The real problem is that the priests were known to be guilty and they were moved without discipline to continue their abuses. The Catholic Dioceses involved (Boston in particular) didn't blow the whistle on their own and preferred to let other children down the road be molested by these same animals. The problem here is not acceptance of homosexuals it is acceptance of pedophiles.
Can you cite any partisan language? If it had been ghost-authored by Unknown would you agree or disagree more?
Rick Santorum is a Republican, and a representative example (excuse the pun) of the type of man who speaks loudest within the Republican party these days. He did not say, literally, "Democrats are to blame," but the implication is patently obvious. Notice I have not said "I don't like Rick Santorum." But isn't it obvious? I'm sorry, but it's hard for me to avoid coming to the conclusion that you're employing some targeted obtuseness here because you agree with Santorum's cute little theory. What exactly is moral relativism anyway? Relative to what? One absolute moral standard? Who gets to decide what that should be? Rick Santorum? But, since it is a cultural malady, I guess the priests are victims too. But of whom? Who created this moral relativism? How did it come about when people like Rick Santorum speak so strongly against it? Who would oppose Rick Santorum? Who is Rick Santorum fighting against here? Academic, media, and political liberals? Well...who are they, and where can one find them? Boston apparently - but are they anywhere else? Are there any academic, media, or political liberals in the Republican party? ..and where can I sign-up for the yay we like cheese party? I'd like to join. Anyway, regardless of whether I agree with Santorum (notice I have not literally said "I don't agree with Santorum" anywhere in this post - but could you guess?), to deny that he's reframing a tragedy for partisan purposes is disingenuous.
It doesn't even say: "The Honorable <b>Republican</b> Senator Rick Santorum".... I bet that Joe Lieberman could have written this.... if he were Catholic! Lieberman is, of course, a Democrat.
LIBERALISM CAUSES PEDOPHILIA!!?!?!?!!?? Surely your mind can not have been so poisoned by all the partisan bickering to actually believe that. Sickness, and demented mind causes pedophilia. There is no liberal anywhere that I know of that has ever said it is ok if some people want to molest children. No liberal has ever hinted at that. Liberals advocating being understanding of people's differences has never ever suggested that it is ok to molest children. That is the most ridiculous line of logic I have ever heard in my life. I'm tired of the hypocritical charge of moral relativsm as well. Liberals aren't the ones defending torture and imprisonment without allowing someone a chance to defend themselves for some people and not for others. Some things wrong across the board. Among those are torture, imprisonment without allowing a defense, and child molestation. Liberals are against all of the above no matter the situation. I won't even say that Conservatives are have conditions where some of the above are ok, but some conservatives definitely are. To say that liberals permisiveness has ever allowed pedophilia to flourish is ludicrous.
You are correct. That was an inner-church problem, and had zero to do with liberals or conservatives. To suggest that liberals had anything at all to do with it is shameful.
Did I say that? I said that it had allowed it to happen referring to the (what should I call it?) extreme tolerance that let it go on and on and on...
Liberals have never advocating tolerance of pedophilia! To suggest that is irresponsible, and insulting.
Interesting, given that the leadership of these Churches are about as conservative a group as you can get. So perhaps you meant to say that conservatives and their fear of taking responsibility let it go on and on and on... ?
thadeus, you make some good points and questions. The way I define moral relativism is the belief of "if it feels good, do it." This view is not limited to political liberals, and I'm not even sure Senator Santorum was talking about political liberal, but more about liberal attitudes within the Catholic church, as well as in culture, about personal responsibility and the proper place for sex. Once again, I'm doing some interpreting there, I can't speak for Mr. Santorum, only for myself. I'm not sure why you want a specific listing of people with this attitude. I could start listing people I know, but the names wouldn't mean anything to you. As far as the media part goes, it is all over, in both entertainment and political speeches, people say things like "you're forcing religion on me" when people just want a society where there are some traditional values upheld and not just hedonistic attitudes. I would not suggest that political liberals advocate child abuse, that would be stupid, but rather that the culturally liberal (or possibly libertarian, depending on how you look at it) attitude of seeking pleasure for yourself above all else has gradually led to a society where there are less and less sexual taboos, and more of an atmosphere where someone prone to sexual depravity has ample opportunity to feed it and consequently act on it. I did not read in Senator Santorum's article a specific condemnation of liberals as a whole for advocating or causing molestation, and I know I certainly wouldn't imply that myself. But again, I agree wholeheartedly with you about the political labels. I think most people in their daily life aren't thinking of everything in "liberal vs. conservative" terms like the obsessed politicos do. As you said, there are much more than two ways of looking at pretty much everything.
"media and academia" "they have zealously promoted moral relativism" "sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles" "a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America" It's ghost-authored by Rush, perhaps... What do you think Santorum meant by 'alternative lifestyles'?
Not if they are part of the sickness. Either they are part of it or they are complicit in it by overlooking it and/or covering it up. Surely pedophiles can and are both conservative and liberal. It may in fact be easier to hide in a realm where you would least be suspected (schoolteaching, coaching, scouting and, yes, pastoring). I guess that hiding place is about over....
A very balanced post, and I hate to jump on you a little bit, but being liberal in your attitudes towards sex and relationships hasn't got one thing to do with the disgusting, sick, and criminal acts being bandied about in this thread. Not a damn thing. I have led a very liberal lifestyle, especially before I was married, and I never met or knew of anyone who practiced the depraved acts being discussed. They do not go hand in hand. They have nothing to do with each other. It matters not which side of the political fence you sit on... depravity, as has been shown time and again, knows no boundaries and can come from any quarter. Trying to link it somehow to liberals or liberal lifestyles, or liberal attitudes is rediculous, disgusting, twisted and sick. Got it?? God, this kind of crap pisses me off. Has nothing to do with you, Jeffster. It's a product of the garbage being thrown around by the extremists who run the Republican Party, and their most ardent supporters. Gezz. Keep D&D Civil!!
What I find ironic Giddyup is that you and Santorum are engaging in something that liberals are often taken to task for by deflecting blame from the priests and the Catholic Church by blaming it on wider societal forces. Its essentially the same argument that Michael Moore put forward in Bowling for Columnbine that embrace of violence and and militarism in society was partly responsible for the Columnbine massacre.
I don't see it as deflecting blame as much as I see it as assigning additional blame. No one said that liberalism caused this kind of depravity. I do think it might have loosed some that might otherwise have gone in check. But especially someone was willing to "look the other way" while it went on. A lot of the motivation to do that was financial and simply plain old "protecting" the church. I get your drift, but I think a more accurate portrayal of this situation is the way in which liberals want to remove virtually all of the responsibility of the individual for their "crime." They were a "victim" of their poverty etc. That is truly deflecting...
Rick Santorum said liberalism was responsible. That is why people are outraged. Also liberalism didn't loosen anything related to child molestation. It is not a tennent of liberalism to look the other way at things, or removing responsibility for it. As for being a victim of poverty, liberals still don't deflect blame for crimes committed, they simply want to treat the sickness not just the symptoms. Do you honestly think that a poor person who's family is starving, and he is out of a job, and a rich person who is financially secure would be equally as likely to steal from a grocery store? By liberals wanting to remove conditions like poverty, they haven't said people aren't responsible. I haven't seen any liberal who has ever said people shouldn't be held responsible for committing crime. What they have said is let's work on reducing poverty so that less people commit crimes. Once they commit them liberals believe in law enforcement. The church didn't handle the situation the way they did because liberals want to fight poverty. It is 100% unrelated to liberalism.
<b>FranchiseBlade Rick Santorum said liberalism was responsible. That is why people are outraged. Also liberalism didn't loosen anything related to child molestation. It is not a tennent of liberalism to look the other way at things, or removing responsibility for it.</b> "The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities." <b>As for being a victim of poverty, liberals still don't deflect blame for crimes committed, they simply want to treat the sickness not just the symptoms.</b> Then explain the minimum sentencing laws... <b>Do you honestly think that a poor person who's family is starving, and he is out of a job, and a rich person who is financially secure would be equally as likely to steal from a grocery store?</b> If I were hungry, I'd probably steal too. I don't think the public consternation is about petty thievery. It's about violent crime. <b>By liberals wanting to remove conditions like poverty, they haven't said people aren't responsible. I haven't seen any liberal who has ever said people shouldn't be held responsible for committing crime. What they have said is let's work on reducing poverty so that less people commit crimes. Once they commit them liberals believe in law enforcement.</b> Are you implying that conservatives are against removing the conditions of poverty? Again, I have to ask you to explain the minimum sentencing laws. Why was it necessary to force the judiciary's hand on these matters. There has been a creeping leniency in this and other areas. That is what Santorum was referring to... cultural liberalism. What would be your explanation then if his is so reprehensible?
Really, I need more of an explanation as to how my way of thinking somehow allows more pedephilia. You aren't getting off without going more in depth. I mean, we are talking about the Catholic church which is against gays, gay marriage, birth control (all liberal things). Do you think these priests were hanging out out gay pride marches or something? You can't have it both ways, you can't say "I'm not saying liberalism is responsible" and then drop whoppers like this "I do think it might have loosed some that might otherwise have gone in check." Maybe if we all send you some corny email that doesn't source anything but explains why Santorum is wrong, you'll listen to us. Until then, you are basically saying that all liberals seem to hate pedephilia less than you do and if you can't respect us enough to think that we aren't 100% against a crime like that, then why should we respect you?
