Krauthammer misrepresents homosexual Church scandal as “child abuse”
For years it’s been apparent that on any issue involving sexual morality, neoconservative columnist Charles Krauthammer is on the side of the liberationists. For example, during the Lewinsky scandal he supported Clinton, arguing that the president’s behavior was no big deal and that he should not be held to account for anything.
Now Krauthammer has given absolute proof of where he stands in the so-called culture wars. In a column in the Washington Post on the Church sex scandal, entitled “Why didn’t the Church call the cops?”, his first column on the subject (the same piece is published by TownHall.com under the title “Knocking Out Pedophile Priests”), he repeatedly describes the scandalous behavior as “child-abuse.” Not once does he let on that 98 percent, or indeed any percent, of the cases involve not children but teenaged boys. Thus he never acknowledges what every one else outside the Realm of Liberalism has understood by now: that the scandal is not about pedophilia but about homosexual conduct in the priesthood.
For example, he writes:
“[O]ne can only imagine in what different shape American Catholicism would be if just one bishop had [punched out] just one priest seeking counseling and sanctuary for his molestation of children.”
“No, the surprise is not that it happened. The surprise is that when it did happen — when the first child was abused by a priest — his superiors could see only the need for therapy and ministry.”
“The very talk about whether a child-molesting priest should be defrocked for one strike or more is beside the point.”
Krauthammer also follows the liberal line in making priestly celibacy (rather than homosexuality) the problem: “Sex offenders occur in small numbers in any community. And they are far more likely to occur in a community self-selected by the stringency of celibacy. In an age of radical individuality and sexual liberation, celibacy is guaranteed to attract a disproportionate number of souls with tortured and confused sexuality.”
Thanks for noting the piece, Larry. I think your assessment is exactly right. It is so much easier to blame celibacy (which represents a direct attack on theliberal culture of personal “liberation”) rather than examine the actual cases.Posted by: Gerald J. Russello on June 7, 2002 9:45 AM
The main complaint he makes though is that the Church does not fully accept its subordination to the state as a voluntary private society. I think that’s why he’s playing up grossly criminal acts like pedophilia. He’s consciously using the affair to attack the Church because it does not view its concerns as simply private and spiritual, with material, public and secular concerns subject to plenary state authority no matter what their bearing on Church activities and governance.Posted by: Jim Kalb on June 7, 2002 10:10 AM
I agree. He seems to want the Church to forget its belief in redemption and forgoveness, and submit to a system that does not recognize those values.Posted by: on June 7, 2002 11:42 AM
If this was about homosexuality wouldnt the priests be having sex with each other?
Oh wait im sorry only psuedo-common sense is allowed in here right?Posted by: Pastor M on June 10, 2003 6:00 PM