I read the said article by Christopher Hitchens, and agreed with it. It was a good example of connecting the dots to see the wider picture, which the "church" refuses to see or admit to.

This essay by Michael is a typical ploy by those on the right of the culture wars.

Never ever truly, or even begin to examine or admit what we, or our chosen in group, have been doing (forever and a day by the way), but point to the culture at large, or what others outside of our (very special) in group have done, and are doing.

Somehow "their" behavior excuses what we have done.

Never mind too that catholic dogma tells us that their priests are supposed to be superior men, or even "icons of christ" as one right-wing USA catholic propagandist tells us in one of his books titled The "Truth" of Catholicism.

Never mind that there is no such thing as catholic truth--just a very worldly power-seeking ideology/institution.

Of course Michael is also a propaganda hack for opus dei which was wildly enthusiastic about Mel Gibson's Passion and also features systematic "smacking of the flesh" as one of its key "spiritual" disciplines.

http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/htmlpage7

By the way the Fox was excommunicated for being a "heretic".

By contrast child-molesting priests are protected by the ecclesiastical establishment and its wall of silence.

The former cardinal from Boston now works in the Vatican--safe from the reach of USA law.

A wall put in place by Ratzinger. Which was effectively a world-wide conspiracy against the criminal law in many countries, and to prevent justice from being done

The person mentioned above who wrote the stuff on priests as icons was (and is) an enthusiastic supporter of the politics of piety, pain and suffering described in the above essay.

Here in Australia we have had a huge abuse rates among school teachers (especially in QLD). As someone who is no fan of the Catholic church I can't believe the hypocrisy of the Secular media who really do have double standards. I also wonder if the Catholic church refused to allow those with homosexual tendencies to be priests if many of these abuses would be prevented. It would not be popular with civil libertarians but would likely decrease the abuse rate.

This is a feeble attempt to try and deflect attention from the pope's previous involvement in a cover up.

The fact that he is speaking up against these perversions is just spin, as the catholic church is still trying to cover up the extent and names of those involved in Ireland.

Michael Cook's previous homophobic post shows that he is simply an apologist.

The morass of lies the catholic church is trying to dig its way out of is not helped by its continued lack of transparency.

I found the essay titled A Personal Issue: The Catholic Church Scandal by John Cory over at Reader Support Services, to have stated in very stark terms, all that needs to be said on this issue.

This author must truly walk around with rose coloured glasses on!

Some priests and Brothers in the Catholic church have been molesting children in many countries of the world for decades.

That is a proven fact that the church needs to deal with and must prosecute all clergy involved now.
These paedophiles should not be 'shifted sideways' or sent to other Parishes etc.
They need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, just as all common paedophiles are punished.

Runner <" I also wonder if the Catholic church refused to allow those with homosexual tendencies to be priests if many of these abuses would be prevented. It would not be popular with civil libertarians but would likely decrease the abuse rate."

Homosexuals? I'm sorry Runner, did I miss something?
Homosexual people are those attracted to other people of the same sex.
Paedophiles are those people with a sexual attraction to children.
How are these two things related Runner?