As I noted above, the execrable Bill Donohue offered a bogus “everybody else did it” assertion, equating corporations that let HR handle cases of grabassery with the Church’s pedophile cover-ups. Obviously, this fails on multiple levels:
Workplace sexual harassment, unacceptable as it is, does not rise to the level of child rape.
Internal handling of sexual harassment cases included at least a serious risk of actual punishment (i.e. dismissal rather than transfer to another department).
Thank you. I probably should say here that while times change, the Church doesn’t! <rim shot>
No, seriously, it doesn’t matter what century it was in. It’s still despicable.
Girl. The piece is attributed to Dr. Alice von Hildebrand.
Offered just in case you still had some stomach contents left after all that vomiting.
Alice may well be male. It’s a name like Carroll, Meredith or Hillary–it can swing either way (ok, back in the day-day, as in Victorian times, but still!)
Sorry, nope. See also the wikipedia articles on her late husband Dietrich, and on “New Feminism” (she gets a cursory mention by name, but the subject seems to resonate on pretty much the same frequency as Icerigger’s quoted text).
Here is an interview with the lovely lady, sick just sick the Catholic view of women is no different than the Taliban.
Yes, but they have a better PR team.
It was the holy ghost, that sneaky pedo
You weren’t that wrong. She was killed at the turn of the 20th, but she was made a saint in the 1950s - apparently, both her mom and her murderer attended the ceremony.
Wow.
Given her academic credentials outlined earlier in the article:
*Von Hildebrand earned her doctorate in philosophy at Fordham University and is professor emeritus of Hunter College of the City University of New York. *
She’s clearly a hypocrite of the highest order.
I feel sorry for good and decent Catholics who are hurt by a very bad church.
Just an FYI - Fordham is run by the Jesuits, who no doubt made sure she was fully aware of and in compliance with her wifely duties before granting her PhD.
I somehow doubt that Alice von Hildebrand has renounced her own salary and pension from her 35±year teaching career, or her lecture fees or book royalties. Apparently getting diplomas and competing with men in the work market instead of just being profoundly aware of the beauty and dignity of your role as wife and mother is only a bad thing when other women do it, especially those “secular feminists”.
(In fact, since she was married at age 36 to a 69-year-old man who died 18 years later and AFAICT had no children by him, her own “role as wife and mother” doesn’t seem to have occupied much of her life.)
Ack. :eek: :mad: 
Perhaps she and Phyllis Schlafly were separated at birth? Thank god these kind of women are given less and less attention. And why is it always some privileged white woman who does this? Has she ever had to worry about a paycheck or putting food on the table in her life? :mad:
If you (generic you) want to stay home and have babies etc–more power to you, but don’t tell the rest of us that’s our sole reason for being on the planet. And stop imbuing reproduction with some kind of holy experience–yes, it’s a miracle: a NATURAL miracle. Gah.
Because it’s aimed at an audience of privileged white women. At least one-third of working-age women were in the paid workforce through most of the twentieth century (and nearly three-quarters of them are nowadays), mostly because of the economic necessity of earning their own living. But nobody bothers about making sure that poor working-class women have the leisure to devote themselves to “the beauty and dignity of their role as wife and mother”. What would the rest of us do if they did? Those hotel rooms and hospital bedpans aren’t going to clean themselves, you know.
The anti-feminists who argue that women in general shouldn’t participate in the paid work force are not bothered by lack of logical consistency. Their “rules” don’t apply to themselves if they choose to earn income from their teaching and preaching, and they don’t apply to poor women who need to earn income because they don’t have the luxury of being fully supported by a male breadwinner.
I know. My question was rhetorical. 
That’s okay, a rhetorical question is just as good an excuse for a rant as a non-rhetorical one.
Guys, I am still more-or-less offline due to internet problems. I am sorry if (as it seems) I have become the issue here. Please do not think I am ignoring your comments on purpose.
Since I face such opposition, I have to admit I might be wrong. There is of course the possibility I have written poorly. Let me try again.
I suspect (but I cannot prove) that child molestation is (and was) much more widespread than we have been willing to admit. The RCC scandal is important, but what are we ignoring as we focus on one organization?
People have said a lot of things about (supposedly) chaste priests being the cause of all this. That may be so, or it may not be. No studies have been done to prove or disprove the thesis. The contention is simply “common knowledge,” and often what everyone knows is wrong.
The RCC is (or to be generous, was) the world’s largest organization of pedophiles in the world. Add to that a couple of centuries and you have the sort of horror that could only have come out of bad science fiction. And it all is true.
But society is addressing the issue. We will do that imperfectly and incompletely, but the wheels of justice are rolling.
But when we focus on the RCC only, we turn away from other organizations that (seem to have) indulged in these crimes for shorter periods of time and in local areas. The story of these other groups is becoming lost to time and hidden by perpetrators.
Nobody seems to be investigating other groups.
Go on and attack every little part of RCC policy and every priest and bishop as part of a despised religious minority, but you do little to root out the guilty individuals when you do that. The reaction against the RCC is taking on aspects of a mob.
Ask yourself, what does a mob look like? I suggest it looks like this.
But as I said, I admit I may be wrong. I respect the posters here and will reflect on what has been said.
This period of reflection may be aided by my screwy internet connection. (Now let’s see if this thing will send.)
I disagree with you, Paul. No one wants to overlook other sources of pedophiles. None of us doubts that there are other institutions that need cleaning up and out.
BUT the focus and spotlight is on the Church right now. I see no mob; I see hundreds and thousands of dismayed and sickened people in (probably) every country, all saying “enough” at the same time.
I hope the Church heeds this. I am not Catholic, but many many people seem to draw strength from it. But not many want to be associated with such entrenched indifference and villainy.
Now I’m picturing this whole thing as a Family Circus cartoon.
“Who’s been buggering these altar boys?”
“Not Me!”