Wednesday, October 6, 2010

For the Love of God, Why do Catholics Allow Bill Donohue To Speak For Them?

From time to time, William Donohue allows the simmering pustule of rage that is slowly devouring his very soul to interfere with his ability to reason clearly. Thus, this press release:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a news story about a former priest who molested a male listed as John Doe:

On September 28, the Chicago Tribune reported that "former Chicago priest and convicted sex offender Daniel McCormick sexually abused him [Doe] while he was a grammar school student." We then learn that the student was really a middle-school student, in the eighth grade, when the abuse began.

Middle school? Well, why didn't you say so? Case Dismissed!
The abuse reportedly continued for five years. According to the lawsuit, "McCormack inappropriately sexually touched, hugged, rubbed and/or abused Doe." It's time to ask some tough questions. Why did this young man not object earlier?

Yes, why wouldn't a Catholic teen defy a priest? It's not as though he had been taught from birth to respect the authority of the clergy!

Respect My Authoritah, Boys!

Why did he allow the "abuse" to continue until he was 18?

Dude, what's with the quotes?

The use of the quotes is deliberate: the charge against the former priest is not rape, but rubbing.

Ah. And as we all know, rubbing is not abuse. Unless it leads to dancing!
the charge against the former priest is not rape, but rubbing. While still objectionable, there is a glacial difference between being rubbed and raped.

Glacial? Usually one uses the term glacial to indicate extreme slowness, as in "The movie's plot advanced at a glacial pace." One might use it to indicate coldness, I suppose, but I have never heard the term used to indicate vastness. It's not really important, it's just odd.

Here's what we know. We know that this case, like most of them, was the work of a homosexual, not a pedophile.

Oh, thank God! If that poor kid had been jerked off by a pedophile, then that would be super-abusive! As long as the "rubbing" was done by a chickenhawk, I'm sure no harm was done.

And like most of the cases of priestly sexual misconduct, there was no rape involved.

If there was no rape, you must let the defendant escape!
If rape was not committed, the priest must be acquitted!
If he did not sodomize, the rubbing is justified!

Inappropriate touching is morally wrong, and the offenders should be punished, but the time has come to object to all those pundits who like to say that the scandal is all about child rape. Most of the cases did not involve children—they were post-pubescent males—and most weren't raped.

Seriously, what's the big deal? What's a little sexual assault between teenage boys and the men they are taught to view as God's representatives here on Earth? Jeez, it's not like anyone got literally raped! Although, if I'm being honest, I don't recall hearing anyone say "child rape." It's usually referred to as "sexual abuse" or "molestation." Of course, I'm not blinded and deafened by fury and a persecution complex, so maybe it sounds different to you. Anyway, I don't really see why this matters.

Why does this matter? Because 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.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean. They're not the poster boys for the victims of child rape. Are you implying that these lawsuits are somehow frivolous? That because these boys were not technically children or technically raped, they don't have a legitimate beef? I don't even get what point you're trying to make here.

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. That’s reason enough to call them on it.

Bill? Bill? Who touched you, Bill? Was it a priest? Is that what's going on here? You took it like a man when Father McTouchy made you do stuff, and now you're angry that these other boys are whining about it? They're telling people about the special secrets and they're going to ruin everything. Is that it Bill? You didn't know that you could object. You didn't know you could tell the police. You knew they'd never believe you anyway, right Billy? So you took it and you never cried and you never complained, and now these boys are getting sympathy? And getting paid? Getting rich because they weren't strong enough to take it like a man? Is that what's bothering you, Billy? Because you can get help. There are doctors you can talk to who will help you. And they won't touch you, Bill. They won't make you touch them. And they won't make you keep secrets, Billy. You can tell the truth. You can tell what happened, and you'll fell better. Maybe you won't be so angry all the time. Maybe the nightmares will stop, Billy. maybe you can start to become a normal person.

Todd Palin Says things on the E-Mail

This is what Todd Palin (Secret Service code name: "Who?") e-mailed to some people named "Joe" and "Tim," one of whom is apparently Joe Miller:
(via Wonkette)
Joe and Tim,
Hold off on any letter for Joe. Sarah put her ass on the line for Joe
and yet he can’t answer a simple question
” is Sarah Palin Qualified to be President”. I DON’T KNOW IF SHE IS.

Okay, couple of things. First, Sarah endorsed nutbag Joe Miller, she didn't exactly put her ass on any lines for him. There wasn't a lot of personal risk involved in saying "hey, if you like dummies, vote for my dumb friend Joe Miller. He's the dumbest!" What, was Lisa Murkowski going to beat her up after homeroom? (by the way, I think all we need to know about the electorate of Alaska is this: Lisa Murkowski is having to run YouTube ads teaching people how to spell her name. Her name is spelled phonetically. It's not like Mike Krzyzewski is running a write-in campaign.)

Second, if someone asks you "Is Sarah Palin qualified to be president?" "I don't know" is about the kindest thing you can say. It's better than saying "President of what?" or "Sure, just like I'm qualified to be Thor, the mighty god of thunder!" or "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!"

But it gets better. Because Todd goes on to add this:

Sarah spent all morning working on a Face book post for Joe, she won’t
> use it, not now.

All morning? She spent all morning working on a Facebook post? Oh, yeah, she's obviously qualified to be the POTUS!

Writing shit on Facebook, that's something teenagers do one-handed while pretending to listen to their geometry teacher. How could that possibly take all morning?

Of course, Todd's fifth-grade playground tone might be the most pathetic part of the whole thing. "well now she's not gonna write something nice on your Facebook, so nyah nyah nyah!"
Ooh, that'll show 'im!

And in a stunning display of, I don't even know what to call it, Todd adds this:

Joe, please explain how this endorsement stuff works, is it to be
completely one sided.

Yeah, it's not supposed to be a quid pro quo, you stupid ignoramus. If you're only endorsing someone in the hopes of getting an endorsement from him in return, then your endorsement means nothing. And if Joe Miller throws his support behind your idiot wife because she supported him, then he's just another dishonest politician, swapping favors and saying shit he doesn't believe.

Maybe you just ought to stay off the interwebs altogether. better to remain silent, and be thought the fool, eh?

Thank You, Captain Obvious

FBI: Stripper, drugs & judge a bad mix

Thanks for clearing that up. I was wondering whether that would be a good mix.