You misunderstand. The Catholic League is decidedly not saying “we did a bad thing.” The Catholic League did nothing wrong (at least as regards this) - the Catholic League did not sexually abuse kids or cover it up. The Catholic League instead has repeatedly said that they - the priests and bishops involved - did a bad thing, and have condemned them for it.
Do some research, please. Now that your (utterly unsupported) Catholic League thesis has been discredited, you have switch to bashing “all the non Catholic League catholic protestors.” Who are they, what groups are the affiliated with, and what have those groups said about the sex scandal? Don’t know, do you?
For a self-described “avid reader of the priest scandal,” you don’t seem very aware of the facts. To answer your latest question:
I have actually seen many news reports of picketers - though most of them picket the cathederals where certain bishops are saying Mass. Are they the same “non Catholic League” groups who were picketing at the Opie and Anthony hearing? I don’t know - because you haven’t identified those groups.
Kindly come back when you have a cogent argument and facts to back it up. Until then, have a pleasant day.
Yes, I do. The Catholic League believes that reports of sexual abuse should be turned over to legal authorities and that the Church should not keep monetary settlements confidential. They have no problem with the idea of paying victims (though they oppose the RICO suit that names the Vatican as a defendant.)
The Catholic League can be pretty extreme and I’m not a member or even a Catholic. But they are doing what you’ve accused them of not doing.
First, I wasn’t at either protest. But since you’re making the accusation, please provide support for your assertion that the “non Catholic League catholic protesters” didn’t protest over sexual abuse. It’s your assertion, it’s your burden. Second, if you’re condemning Catholics for not picketing outside diocesan HQ, then I think your approach is unrealistic. The voice of Catholic laity can influence the Church by putting internal pressure on the leadership. That type of inside influence is not possible with Infinity Broadcasting. So, you’re really comparing apples and oranges.
And your argument is going backwards. You started with an indefensibly broad statement that “Catholics” (without qualifier) were being hypocritical. When you were called on it, you at least narrowed the focus to the Catholic League. Now that your Catholic League argument has fallen apart, you’re broadening the scope again.
The (continuing) irony is your desire to avoid admitting that your OP was off-base. The Catholic League has supported defrocking priests. Instead of acknowledging it you’re trying to change the terms of the debate.
I never claimed incest was an institutional problem. The institutional problems I identified were the common practice of exercising prosecutorial discretion by charging intra-familial sexual assualt cases as incest (a misdemeanor) rather than criminal sexual assault or rape (serious felonies), and of the various “social services” and “child welfare” agencies that, as a matter of policy, begin each child sexual abuse case with a goal of “family reunification” as opposed to termination of parental rights.
This refutes your point that peodophile priests are the only group of sex criminals that get sympathy. In fact, child sex abusers that grow their own victims, rather than seeking out victims outside their families, are beneficiaries of the most institutionalized sympathy and legal benefit of any group of sex offenders.
Turning your attention back to your OP, you accuse the group protesting the Opie and Anthony stunt of being hypocrites. You’ve now been shown evidence that the group has also spoken out against the pedophile priests and the coverups perpetrated by the hierarchy. This would seem to refute your charge of hypocriscy.
Sad to say, Opie and Anthony will probably come out of this smelling like a rose. They’ll get more publicity than they ever dreamed of, and will get to pose as champions of the First Amendment, being oppressed by the Big, Bad, Catholic Church.
I’ll be very surprised if they lose their jobs over this… but if they do, you can be sure they’ll get big-dollar offers to work someplace else. Unfortunately, the Catholic League can’t win a fight like this.
I am contending (and since this is a debate, not the gospel, it is merely my contention) that the evidence shown in previous posts is not the same as what the Catholic Leauge and others are demanding of Opie and Anthony. Mainly, they are demanding that O&A lose their jobs, that the Station pay a hefty fine AND lose their liscense to broadcast – thus eliminating their ablity to be what they are – radio guys. They also want the offenders who committed the sex acts in the church (whom disgust me, I am not defending these unsavory cast of people) to go to jail.
From what I have read, and the quotes posted in this debate do not show me that the Catholic League or anyone else protesting the O&A thing are demanding the same stiff penalites for the pedophile priests. Did the catholic league demand ex-communication for the priest who violated sacred trusts? did they demand that diocese pay fines? Did they picket in front of rectories and churches were abuse occured? Did they demand prison terms?
I do not contend that the Catholic League is applauding the acts of pedophile priests, but i also don’t see the moral outrage I am seeing with the O&A stunt.
Thus I feel it is hypocritical. If you feel the two are equvlent so be it.
Honestly, you incest point does not seem relevant to me, but I’ll give it to you.
Rick now says: I, too, have seen protestors - lay Catholics, and members of the Catholic league - call for Bernard Law’s resignation, picket Masses being said by Law and other bishops accused of “looking the other way”, demand that guilty priests be defrocked and put in jail, and the like.
Hie thee over to the Catholic League website (www.catholicleague.org) and click on the link entitled “2001 Report on Anti-Catholicism Online”, and you will see what the Catholic League considers Catholic-bashing. Like most websites of the sort, some of it is petty, some is not.
“Mass hysteria” may not be such a bad term to apply to some of what I have heard about the Catholic sex scandals. And there is very little that I have seen at least of the press coverage that seems to be offering the Catholic church much leeway at all.
**Well, speaking as one who has been labelled a “gay basher” for referring to those men who preferentially target pre-pubescent males for their assaults as “gay pedophiles”, I would also disagree that priests are the only ones receiving sympathy of one sort or another.
Which is none of it to say that the Catholic bishops are blameless, the victims have not been brutallized and betrayed, or that the whole thing isn’t nauseating. There is plenty of blame to spread around. It just doesn’t disqualify those who never laid a hand on a child in their lives from objecting when some shock jerks turn to desecration for laughs.
I suspect some of the coverage has been driven in part by built-up resentment by the press against the Catholic church for its decidedly un-PC official teachings on abortion, homosexuality, and the role of women in the clergy. Add to that the appetites of the media for scandal, and when something like this happens, it becomes payback time.
I heard a lot of calls after 9/11 not to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few. I have heard relatively fewer not to blame all Catholics for the same.
I’m not Catholic, but I am aware of the huge amount of good done by the Catholic Church. The parochial schools, the hospitals, the other charities, added to what the religion has meant to millions of believers. You have taken an unrelated situation – the mockery or the Church by a radio station – and used the pedophile scandal to somehow minimize an attack against the Church. This is Catholic Bashing in my book.
You don’t see as bashing, because much of America is so caught up in anti-Catholicism at the moment. We’re swimming in it.
Suppose that the radio station had mocked a Mosque in some analogous way. You wouldn’t say:
Or, suppose they were mocking an African-American church. You wouldn’t say,
See what I mean? It feels OK to attack the Catholic Church in a way that you’d never attack most other religions.
Well, the Catholic League are to most Catholics as PETA is to most animal rights supporters. They often go to extremes, and I for one am embarassed by them.
But it seems all they are guilty of, according to you, is not responding exactly the way you wish they would.
Sua – please read my orginal post – I never mentioned the Catholic League – I mentioned that on a later post.
Second, I am a victim of the priest abuse and speak to the media all the time about the issue. and debate all the time this issue. I didn;t mention that in orginal posts because I often find it unfair to use that in a debate such as this – but you accused me of not knowing the issue.
Third – I wish someone would actually take the time to undesrstand what I am saying instead of jumpong to the simplest conclusion – saying something is wrong and actually taking pro-active steps to stop something wrong are two entirely different things.
Fourth – “facts” are coming out daily to back up my story about inaction by EVERYBODY while this abuse was going on. (Notice I said “while the abuse is was going on”) THe crisis started decades ago – the Catholic leauge and others have just started taking about this recently haven’t they? The Opia and Anthony stunt happened last week and the next day there was hooting and hollering in the streets
Here is a website:
News from Across the Nation
Select stories from recent headlines
Two-thirds of bishops let accused priests work
06/12/2002
By BROOKS EGERTON and REESE DUNKLIN / The Dallas Morning News
Roughly two-thirds of the top U.S. Catholic leaders have allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to keep working, a practice that spans decades and continues today, a three-month Dallas Morning News review shows.
Church spokesmen did not dispute the results of the study, which is the first of its kind and depicts a far broader pattern than has emerged this year in Boston. That archdiocese’s employment of known child molesters has made international news and led Pope John Paul II to summon American cardinals to Rome in April.
Now, with the world watching and the crisis deepening, members of the Catholic hierarchy are in Dallas to debate a draft policy on abuse - which does not address church leaders’ roles in concealing or enabling it.
The 111 bishops’ involvement took many forms, from ignoring warnings about suspicious behavior to keeping priests on the job after admissions of wrongdoing, diagnoses of sexual disorders, legal settlements, even criminal convictions.
Among the 111 are all eight cardinals who lead American archdioceses, bishops in at least 40 states, and most members of the bishops committee that drafted the policy up for discussion. Many members of the predecessor committee - the bishops have been studying this matter for more than a decade and got their first detailed report on it in 1985 - also have employed accused priests.
The Rev. Francis Maniscalco, a spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, expressed no surprise at the numbers.
“Why should anybody’s feet be held to the fire?” he asked. "The bishops made what they thought were prudent decisions at the time. The decisions were made on the best advice available.
“This is a very complex matter that the bishops have been trying to deal with for nearly 20 years,” Monsignor Maniscalco said.
Dallas Coadjutor Bishop Joseph Galante, a member of the current abuse committee, acknowledged that some leaders repeatedly reassigned men in spite of evidence that they were reoffending and that their therapy wasn’t working.
“I can’t defend that,” he said. “It is not defendable.”
Bishop Galante said he did not think any of his colleagues had put molesters back to work with “the intent of putting someone in danger. But the result has been that.”
The problem, he said, is that “the sense of responsibility we had to the priest has failed to be balanced with the responsibility we have to the rest of the people.”
Agonizing decisions
Monsignor Maniscalco noted that some suspended priests have won reinstatement from the Vatican, and that others went back to work with the consent - sometimes even at the insistence - of congregations.
Bishops, he said, have agonized about how to handle accusations, particularly when accusers didn’t want to file civil or criminal charges. Sometimes the solution was to put priests in administrative jobs or adult-only ministries, he said.
Bishop Galante said he sees two shortcomings with that approach. One, he said, is “the affront to the victim,” and the other is that the priests retain a social status that may help them gain access to children while technically off duty.
He explained the latter phenomenon through a lament another bishop shared with him many years ago, after reassigning pedophiles to nursing home chaplain jobs and similar posts: “The problem is they all have driver’s licenses and cars.”
The Rev. Thomas Doyle, who helped write the 1985 report to the bishops while working at the Vatican Embassy in Washington, said he thought numbers found in The News’ study were low. Nevertheless, he said, the results point to a problem so pervasive that “the bishops don’t know how to fix it.”
Father Doyle now consults extensively with plaintiffs’ attorneys and has broken with top church leaders, saying that they did nothing to address the issues he raised. He said he doubts the Dallas meeting will result in major reform.
“In the past, the bishops, the clerics from the pope on down, have said many positive, apologetic things, and they have not followed through,” Father Doyle said. Just getting to this juncture, where the only item on the bishops’ agenda is abuse, took “an avalanche of negative publicity that was followed by a tidal wave of more negative publicity that was accompanied by a massive hemorrhage of millions and millions of dollars.”
What does he think it would take to bring about major change? “It will take one of them going to jail for cover-up and obstruction,” said Father Doyle, a military chaplain who once screened American bishop candidates and was considered bishop material.
Bishop Galante, asked whether some diocesan leaders were too much a part of the problem to be part of the solution, replied: “I honestly don’t know.”
In recent months, many bishops have announced zero-tolerance policies, combed through personnel files and dismissed previously accused priests.
“I would be saddened and very much shocked,” Bishop Galante said, “if there are still bishops so caught up in the old way that they can’t see a new way.”
Therapists’ advice
In explaining why they let accused and even confirmed abusers keep working, bishops frequently give a two-part defense: They did what they did many years ago, relying on the advice of skilled therapists who had treated the priests.
Many cases coming to light involve decades-old allegations, and many accused men were sent to treatment centers. But there is more to the story, documents and interviews show.
For starters, several bishops left suspect clergymen in parishes or transferred them in the late 1990s and beyond, after a landmark civil trial in Dallas’ Rudy Kos case resulted in the largest clergy-abuse verdict in history. Sometimes they did so after allegations of recent misconduct.
In Alexandria, La., for example, Bishop Sam Jacobs returned the Rev. John Andries to a parish after a 1998 fondling accusation. By last year, Father Andries was in trouble again, criminally charged with touching and masturbating onto a sleeping boy at his rural home.
And in southern Oklahoma, the Rev. James Rapp stayed on the job until 1999, five years after a previous boss in Michigan told Oklahoma City Archbishop Eusebius Beltran that the priest had been treated for a sexual disorder. During those five years, Father Rapp molested at least one boy and has since been sent to prison.
When it comes to the question of medical advice, Richard Sipe, a prominent Catholic therapeutic expert, acknowledges that psychiatry has advanced in recent decades and better understands the intractability of abusers.
But the bishops’ insistence on this point, he argues, obscures a larger one: that church leaders rarely alerted police and sometimes pressed victims not to, allowing criminals to escape the consequences of their crimes.
“Is there any bishop who didn’t know this was illegal?” asks Mr. Sipe, a married ex-priest who has reviewed case histories on hundreds of abusive clergy. As a priest and as a layman, he has advised Catholic leaders on how to deal with offenders.
Mr. Sipe also said many bishops have seemed more interested in putting their priests back to work than making sure it was safe to do so. Some bishops, he said, sent abusers to therapists who lacked specialized training, or withheld information from professionals to minimize the seriousness of a situation. Some simply did not heed experts’ recommendations or warnings, as seen from testimony in the Kos case and other lawsuits.
Finally, Mr. Sipe said, some treatment centers that bishops used were staffed in part with priests who were accused of abuse.
Similar scenarios have been revealed recently in Boston: Molesters were moved from parishes to diocesan headquarters, where they made decisions affecting more recently accused priests. And in Cleveland, one accused priest was told to monitor another, who had been reassigned to his church. They have since been accused in a lawsuit of ganging up on a boy in a shower there.
Keeping details hidden
Other themes that emerged from a database The News compiled:
o Despite pledges of openness from Bishop Wilton Gregory of Belleville, Ill., who heads the national conference of bishops, some Catholic leaders have failed to provide a complete picture of clergy abuse in their dioceses.
In March, for example, Bishop William Curlin of Charlotte, N.C. announced that he had “zero tolerance for child sex abuse” and that the only misconduct case he knew about in the area happened a half-century ago. A month later came the news that Bishop Curlin had reassigned a priest in 1997 after paying a settlement to one victim.
The bishop of Evansville, Ind., Gerald Gettelfinger, made a similar no-tolerance pronouncement this spring, then soon admitted he had at least three accused priests in parishes. One had a child-pornography conviction. Another had been sent to treatment twice and still wasn’t obeying orders not to work closely with children. His accusers included his nephew.
Still other church leaders, such as Indianapolis Archbishop Daniel Buechlein, have refused to say anything about what they’ve done with accused priests.
o Some prelates continue to keep evidence of sexual abuse hidden from law enforcement authorities.
Omaha, Neb., Archbishop Elden Curtiss didn’t tell police last year when a priest admitted viewing child pornography on a work computer, a prosecutor has said. The archbishop transferred the man from one Catholic school to another, and criminal charges resulted only after a lay teacher bypassed the archbishop and alerted authorities.
Archbishop Curtiss has since been investigated for possible witness tampering after he sought the whistle-blower’s resignation. He has apologized and won’t be charged, the prosecutor said.
o Some church leaders, through action or inaction, have helped criminally accused priests leave the country.
Several - from Texas, California, North Dakota, New Jersey and elsewhere - remain at large. Another is in South America, where he got a job after a molestation conviction in New York. A bishop there wrote the priest a job recommendation after he had been indicted. The priest is under house arrest, accused of molesting more children in Colombia.
Staff researcher Darlean Spangenberger contributed to this report
Sua – that is just one story – want more? (And my OP never said civilian catholic groups wither I said Catholic groups – and that includes the Conference of Bishops:
Local - Los Angeles Times
Archdiocese for Years Kept Claims of Abuse From Police
Sun Aug 18,11:44 AM ET
By GLENN F. BUNTING, RALPH FRAMMOLINO and RICHARD WINTON
Faced with allegations that parish priests had sexually abused minors, the Los Angeles Archdiocese under Cardinal Roger M. Mahony for many years withheld information from police and allowed clerics facing prosecution to flee to foreign countries, internal records and interviews show.
the same time, Mahony has been more aggressive than many U.S. bishops in dismissing members of the clergy. According to newly obtained information, the cardinal quietly removed 17 priests from ministry during the last decade who had either admitted or had been credibly accused of molesting minors.
In recent months, as the Roman Catholic Church has struggled to contain the clergy sex abuse scandal, Mahony has taken a stance as an outspoken reformer on a mission to oust all sex offenders from the priesthood.
But an examination of sexual abuse cases during his tenure in Los Angeles since 1985 shows that the archdiocese also worked to keep a growing problem from the eyes of the public and the hands of the law. The Times examination found:
Still More SUA:
Read About It And Weep
August 16, 2002
A paper trail of purported predatory behavior against teenage boys by a priest from the Hartford Archdiocese, chronicled on Aug. 11 by The Courant’s investigative team, is a real stomach-churner.
Reading about the alleged exploits of the Rev. Felix H. Maguire is about as appetizing as opening the lid of a sewer. It’s also enraging because despite a number of explicit complaints against the well-connected priest over 27 years, he never faced serious criminal charges. Nor was he removed from his position of trust until 1994. In fact, in the midst of it all, he was shown enough respect to be appointed by two governors to the state university system’s board of trustees.
Meanwhile, the clergyman who enjoyed a long career ministering in several parishes in Connecticut was accused by a steady stream of young men who claim he sexually abused them. One was a learning disabled youth of 15 whose mother rented a waterfront home in Guilford owned by the priest. A civil suit was brought against him for visiting the boy while his mother was at work and having sex with him. The priest allegedly told the boy that “God would understand.”
A jury rendered a $262,803 judgment against Mr. Maguire for this despicable behavior, later reduced as part of a confidential settlement. A criminal investigation into the matter was inexplicably halted.
The priest was also charged with fourth-degree sexual assault in another case, but plea-bargained for accelerated rehabilitation, clearing his record after a probationary period.
What’s more, The Courant’s investigation found that the archdiocese knew of the accusations against Mr. Maguire as early as 1984, yet he continued to minister for another 10 years. The priest, now 76, is retired and living in Florida.
He denies the allegations of his accusers, who have come forward with sordid account after sordid account of being lured to the priest’s home, given alcohol and shown pornographic videotapes before being molested, sometimes for money. When confronted with the charges, Mr. Maguire dismissed his various accusers as “a dope addict and an alcoholic” and “a pathological liar and a moron.” Hardly caring words from a compassionate parish priest.
A grand jury should be convened to get to the bottom of these and other disturbing revelations in the growing church scandal, regardless of whether it is too late to prosecute specific crimes in Connecticut. This seamy and unnerving saga cries for a public airing, if only to expose flaws in the legal system that thwarted justice and to ensure that it never happens again. The public deserves an accounting of how pedophile priests got away with crimes against children that would have landed most men in jail, and how their protectors were able to engage in destructive coverups.
THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THESE STORIES!!! NOT ONE PERSON IN ALL OF THESE DECADES TRIED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT:
THen try to tell me that people did things. Yet Opie and Anthony are to be fired and the station lose its liscense. 100s of children are scared from decades of abuse.
First off I want to offer my sincere sadness that something so awful happened to you. Sexual abuse is absolutely awful and I believe it’s worse when it’s done by somebody who is supposed to be trusted.
As a less important second point, the SDMB doesn’t like posters to post entire copyrighted articles. A moderator will probably edit your post.
Now, on to the issues you raised (even though I’m not Sua.)
My understanding is that the Catholic League is actively lobbying for changes within the Church. Saying something and acting are, in some cases, the same thing. The Catholic League has some influence and is using that influence to try to change the way the Church handles allegations of sexual abuse.
Can provide some evidence that the Catholic League knew the extent of the problem and did nothing? As you said, facts are coming out daily. As the information comes out, the Catholic League, and other Catholics, are responding. You can’t blame a person for not doing something about a problem they didn’t know about.
In your original post you said:
Several different posters have shown that Catholic organizations are expressing outrage and are taking action to prevent further abuse.
You complain that we’re not taking the time to understand what you’re saying, but we’re responding to the words you wrote. If you’re point is that the Catholic Church was wrong in the way it it handled the sexual abuse of minors then I agree. But your OP attacked “Catholic organizations” for being hypocritical. You identified the Catholic League as one such group and it has been proven that they have not been silent and have reacted with outrage.
How are we supposed to know that? But as for the Conference:
Was the Conference of Catholic Bishops picketing at the Opie and Anthony hearing?
Has the Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a release denouncing the Opie and Anthony stunt?
Understand what you are saying? You said “catholic groups” - and the only one you later mentioned was the Catholic League, a civilian group weren’t “expressing outrage.” We didn’t jump to the “simplest conclusion” - we responded to what you wrote. If you meant to say something else, it is your obligation to say it, not ours to guess at it.
I’m sorry about what happened to you. But regardless, you still haven’t demonstrated that the groups protesting about Opie and Anthony failed to either speak out about the abuse or that they knew that the abuse was going on and failed to stop it.
Sua
P.S. FTR, I’m an atheist. I am by no means an apologist for the RCC.
P.P.S. For the future, the Board heavily frowns on posting the whole of copyrighted arguments. Hopefully, this thread won’t be closed; watch out for that in the future.
First – I HATE using the “I am a victim of this card” – it is a horrible way to debate, and, quite frankly has nothing to do with an intellectual discussion. It is the equivalant of playing a street game of “your mama” with one of the contestants saying “Not fair, my mama’s dead” – I shouldn’t have used that – it sucks that it happened to me for sure, and another post may have a use for it, but not this one. I should get 50 debate demerits for using it.
Second – you all have very valid points, AND I WAS NOT AS CLEAR AS I SHOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN LAYING OUT MY ARGUMENT. I APOLOGIZE.
Third – I am also sorry for posting full articles – it takes up way too much space and boring to boot. I hope it is edited out. Copyright law is a funny thing, but I am sure you can use it as long as you cite who wrote and where it came from. Still, I see your point and I won;t do it again.
Finally, yes the Bishops – especially the arch-diocese of New York have been quite vocal on the Opie and Anthony thing. (And I think they have a right to be – but I still think it is hypocritical.
I mean every one. (including the DAs, teachers, parents, lay parishoners, nuns, the Catholic Leauge, the Catholic Conference, and anyone else who works toward punishing one slight such as Opia and Anthony stunt, but ignoring a tragedy in their own house)
I still have not gotten an answer to my hypothisis – that action (such as groups, including the Catholic League and the Cohference of Bishops – but not ONLY them who are pushing to “excommunicate” WNEW and Opie and Anthony out of the radio busness) is the same as simply saying something is wrong (such as what these groups did, but not just including them did with the pedophile tragedy)
I am basing my argument on the New York daily newspapers which shows the firestorm over the Opie and Anthony stunt. DAs are looking to seek jail time for the couple, the Archdiocese is expressing moral indignant outrage (and it is that outrage that is missing from their grumblings about the pedophila scandal)
Now, I have re-read my OP which did not name one specific group. I named names in previous posts to previous questions. Not the OP – which I have now apoligized for lack of clarity.
So is moral outrage for one and not the other hypocrisy?
I contend it is – and I am getting the sense that none of you agree or see the distinction in this case.
Now in terms of “preparing to defend” sure I’ll defend my position, I have been trying to do that all along. But I am not trying to get a PhD and this isn’t my thesis. It is what I believe.
I get a sense you want me to point out “John Smith defended the Catholic Church on pedophila but that very same John Smith beat up Opie and Anthony over their stunt”
I also believe that there is such a thing as systemic and institutional hypocrisy which is manifesting itself here.
You keep charging hypocrisy, but what you’re describing seems like inconsistency.
Hypocrisy is professing to believe or be something that one does not or is not. Are you claiming that these “Catholic groups” are not really outraged by the Opie and Anthony stunt? They can’t be, goes your argument, because they support child sexual abuse by priests. That’s ludicrous, and I hope you are not sincerely claiming that the Bishops, laity, or the Catholic League is pro-pedophilia.
What your argument might support is that there is an inconsistency between the response by certain “Catholic groups” to the two issues. Well, inconsistency ain’t hypocrisy. People are not always consistent. And don’t forget that it isn’t obvious what a consistent position on the two issues would be–they are superficially similar but are actually quite different at their cores.
For instance, I’m an unabashed environmentalist. I am also philosophically opposed to abortion. I am quite overtly the former, while rather secretly the latter. By your logic, you would meet me and insist that since I don’t actively oppose abortion I can’t truly be an environmentalist after all. I must be a hypocrite?
You mention the Catholic League as an instance of a “hypocritical” Catholic organization–due to their responses to the two issues. But since the issues are fundamentally different, wouldn’t you expect a different response? The Catholic League’s charter is pretty narrow (the various ways they overstep that charter is another debate): they defend “the right of Catholics–lay and clergy alike–to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination”. They address anti-Catholic bigotry. The Catholic League’s actions might support the conclusion that they believe that the Opie and Anthony stunt is inspired by bigotry directed at Catholics. Their milder response to priestly pedophilia may reflect that they believe that that issue is not fundamentally one of anti-Catholicism. You could try to make a case that the Catholic League is wrong in their perception of one of these two issues; but being wrong does not make one a hypocrite.
Your other example of a “Catholic group” is “non Catholic League catholic protesters”, who protested the Opie and Anthony stunt but did not (according to you, though I don’t believe you can demonstrate this) protest priestly pedophilia. In any case, all I can say is: they’re different issues. Some Catholics feel called to be environmentalists and some are called to be anti-abortion activists.
Finally, for every Catholic that is “outraged” by the Opie and Anthony stunt and has no outrage about priestly child sexual abuse, I wager that you will find dozens that are exactly the opposite.
I like the way you think! Your critique is the best by far and enjoyed it a great deal. I like your inconsistency vs. hypocrisy view – you might be right.
I look at it this way – decades of priest abuse occured and continued to occur – not just in one place but everywhere. Statisically, isn’t it hard to believe that these stories never came out, anywhere until recently? Does this mean no one ever suspected anything anywhere during all this time? THat’s impossible! I contend there was no moral outrage – yet these same categories of groups and persons do show moral outrage at what they perceive to be affronts to the church.
Isn’t serial priest sexual abuse to young children an affront to the church?
On preview, I see that Newton has addressed the difference between hypocriscy and different responses to different situations.
Furnish, you say:
Despite a mountain of citations in the thread above, you return here to the hyperbolic assertion that people have “ignored” the tragedy in their own house.
Cut it out. Either provide an example of some person or group that has both IGNORED the priest abuse scandal while at the same time actively attacked the “Opie and Anthony” show stunt, or withdraw the point.
Which of “…DAs, teachers, parents, lay parishoners, nuns, the Catholic Leauge, the Catholic Conference…” have ignored the priest abuse scandals, and attacked O&A. Who are they?