I especially liked this part:

"A nun who complained about a priest who was still ministering to children – even after he was convicted of receiving child pornography – was fired from her position as director of religious education."

Since I used to be a religious education director, I could sympathize. I am not Catholic however. At my own church I was criticized because I "graduated" a 19 year old boy who was showing an inappropriate interest in a 12 year old girl to the adult program. I decided that he did not need to be a youth advisor.

What is really amazing is that, once you know what to look for, these people can be pretty obvious because they are so relentless. This also makes them difficult to treat. On the outside (out of prison) they are supposed to stay away from children, but they will find a way to be near children every time. Tell them that they cannot look at sexual depictions of children and they will find a way to do break this rule. They are really great at ingratiating themselves with families who have children who are the age of their primary sexual interest.

In other words, if they like eight year old girls, then they will attach themselves to a family that has eight year old girls, or to employment that puts them near eight year old girls.

I also was interested in what the report had to say about running out of places to put some pedophile priests. I think prison would be an excellent place. The law requires that people with certain positions of authority -- teaching, childcare, counseling are required to report when they have knowledge of sexual abuse of children. Don't religious authorities have to adhere to the same requirements?

Giuliani's staunch defense of his childhood friend who not only raped boys but also engineered a mass raping of children is not remotely surprising in that he has always been profoundly loyal to authoritarianism. The Catholic Church operated a child rape operation and justified it by hiding and exploiting the power of religion. Giuliani stands by his child rapist of a friend not because he doesn't believe the allegations are true, but because he doesn't give a damn about the lives destroyed in the priest's wake.

Giuliani used the same callous justification in supporting President Bush in 2004, well after Guantanamo, the invasion of Iraq proved to be a godforsaken mess, and the Abu Ghraib scandal broke. The Bush administration exploited not only the power of religion but also political power to unleash the War on Terror and to shred our Constitution. Giuliani hides behind the cloak of Might is Right and horrifying consequences for the masses be damned.

"[The diocesan bureaucracy] is usually about as efficient as any secular bureaucracy. Sometimes less."

I would say that they were highly efficient at moving the offenders along and preventing or quashing public knowledge of the complaints. Indeed, they had someone whose job it was to handle these complaints. Sounds like they took them more seriously than you seem to think.

"Then there is the lawsuit issue. The report is (as are many in this debate here) completely blind to the fact how much the threat of ruinous lawsuits contributed to the mishandling problem in the first place... This, of course, is because doing the right thing is not harshly penalized there - you can just talk to the victims and seek an appropriate solution without fearing to bankrupt your diocese tomorrow."

Wow.

I was under the impression that Roman Catholic priests should be all about "doing the right thing," lawsuit or not. That is precisely what is disturbing, disgusting, disappointing (pick your dis) about the whole thing. And, had they "done the right thing" from the start -- at the very least quarantined these men, gotten them some help, been honest with the victims and the parishes so they could protect themselves -- they could have prevented the situation they find themselves in today. Then they would not be exposed as craven liars, because they would not have lied.

This stuff started a long time ago, I would guess before we were such a litigious society. People did in fact complain to the church, which to me indicates a willingness to work the problem out, not sue. So again, the church had the opportunity to do the right thing. The mistrust with which they are treated now is precisely because they would not work it out when they could have. You reap what you sow.

This is an interesting discussion. It does not seem that we will find much common ground. But I appreciate your taking the time to look at the report, even if we read the same thing and reach opposite conclusions.

I used the word behavior in this sense. If a person acts on his/her impulses and sexually offends against a child, I define that person as a pedophile. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual agrees with me. Vague longings, finding children attractive, liking to spend time with children, or viewing non-photographic depictions of children as sexual or sexy is not pedophilia.

I used the word behavior in the sense that a person has broken the law by having sexual activity with a child.

The DSM also says that pedophilia is extremely difficult to treat. It requires long term treatment.

In my opinion, pedophilia is not a disease as are things like schizophrenia or some forms of alcoholism which have are heritable.

Despite, Chris W's mischaracterization of my letters, at no point did I say I lack compassion for pedophiles. I do admit to having much more compassion for their child victims. I do admit believing that, until they are cured, most offenders need to be kept entirely away from children. That means that, if you have children, they do not make good friends. I also believe in long prison sentences or psychiatric institutionalization for most pedophiles.

I am an longtime opponent of capital punishment and I resent any lying mischaracterization that I am for hanging or euthanizing pedophiles.