You I can't possibly have morals because you're an atheist.

I don't actually believe that, just trying to be a courteous guest.

Mahony spent $189.7 million on this when he must have known these payouts were on the horizon.

Still, there's more to the faith than the buggery of children.

What I want to know is how you anyone with any humanity and values can continue to be part of an organization that aided and abetted such evil, and in the hopes of maintaining positive publicity and fuller coffers.

Faith. Do I need to say more?

Here's a brunch of people who are ready to believe that a 2000 years old book contain the immortal world of their imaginary friend. Passed that point, should we be surprised by their lapse of judgement?

Still, there's more to the faith than the buggery of children.

Agreed. The point Amy is trying to make (if I'm not mistaken) is this religious organization willfully allowed dozens (if not hundreds) of sexual predators in its employ to attack and injure thousands of children over a span of decades. Now said organization - the same leadership who knew about the pedophiles and did nothing about it except shuffle them to a new group of fresh met every few years - expects its remaining deluded followers to pay for the cleanup operation, thereby preserving the corrupt power structure.

No amount of faith could persuade me to give this organization any credibility, much less my hard-earned cash. Sick fucks.

Don't be bitter.

(It's not your church.)

People are loyal (and not) in marriages all the time, and we scratch our heads and think "Whassup with that?" You never know what satisfactions people are getting from an alliance. Maybe it's worth it to them. Bureaucrats fuck things up all the time, buy you can't have a large organization without them, and there are people who very badly want the Catholic Church to do well.

Also, I bungled the link last night. This is Mahony's (other) folly.

Oh Crid - I'm not bitter, just incredulous. Besides, how do you know I'm not a Recovering Catholic?

It's just that snarling "sick fucks" at them doesn't really explain why these people are sending in more moeny.

Well, why are they...in your speculation?

Don't get it second hand, Amy. Go to church sometime. They're all over the place, most of 'em are open on Sunday mornings, and they never turn away visitors. After the ceremonial bidness be taken care of, they like to chat up strangers.

What, are you afraid of getting some onya and it won't wash out?

I think Crid is on to something. I for one, would love to hear Amy's experience at a real actual mainline church. Now THAT would be interesting.

C'mon Amy, think of it as an anthropological investigation.

The Catholic church was stained by it's previous abuses of power, but now, with one Cardinal estimating between 30 and 50% of the Priesthood being gay, the molestation and coverup (don't say gay and molestation are not related, when 90% of the victims are boys, the creep doing is is a gay molester, not just a molester), they are beyond redemption without a complete purge.

But let us not forget the Mosques preaching murder and enslavement, and the Synagogs preaching surrender, sabotage of their societies and socialism.

Non-denominational protestant baby, thats the way to go. When a church gets too big, it becomes nothing but a power game for it's insiders.

They send the money because they have "Catholic Guilt". It is a lot like "Jewish Guilt" in how it plays out.

Dead serious here guys, good old fashioned Catholics think sex is a sin, and because they are born the product of it they are born sinners and need to play catch-up for the rest of their lives.

Reading between the lines whilst questioning my very repressed (but beloved) Catholic grandmother, and then by observing others since lead me to that.

Just to be clear, it was the church leadership to whom my colourful language was directed, not their largely kind-hearted but deluded followers who continue to subsidize them. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Perhaps some Catholics commenting here could just tell me? Life is too short to spend it in church.

Dead serious here guys, good old fashioned Catholics think sex is a sin, and because they are born the product of it they are born sinners and need to play catch-up for the rest of their lives.

They're sold this bill of goods, and others, to keep the business in business (and the Church IS a business, and one of the most successful of all time) .

Amy, if you mail me Sunday service bulletins from three different denominations (at least two Christian ones) that you've attended before August 4, 2008, then you can take Gregg to dinner at any restaurant you like in LA and I'll pick up the tab.

Stips:

1. You don't have to take notes during the sermon, but you have to listen. No Ipods.

2. You have to be reasonably well behaved. You don't have to tell people that you're into it or thinking of converting or anything (this wouldn't be necessary anyway: courteous visitors are always welcomed), but you'll be expected to conduct yourself as a guest in a place of importance to them.... Just as you wouldn't let a Bible-thumper harsh your gay friends at a dinner party in your home. Specifically, parking-lot altercations are to be avoided.

3. You have to talk to people, and describe those conversations later with something more than mockery.

4. No more than one bottle of wine at the dinner.

Amy, here in Boston we got our fill of the "pedophile priests" in the media. What I came to notice from reading and watching the stories was that most of these priests were NOT pedophiles. Most of the victims were post-pubescent. usually in the 13-15 year age range. That makes them pervs and predators but not pedophiles. The same way you would not call a High School coach who was "molesting" a teenage girl a pedophile, these priests shouldn't be either. Who cares, you say? pedophile or not they are still scumbags. True, very true. But I think this has to do with the predators being Gay. The media would like us to think that Gay men are not predators in the way that "straight" men can be. These priests need to be characterized as "sick" not just horny old guys taking advantage of their positions of power.
OK, end of rant. Just notice the age of the victims of these "pedophile" priests and you'll see that most of the time it's inaccurate to refer to the priest as a pedophile.

Most pedophiles are heterosexual, actually.

Care to post some stats on that Amy? Or is that just a knee-jerk "oh gays are just harmless nice people with a sense of style" response?

But please don't fall in to the fad that says if a man molests only pre-pubescent boys, he is not nessesarily gay. If you have a penis, and you like to fool around with others who also have penises, then you are gay. If those others happen to be underage, then you are a gay child-molester.

No, it's not knee-jerk anything, but I'm on deadline now and my assistant just got here, so I can't go searching for studies now. I've read these studies, by the way. And if you search my blog, you'll probably find some postings. Sorry if you have a problem with gays, but what somebody's sexuality is doesn't seem to predict whether they're into children.

FYI, these priests molested girls-a-plenty. I saw some of them speaking tearfully of what they went through when the scandal just came out in LA.

What is the value of all the art and precious historical object that are currently held in the catacombs under Vatican City. Does anyone know? I've heard estimates that the value runs into the hundreds of million.

I guess it's easier to take advantage of the good nature of their followers than get rid of any of their stuff. Sounds pretty materialistic for so called spiritual people.

Regarding the original question (why someone would associate themselves w/ the organization), I think that there are 2 main reasons (btw, I'm answering this as a bit of a lapsed Catholic, but I expect I'll make my way back into the church in time.)
1. You're forgetting how enormous the church really is. As Sean pointed out, most of the priests aren't bad, in the big picture, the numbers aren't nearly as bad as they appear. If these things happen at an independent Christian church, they don't usually make the news, and they don't taint the surrounding churches they do in the Catholic church. I don't know that anyone has ever compared numbers (and I'm not even sure that it's possible), but I know that a lot of people believe that this kind of abuse happens at a similar rate in other churches, it just stays under wraps better. (I realize that there is also a complaint against the larger church leadership for covering up and moving around, but again, you can't tell me that that doesn't happen elsewhere- and, since the organizations are less, well, organized, again, they are less likely to make the news- and probably less likely to be sued, given the comparatively great wealth of the Catholic church). My overall point is, I don't think that Catholic in Georgia really feels that connected to an implicated Church in Boston.

2. The leadership is not the faith. I don't know a single Catholic who doesn't believe that protestant is just as good as catholic in God’s eyes, academically speaking (the nuttiness that is Mel Gibson aside). I was always taught that it is all Christianity, even by Church leadership. However, the receiving of the Eucharist is serious, serious business to a Catholic, and it really isn't available at any other Christian Church (some other churches go through the motions as a ritual/celebration, but the meaning is not the same as it is in the Catholic church.) Even though I don't attend services, I know that I couldn't be comfortable attending non-Catholic services, because I like, and am part of, the rituals and traditions that are associated with it. I can't really explain it, but anything else just feels weird to me.

Goldmine on the subject:
http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=6506

Just my 2 cents on this, then I'm done:

I was, in my youth, a member of my mom's presbyterian church. The church acquired a new minister, a guy from Australia. He seemed okay, kind of harmless, at first. He got himself involved with the "youth group" of which my older brother and I were members. I was 15. I was also starting to question the hypocrisy that I saw from the church elders, the whole "do as we say, not as we do" thing. Also, around that time, I was starting to read "occult" stuff, a little Crowley, a little Sybil Leek, and someone had given me a deck of tarot cards and told me "you'd be good at this". Fast forward to the summer of that year, I was walking down to the beach, smoking a joint and thinking about things, along comes the "pastor" and offers me a ride. I accept. Guy starts pawing me, I slap him, hard, and tell him I'm going to tell my mom. He sneers at me "just who do you think she'll believe, some pot-smoking little whore or the minister of her church?" I never went back to church, and I knew my mom was upset about that, but I never even told her about it until that man was long gone. She doesn't like it that I don't go to church, and I know she "prays" for me, but I'm happy with where I am and my faith, for what it's worth, has gotten me through a lot worse than what I went through with that creep. A lot of what I was taught when I was young has sustained me, but I still can't reconcile the message from Christ with what I see his followers doing to their fellow man. The hypocrisy manifests so far and so fast as to make one's head spin. I have always tried to live by one thing that I was taught when I was young: treat others as you would wish to be treated. Even so, I've gotten used, abused, and treated like so much shit a lot of the time. But that has served to make me more careful, and more wary of who I'll let into my life. YMMV

mchichi has the right of it. Actually what I've read and I don't have the assets or time to research to confirm. Is that percentage wise the married adult male is more likely to commit one of these atrocities than a Catholic priest. The reason this is worse (if something can be worse than molestation of a child) is that these were people we were taught to trust. Also in agreement, the church leaders absolutely screwed the pooch in their handling of this. But as a practicing catholic (practicing because I am not very good at it) The leadership and the priests who commited these atrocities are not why we are there. You are there for the faith itself. For the Eucharist. To be in holy communion with God. The teachings of the church I am comfortable with. The individuals involved in this no one should be comfortable with. I hope to some day see full disclosure come out so the church can continue the healing process.

I too keep wondering how anyone can send their kiddies into that nest of perverts after the exposure they've received. Faith or not, it boggles the mind.

If the sudden TV commercials for please send your child to our fine Catholic schools are any indication, they are taking some kind of a hit. Previous to the scandal, here in the Capital District of NY anyway, the Catholic schools never had any need to advertise. Catholics who could afford to (and some who really could not) automatically sent their kiddies there instead of the public schools as a matter of reflex, just that was what you did. Word of mouth even had it that if your kid was a problem kid, send them. They'd straighten them out. I've known Protestant and Jewish kids sent to them. Now they're all of a sudden advertising where they never have before (least in my recall and I am utterly addicted to television). Take from that what you will. It's just something I've noticed and I haven't researched any stats on it or anything.

As for other churches, once again I'll refer to FFRF with this http://ffrf.org/timely/pedophilechurch.php Also check out their black collar crimes column in their newspaper. There's much about the Catholic church but others as well and other crimes as well. They've running this column since the '80's.

In Boston nearly every single victim was male. In fact I can't think of reading about a single female victim. Although I'm sure there were a few. I suppose Amy will still refer to them as "pedophile" priests even though that is not true. They are Gay predators taking advantage of their positions of power. Calling them Peodphiles is as dishonest as calling Islam a "Religion of Peace".

Sean - people who prey upon others sexually do not necessarily do so because of their sexual orientation. It's not generally about sexual pleasure. It's about controlling someone else, someone more vulnerable than you. It's not an attraction thing, it's a manipulation thing.

The reason that more boys than girls (of any age) are molested by priests is simply proximity - as a profession, priests have greater private access to boys than to girls.

I'm not saying there aren't gay priest predators. I'm saying that regardless, it's not about attraction, and therefore, whether a priest is by nature gay or straight has nothing to do with it.

Jessica, you and yours need to prove your thesis, because by challenging common sense, the onus is on you. And no, being in agreement with the freak named Kinsey doesn't count, he specialized in interviewing prisoners and assuming that they are just like the rest of us. For you to say "it isn't about attraction", where do you get that? And how do you feel that you are even qualified to say that?

We have had a definition of homosexuality for a long time now, guys who like to do guys, including younger guys. For you to say that a guy who is doing boys is not really gay, well, bullshit. Let me be graphic just to nail the point past the cocktail party generalities.

If a guy likes to play with other people's penises, or likes his played with by men or boys, or likes to do little boys up the butt, then guess what, he is not in the same place as a guy who likes women, younger women, or even little girls. Entirely different state of mind, a gay state of mind.

Okay, you're saying that this is not pedophilia. I agree. Therefore, I believe we can agree that what it really is - is rape. That's what I think of it as. And rape is about power, not sex or attraction. It's about manipulating someone weaker than you.

I'll get you more links to support my assertion later, when I get off of work. However, start with:

http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/rapmot_y.htm

The definition of rape, at the top of this page, does indeed cover what we're talking about.

I'm curious to know what you think. As I said, I'll provide more resources later.

Additionally, the only qualification I have (beyond the ever-criticized anecdotal, which I'm not interested in sharing, anyway) is that one of my fields of expertise in my master's studies was the history of sexuality. Take that as you will.

I'm with smarty on this one. To be blunt, I sincerely doubt that any gay man will be licking the vagina of a teenage girl just because a teenage girl is in his proximity as opposed to a teenage boy. And Rape as an act of violence is true in cases of stranger rape where some guy grabs a woman and beats her then rapes her but things like date rape do not fall into that category. It's more like a selfish,horny guy getting his rocks off by not taking no for an answer. That's what these gay priests are. Horny guys taking advantage of their positions of power. Not pedophiles. Gay men can be predator scumbags too.
And here is something from the Boston Globe. I believe they won a pulitzer for their series on Priests in Boston:

It has become the shorthand label for a sex abuse scandal that now haunts dioceses around the nation: the pedophile priest crisis.

But the vast majority of priests who sexually abuse minors choose adolescent boys - not young children - as their targets, according to lawyers and academics who study clergy sexual abuse.

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/031702_adolescents.htm

Well, anyone who would waste time and money on a graduate degree that looks into the history of sexuality is obviously not qualified, particularly as there is less science in your degree than in "Alchemy 101".

So either these gay child molestors/rapist are ignoring the sex of the victim because they just like kiddies (demonstratably false based on the ages and sex of the victims) or else they are just into power. Can you prove that? That whole argument exists just to whitewash the crimes of gays. I really don't care what a bunch of feminist social theorists have to say on the subject. Social Science is more politics than science, and any honest student of it would agree.

Your opinion is a political one. If you make a statement, then use "therefore" to apply logic using that statement, you better make sure your statement is right to start with. You never did, and you never proved you latest excuse for bad gay behavior.

Goodness. I agree my graduate degree is worthless although no one else paid for it but me and it was my own mistake. Although would it make you feel better - or make me seem worth more, in your eyes - if you knew my other area of expertise is military history? I'm not a "feminist social theorist" either. I studied sexuality because I am interested in how our society has treated sex AND I am interested in masculinity and femininity. I am pro-male, pro-military, pro-gun, pro-hunting, I'm an economically conservative libertarian...and I guess I'm proving my stupidity by defending myself to you.

The reason I have taken issue with ANYTHING you have said at all is because - and maybe I'm reading too much into this - it seems like you want to blame the whole problem on homosexuality.

I am interested in the links Sean provided and was actually interested in your opinion until this morning. I'll stop writing, I'm sorry my arguments were worthless, sorry to have taken up your time.

Additionally, I never said the history of sexuality is a science, and I would argue it's not even a social science (although it is just as political) - it belongs in the humanities category.

It just happens to be something I've studied that I thought was pertinent.

I am blaming the problem on homosexual individuals. It seems that you and your ilk refuse to accept even that these priests are gay. Then, to top it off, you throw in your "rape is about power" bs. Rape is about the forcable taking of poontang. If it was purely about power, it would be the forcing of you to wash his dishes.

I can understand blaming it on homosexual individuals. I blame it on individuals, and also the social structure of the church itself. I don't think it's only some splinter socialist group that says rape is about power rather than sex, though; I think that's fairly common mentality. Not that common means it's accurate, I guess. If you could provide some research otherwise, I would be interested, and accept it. And I have never meant to say that I wouldn't accept that any of the predator priests are gay.