During Holy Week the Catholic Church was put under attack by The New York Times. The timing of the reporting seems more than a little dubious to me. Now, I am not Catholic, so I have no dog in this fight.
I will concede that the church was unwilling to deal with pedophiles priests that they had in their midst. There needs to be a price to pay for that unwillingness. In many ways that price has been paid in very large settlements with victims. Another price was the bad press and the difficulty of making up the ground they lost with some of the faithful.
My question is where is the Times' outrage at the ACLU. Obviously they rightly feel that people who molest young children should be called out and pay a price; they also feel anyone who helps cover it up should also pay a price. The ACLU has been very vigorous in their protection of North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). NAMBLA gives advice on how to lure children to older men who are looking to have sex with young boys. They also give advice on vacation spots around the world where Man/Boy sex is easy to find and very little chance of getting arrested. Shouldn't the Times' be just as outraged at this? The ACLU also has done work with people who appear on registered sex offenders lists, saying that their civil rights are being violated with all the rules about where they can live. Doesn't this help those offenders to continue with their sick obsession with having sex with unwilling underage participants?
So why is the Times outraged at the church but not the ACLU? One could easily conclude that it is because they are Christians.
Posts
