Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Red Herrings under the Bus

I know, strange title. I teach public speaking and we have been at the point in the semester this week where we examine proper and fallacious reasoning. I get the feeling from my colleagues that fallacies of reasoning are not high on their priority list. I can't say that for certain. I don't hear their lectures. I enjoy covering fallacies of reasoning. I think it's important. And once I teach them, my students start to realize how much of the news/opinion/infotainment they consume is based on fallacious reasoning.

The red herring is a fallacy that distracts from the main argument by focusing on something flashy and inconsequential. Throwing someone under the bus is a falacy of claims that places all of the blame on someone not directly or totally responsible for the problem.

When you combine the two, you have conspiracy of some significance. One person is so powerful and their actions are so influential that he or she must be responsible for some really inconsequential evil that they will be thrown under the bus on video repeatedly. By repeatedly, I mean so often that you have memorized the clip. You can act out the scene with your toddlers to entertain the grandparents. Remember, this person, while under the bus,  is doing something insignificant that distracts from real issues. (While it may be significant to a few close family members, it isn't really significant in the impact it has on the rest of the world.) Think Tiger Woods. Think O.J. Simpson. Think Eric Massa. Think Joe Biden. Valerie Plame. Scooter Libby.

The people who should be thrown under the bus rarely are squished. Read this from American Thinker:

Return to the Article
April 13, 2010

Obama Attends Non-Existent Soccer Game?

By Cat Corben
Reading the story about President Obama breaking tradition and ditching the presidential press pool over the weekend to watch one of his daughter's soccer games, it appears harmless, right? Not so. It is rather disturbing when you dissect it. So let's do just that. According to the Chicago Sun Times, the press pool was to assemble at 11:30AM.
However, Time reported:
The president left the White House at approximately 9:20 to attend one of his daughter's soccer games at 40th and Chesapeake NW. A pool was hastily called at around 9:35 and drove north at 9:43 to catch the president before the game ended. We didn't make it. The President returned to the White House at 10:17. The pool returned at 10:30. We now return you to your regularly scheduled pool call time.
Seems simple enough. But the story has several problems. The first one is a biggie in that there were no scheduled soccer games for Sidwell Friends April 10, as evidenced here. The second is that the area reported that the game was played at appears to be one of high crime, as documented here and here. Additionally, this is a picture of the field via Google Maps, where Obama went to watch the game.
Another problem is that when the press pool got close to the reported location, they were told that Obama was leaving and to turn around. The press pool complied, but why? Wouldn't they have wanted a photo of him, even leaving the event, to formally document his whereabouts? What's also suspect is the very casual, nothing-to-see-here tone of the Time article.
Something is most definitely wrong. The President of the United States venturing out to a soccer game that didn't exist in a high-crime area. The Politico is also reporting that Obama acknowledged the problem with his actions:
Prior to Obama's bilateral meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, Obama told his colleague, "Apparently I caused quite a problem," adding something about his secretary not telling the Secret Service, according to, ironically enough, the pool report.
What's more concerning is that no one can confirm if the Secret Service even accompanied Obama on his adventure. Furthermore, let's look at the elapsed time. If the president left the White House at 9:20AM as reported, according to Mapquest, it takes about sixteen minutes to get from the White House to 40th and Chesapeake NW, bringing his arrival time to the field at 9:36AM or so. But then he would have had to leave the field at the latest at 10:00AM to return to the White House at the documented time of 10:17AM. So he spent about twenty minutes at the game? When did the game end? That time is vague as well.
With all of the technology that people have -- iPhones, Blackberries -- not one person took a photo of Obama? And the press didn't get a shot of him getting into his vehicle? Obama loves the cameras, and this is what he looks like at his daughter's soccer game.
Even three days later, there are still no pictures of the president from Saturday's game. The USA just disarmed to Russia, Poland's president and 95 others were killed hours before, and there were many international leaders in Washington, D.C. for the nuclear summit set to begin on Monday, April 12. And we shouldn't raise even more questions on his whereabouts? According to the MSM, the answer is yes.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/obama_attends_nonexistent_socc.html at April 13, 2010 - 02:24:07 PM CDT

Something is happening here. The Obama administration has become so accustomed to having their Red Herrings be effective, that they are getting shoddy about their construction. Where was he? What did he do? Who did he see?

He's not shy about spending tax payer money for scary photo-ops of air force one over NYC. He's not afraid to spend tax payer money to see a Broadway show on date night. So what did he do that needed to be so unseen? Who came or went from the White House while the press corps was chasing him? Did he leave? Did he have secret service?

The problem in asking these questions is that the Obamas are very good at Red Herrings when they want to be. He must have known it was possible that this would raise eyebrows. But he didn't care. His arrogance is so pathological that he figures, and to some extent rightly so, that he can get away with anything.

At the same time, the very media that ignore his actions, make up stories about the Catholic Church and our beloved Pope Benedict XVI. Red Herrings. "Look at the pretty fish, not at me. Let's throw some Catholics under the bus and hire a homosexual pedophile promoter, Kevin Jennings, as our SAFE school czar, " say Obama and friends.

I'm taking a break now to scream.

I'm just a home school mom in fly-over country. I don't have enough information about international or national government to KNOW anything for certain. But where there's smoke, there usually is fire. When people point a finger there are four more fingers pointing back at themselves. When you assume, you make an ass of you and me. All of these old cliches could be applied to either side in this argument. But it just smells fishy. A little like herring, pickled red.

Friday, April 9, 2010

Ask yourself this...

I've been reading and discerning. So many friends are having trouble in their marriages. They are struggling because of debt, unemployment, disease, malaise, ennui, etc. So ask yourself these questions: Are you longing for something you should not have? Are you being called to a greater depth in your vocation? Can you discern the difference between the two?

Conservatives on Campus

I have this really diverse class at the University where I teach part time. I don't mean that there is a large color difference. There's some of that, but what I mean is a diversity of ideas. Hindus and Catholics, pacifists and veterans, vegans and meat eaters, artists and business people... What I find interesting is that the ones most likely to offend a classmate are the students who view themselves as a 'protected' group: White girls who have been told all of their lives that girls are being oppressed by boys/men, while most reliable recent research suggest the opposite is happening in education. Or others... I try so hard to choose topics that I think are non-political when providing examples to my classes. At the same time, I just can't bring myself to talk about things that I don't believe are true. I want to teach my students is not just the skills required to succeed, but the truth. Any other approaches strike me as a sin of omission. If you are a person of faith who teaches people who may or may not be people of faith, will you let me know how you handle this? I want a forum, and advise. Help!!!

Sunday, April 4, 2010

Happy Easter

Today at Mass, an older woman I've seen before blessed me and thanked me for coming to Mass. She asked about my son. She is small, gray curly hair, and speaks with a deep Eastern European accent. I've spoken to her once or twice before. Every time I see her, I feel certain she is an angel. God bless all the gentle protective souls. They guide us more than they know.

A Catholic Doctor Explains the Scandal of Catholic Politicians

Return to the Article
April 04, 2010

A Catholic Doctor's Hope for America

By Peter M Bleyer MD
"A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope." - Pope John Paul II
It is sadly fitting that in preparation for Holy Week, our country has passed a bill which funds the persecution of innocent life. President Obama strategically used 104 Catholic congressmen to give me, a physician, expanded government resources to legally kill patients in order to provide better health care.
"Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger ..., and not minister to your needs?" He will answer them, "Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me." And these will go off to eternal punishment ... (Matthew 25:44-46)
Not the only Judas, but clearly the most visible traitor to the unborn, Bart Stupak exhibited a deceptive determination to protect "these least ones." Yet in the final hour, he betrayed humanity for a few silver-tongued words from a president with an inhuman view of the unborn. Stupak is one of a steadily increasing number of politicians who since Ted Kennedy have been allowed to proclaim Catholicism yet promote faithfulness only at politically convenient times. Seventeen Catholic senators and 87 Catholic representatives voted yes to federal funding for abortion with their vote on health reform. These congressmen, along with many other high-profile Catholics from both inside and outside the government, mock the Church and endanger their souls by choosing to increase persecution of innocent life.
Our American Catholic bishops are devout men. However, like Saint Peter, who denied knowing Christ on Good Friday, they have similarly denied Christ by failing to do what is required for the unborn. Many bishops strongly voiced their dissatisfaction with Barack Obama's anti-life views, but a rationalization on abortion was allowed to blossom among Catholic voters without strong guidance to the contrary from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). This in turn allowed Obama's election. Realizing that a strong Catholic Church could derail his agenda, Obama empowered many unfaithful Catholics, including the vice president, House speaker, and HHS secretary, in an attempt to make his agenda appear pro-Catholic while at the same time overpowering orthodox teaching.
The best-known Catholics in the United States are now Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, people who invoke God and saints to increase access to abortion. Their example generates more and more "believe what you want, do what you want" Catholics while also creating an impression among all Americans that the Catholic Church is just another hypocritical organization. The priest sex scandal has been strategically reanimated to support these ideas. Dealing with issues that happened years ago, the timing of this story is designed to limit the Church's moral authority at a critical time as the government works rapidly to defend an expanded anti-life agenda.
Life begins at conception, all innocent life has equal value, and the deliberate destruction of innocent human life constitutes grave sin. These are infallible Church teachings, clearly enumerated in Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life). Unfortunately, the bishops have failed to teach these concepts or the true meaning of conscience. They have similarly failed to promote conscience as the key to proper voting. Imagine if a politician championed a solution to illegal immigration that mirrored our country's legal solution to unwanted pregnancies -- i.e., the annual extermination of one million illegal immigrants. No Catholic bishop would suggest that there could be proportionate reason to vote for that candidate. Pro-lifers for illegals would never be accused of being too confrontational. That candidate would not be allowed within a mile of any Catholic university. A vastly different attitude is shown toward the unborn simply because for many Catholics including clergy, the idea that all innocent life has equal value is unacceptable. The election of President Obama indicates that we have changed from a country based on principle and truth to one guided by emotion and selfishness, a transformation in which Catholics fully participate. (Does anyone really care about an embryo?)
Over time, Satan has worked insidiously to split our Catholic bishops into factions and weaken their vital pastoral influence. For the most part, the USCCB promotes non-controversial issues, for which any disagreement is over approach, at the expense of championing fundamental moral truths. There is nearly universal agreement that war is tragic and aid for the poor mandatory, but there is little understanding why contraceptive use, very widespread among Catholics, is sinful. Thus the disjointed condemnation of abortion should not be surprising. For close to forty years, the USCCB has worked quietly to evangelize pro-abortion Catholic politicians, occasionally commenting that such politicians are privately and automatically self-excommunicated for their acts. Unfortunately, the number of unfaithful Catholics in prominent positions strongly indicates that isolated words and private excommunication have had little effect. After the deaths of close to fifty million innocent Americans and probable eternal punishment for many Catholic politicians, I sincerely pray that our bishops will change course and unify in their pastoral guidance, making it abundantly clear to all that political support for abortion is unacceptable and carries with it serious consequences, both in this life and the next.
If an adult child living at home blatantly and continually disregards house rules despite receiving thoughtful parental help, the father must lovingly tell the child to leave, both to benefit the rest of the family and the child himself. The bishops of America need the courage to be loving fathers and publicly excommunicate those members of their flock that bring scandal to the Church. St. Peter denied Christ for the justifiable fear of losing things of earthly importance -- mainly his life. We are no different. That is why unwavering defense of the unborn is so difficult; it would result in divisive, painful, and alienating actions against the faithful. Jesus's death on the cross on Good Friday testifies to this fact. Yet in the end, if our bishops take up their cross, I strongly believe that our faith will strengthen, our country will regain its power for good, and ultimately, the lives of the unborn will be saved. Good will conquer evil; this is the positive redeeming truth of Jesus's resurrection on Easter.
Catholicism is truth, and it will never die despite the sinfulness of its people. The same cannot be written of our government. As a twenty-year Navy veteran, I have served the country I love, one in which I want my five small children to prosper. For over two hundred years, this country has been uniquely blessed by God, and in return, we have been a beacon for truth and justice and positive innovation throughout the world. This will continue to be possible only if we follow Christ's guidance, an ideal our forefathers clearly understood.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Since 1973, as a nation, we have destroyed the unalienable rights of close to fifty million Americans. I pray fervently that our bishops will use their unique position to help America regain its moral character; otherwise, we truly are a nation without hope.
Peter M. Bleyer, M.D. is LCDR USN ret.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/a_catholic_doctors_hope_for_am.html at April 04, 2010 - 12:49:19 PM CDT

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Steyn and Breitbart on Lying for Sport

The Democrats' Fake Hate Crime [Mark Steyn]

Jonah mentioned this the other day in his column, but the tireless Andrew Breitbart returns to the theme, to devastating effect.

On March 20th, something truly extraordinary happened. On the eve of the health care vote, a group of black Democrat Congressmen (eschewing the private tunnels they usually use to cross from their offices to the Capitol) chose to walk en masse through a crowd of protesters, confident that the knuckledragging Tea Party goons they and their media pals have reviled for a year now would respond with racial epithets.

And then, when the crowd didn't, the black Congressmen made it up anyway. Representative Andre Carson (Democrat, Indiana) insisted he heard the N-word 15 times. He's either suffering from the same condition as that Guam-flipper from Georgia, or he's a liar. At a scene packed not only with crews from the Dem poodle media but with a gazillion cellphone cameras, not one single N-word has been caught on audio. (By contrast, see my post yesterday for how easy it is to get it on tape when real epithets are flying.)

I disagree with John Lewis (Democrat, Georgia) politically but I have always respected him as a genuine civil rights warrior. And I feel slightly queasy at the thought that he would dishonor both the movement and his own part in it for the cheapest of partisan points - in the same way I would be disgusted by a Holocaust survivor painting a swastika on his own door and blaming it on his next-door neighbor over a boundary dispute.

But that's what the Democratic Party has been reduced to - faking hate crimes as pathetically as any lonely, mentally ill college student. Congressmen Carson, Lewis, Cleaver and the rest have turned themselves into the Congressional equivalent of the Duke University stripper. Except that they're not some penniless loser but a group of important, influential lifetime legislators enjoying all the privileges and perquisites of power, and in all probability acting at the behest of the Democrat leadership.

Isn't that what societies with functioning media used to call "a story"?

Apparently not. As they did at Duke, the brain-dead press went along with it - and so, predictably enough, did much of the Republican leadership.

Thursday, April 1, 2010

One more thing about pedophiles

I remember president Obama during the campaign saying something about not wanting his daughters burdened with a child because of a mistake. The only way one could justify this statement in a belief system is if one fundamentally believes that sex is for pleasure, not procreation. Pleasure is something we experience at all ages. If sex is for pleasure, is it also for all ages?

The president and the pedophiles... connect the dots

These two articles make the most sense read together. Then go to Americanthinker.com to read the comments. There is a serious trend here that needs to be understood and eradicated. Several years ago I worked as the education specialist for a sexual assault/domestic violence program. I narrowed the education of young children down to a few essential elements: If you are potty trained, can dress yourself, and can take a bath by yourself, the only times a grown-up would need to touch your body is if something was wrong; A doctor, a parent, a school nurse... When a four year old has learned to look at a picture of a woman and say, "She's hot!" even though he's been raised in a protective environment, when know things have gone seriously astray. As a side note, I've read the first few Diary of a Whimpy Kid books with my son. Don't buy them. Don't support them in any way. The sexualization of children is continued in those books in the most slimy and subversive ways. The protagonist wins the day in the second book because everyone thinks he played the voyeur in a girls' locker room. Yuck. Be vigilant. Connect the dots!!! March 31, 2010

The Shock of Barack

By Robin of Berkeley
I've been feeling funky since Black Sunday, the day of the health care debacle. As a therapist, I'm usually able to identity my feelings. But this one had left me stumped.
I went through the usual laundry list of emotions: Am I depressed? (A little, but that's not it.) Worried, scared? (Yes, but who isn't?) Angry? (Very, but that's still not what's bugging me.)
It took a conversation with a conservative friend, Nancy, for me to pinpoint the feeling. Nancy told me that a Jewish co-worker, a staunch Obama supporter, was feeling "shell-shocked" by Obama's vilifying Israel.
Bingo. That's what it is: stunned, shell-shocked, traumatized.
But it's not PTSD -- post-traumatic stress disorder -- because then Obama would be ancient history. It's trauma happening right here, right now, at lightning speed.
Trauma means witnessing something that humans are not designed to see, a horror that is more than the self can absorb. The brutality of war, a gruesome crime scene, the sudden death of a loved one. Or the evil that unfolds through unchecked power yielded by megalomaniacs.
For me, trauma was that cloudless November day, years ago, when I exited an Oakland restaurant at noon and soon thereafter, lay prone on the concrete, bloody and broken.
Just moments before, I had looked into the eyes of a man who didn't know that I was human, or who knew but didn't care. I saw something sinister in him, but I ignored my gut. I was still steeped in liberal political correctness and didn't want to appear racially insensitive.
When I see what Obama is doing to this country, how he is treating its citizens, I'm reminded of the man who mugged me. I think that both are constitutionally incapable of seeing our humanity. And each day that Obama is in office, he communicates this same deadly message to the masses -- that opponents are not human.
This would explain the burgeoning of hate and even violence towards those who deign to disagree. And why Tea Party members and conservatives are being targeted, as well as entire countries like Israel.
And this would illuminate why Obama is unfazed while the economy crashes. And why he cavalierly demonizes Israel, putting millions of Israelis at risk. And it explains why Obama mocks conservatives who are legitimately worried about this administration's violating fundamental rights.
But how could Obama see us? Did anyone in his childhood ever see him?
Did little Barry's needs factor into his mother's decision to shlep him to Indonesia to live with her and her alcoholic second husband? And how much maternal love was on display when she dragged him back home to Hawaii and then abandoned him for good?
Did Obama's humanity matter to Grandpa Stanley and Frank Marshall Davis when they sat around drinking, talking trash talk about women, and telling dirty jokes to the discomfited little Barry?
What was Stanley thinking, giving Barry over to Davis, an alleged pedophile and Communist, for mentoring? And did Davis do the most unspeakable act of violation and dehumanization to Barry, as the teenage Obama hints at in the poem, "Pop"?
Pop takes another shot, neat,
Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I've got on mine, and
Makes me smell his smell, coming
From me; he switches channels, recites an old poem. . .
Asks for a hug, as I shrink. . .
For someone to survive a difficult childhood intact, he needs at least one person to see his humanity. It's best if the person is a close relative, but a child can endure with the help of someone else. An attentive coach, counselor, neighbor, or teacher can work wonders.
Who mirrored Obama's humanity back to him? Who looked into the young Barry's eyes and reflected back the man he was meant to be? Who honored and cherished the human being inside?
I'll tell you who -- no one. His family groomed him and sculpted him. They projected onto him who they wanted him to be. In later years, other egotistical father figures, like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers, scripted his Messiah-like role.
But was there someone who loved and honored Obama for who he was? No.
And that's why Obama cannot see you or me. He cannot respond to the pain and suffering he is inflicting. He may, in fact, derive satisfaction by the act of revenge.
Years ago, I came face to face with a man who also didn't know that I existed. He had no qualms about injuring me and leaving me lying wounded in the middle of the street.
I wasn't a person to him. I was nothing. This is where all evil begins: the dehumanizing of another.
From what I have seen this last year, Obama shows no ability to walk in another person's shoes. This would require empathy and sensitivity, traits that are nowhere to be found.
Frankly, every time I see Obama, I catch a glimpse of the man who mugged me.
And that, to me, is the true danger and horror and shock of Barack.
A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley.
April 01, 2010

The Scandal Driving the Church Sex Scandal

By Selwyn Duke
We've all heard the story. Hundreds of young sexual abuse victims long afraid to come forward for fear of embarrassment and scorn, abusers escaping prosecution and quietly moving to different jurisdictions, authorities covering up the crimes to avoid scandal and litigation. It's a saga of grave, grave sin.
Of course, you would assume that I'm talking about the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal.
And you would be wrong.
I'm describing the situation in America's schools -- something that, although mirroring the problems dogging the Church, is strangely ignored.
Let's examine the similarities using statistics from the United States. According to the John Jay Report, 10,667 people made allegations of child sexual abuse (not all were substantiated) committed by priests between 1950 and 2002; according to an AP investigation, at least 1,801 educators committed sexual misconduct involving minors between 2001 and 2005. So the per annum tally is:
Number of people making allegations against priests - 205
Criminal educators - 360
Now, since it's logical to assume that numerous individuals made accusations against the same priests, the number of clerical transgressors is no doubt less than 205. Yet even if we use the 205 figure, the number of offenders appears to be approximately 76 percent greater among educators. But that doesn't even begin to tell the whole story.
While it's obvious that a certain percentage of cases must have gone unreported in both education and the Church, the latter has been subjected to intense media scrutiny while the former has remained off the radar screen. Thus, it's reasonable to assume that the percentage is higher in education. As to this, the AP tells us about a Congress-mandated study placing the number of students sexually abused by an education worker at some point between kindergarten and 12th grade at 4.5 million. Furthermore, the AP found that most of this sexual abuse is never reported and that even when it does come to light, often no action is taken.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that the number of teachers nationwide is greater than that of priests, so a raw-numbers analysis may be deceptive. So let's examine the rate. Wapedia reports the following: "A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse by Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford University and Santa Clara University states that 'available research suggests that approximately 2 to 5% of priests have had a sexual experience with a minor' which ‘is lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%.'" Now let's look within the numbers, at the nature of the abuse and abusers. While we hear a lot of media reports about sultry female teachers seducing young teenage boys, the reality is that almost nine out of ten school offenders are male.It's also true that in the cases of both the Church and the schools, the abuse is, by definition, not pedophilia, as the abused were mainly adolescents, not children.
Here critics may point out that there is a difference: The abuse among priests is mainly homosexual in nature. This is true, but I can't imagine that it would bother the secular left very much. After all, this is the set that for years has maintained that there is a moral equivalence between heterosexual and homosexual behavior and that saying otherwise is bigotry. Unless they're now changing their tune...
Another similarity is the cover-up by school officials, who, as stated earlier, were motivated by the same priorities as the most remiss bishop: a desire to avoid embarrassment, scandal, and punitive court judgments. As an example, the AP presents the story of Gary Lindsey, an Iowa teacher who was fired from his first job for sexual misconduct but then allowed to work elsewhere for about thirty more years. During these decades, Lindsey transgressed against other students, dodging the hangman every time with the complicity of school administration. And his is no isolated case. In fact, the practice of transferring sexual predators is so common that it has become known as "passing the trash," and the abusers have been dubbed "mobile molesters."
Despite this, we currently have trash being passed daily -- it's called media reportage. Why don't we hear stories about people who believe that the schools should be defunded, or that parents should stop sending their children to them (similar things are said about the Church)? Why has the Vatican been placed in the unenviable position of having to defend itself with the "Look, others have the same problems" argument? Why does Rome have to take up the cudgels for itself and point out that its woes just reflect the wider society? It's because the media aren't doing their job.
...That is, at least, what their job should be. What some within the mainstream media see it as being -- to attack traditionalist institutions -- they're doing very well.
The Church receives such disproportionate scrutiny for the same reason why the media will happily smear Pope Pius XII as a Nazi sympathizer when he was possibly WWII's greatest hero and why they paint the Crusades as imperialistic wars when they were but a defense against Muslim aggression: The media views the Church as an enemy. They despise its teachings on abortion, the all-male priesthood, and, in particular, sexuality. You see, if the schools taught such things, then they too would surely be in the crosshairs. But their embrace of all the left's favorite isms grants them great immunity.
Now, this might be where I'm supposed to issue the obligatory statement about how we're all appalled by the sex crimes in question.
But it's not really true.
And what comes to mind is late Massachusetts congressman Gerry Studds. In 1983, it was revealed that he had had sexual relations with a 17-year-old male page, which, as ephebophilia (attraction to older adolescents), is precisely that of which many transgressing priests are guilty. And what was his punishment?
The liberals in his district reelected him six more times until his retirement in 1996.
By the way, some may point out that Studds' behavior was legal, as the age of consent in Washington, D.C. was 16. Of these people, I would ask: Are you equally charitable with priests who had "legal" relationships with teenage boys?
Then there is serial sex criminal Alfred Kinsey, the bug researcher-cum-human sexuality "expert" who ran a pedophile ring disguised as a research team. If you read the piece I wrote about him (and trust me, this one is worth the time), you'll find that his research included things such as encouraging pedophiles to continue committing crimes so that he could collect more "data." Yet there has never been a hue and cry for a pound of flesh from the Kinsey Institute; the University of Indiana in Bloomington, where the deviant plied his trade; or Paul Gebhard, a still-living Kinsey co-author and partner in crime. On the contrary, the left not only defends Kinsey, but it even lauded him in a whitewashed 2004 film.
So do the Church's critics really care about sexual abuse? Some do, for sure. But there's no doubt that many of those using the issue to attack the Church do not. And "using" is the key word. If they truly cared about sexual abuse of youth, they would take pains to emphasize that it isn't limited to the priesthood. Oh, I'm not saying that they would necessarily do this to defend the Church; they would do it to truly expose the problem. Instead, they're simply interested in exposing the Church to ridicule, and to this end, they use these abuse victims as a convenient vehicle through which to attack a hated adversary. This is typical of the left, which makes a practice of using people as human shields, props, and political hammers.
Of course, crimes against innocence are abhorrent, and those committing them should be rooted out wherever and whoever they may be. Likewise, those who knowingly and negligently facilitate their abuse must be punished harshly, and the incompetent should lose their positions. But this just states the obvious. If we really want to move toward a more sexually sane society -- get at the root causes, as it were -- then we must delve more deeply.
We can argue about facts and figures. We can debate whether sexual trespass is worse in schools or in churches, and many will, no doubt, try to make the case that the secular world is a safer place. But of this there is no doubt: The social phenomena making us a more libertine and morally unmoored civilization are the handiwork of the left.
It was not the Church that sexualized society with Kinseyesque sex miseducation and prurient messages everywhere -- in movies, shows, music and on the Internet. That was leftist academia, Hollywood, and their brothers in porn. It was not the Church that expanded the First Amendment to include protection of obscene imagery. That was leftist judges. It was not the Church that spread moral relativism and its corollary, "If it feels good, do it," an idea that can find pedophilia no worse than peanut butter. That was leftist philosophers and the millions who wanted freedom to sin. It was not the Church that, reducing man to mere beast, found a basis for his behavior in the animal kingdom. That was leftist anthropologists and their acolytes. And it was not the Church that first subordinated punishment to "rehabilitation" and subscribed to slap-on-the-wrist pseudo-justice. That was leftist psychology. Of course, insofar as the Church has allowed itself to become infected with the spirit of the age, it is culpable. But know that it is the infected, not the infection.
As for the cure, the Church has done much in recent times to root out sexual abuse -- far more than the schools. Even closer to the point, its teachings provide necessary guide rails for man's sexuality. Yet critics call this age-old wisdom "antiquated." The left obviously prefers to take its lead from the Kinsey Distorts, Hugh Hefner, and Hollywood. But if the pleasure principle is going to be our master, then we shouldn't wonder why we're taking our children on a field trip through Caligula's court.