I think the real issue here isn't whether or not Paca molested students at the Academy. That can't be proven. It's that the Catholic Church put someone in charge of investigating abuse who was himself accused of the very same crime. Even if he didn't do it, how can you expect someone whose been accused to be impartial towards the "victims" or the "perpetrators."

Or maybe they didn't "know" for sure. Or they though he'd be sympathetic to the priests.

It comes as no surprise Giulianus Caesar has to surround himself with low-crawlers, as no one with a lick of honor would have anything to do with this sleazy creep. Like Bush before him, we can expect Giuliani to hand-pick a winning team of bottom-feeders devoid of any morals or ethics, and interested solely in power, ideology and self-gratification. Sounds like this priest would make a good Minister of Public Morals in the new Giuliani regime.

For people who think this is all ad hominem and why are we not offering specific criticisms of Giuliani, all you need to know about him is that he wants to nuke Iran. That's enough, right there, to inform any civilized person of this man's character.

But what does it say about our character, as a nation, that this sociopath can even get his name on the ballot, let alone be the leading Republican contender for president? "America's Mayor?" Give me a freakin' break. This man wants to be America's Duce. He is Bush with a brain, and a soul twice as rotten.

Yesterday an article appeared in the NY Times citing Rudy's loyalty to the husband of a long -time associate. Funny the article did not cite to this example. Somehow if Patrick Healy was writing such an article about Hillary, I think he would have been more likely to choose a Father Placa to focus his analysis of this character trait.

The. Man. Is. Paying. A. Boy. Raper. As. He. Runs. For. President.

Did anyone read the same article that I did??

Of course everyone has a right to a trial and is innocent until proven guilty. Any priest has the right to the same.

But whatever his own guilt or innocence on molestation, the fact that he was one of the guys who handled "investigations" of these cases for the church is enough to qualify him as lowest of the low. His main job was to cover up and/or run out the statute of limitations, so that no fair trial could ever be held. I believe there is a circle of hell reserved for these men.

If you have any doubt about how the church deals with these matters, I refer you to the grand jury report from Philadelphia (http://www.philadelphiadistrictattorney.com/images/Grand_Jury_Report.pdf).

Different city, but most likely the same tactics. This report thoroughly documents how the church covered up priest "misconduct" for years, at the expense of those they were supposed to "shepherd." Cardinal Bevilacqua, in charge for part of the time covered in the report, was, like Placa, an attorney, who would have had no difficulty understanding the law involved.

I challenge anyone who defends these priests to read this report and see if your eyes are not opened to the grotesque corruption that has been allowed to flourish in the Church.

Almost as bad are the silence and cowardice the rest of priests display. Until the priests themselves stand up and cast out the evil from within, it will continue. Men like Placa embody all that is sick in the institution of the RC church, whether he personally touched a child or not.

Read the report. You might also want to check out Vows of Silence by Jason Berry (http://www.amazon.com/Vows-Silence-Abuse-Power-Papacy/dp/0743244419/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5663867-3350234?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182523367&sr=8-1).

If the worst you can come up with about a candidate is that one of his or her friends probably committed a heinous crime 30 years ago.... then you are grasping at anything to assail that candidate's character. This speaks volumes more about the author of this drivel and the editors of Salon than it does about Giuliani.

I'm appalled at the continuing sensationalist reporting and blame-throwing in the Church pedophile scandal. When you've been the victim of a crime, you call the police. Why would you go to the employer of the perpetrator and expect satisfaction? Sheesh! Sex crimes are violations of state statutes, so why are you seeking a response from a candidate for federal office? It brings to mind the absurdity of asking federal candidates for their positions on marriage laws, too, but thats another topic.

I'm not letting the Church off the hook for looking the other way all these years. It may be criminal neglect, and it's certainly actionable in civil court. But it's human nature. It's wrong, but it's exactly what many parents will do too, when, as is most often the case, the molester is closer to home. I find it absurd that the media, SNAP and the Church wanted the Church to develop a policy for responding to future allegations. It seemed orchestrated so that then SNAP and various groups of laity could express displeasure with their exclusion from the process of developing a policy. Any policy need only be as straight forward as "Call 911."

No amount of appologies from the Vatican, monetary compensation or prison time will satisfy the victims of these crimes. I speak from personal experience. Nothing that the courts or media can provide will make them whole again. Least of all, a presidential candidate publicly rebuking his long time friend -- which seems to be what you are looking for with this article.

The media uses SNAP, like they used Cindy Sheehan, and like they will use the next victim or mourning parent to boost ratings and circulation so that at the end of the day, they can sell more toothpaste, toy trains and dog food. Shame on you. You could have provided a careful analysis of Giuliani's positions on federal issues but you hopped into Nancy Grace's pool and served up this crap. Yuck!