Bill Donohue: the NYT is being mean to the Pope
Posted in: Uncategorized
This is some royal shite. The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, always ready belch out bigotry at the drop of a hat. The man who said gay adoption is “against nature” and that the Catholic Church has a homosexual, not a pedophilia problem is trying in vain to build some sympathy for Pope Benedict by painting the NYT as a mean, Jew-loving (!), publication out to get his pedophile-priest-protecting Holiness.
Once upon a time there was a homosexual priest who was accused of molesting boys in Germany. That was 30 years ago. At the approval of Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger (now the pope), he was sent away for therapy and was later reinstated; years later, under a new archbishop, there was another incident and more therapy.
We know this because the New York Times (which does not like to report on molesting rabbis in 2010), told us about this on Saturday in a front-page article. Today, it ran a front-page article on the same story. Was there any difference? Yes. On Saturday, the Times was only able to identify the priest as bearing the initial “H.” Today, it has real news: his name is Hullermann. And now “H” has been suspended.
Was it wrong to send abusers to therapy? Is it wrong today? The Times does not say. While it is painfully obvious that psychologists and psychiatrists have oversold their competency in treating abusers, it has long been considered to be both scientifically and ethically sound. It still is. Perhaps that view is unwarranted, but it is flatly unfair to cherry pick Catholic decision-makers for indictment when therapy fails.
Holy smoke. Cherry picking? Old Bill must have a pantload of cherries aboard for every time he’s picked ‘em about the gays. Back in 2006, he decided that the entire white race had been won over by the godless homosexuals who are responsible for the moral slide of America. Check this out:
Americans are a tolerant people. That’s good, just so long as tolerance doesn’t slide into amorality. For example, it is one thing to put up with immoral behavior, quite another to say we no longer object. Not only is there nothing wrong with registering moral outrage at morally outrageous behavior, there is something immoral about remaining silent. And no segment of society fails this test more than white people; in particular, well-educated white people.
So while he can pick and choose what he considers self-evident “facts” for his convenience, in Donohue’s eyes, the Pope needs to be handled like a delicate, kindly grandfather, above criticism (or a subpoena), not to be questioned about his judgment regarding the handling of child-raping priests because, you know, he meant well.
I’m sure the Pope meant well when he whisked Cardinal “Shift the Pedos Around” Law out of Boston in the dead of night to a new “appointment” beyond the reach of law enforcement.
I’m sure Benedict just hasn’t gotten around to calling for unrepentant Irish Cardinal Sean Brady’s head because the Pope is sure Brady meant well when he witnessed teenage abuse victims take vows of silence rather than tell what they knew during a Church inquiry against multiple child molester Father Brendan Smyth.