Squeers.....where did you use "within" in the last sentence; I can find "without". Are you referring to the previous sentence....which doesn't make much sense either.

Re "humping anything when pressed" (presumabely the family dog or one's kids).....I notice you identify this as one of your "fears". Please, keep your fears to yourself and do not presume that others will act according to your"fears" as you "fear" you might.

Yes I do deny that "sexuality takes man by storm ever and anon"....at least this man who is happily married. Perhaps you are too pessimistic or fearful.

You seem to think that the catholic priesthood is the only celibate group around (actually there are married Catholic priests)....there are other celibates, both Christian and non-Christian.

It all depends what you mean by "capable of gross immorality".

Formersnag you write

'Church NGOs involved in charity/social work is a dreadful corruption of the separation of church & state'

Maybe you have a point however when you look at the epidemic child abuse among the aboriginal communities which have been run by people on the secular gravy train I am not totally convinced. It is usually the academia on the left that get funded by Government and big business but scream out against Governments the loudest. Often they are just blathering their marxist dogma. Now that public servants are no longer servants but managers' I tend to think churchies do social work cheaper, with less corruption and more heart.

Quite right, Francis, it was "without", as in "outside".

Where did you find "capable of gross immorality"?
A Freudian slip?
"gross sexual misconduct" was what I said.
But this is silly. You're an intelligent fellow and I've no wish to bandy words. I'm sorry if my tone was a bit off. There are things about humanity that are hard to bear, however they have to be acknowledged---which doesn't mean I condone them.
I'm also happily married and contented; but there was a time when I was capable of misconduct, as there is for us all, whether we admit it or not.
While my heart breaks for the innocent victims of sexual abuse (I've known some too), I'm not without sympathy for the perpetrators, especially priests, whom must content with their redoubled sins.

The author and general public have been influenced by widespread misreporting of the facts. For the facts, see for example the article by Jack Valero that first appeared in The Guardian (http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/message_to_the_lynch_mob_the_pope_is_innocent/).
He points out that suspension and defrocking of priests are two separate actions. The first can be done by a bishop, with immediate effect; the second is a lengthy process that involves Rome. Suspension – meaning a priest is no longer able to function as a priest –is the key action that a bishop has to take against an abusive priest to prevent him having contact with minors. If, in any of these "smoking gun" cases, the bishop failed to suspend an abusive priest immediately, he did wrong. But such failure would have had nothing to do with Cardinal Ratzinger, whose only involvement was when a request for defrocking landed on his desk.
The Pope is completely innocent of the charges made against him.

Is there any correlation between child sex abuse in the Catholic Church, homosexuality and paedophilia?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010_docs/Homosexuality_Church_Crisis2.pdf

I read the Lothstein interview.
What a crock!
Lothstein would have us believe that "40% of priests are homosexuals, who are having sex with age appropriate males".
Among the remaining heterosexual 60% are the priests who sexually abuse young boys because "they can't get them pregnant" and besides, their "mothers never said it was wrong to have sex with men"!
Who could swallow this tripe?
Bertone has more credibility on this issue.