Tag Archives: bill donohue

Religious fundamentalism making a nightmare of this world

Regarding the horrific massacre at Charlie Hebdo, I am in full agreement with Charlie.

This is the mass, unbridled, brainless Id of the barbarian at war with modernity in all its expressions. This is where anti-science leads, where a contempt for education leads, where the suppression of women leads, where marrying political fanaticism to religious fervor almost always leads. This is where theocracy brings us, over and over again.

And to say this in America is no small thing. It’s nowhere near as courageous, or dangerous, as printing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed on your magazine’s front page after having your office firebombed. But to call attention to the ever-lurking dangers of politically ravenous Christianism is to earn focused hatred from our own right-wing.

Because by way of the their unholy triumvirate, alongside Big Money and Big Business, Republican politics is wholly owned by the Big Prophet: Jesus Christ. When was the last time, for instance, you heard a Republican run for the Oval Office without receiving His singular blessing? T’would be unthinkable, because conservatives demand that their potential government servants be divinely and fervently empowered – and strictly, only – by Him. Michelle Bachmann:

“God then called me to run for the United States Congress,” she said. “Who in their right mind would spend two years to run for a job that lasts for two years? You’d have to be absolutely a fool to do that. You are now looking at a fool for Christ. This is a fool for Christ.”

Herman Cain:

“I prayed and prayed and prayed. I’m a man of faith,” Cain said. “And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses. ‘You’ve got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?'”

Rick Perry:

“I’m getting more and more comfortable every day that this is what I’ve been called to do. This is what America needs.”

Rick Santorum:

“People have asked me…over these last 18 months whether I’m running, and I always say, ‘I’m walking.’ And I’m walking because I’m trying to walk in the path that God’s leading me in…”

You will note that each one of these holy-rollers led Republican polling at one time or another in the 2012 campaign. But I’m not here to allege that these people are, or would be, prone to political violence. What I’m here to tell you is that any politics which must be subservient to religion is dangerous. It’s a politics crafted to be a weapon for the few and the pure, and, thus, wholly threatening to Western-style democracy. Here to demonstrate the dangers of dominion I give you the President of the Catholic League, conservative icon Bill Donohue:

“Stephane Charbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter,” he wrote. “It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, ‘Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.’ Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive.”

Donohue lays the blame for Charbonnier’s shocking murder at the foot of his casket. He warns: “Mister if you think you’re someone who can just say whatever he pleases, you’re a real narcissist. Don’t be surprised when the true believers you run afoul of show up to blow your head off.” This is not a traditional American attitude, you know? Perhaps that view was once in vogue when the defenders of the faith felt the need to burn witches, but we’ve managed to cobble together a Constitution – with notable amendments – since then. Usually we carry these free speech conceits around with us while addressing related matters, but Donohue hasn’t noticed:

“What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.

As if some religious beliefs are held so dearly, by some people, that our own Bill of Rights really ought to defer on the relevant points. Perhaps we might call it then A Bill of Particulars, as custom-ordered by well-loved religions. The First Amendment ought to bow and scrape to Christendom first, of course, followed by Judaism second, and then, somewhere down the line, past some zanier sects of Voodoo and Beatlemania, eventually Islam (time permitting).

Of course anyone who would wholly empower their private religious beliefs to dictate a nation’s multi-cultural post-modern politics isn’t interested in what anyone outside that belief system ultimately thinks, or feels. They’re not interested in power-sharing. They’re not interested in compromise. They’re not even interested in what Christ himself would think of such apartheid. They only want to Hosanna unmolested inside their members-only construct while all you outsiders disappear. Which is why Bill Donohue is such an asshole.


I heart Bill Donohue

I see Catholic League president Bill Donohue as a dinosaur. He’s the fist-swinging boyo taking it to the uppity WASPs who don’t want the Irish around their establishments. There’s heroism in being a nasty asshole, Donohue-wise.

Nowadays, we Micks can eat and sleep anywhere we like. The tony halls of the Supreme Court are as familiar to Catholics as they are to the preppies. No one is more boring and establishment than a dick like Bill O’Reilly. Somebody might wanna let Donohue know that the only bigot left in the room is himself.

. . this week in Tennessee a dog was rescued from being euthanized (one news outlet said he was being spared “the Gas Chamber”) because the condition driving the dog’s death was his alleged homosexuality (the owner was ticked when he saw his Fido hunch another male dog).

We now know what Bill’s been doing with his Saturday nights. Having a ‘hunch’ with the Missus.

Not, however, in Elton’s [the dog’s] case: the shelter has no stomach for putting dogs down on the basis of sexual orientation. It must be said, though, that the shelter is not exactly inclusive in its policies. To wit: Had poor Elton not been identified as a homosexual, his heterosexuality would not have been enough to save his hide.

His heterosexuality would not have put him there in the first place.

The moral of the story is: Being gay is not only a bonus for humans these days, it is a definite plus for dogs as well. As for straights, the lonely and the disabled, that’s another story altogether.

We gas the shut-ins and the handicapped? I don’t think so. Why Catholics don’t demand Bill shut his black hole, I don’t know. You wonder if they’re not afraid of him.


Catholic mafioso Bill ‘Butthead’ Donohue threatens Jon Stewart

From The Catholic League, for immediate release:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue speaks to the media cover-up:

Reuters did a story on Monday’s edition of “The Daily Show” but never mentioned the vagina manger scene segment; it was picked up by the chicagotribune.com, msnbc.com, and Yahoo! Movies. Also reporting on this episode, but never citing the obscene segment were the following: the blog site of the latimes.com; gawker.com . .

[. . overheard on an FBI wiretap. Brick-fisted meathead muscle for Skullfuck-Jesus-The-Animal-of-Nazareth, Bill Donohue, making a phone call. An unknown citizen picks up the line, then says, “Hello?” Bill:]

“. . if it isn’t Milton Fucking Berle. I love your fucking clown show, Miltie. All of us guys love it, and we love you, too, pal. I saw that bit where you put my boss’ picture on a lady’s stank. Aren’t you the clever one? That was real smart . .”

The cover-up is revealing. This episode of “The Daily Show” was done to protest Fox’s alleged indifference to the “war on women,” and in doing so Stewart not only made a vulgar attack on Christians, he objectified women.

We are asking Stewart to apologize.

“. . you and your snot-gob TV buddies probably thought that was real funny. They teach you that at boarding school, Chauncey? This is what college kids do? Poke fun at gods, like my guy Christ? That’s comedy? No it’s bullshit, Jon. But hey, I know the deal. Nobody hired me to crack wise. Who am I to tell a professional joker how to run his bullshit smart-mouth show about twats?”

If he does not, we will mobilize Protestants, Jews, Mormons and Muslims to join us in a boycott of his sponsors. Moreover, we will not stop with a boycott; there are other things that can be done to register our outrage. We are prepared to spend the money it takes to make this a nationwide issue, and we are prepared to stay the course. Tomorrow we will have something definitive to say, one way or the other.

“So Jon, you go right on, and you do what you do. Laugh it up the way you like. But you remember this: My name is fucking Bill fucking Donohue and I shit bigger than you and all your jewboy pals put together. If I were you, I’d shut my stupid mouth.”



Amy Siskind, the Bill Donohue of gender politics

From Clinton to Palin to Bachmann: Why some Dems now support GOP women
Martina Stewart | CNN | July 18 2011

. . “Nobody in the GOP establishment is going to hand anything to Bachmann or (Sarah) Palin — just like (Democrats) did not for Hillary (Clinton),” said Amy Siskind, who supported Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid. “And it takes a certain type of leader to go out there and have the courage and the guts to say ‘I’m running (for president)’ and I admire Bachmann for that.”

Michele Bachmann? The homphobic, histrionic husband-servant. This is who Amy Siskind respects and admires?

After Clinton’s failed Oval Office bid, Siskind and a small group of women who had supported Clinton decided the best way to break the glass ceiling in presidential politics was to put ideology and partisanship aside and support any woman seeking a top political office — including Bachmann and Palin, two darlings of the tea party movement known for their conservative views on economic and social issues.

Well, I’m Irish, so I suppose I should support my people by applauding Bill O’Reilly. Or the IRA. Erin go barf.

Is Amy Siskind this goddamned oblivious? Apparently, yes. A frustrated ’08 Clinton supporter turned PUMA turned Palinista, today’s Siskind is only nominally a Democrat and robustly annoying.

Look up a few entries on Google, and this you’ll see: If ever there were a fan girl of head-smacking gender politics, it’s her. Amy is Bill Donohue of the Simple Woman’s League. She’s blessed with a bullheadedness that liberates her from considering the rest of reality.

Bachmann’s despising the great majority of America’s citizens shouldn’t be meaningless, but it is. Palin’s eternal nastiness and demonstrated incompetence — just look at her VP campaign, or the current one for president she can’t get off the ground — are hardly trivial, but then they are. Heck, it’s somebody else’s fault anyway.

So excelsior for Siskind’s women. In her world, they are all marvels and wonders. They’re so authentic, she’s decided they stand for you no matter how thoroughly you despise them. We similarly recall that Bill Donohue’s put-upon Catholics — real Catholics — embody vibrant Christianity and do no wrong. Some people straddle both victimhood and guilelessness in a manner approaching immortality. So, we hail Amy Donohue. And we salivate at the schizoid prospects for reality.

How everybody loves a face palming. Remember when Bill sought to remind all those secular hyenas that they were conveniently including thirteen year-olds in their allegations (*cough*) of CHILD molestation? Those are teenagers, you morons.

Can you imagine how Amy reacted upon hearing Sarah Palin had ditched her gubernatorial gig?

A Dark Moment for Our Country
By Amy Siskind on July 6, 2009

For not once, but twice in the last two years, my daughter has seen a hero fall . .

I watched today as many of you did and saw a woman who had just had enough. Not only the onslaught of sexism and vitriol aimed at her, but also at her family . .

How did we let it come to this folks? This is our country – a country we are proud to live in. How did we allow such a high level of acceptable sexism to exist and flourish? What about our daughters?

What about the human race? How did we allow ourselves to force Sarah to quit? Back there in Alaska, she was buffeted by sexism and vitriol. Free to roam the country now, bouncing from reality shows, Fox News, headline gigs, magazine covers, Facebook, Twitter and television interviews across the nation to an endless number of adjunct campaign appearances, she’s safely invisible now. She’s also the current subject of a movie, “The Undefeated,” documenting the distraught victim drowning in cash and worship.

Surely, the Amy-Bills do love victimhood, and aren’t they lucky? It’s everywhere! Bill’s so sick with it, inanimate objects get the best of him. He once took the Empire State Building to task for not paying tribute to Mother Teresa on her birthday.

6 months into Hillary Clinton’s service, Amy caught wind of a conspiracy the Big Boys had hatched for the Secretary of State:

If a woman gets too much power, she becomes a threat and she must either be silenced, discredited or simply disappear . .

Hillary got the memo. She wisely decided to give a high-profile speech to reassert herself. So as Hillary’s fans sat glued to their television sets eagerly awaiting her words, they were in for a surprise. Hillary wasn’t on. President Obama’s staff had scheduled an event in the Rose Garden, at, you guessed it, the same time. After all the build up for Hillary’s breakout party, well, you can catch the speech on YouTube.

Take that, Madame. But then, maybe Barack just hates all the women in his cabinet?

There’s a sign going up at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It reads: “Boy’s Club: Girls Not Allowed” . .

The CNN piece was about the latest example of access and the boys club: Obama’s White House basketball game for Cabinet secretaries and members of Congress. Not a single woman was invited to the game. No matter that both Secretary Sebelius and U.N. Ambassador Rice were not only in town but both are hoops players.

Did George W. Bush take his cabinet members weightlifting with him in the morning? Basketball’s a dirty, junkyard game. I played for 10 years, and I got 3 or 4 broken ankles and broken ribs. Obama took an elbow to his jaw, got a few stitches. Players are forever getting into fistfights. But, a weightlifter, she can be regal: hold her head high, stare into space. Count to 10 in her mind, nod at the president once in a while — hello, yes, hey there. Talk to him. Obviously, these are serious issues.

Also serious, especially for rigid whackos: hypocrisy. Because if you can’t get straight with your one single issue, what have you got? You’ve got comedy. Like when Bill rants on and on about the bigots who’d bash someone’s religion:

One of the hallmarks of bigotry is the collectivization of guilt. By that measure, much of the criticism against the pope has been nothing if not Catholic bashing.

And then says . .

The Catholic community and the Islamists have much in common, so says the New York Times . . So Sister Mary Alice who leans left while working with the poor, and Father Murphy who works with pro-lifers, have much in common with Muslims who differ with each other on whether to kill Jews now or wait until they’re elected.

That’s funny. This too:

PETITION: MSNBC Pres Griffin – immediately institute Corporate Governance on Sexism or Resign!
by Amy Siskind |May 26, 2011

On Tuesday, MSNBC host Ed Schultz referred to radio show host Laura Ingram as a “slut.” In fact, the word flowed so effortlessly off his tongue, he referred to her as “slut” twice in two sentences! . .

But, Schultz’s short work leave is hardly fodder for revelry. Schultz is but an annoying gnat in the misogynistic cesspool that is MSNBC . .

Because the exact same Amy Siskind once took a look at this Miley Cyrus photo . .

. . and contrasted the previously cuddly Cyrus with this gender-friendly take:

Barely recognizable to the “slutty and ready” version of Miley in this months ELLE.

See? Comedy. Though the funny may depend upon which end of the ‘slutty’ you’re on. Or, in Bill’s case, which end of the fist. Once you poke any fun at the slobberer, he hurls threats at you:

. . guys like Maher want a brawl. He should be careful what he wishes for because there are those who pine to deliver.

At Bill Maher, again:

I’m a lot older than he is, but let me tell you something, I’d floor him.

At Christopher Hitchens, while they were debating on MSNBC:

Listen, you want to take it outside, Christopher, that’s fine.

Switch, and background. Amy started her own humble blog, “The New Agenda.” And when you read her website, you learn it’s the home for a Siskind Movement:

The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home.

The New Agenda seeks to achieve safety and opportunity for all women by addressing issues which unite us and by advancing women into leadership roles.

If only Amy’s touchy-feelies weren’t kindling for warming a website. After having been ridiculed by the charming she-devil, Mrs. Polly (of Snarkopolitan and Rumproast), she simply couldn’t resist the first opportunity for vengeance:

This gang of thugs, whom you rightly point out are closely associated with one another, have been harassing us and writing defamatory statements for the better part of a year.

Let’s bring them to justice!

They have left comments (e.g. their data) on our website and on the other websites for which I publish.

Let us know how we can help!

Find Mrs. Polly! Take her outside!


I wonder how people can be this stupid

How can people survive being this dumb? How do they manage to get by in life, drive their cars? Use a credit card? Count their change? I don’t know.

Legislator warns of HIV epidemic in New York if marriage equality becomes law
By Ashton Elijah • Thursday, June 23, 201

. . Sam Trombley (R), while at Wednesday night’s meeting of the Clinton County [New York] legislature, voiced that he couldn’t understand why the health department focused on tobacco and smoking, but not homosexuality.

“I’m surprised the health department has not come out against this because we are going to have an HIV epidemic if this passes,” Trombley said.

Then, he attacked the very idea of homosexual relationships, saying that the idea “blew his mind.”

“You don’t see two male dogs sleeping in the same dog house together,” said Trombley.

But you do see boy and girl dogs doing that. And you should hear the couple next door going at it: fighting, scratching and clawing, howling. Breaking glass, clanging pots and pans. They turn up the TV, but we hear it all the same. She’s a bitch, but he married her anyway.

Bill Donohue: We Shouldn’t Allow Gay Marriage Because People Still Get AIDS
Joe. My. God. | June 23 2011

“Before the New York State legislature decides whether to ratify homosexual marriage, it would be nice if one of the lawmakers were to ask what in the world is going on in the gay community. [snip] Between 2007-2009, there was a 6 percent decrease in gay men using condoms. Furthermore, homosexuals account for 60 percent of all newly diagnosed HIV infections each year; in addition, 60 percent of gays who have syphilis also have HIV. Moreover, 85 percent of gays with syphilis continue to have sex. The lawmakers need to ask gay leaders to testify about this issue.”

Okay, I take the ‘stupid’ back. Bill is a troll.


On the Horrors of Lady Gaga, Easter and Freedom

(a little something for the holiday . .)

Some time this weekend, Lady Gaga will release a video for her song “Judas” featuring a familiarly convenient outrage.

I wanna love you,
But something’s pulling me away from you
Jesus is my virtue, Judas is the demon I cling to
I’m just a holy fool, oh baby he’s so cruel
But I’m still in love with Judas, baby

While the rest of us will pause very momentarily to realize Gaga isn’t original, conservative Americans will seize the clip as definitive proof that America is robustly, mockingly anti-Christian.

And I’m a genius because — look! It’s already begun. Take in the shock of clueless Christian attorney Jennifer Smetters decrying the “moral decay of our society” and the video’s “poorly timed” (jeez) declaration of war:

“Restraint and respect is what we pride ourselves on as a moral and civil society and they are walking all over it. That doesn’t make it right.”

That makes it wrong, maybe? Oh well. Listen to Bill Donohue, Catholic League attack dinosaur, while he’s afflicted with a similar apoplexy:

“You can’t even show a depiction of Muhammad on TV, in the newspapers, and whatnot. And I’m not out there to say let’s have equality by dumping on the Muslims. I’m simply saying why does it take fear as a motivational ethic on the part of some people to respect Muslim rights? Do they want Catholics to pick up a machete in order for them to get their rights?”

Smetters’ rant, though aggressively loopy, is nowhere near as bizarre as this one: Christians have no rights in your America! Do we have to kill people to get you to notice? A chastened Lady Gaga would enter a penitentiary!

What a comical notion. There is no right to worship in any manner or form without being offended by your fellow man. There is, however, a concrete right for him to express himself in almost any manner he pleases.

I’ll tell you that this is true because “Freedom of Religion” is a subset of the larger “Freedom of Speech.” It is difficult to imagine a world where “Freedom of (your or my favorite) Religion” eventually allows for the freedom of anything or anybody outside of it. The history of man demonstrates that religions, like almost all other institutions of power, grow discriminatory and violent as they subsume society.

And the Founding Fathers knew this painfully well as they’d seen it in Europe. That’s why the very first amendment, right out of the gate, prohibited their new, powerful central government from favoring any religion. And, here, let’s stop beating around the bush — THEY WANTED THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE TO PREVENT THEIR NEW CONSTRUCT FROM BECOMING A CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION. There’s just no other way to understand their intentions.

So, friends, since I may speak as I like, assemble as I like, worship as I like, but the government, unable to favor any (read: the currently most powerful) religion, cannot do anything about it, I can only conclude this: it’s absolutely okay to rip other people’s beliefs. No kidding — the nation looks like it was set up so you and I could do it.

That would really be freedom of speech, right? Yes, right, the Founders weren’t kidding. Of course, the way in which you might attack a religion probably says something about your respect for your fellow man or, at least, for their belief system. I imagine someone might comment about that.

So, noting all that, let us turn the tables on Bill for a moment. What is it that the Donohues of the world are feverishly upset about? What is he saying about us?

He’s not really saying that Lady Gaga, the person, is the problem. She could sing in her basement for the rest of her life and nothing would ever come of it. Nor is he saying some video is the problem because other people record and upload crap-blasphemy all the time without Blustery Bill caring a whit.

He’s saying that we are the problem — we’re his problem. We watch the video, and we hum the song, and we blog the words, and then the crime is done, and it’s way too late — Catholics’ constitutional rights have been beaten into the dirt.

And you can see the only place this leads, can’t you? With all the Gagas and Mahers and Dawkinses of the wayward world? When you and I listen to someone other than Bill Donohue, we trample his freedoms. It’s as brutally simple as that. We should probably expect that from a man who begs to punch atheists’ faces.

Sorry, Bill, regardless of whatever approaching holiday, religions remain ideas. And no matter how special your favorite idea is, America can’t both attend to it and leave it alone. No idea has yet grown beyond free speech. Even Catholicism, Bill, hasn’t killed free speech.

The Christian (and Muslim, sure) hysterics would demand you act otherwise. “What’s the big deal? You can just tiptoe around us.” But aren’t they a silly bunch? And don’t they fundamentally disrespect us and our American values? I think so.


Bill Donohue: the apotheosis of nasty, stupid Catholicism in America

Look, I can appreciate Catholics white-knuckling through the ups and downs of their beloved church. We all feel helpless when a large organization that we hold membership in goes awry, and almost none of us holds the sort of power that can right a ship that large.

So we hold on and we wish for the best. Sometimes we go a little overboard in swearing everything will be okay, y’know? We’re probably talking to ourselves. But this is different.

A week ago, the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue put out another press release about child molestation in the Church, this one focusing on a victim of de-frocked priest Daniel McCormack. Bill furthered all of his insulting, disgusting, pigheaded arguments:

1.) The ‘molesters’ are just homosexuals. You know what they’re like.
2.) These ‘victims’ are not boys, they’re young men.
3.) And they’re not really being raped, are they? C’mon.
4.) And methinks they doth protest too little (wink).

Donohue is easily one of the ugliest Americans on the planet:

It’s time to ask some tough questions. Why did this young man not object earlier? Why did he allow the “abuse” to continue until he was 18? The use of the quotes is deliberate: the charge against the former priest is not rape, but rubbing. While still objectionable, there is a glacial difference between being rubbed and raped.

Bill also has a gift for peacocking his stupidity at the crucial moment — witness the use of ‘glacial’ to mean ‘big’, which it does not. Or witness this, his comments on poor Tyler Clementi:

According to several reports, the Rutgers student who jumped off a bridge was non-plussed after he learned that his gay tryst was surreptitiously taped by his roommate and shown online; not long before he killed himself, he even wrote on a gay chat site that his roommate was “a pretty decent” guy.

nonplussed: ‘To put at a loss as to what to think, say, or do; bewilder.’ Yeah, I took my car to a mechanic because of a funny noise under the hood. He said it could be a big deal, but it also could be nothing. I was nonplussed, so I threw myself off the nearest skyscraper.

More of Bill’s Catholic ‘defense’:

. . those looking to sue the Catholic Church for being inappropriately rubbed decades ago are not exactly the poster boys for the victims of child rape. And because those who hate the Church continue to use the term child rape as a way of discrediting the Church. They lie about this being a pedophilia problem and they lie about the nature of the misconduct.

Donohue is dumb beyond words. He believes any priest who attacks a boy must therefore be gay, and it’s all just a homosexual thing. Bill’s especially idiotic for trying to rehabilitate Daniel McCormack — Dan pleaded guilty to molesting five boys and was sentenced to 5 years in prison.

In October, 1999, while McCormack was a priest at the Archdiocese’s Holy Family facility, the school principal, Sister Mary Therese Cusak, received a report that McCormack instructed a 4th grade boy, who wanted to be an altar boy, to pull down his pants so that McCormack could measure him (Ex. A, pg. 24; Ex D, defendants’ Answers to Interrogatories No. 3, pg. 3); Sister Cusak confronted McCormack about this report, and McCormack admitted that he used poor judgment.

The mother of an 8 year old also complained that McCormack assaulted her boy twice — so that would be a second or third grader.

And do we really have to sort through the clinical details of priests sodomizing pre-teens to prove the Catholic Church shattered the lives of trusting kids? No. To prove Bill Donohue is a nasty, ugly liar? No. He would have us do that, but I won’t.


Child abuse: you may call for accountability, but the Catholic Church won’t listen

Letter shows Pope Paul VI knew of child abuse decades ago

By Andrew McLemore
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010 — 9:30 pm

Further revelations of the Vatican’s inaction to address pedophilia may tarnish not only Pope Benedict’s reputation, but that of Pope Paul VI.

According to a newly released letter, Pope Paul VI and the Vatican knew about clergy abuse of children almost 50 years ago.

The 1963 letter is from the head of a Roman Catholic order dedicated to the treatment of priests who had committed pedophilia. In it, he tells Pope Paul that he recommends removing the priests from active ministry . .

Tony DeMarco, an attorney for clergy abuse victims . . thinks the letter shows clearly that the Vatican knew about priest abuses decades ago and didn’t do anything about it.

He points out that the priest even suggests removing the pedophile priests from ministry entirely instead of shuffling them from parish to parish, which the Vatican has been criticized for since the reports of clergy abuse began.

“It shows without a shadow of a doubt that … how pervasive the problem was was communicated to the pope. He was able to share with him their knowledge of how pervasive this problems was, how destructive this problem was,” DeMarco said.

On Wednesday, Pope Benedict XVI said he believed the scandal was a “test for him and the church.” Several days earlier, he said he would not be “intimidated” by all the outrage over the clergy abuse, dismissing the claims as “petty gossip” . .

I’m always a little perplexed by the outrage these revelations cause. Certainly not because the allegations aren’t true or shocking: children were raped over and over again. But because people actually believe that if they raise their voices high enough, the Vatican will somehow suddenly come to its senses. It won’t.

It’s shown over and over again that it considers itself both above and immune to the morality of secular society which rightfully deems these priests to be evil criminals of the highest order.

"In this file photo, members of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, SNAP, protest outside Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, seat of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, in September 2006."

'In this file photo, members of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, SNAP, protest outside Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, seat of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, in September 2006.'

It matters nothing to them that their behavior in dealing with pedophiles over centuries clearly amounts to very serious crimes. Other pedophiles have to work far harder to avoid being prosecuted or killed because of their operating in secular society. But within the church, they are protected and abetted.

The priests get access to children across the world. When they’re reported to the church, the church never reports them to authorities though they are ethically, if not clearly legally, compelled to. The church often usually prevails upon the victims to shun authorities as well. The church almost never bars the priests from seeing more children. And the church usually sets them right back into situations where the molesters regain access to and the confidence of children so that they can rape again. These new settings are often away from the previous victims and communities so that no one, police and district attorneys especially, has a clue as to what’s about to happen.

If that doesn’t amount to a criminal conspiracy, I’m not sure what does.

The Pope will be fine, he will go on unaffected by the scandal because Catholics consider him a sacred object, which he is not. They’d sooner sacrifice themselves than allow him, and his seriously wayward policies, to be properly exposed and shamed. And so the beat goes on:

Recall the church’s later handling of the disgraceful treatment of Galileo and who felt compelled to justify it four hundred years later:

On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI) cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called “a symptomatic case that permits us to see how deep the self-doubt of the modern age, of science and technology goes today.” Some of the views he cited were those of the philosopher Paul Feyerabend, whom he quoted as saying “The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.” The Cardinal did not clearly indicate whether he agreed or disagreed with Feyerabend’s assertions. He did, however, say “It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views.”

On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Catholic church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.

You’re looking for sanity and the making of right, finally, in this long-running atrocity? Don’t hold your breath.