoning for the rest of those following the thread:

1. Stuart contends the proportion of men with homosexual tendencies ordained as priests in the Latin portion of the Catholic Church (this is simply to distinguish it from non-Latin Rite communities like Eastern Catholics) is 15-25%.

2. The John Jay study demonstrates a maximum of 6% of ordained priests have been accused of sexual abuse, 80% of which is homosexual in nature. To keep math simple for Doctor Bigot, let's ignore the remaining 20% and just assume all of these accused priests have homosexual tendencies even if their alleged victims were girls.

3. If a minimum of 15% of priests have homosexual tendencies and a maximum of 6% have been alleged to have committed sexual abuse, we are left with 9% of priests with homosexual tendencies who have never been accused of sexual abuse.

4. Of this 9%, what evidence is there that they have broken their vows of celibacy? None has thus far been presented. Indeed, so long as this number is greater than the 6% maximum, we would be accurate in saying that most priests with homosexual tendencies do NOT break their celibate vows. It would be inaccurate and unfair to claim the reverse absent evidence that the 9% in question have not been accused of sexual abuse and yet have indeed broken their vows. It would be even more inaccurate and unfair to do what Doctor Bigot does---to claim that the 94%+ of priests who have never even been accused of sexual abuse much less guilty of it and the minimum 75% of priests who have no homosexual tendencies in Stuart's estimate are in reality homosexual sexual abusers.

The math simply doesn't work---not that Doctor Bigot cares.

Patrick| 4.13.10 @ 10:47PM

Results may vary from diocese to diocese.

Pingback| 4.13.10 @ 10:42PM

Erros de pensamento « Notas ao café… links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…dos padres a principal causa dos casos de pedofilia no interior da Igreja Católica. Não é nada de novo que o Sr. Cardeal diz nem ele é o único a pensar assim. Sobre o assunto e em resposta a Daniel Oliver no American Spectator, Julian Sanchez escreve algo que merece ser lido na integra: [...] Suppose—just work with me for a second here—you are studying some men who compulsively have sex with goats.…

Pingback| 4.13.10 @ 11:25PM

4-13-2010 The Day in Review | F i a t Lux links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…Kinsley asks what it means to be a conservative judge. Daniel Larison harshes on Mitt Romney over healthcare. Eric Massa continues to be creepy. Julian Sanchez takes issue with this American Spectator piece about the New York Times and Catholic pedophilia. Stanford biologist discovers fancy new fungus. Wendy Kaminer bashes Duke’s sexual harassment policy. Gregory Paul does not see humans as having…

Mae Johns| 4.14.10 @ 1:20AM

Oh, how incredibly stupid. Homosexuality is not equivalent to pedophilia, you idiot. Would you please educate yourself, you racist jerks, before you open your big fat mouths and spew this garbage?

LIBS R DUMB| 4.14.10 @ 4:32AM

Racist? Homosexuality is a racial issue now?

You liberals have lost what little grey matter you used to have. Talk about stupid.

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 10:53AM

And then she unpacked her adjectives...doo doo doo do dooo.

aion cheat | 4.14.10 @ 3:43AM

oh,just so that. I agree with you

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 7:07AM

****EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!****

ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTS POSTING COMMENTS HERE, DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT

Try reading these links, to find out about the truth of the latest "smoking gun" against Pope Benedict XVI:

http://www.firstthings.com/blo.....eatricals/

http://www.americamagazine.org.....ry_id=2746

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 7:47AM

Here's another link, about Fr. Murphy from Milwalkee:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog.....egister%41

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 11:16AM

OH MY GOODNESS!!!

A Catholic website is defending the Pope!!!!

The earth has just tilted on it's axis!!!!

Nick| 4.15.10 @ 11:36AM

Refute the facts then, brainiac.

I'll save you some time, you can't.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 3:55PM

You haven't provided any facts.

You've joined in with your board-buds to attack me for having contrary opinions - How brave you are!

Now go and worship the Perpetual Virgin! So 10 "Hail Marys", 20 "Our fathers", burn some incense, do that l'il "sign-o-the-cross" thingie 20 times all over your face, jump up and down 10 times, yell "Bendict is innocent" 50 times at the top of your lungs, and you shall be forgiven.

Nick| 4.15.10 @ 7:07PM

Doctor Wrong,

You seem to have missed this, from above, so I'll restate.

If you are going to call yourself a Christain, you really need to get more educated.

Presbyter means "Priest." The Greek for the office of "bishop" is "Episkopos."

Let's see how you can deflect these questions, because you never answer any:
-By what authority do you appoint your "Elders?"
-What about Deacons?
-Why don't you believe in the Holy Trinity?
-What do your bibles teach about abortion, stem-cell research, and nuclear weapons?
-Who compiled the KJV?
-If all Christians need for salvation is the Bible, like you have repeatedly claimed, why don't we all believe the same thing?

Teflon93| 4.16.10 @ 12:42PM

As a followup:

What happened to Christians between Pentecost and the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. when the canon was settled, allowing for a fully-sanctioned Bible (Old Testament PLUS New Testament) for the first time?

What happened to Christians who could not read---that is, the vast majority of Christians for the first 2,000 years of the Church?

What happened to Christians who could not afford a Bible until the good Catholic Gutenberg invented the printing press?

By your definition, these poor people weren't Christians at all, were they, Doctor Bigot?

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 11:58AM

Let's add ignorance of science to your long list of educational gaps, Doctor Bigot.

The Earth's axis is perpetually tilted and moreover flips at geologic intervals.

You need to do less typing and more reading.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 3:58PM

In other words...

PLEASE...Let's discuss anything (anything!!!) that distracts from the fact that my Holy Mother Church is full of child-molesters, and has sheltered child molesters since antiuquity!!!

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 7:42PM

Let's see the evidence for your latest slander, Doctor Bigot:

1. How many child molesters are there in the Catholic Church?

2. Precisely which child molesters did she shelter in antiquity?

Teflon93| 4.16.10 @ 2:19PM

Once again, Doctor Bigot fails to provide evidence to back up his claims.

Surprise.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 3:57PM

****EXTRA! EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!****

CRAZED CATHOLIC DRONES (is that redundant?) POSTING COMMENTS HERE, DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT!

Nick| 4.15.10 @ 8:01PM

You can't even be original, can you?

You should go back and re-read your posts.

They look like something "David Matthews", "jharp", "Drew", "3/5 Bob", or even "Daphne Kenward" would write.

You must be so proud!

Along with your french-kissing of The Painted Lady and Pinch Sulzberger.

SoCon| 4.15.10 @ 10:35PM

Daphne Kenward? EEEEWWWW!!

Why, Nick, why?

Nick| 4.16.10 @ 12:19AM

SoCon,

I know, Iknow.

Nothing worse than being compared to that lot. I thought maybe I could scare Doc straight.

Look how he went off when I wrote that he was defending the New York Slimes, below.

Gene Car| 4.14.10 @ 10:38AM

Church critics often ask in situations like this "what would Jesus do?", implying of course that he would excoriate the Pope and his Bishops. I am more inclined to think that Jesus would gather together the host of press and media critics and gather them on a large beach. He would invite the to gather around closer to him. Then he would kneel and write their secret sins in the sand. One by one they would slink away.

Super Kool| 4.14.10 @ 2:17PM

Just saw this. It's SO DAMN FUNNY I re-posed it.

I hope the brilliant Dr. Right doesn't mind.

__________________________________

FROM: His Holiness, Benedict XVI

TO: Loyal Catholics everywhere

RE: Update: The latest kerfuffle

Dear Faithful:

Mein Gott! Vas ist das nonsense!

It would appear that the evil, anti-Christ American press is up to their old tricks again!

Apparently, some of the heathen at the NEW YORK TIMES are making a mountain-out-of-a-molehill regarding these alleged allegations emanating from all over the European continent. Their "story" is so ridiculous that it is beneath me to recount it, but for your benefit, I will do so regardless.

These "journalists" are trying to libel our Most Holy Mother Church by making a comnnection (as if!) between the so-called "scandal" in America of a few years back and this current broohaha in Europe.

In case you don't remember that particular scandal, it allegedly, supposedly involved Catholic priests who supposedly, allegedly molested children, and included the absurd insinuation that somehow, allegedly, supposedly, some of the Bishops and Cardinals in the USA actively worked to suppress the news! (Ridiculous, isn't it?) And how these same Bishops and Cardinals kept transferring allegedly perverted priests from one parish to another without informing the parishioners, so the alleged perverts could molest again and again!!! (Yeah, riiiight!!!!)

Some in the press, particularly the apostate NEW YORK TIMES even had the unmitigated gall to suggest that the Catholic Church was more concerned about it's reputation than about punishing allegedly, supposedly sick creeps who allegedly molest children, AND the people who allegedly, supposedly enabled them!

Well, how anyone could arrive at such a conclusion is a mystery to me...A mystery no doubt inspired by the dark lord himself. And now, the crown prince of darkness is apparently at it again! Only this time, the alleged, supposed scandal is in Europe.

The anti-Christian fervor is reaching a fever-pitch. In response, I am asking all of the faithful to follow these easy steps when one finds it necessary to fend of these unscrupulous alleged allegations:

1. BLAME the New York Times!

2. Repeat over and over that children are routinely molested in public schools. If questioned about the relevance of this claim, repeat it again.

3. Label anyone who criticizes the Catholic Church on this issue as a "Catholic Basher". (This advice came from two reliable Protestant Ministers, "Reverend Al" and "Reverend Jesse", who have used a version of this tactic to GREAT effect for many years)

4. Finally (and most importantly), always remember to stress that I, the Holy Father, had NOTHING to do with it!

In the words of an old army buddy of mine, the wise Sgt. Schultz, "I see nuthink! I know nuthink!".

Sincerely,

His Eminence

Leah| 4.14.10 @ 2:46PM

Doctor Right is hiding behind the Catholic haters at the NYTimes to hide his own hatred for Catholics.

Bigot.

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 3:04PM

Leah:

Grow up.

Criticism of the Catholic Church DOES NOT equal hatred.

My own parents are Catholics; do you think that I hate them?

What I despise is the CYA mentality of many Catholics, especially Catholics on this board, who are more concerned about their Church's reputation than they are about sexually abused children or why this continues to happen to the Catholic Church.

These people offer one pathetic excuse after another to rationalize the rot that exists at the core of their Church.

They're the real bigots. And apparently, so are you.

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 4:38PM

Doctor Wrong,

"My own parents are Catholics; do you think that I hate them?"

I think we covered this last week. You sooo obviously have mommy and daddy issues.

Try reading my links, from above. They totally refute everything you have written on these latest attempts to slander the Catholic Church generally, and His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI specifically.

I would rather defend the Catholic Church, than Mo' "The Painted Lady" Dowd, any day of the week!

How does it feel to be a supporter of Pinch Sulzberger, Doc?

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 3:50PM

If you think I've defended Maureen Dowd, then you ARE a moron.

And you haven't refuted a thing I've said. NOT possible.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 7:41PM

Please. Doctor Bigot is a blowhard and a coward who has been thoroughly rebuked for his ignorance of religion, theology, Scripture, history, logic, math, science, and ethics---all in this very thread.

Which is why you don't see anyone rushing to proclaim Doctor Bigot as one of them.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 8:27PM

I forgot to note that I have even had to correct Doctor Bigot's grammar above after he incorrectly attempted to correct Stuart's.

Doctor Bigot is still aspiring to stopped clock reliability---only 2 more times to be right today, Doctor, and you'll achieve your goal!

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:49PM

Be sure to show your parents your posts, Doctor Bigot---I'm sure they'll be mortified.

Leah| 4.14.10 @ 8:46PM

Only an inadequate and seriously troubled person would use the Catholic hating bigots at the NYT as cover for his own very obvious hatred for Catholics and the Catholic church. Very weak, indeed, Doctor Right.

Do I think you hate your mom and dad? Very possibly; you surely have shown your inner demons to us.

Show your posts to mommy and daddy; I'm sure they're used to your expressions of contempt for your upbringing.

You've got 'issues' Doc--hope you're not a shrink.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 11:14AM

...Oh, dear...

Another armchair psychoanalyst who MUST translate criticism of Catholicism as hatred.

Why???

Because to actually try and understand the criticism would cause her to question her Church...Can't have that, can we??

My parents are well aware of my decidedly un-Catholic leanings. They disagree with me.

Do I speak to them as I speak to y'all? No. They can debate intelligently. You guys really can't. You're drones.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 12:02PM

We Catholics question the Church all of the time---how else would we learn what she teaches?

You are your parents' cross to bear.

Your failure to convert them ought to give you pause.

Your failure to offer evidence, reasoned argument, logic, or anything but hysterical ad hominems ought to give you greater pause.

We are taught to look for the fruit to discern those in whom Christ dwells and the Holy Spirit works.

Where is your fruit, Doctor Bigot?

Were your parents to read your posts, would they be proud of you or mortified?

Missy| 4.15.10 @ 2:27PM

You are correct, Teflon; Doctor Bigot is his parents' cross to bear. I'm sure his wife and children must have their own horror stories to tell, too.

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 2:46PM

We should pray for them.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 3:48PM

Another armchair analyst.

Maybe you guys (and gals) should spend more time analyzing why perverts flock to the Catholic Church, and less time worrying about your critics (who REALLY seem to bother you!)

Missy| 4.15.10 @ 6:09PM

I've read a lot of your posts over the last year, Doctor Right; and I've always enjoyed your funny and engaging point of view--I'm sorry this terrible exchange has taken place.

I weep for the Catholic Church and its responsibility for the heinous acts against children, but I will NOT forsake the faith that is sacred to me. I will not play into the hands of vicious Catholic haters on the left whose only goal is to destroy the last moral bulwark that stands against their atheist juggernaut.

No one here has defended the disgusting actions of some Catholic priests; why would we defend the indefensible? Like your parents, we want a Catholic Church that will not tolerate any sexual sin within its ranks; but I will not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I've read this abuse story is a repeat of the same story the NYT reported on in the 1990s. I don't think it's coincidental that they published it again right after the Catholic Church's courageous stand against the passage of ObamaCare and the additional 400,000 innocent babies that will be aborted yearly as a result. Abortions that you and I will pay for. Abortion is anathema to me.

Payback's hell, and I'm sure leftists are enjoying theirs.

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 3:46PM

My fruit?

The Truth.

Yours is covering-up for pervert Priests.

How revealing!

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 7:38PM

Were you in any way acquainted with the truth, Doctor Bigot, you would be able to back your slanders with facts and evidence.

Which you have utterly failed to do.

Unfortunately for you, you shall come face-to-face with the Truth in due time, in which case your inability to keep his commandments will redound to your eternal dismay.

Anonymous| 4.14.10 @ 8:24PM

Just passing through here, enjoying the bickering and pontificating. Who ever would have thought there would be so MANY learned experts on sordid deviates on one website? I'm impressed. Why don't we all take a road trip to San Francisco? I'll reserve a back room at a gay bar so you can observe the patrons and look for errant priests out of the collar.

What a bunch of douchebags. I left Da Church the day after confirmation, and every year some new catholic douchery crops up. But THIS is the best yet! All of you are so hilarious, sputtering, backpeddling, blatting like sheep about that you know little about.

Jeremiah| 4.14.10 @ 8:56PM

Take that road trip with Doctor Right; you two douche-bags are made for each another. Losers.

Hey, while you're at the gay bar--be careful not to drop your car keys; Doctor Right could be standing right behind you!

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 4:02PM

I'm not into other guys' rectums...

You must have me confused with a Catholic Priest, or something...

Nobama| 4.15.10 @ 5:20PM

"Either you become what you hate or you fall victim to what you hate. There is no other choice for a hater." Roy Masters, Foundation of Human Understanding

Pingback| 4.15.10 @ 1:58AM

Vatikani riigisekretär: lastepilastamise probleemi põhjuseks on homoseksuaalsus « Ver links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…ühiskonnas (ca 1-3%) ja preesterkonnas — näib olevat oluliselt rohkem pistmist poliitilise korrektsuse kui loogika ja terve mõistusega. Siin on asjalik temaatiline kommentaar ajakirjas The American Spectator , milles selgitatakse, kuidas New York Times ei ole kogu oma artiklitetiraadis, milles on Kirikule pilastamisprobleemi osas etteheiteid tehtud, kordagi maininud sõna…

Pingback| 4.15.10 @ 4:28AM

Catholic Sexual Abuse Controversy: Media Frenzy, Unmentioned Homosexuality, More News links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…in the Roman Catholic Church is probably over. Abuses have declined since 1980, and the church has stopped letting known homosexuals into the priesthood. http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/13/the-curious-incident-at-the-ne/ Vatican Attacked Over Cardinal’s Claim of Homosexuality and Paedophilia Link In apparent embarrassment, the Holy See’s official daily, L’Osservatore…

Bubble Burst-er| 4.15.10 @ 4:01PM

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future pope and archbishop in Munich at the time, was copied on a memo that informed him that a priest, whom he had approved sending to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be returned to pastoral work within days of beginning psychiatric treatment. The priest was later convicted of molesting boys in another parish.

An initial statement on the matter issued earlier this month by the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. But the memo, whose existence was confirmed by two church officials, shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.

Wally| 4.15.10 @ 5:16PM

So you say, Bubble head; provide proof.

Pingback| 4.15.10 @ 4:33PM

The Curious Incident at the American Spectator « Economic Play Pin Bulletin links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

…to Articles, Entries, Headlines, News, Posts — Tags: News, people If you’ve ever wondered what a lobotomy in print form looks like, search no further than this tedious, rambling piece in The American Spectator by Daniel Oliver. The author strokes his chin, at great length, over the question of why, in all The New York Times ‘ recent reporting on sexual abuse by priests,…

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 8:53PM

For those with an interest in the Early Church Fathers, enjoy this excerpt from one of the earliest---Justin Martyr, from his 1st Apology, written during the reign of Antoninus Pius and attributed to the period 150-155 A.D.:

Chapter 65. Administration of the sacraments
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Chapter 66. Of the Eucharist
And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

Chapter 67. Weekly worship of the Christians
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

The observant will note certain similarities between Justin Martyr's account and the practices of the world's largest Christian body.

Those who claim their modern practices to be those of the early Church must reckon with the Early Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr.

Link here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm

Joana Andrade| 4.15.10 @ 9:01PM

Could it be that 30-40 years ago it was possible for a priest to have time alone with boys but not with girls? Girls schools would be run by nuns and there were choir boys but not choir girls, for instance. The absence of heterosexual pedophiles may have more to do with lack of opportunity than anything elese

Missy| 4.15.10 @ 10:40PM

There was opportunity, Joana; I remember.

Jay| 4.18.10 @ 9:13AM

Dear "Nick" and "Teflon93",

I appreciate your zeal in standing up for the Church, but the way in which you in turn slander "Doctor Right" is not at all Christian, and may thus do more to hurt the name of the Church, rather than promote it by living by the example of Christ's charity as we are called to do.

Peace.

Teflon93| 4.18.10 @ 3:34PM

You'll have to show me the slander, Jay.

This and other recent threads amply display his anti-Catholic bigotry.

If you're going to cry slander, let's see the support for it. Otherwise, it's, well, slanderous.

Missy| 4.18.10 @ 6:25PM

Jay, what is "Christian" about Doctor Right's vicious ad hominem attacks against Nick and Teflon? Why don't you criticize DR's inflammatory statements? Hypocritical much?

Who are you to knock Nick's and Teflon's heartfelt defense of the Catholic Church when you've offered nothing to the debate but pointless criticism?

Jaxebast| 4.19.10 @ 10:03PM

Missy,
By your name I assume that you are female - is that correct?

If not, apologies.

If so, then I must tell you that your comments on this board are very un-ladylike. Be more modest and chaste.

Teflon93| 4.20.10 @ 1:34PM

We of course only hear such calls when employed to chastize those faithful Catholics who defend the Church.

How fortunate are we to have those who, troubled not at all by calumny against the Bride of Christ, nor ever to be roused in her defense, seek to elevate their indifference to a cardinal virtue through the exercise of their exclusive magisterium.

MISSY ROCKS!!| 4.28.10 @ 1:41AM

Good for you, Missy!

The phony bleating and braying complaints from useful idiots on the Left prove that you've been an effective advocate for the Catholic Church.

Looks like you've hit the godless haters where it hurts the most: Like the braindead blowhards would know anything about chastity or modesty! Snort!

God bless you, girl.

Janie| 4.28.10 @ 2:10PM

Sexual abuse of children and Jax whines about a poster's decorum. Loser.

Jaxebast| 4.19.10 @ 10:01PM

Very good point, Jay. Thank you.

I see that it made Teflon flinch more than a little bit! Sounds like you hit a nerve!

Teflon93| 4.20.10 @ 1:14PM

How silly of you.

You can see in other threads that I welcome calls to charity; Jay has however gone beyond that to accuse me of slander.

I've merely requested the evidence of support for his claim.

It is apparently not to be forthcoming.

Jeremiah| 4.28.10 @ 1:48AM

Jax; that you, Jay? Coward.

mkr| 5.12.10 @ 9:55PM

The Catholic Church will continue to have sexual scandals until it renounces the requirement that priests remain single and celibate for life. Homosexuals are attracted to the priesthood because they have no interest in marriage. Heterosexual celibate priests struggle for likely decades due to being withheld release for their God-given sexual desires, which marriage would take care of.

jfksd| 6.30.10 @ 11:41PM

beijing massage shanghai girl

The American Spectator

Media Matters

The Curious Incident at the New York Times

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (371) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Vlad the Impala| 4.13.10 @ 7:02AM

GracieZG| 4.13.10 @ 9:39AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:41AM

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 2:19PM

Jamie| 4.14.10 @ 3:04PM

EDWARD DEL COLLE| 4.13.10 @ 4:04PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:31PM

E. Powers| 4.13.10 @ 7:51PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:24PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:55PM

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 10:01PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 10:06PM

Nobama| 4.14.10 @ 3:49AM

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 7:50AM

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 10:02AM

Teflon93| 4.14.10 @ 10:39AM

SoCon| 4.14.10 @ 2:15PM

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 8:35AM

Nick (from Detroit)| 4.14.10 @ 9:58AM

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 11:07AM

SoCon| 4.14.10 @ 2:17PM

Nick| 4.14.10 @ 4:59PM

SoCon| 4.14.10 @ 7:56PM

Lil' Sis| 4.14.10 @ 8:44PM

Toddy| 4.14.10 @ 9:11PM

Nathan R.| 4.15.10 @ 6:50PM

Wally| 4.15.10 @ 11:04PM

SC Mike| 4.13.10 @ 7:07AM

H. Block| 4.13.10 @ 9:15AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:25AM

Robert Pinkerton| 4.13.10 @ 12:44PM

uncle curmudgeon| 4.13.10 @ 1:37PM

Patrick| 4.13.10 @ 6:42PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:34PM

Kenny| 4.13.10 @ 7:36AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:28AM

T.A.| 4.13.10 @ 9:59AM

JP | 4.13.10 @ 9:22AM

jp | 4.13.10 @ 7:38AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:09AM

Patrick| 4.13.10 @ 6:48PM

chester arthur| 4.13.10 @ 8:03AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:07AM

P. Smith| 4.13.10 @ 8:30AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:08AM

P. Smith| 4.13.10 @ 10:25AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:38PM

Harold B.| 4.13.10 @ 9:10AM

jd| 4.13.10 @ 9:27AM

Harold B.| 4.13.10 @ 10:19AM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 10:28AM

Miss Alabama| 4.13.10 @ 11:03AM

JP| 4.13.10 @ 1:17PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:52PM

Patrick| 4.13.10 @ 7:11PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 9:20PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 7:41PM

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 2:21PM

Patrick| 4.14.10 @ 7:41PM

Doctor Right| 4.15.10 @ 9:35AM

Teflon93| 4.15.10 @ 11:01AM

JP | 4.13.10 @ 10:50AM

jd| 4.13.10 @ 11:03AM

Paul| 4.13.10 @ 1:31PM

RAMIII| 4.13.10 @ 1:48PM

Paul| 4.13.10 @ 2:36PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:34PM

Paul| 4.13.10 @ 2:44PM

Nick| 4.13.10 @ 3:28PM

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:31PM

Stuart Koehl| 4.13.10 @ 8:35PM

Miss Alabama| 4.13.10 @ 3:29PM

Teflon93| 4.13.10 @ 5:32PM

Doctor Right| 4.14.10 @ 2:05PM

Missy| 4.14.10 @ 2:21PM