Bill Maher: Pope ‘Used to be a Nazi’; Compares Church to Cult, Bear Stearns

Photo of Matthew Balan.
By Matthew Balan | April 14, 2008 - 12:28 ET

Bill Maher, true to form on his "Real Time" program on HBO on Friday, went on a tirade against Pope Benedict XVI and the Catholic Church, only days before the Pope’s visit to the U.S.. He stated that the Pope "used to be a Nazi" and compared him to a cult leader. He then went on to call the Church a "child-abusing religious cult" and "the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia." "And that’s the Church’s attitude: 'We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it,' which is fine, far be it from me to criticize religion."

Following a profanity-tinged one-liner concerning the raid on the Texas compound of Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Maher quipped, "In fact, whenever a cult leader sets himself up as God’s infallible wingman here on Earth, lock away the kids. Which is why I’d like to tip off law enforcement to an even larger child-abusing religious cult. Its leader also has a compound, and this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law, but he used to be a Nazi and he wears funny hats. That’s right, the Pope is coming to America this week and ladies, he’s single!" At the "funny hat" line, Maher displayed a picture of Pope Benedict wearing a wide-brimmed hat called a saturno

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Maher’s smear to the contrary, Pope Benedict didn’t "used to be a Nazi." In fact, as the New York Times itself reported after the Pope’s election in 2005, Pope Benedict’s father was anti-Nazi, and "Joseph Ratzinger [the Pope’s birth name] huddled with his father and older brother around a radio and listened to Allied radio broadcasts," an act that if they were caught doing, they would have been sent to a concentration camp.

Maher then devoted the rest of his anti-Catholic rant to the clergy sex abuse scandal angle. [Audio of the highlights from this rant are available here.]

NewsBusters.org|Still from 4-11-2008 MAHER: Now I know what you’re thinking: "Bill, you shouldn’t be saying that the Catholic Church is no better than this creepy Texas cult." For one thing, altar boys can’t even get pregnant. But really, what tripped up the little cult on the prairie was that they only abused hundreds of kids, not thousands, all over the world. Cults get raided, religions get parades. How does the Catholic Church get away with all of their buggery? Volume, volume, volume!

If you have a few hundred followers, and you let some of them molest children, they call you a cult leader. If have a billion, they call you 'Pope.' It’s like, if you can’t pay your mortgage, you’re a deadbeat. But if you can’t pay a million mortgages, you’re BearStearns and we bail you out. And that is who the Catholic Church is: the BearStearns of organized pedophilia -- too big, too fat. When the current pope was in his previous Vatican job as John Paul’s Dick Cheney, he wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the Statute of Limitations ran out. And that’s the Church’s attitude: 'We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it,' which is fine, far be it from me to criticize religion. But just remember one thing: if the Pope was -- instead of a religious figure -- merely the CEO of a nationwide chain of day care centers, where thousands of employees had been caught molesting kids and then covering it up, he'd be arrested faster than you can say 'who wants to touch Mr. Wiggle?'

Maher grossly misrepresented the contents of the 2001 letter then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to the bishops. He did not tell them to "keep the sex abuse of minors of State of Limitations ran out." The letter clarified that the Catholic Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had jurisdiction according to the Church’s law (canon law) to try clerics concerning abuses of the sacraments, and also, as the letter put it, a "delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue [thou shall not commit adultery] with a minor below the age of 18 years."

Maher has a long record of mocking religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. A few months earlier in January 2008, Maher mocked Catholics’ belief concerning the Eucharist and called Jesus a "2,000 year-old space god." In May 2007, he compared the sacrament to gay oral sex. And in April 2007, he joked about President Bush attending the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast and how "you could tell this was a Catholic prayer breakfast because [Maher laughs] it was in the morning and he said 'I'm dying for a little joe' and they brought him an altar boy."

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bill Maher is a hateful

far be it from me to criticize religion. ????? (but here I go....)

Bill Maher is a hateful little man.

The operative word being "little."

A hateful little man with

A hateful little man with an inordinate fear of religion. (Except Islam, of course)

he just wants attention -

he just wants attention - like a toddler

I was just reminded of

I was just reminded of Maher's previous forays into Catholic-bashing. I amend my opinion. He is a disgusting, hateful, little man.

Maybe I should take a cue from him:

He's a disgusting, hateful, little man. That's a fact.

No fear of Islam? Hardly.

No fear of Islam? Hardly. He fears them the most, which is why he doesn't talk about them. He knows random Catholics aren't going to chop off his head or suicide bomb him for his anti-Catholic statements, which is why he continues to make them. I'd say he doesn't fear Christianity as much as he resents it. He knows that their are many Christians who are at peace with the world and able to live their dreams because of it, and he hates that. The Catholic Church, being an old, powerful, and rich organization, is simply one of the easiest targets for him to find a vent for his personal frustrations.

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

Bill Maher?

Bill Maher? I thought he had died. Oh, well.

→ Bill Maher

The RCC is not a cult of pedophiles, but a society of pedophiles was protected within it.

I disagree with Maher's analysis.

♣ a seal

rog the bigot says all peds

rog the bigot says all peds are catholic

and all muslims are terrorists

→ Truthie

Why are you calling rog a bigot?

What did he say?

♣ a seal

he rips on Muslims the

he rips on Muslims

the way Maher rips on Catholics

Waaaaaah!!!!!

Um...

We don't try and silence Maher's words; we try and show them to the world as being ignorant, innaccurate, and lame.  However, people are free to watch his show and agree/disagree with his views. 

But are you saying here that "Muslims" are being "ripped on" unjustly?  Is there no evidence in the real world that some Muslims have brought criticism on themselves?  Or are you just trying to being contrary and "insightful"? 

Bill Maher's show on HBO=roger the shrubber's comments on NewsBusters...you're onto something there!!  ROG is EXACTLY like a conservative Bill Maher!!  You've got it, TruthMonger!!

We'll stick to "ripping on" the certain homicidal, cowardice, pathetic, insane Muslims that are giving Islam THE WORST name, and you can stick to defending those that "rip on" Christianity.  Let's see who's the last one standing...

truth hurts I know:) you

truth hurts I know:)

you shouldn't lump all Catholics togther as peds

or all Muslims as terrorists:)

in other words don't be an ass like Bill

TM, I'll lump all Catholics

TM, I'll lump all Catholics together as supporters of pedophilia and all Muslims as supporters of terrorism until they speak out against it. To rephrase, the burden is on other members of the religions to distance themselves from and condemn the despicable acts of some. I personally know several Catholics who were so distraught over issues in the Church that they left, and I'd daresay they were not alone, even without considering those who lodged complaints that such things had been allowed to happen because of the bureaucracy dominating the Church.

I've not seen so much as a peep of condemnation from Muslims of even more despicable acts committed by other Muslims. Instead, they rant and rage at anyone who dares to clearly expose those acts to the world. Perhaps if a letter were leaked from someone high in the Muslim order declaring that terrorists would be tried for their crimes by the religion, as the letter noted by Maher really says, I'd have somewhat more faith in the overall humanity of Islam. Sadly, I don't see that happening any more than I see masses of Muslims complaining about perverters of the faith or leaving it. Of course, the latter is probably due to apostasy carrying a death penalty in Islam.

Can you imagine the uproar we'd have if even one local priest in a tiny parish were to claim he believed in executing anyone who renounced Catholicism? We'd never hear the end of it. More than a few Muslim clerics have said the same without getting so much as the bat of an eye from the MSM. It's simply a game of fear. People know Catholics aren't going to suicide bomb them for slandering the faith, its leader, or Christ, no matter how vile the words used. It's another matter entirely with Islam, as has been shown over and over ad nauseum with the cartoons, Fitna, etc. Don't try to draw a parallel between these two utterly different entities.

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

FS is on a break, so I'm filling in. . .

Cortillaen - 1

TM - 0

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

you guys won't be seeing

you guys won't be seeing any peeps until you open your eyes:)

Muslims can't open them for you - seek and ye shall find - google makes it so easy even a bigot can do it - if you have a few months to read, here's a start... 

How the Quran Looks at War
Insights from Imam Tamman Adi of the Islamic Cultural Center of Eugene, Oregon

Al-Azhar condemns suicide attacks
Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.  Speaking at the conference in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, Sheikh Tantawi said extremist Islamic groups had appropriated Islam and its notion of jihad, or holy struggle, for their own ends.
BBC News, 11 July, 2003

Memo to Osama bin Laden:
"I would rather live in America under Ashcroft and Bush at their worst, than in any “Islamic state” established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you and Mullah Omar at their best."
A thought-provoking, controversial, pre-war article by Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D., February 12, 2003

Qaradawi Rejects Al-Qaeda’s Killing of Innocents
Prominent Muslim scholar Dr. Youssef Al-Qaradawi has condemned Al-Qaeda for their fuel tanker suicide bombing of a centuries-old Jewish synagogue on the Tunisian island of Djerba in April 2002.

etc, etc, etc... 

TM: game set and match

The game's not over just yet...

Before you go feeling all smug about your four little examples of so-called moderates, allow me to take them apart and point out the truth.  You seem to be having trouble with that. 

How the Quran Looks at War
A brief read shows this to be a single American Muslim offering his interpretation of several passages, interpretations that sometimes seem misleading. "Second, after praising Abel for not fighting back when Cain murdered him, and decreeing that killing one soul is like killing all humanity, God condemns mass murder by gangs, calling it a war against law and order. The only exceptions are killing in self defense and court ordered execution of a murderer when the victim's family does not forgive. 5:27" Examining a translation of the section in question suggests that Tamman Adi is doing a fair bit of expansion on the actual text. There is no mention of gangs or court orders that I can see. It's also interesting to note that the Koran has Abel hoping for Cain to burn in hell for murder. Right forgiving, that. "Third, we learn that people in certain groups will keep trying to kindle a fire of war, and God promises to put it out. 5:64" This one is very interesting to me, mostly because of what it carefully avoids. The verse does not describe "certain groups" starting wars. It explicitly states that to be the work of the Jews, and even says, "and (as for) most of them, evil is that which they do". Reading the next seven verses makes me wonder how anyone can claim the Koran protects Jews and Christians: Starting from the "Jews are warmongers and do evil" bit, it goes on to say that they "follow no good till [they] keep up the Taurat and the Injeel" (those being Islamic ordinances, I would guess), the Jews kill Muslim apostles, and the Christians who believe in the Trinity are unbelievers and hell-bound. Another note of interest, since Christians and Jews who refuse to convert are defined as unbelievers here, an earlier verse instructs, "grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people". At times, it seems almost schizophrenic how the Koran bounces back and forth between "we should protect the People of the Book" and "they're evil, murderous warmongers, and hell-bound, and we shouldn't worry about them". Here's the kicker: He's a liar. A quick search of an online version of the Koran reveals the concept of war invoked no less than 18 times. Oops. Either he's ignorant of his own religion or trying to hide something. Take your pick. Based on the carefully omitted bits, I know which one I'd pick.

Al-Azhar condemns suicide attacks
Ah, nice try, but that was a temporary position that has been refuted by him more than once. As detailed here, he has wholeheartedly endorsed suicide bombings against the US and in any other situation where jihad has been declared. Oh, and yes, he has endorsed and even declared jihad against the US in Iraq. I wonder if his change in stance was due to internal pressure... I suspect it was, and that would indicate an overall support for such actions within the Sunni organization, at least. So, those who try to be moderates, even from positions of considerable power (or is being the supreme Sunni authority not powerful?) get shouted down by the masses, it would seem.

Memo to Osama bin Laden:
Again, at a glance, this would seem to be a rare moderate. Unfortunately, closer examination suggests that Khan's just playing both sides. I'd take a guess that he is more interested in prestige and power than anything else. Oh, you wanted proof of my charge of falseness? Sure thing. Among other tidbits, he had "Bush's Hall of Shame" on his blog, featuring "The Bigot: Gen. William Boykin", "The Taliban: Attorney General Ashcroft", and "The Tyrant: Donald Rumsfeld". A quick look at his blog also reveals that he spends a considerable amount of time lambasting the US's actions, but next to none on our enemies. As ABC even recorded, he seeks to equivocate terrorists, not condemn them: "The deaths of their own families, the destruction of their homes -- all these are leading to frustration and anger and hopelessness, and they want the enemy to feel the same frustration and hopelessness, so they are resorting to this violence." In another example of the same, he was brought in to speak at a Wahabist conference in Saudi Arabia, the purpose of which included "... conveying to the entire world the true vision about Islam and to show to them that the real terrorism is that committed by the enemies of Islam. In fact the enemies of Islam are committing mass killings against Muslims." Just another apologist without the guts to condemn the atrocities themselves. Regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, Khan still would not condemn suicide attacks or even any attacks on Israelis at all. Instead, he expounded on how attacking civilians did little to benefit the Palestinians: "Notice Israeli response to the killing of a dozen soldiers is more brutal and more comprehensive than any of its responses to suicide attacks on civilians. Suicide attacks on civilians help Israel. Attacks on soldiers hurt Israel. Hence the all out assault." Why, that almost sounds like he's giving advice on how to make terrorist attacks more effective, doesn't it? Oh, and don't forget his blog article "Hamas Victory: Positive for All". "What can be a more spectacular advertisement for the idea that democracy makes politicians out of terrorists than the electoral victory of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections?" How about the majority condemning the terrorists instead of electing them? That sounds better to me. Apparently Mr. Khan begs to differ. Oh, wait, that would imply both his and the majority of Palestinians' support for Hamas's tactics, huh? Neato.

Last, but not least, Mr.
Don't-Kill-Innocents-(but-there's-no-such-thing-as-innocent-Jews-or-US-soldiers). I'm
just going to let wikipedia shoot him down (quotes sourced here):
"Defending terrorist bombing against off duty soldiers Qaradawi told BBC Newsnight that:
* "An Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier."
* "I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God's justice."
* "Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do"."
'Nuf said on him.

Unlike your presumptuous declaration of winning the game with unsounded examples, I'll give you the benefit of overtime. I will lay claim to the lead, though. Next time you try to refute my point, research your examples a bit. These guys were all on my side of the argument. They may pose as moderates at times, but they really aren't. Much as I'd love to see myself disproven, I won't be. I'm sure you can find a few good examples somewhere, maybe even a few hundred, but you won't find enough to even remotely suggest that the majority of the world's Muslim population (1.5+ billion, isn't it?) condemn terrorism. Hm, I guess I am claiming to be taking the game, huh... Oops. Well, I don't mind extending the overtime for you to try again, so go ahead.

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

Game over.

Since TM seems to have fled this discussion and disregarded two reminders, I suppose I get to claim victory.  I wonder, when the opponent in a debate forfeits rather than admit they don't have a leg to stand on, does that constitute normal victory?  Oh well...

www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi

Kindly show me where I said

Kindly show me where I said all peds are Catholics, Douchie.

You can't find it. Thought so. 

And kindly tell me where I said all Muslims are terrorists.

You can't find it. Thought so.

Kindly prove that I am a bigot for pointing out the facts.

You can't. Never could, even when given ample opportunity.

0-for-3, dumbass.

Take your meds, Islamic Douche Boy.

 

 

hello rogread your own

hello rog

bigots love to point out their "facts"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

read your own posts:)

i see you are learning, btw

bigot "douchie" boy:)

Hate Speech!  Where is the

Hate Speech!  Where is the FCC? 

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

where's Don Imus? Where's

where's Don Imus? Where's Rush on the NFL?!!!

What did the FCC

Ever do to either of them that remotely-compares to what they did (to the delicious tune of a hypocrite-FCC's busted double standards) to a certain other broadcaster?
JMR

The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.

No jurisdiction

I don't believe the FCC has jurisdiction over cable.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

Bill Maher is a disgrace.

An absolute disgrace. A hateful little lemming.

"women and minorities hardest hit"

A hateful little lemming.

A hateful little lemming. MC

Wow, that's WAY harsh, MC!!

At least "I" called him a hateful little "man." LOL

Even rudimentary civilized

Even rudimentary civilized behavior includes being respectful to other people and their beliefs. 

Which leaves me with the inevitable deduction that even rudimentary civilized behavior is beyond the abilities of this little twit. 

"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"  - Shakespeare

→ Helen

Even Radical Islam?  It is a religion you know?

♣ a seal

They may well be a religion

They may well be a religion but I'm not so sure they're civilized. 

"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"  - Shakespeare

kareem abdul jabbar was

kareem abdul jabbar was very un-civilized, yes...

→ Hey, HalfTruthie

Did I say "Islam", or "Radical Islam"?

But since they're both the same to you now that you're so far into your cursade, I guess the confusion on your part is understandable.

I can't believe now you're defending Radical Islam.

Have you bought your six-year old wife yet?

♣ a seal

oops, i did miss the

oops, i did miss the "radical" in your post, very sorry oh perfect one:)...kareem was not a radical of course... 

but it's true that I defend alot of religious radicals against bigotry - FLDS, the Amish, Hasidic Jews...

Respecting other religions doesn't mean I share their religious beliefs - but I know many people like yourself have trouble grasping the concept of respect:)...

not exactly a new human problem

Because Kareem was a raised Muslim in Iran...

Right?

Kareem was a devout Muslim from birth, just like "Muhammed" Ali was!!  Might as well throw Cat Stevens in there as well!!

What in the hell are you talking about?

Have you even taken a math or logic class before?  I'll give you a free lesson...

"All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares."

Get back to me once you've figure that out. 

dude, you might wanna try a

dude, you might wanna try a valium once in a while - or lighten up on the full throttle a bit...

It's very simple.

Someone accurately points out that WE discern between RADICAL MUSLIMS and those that aren't jihadists (you know, the mainstream Muslims that are all over the airwaves, denouncing the tactics of jihadists, condemning the inflammatory words of Islamic zealots that are hell-bent on the destruction of western civilization in the name of Muhammed, Islam and Allah...)

You then use Kareem Abdul Jabbar as your "proof" that Islam is peaceful and civilized.  It's very simple: not all that practice Islam are evil, we know this.  We're talking about RADICALS.  You're presentation of a converted American Muslim as an example of the "civilized" nature of Islam is a joke. 

Understand now?  Or are you just going to revert back to making one or two snide sentences that prove nothing...except your ineptitude to grasp complex topics?  And by the way...

You might wanna try not making negative blanket statements about people you don't know.  Saying that people on here have a hard time understanding what "respect is" just goes to show that you are completely offbase.  Perhaps it is you that doesn't understand how RESPECT works.  RESPECT needs to be EARNED.  It is not something that is just GIVEN, no questions asked.  It is the reason why people can lose and gain respect from others.  It is the reason why many around the world have LOST RESPECT FOR ISLAM.  Is that our fault? 

It is the burden of the Muslim community as a whole to distance themselves from these jihadists...and yet they don't. 

Go take a valium yourself, it will help you remember that these "evil" people we talk about all of the time are just figments of our own racist, bigoted, and disrespectful minds. 

respect is not earnedyou

respect is not earned

you did not earn the respect of Jesus

it is given, despite what you've earned...

return the favor, stop acting like a radical so-called "Muslim" or die by the sword you live by...

it's pretty simple:)

http://www.dougbrittonbooks.com/onlinebiblestudies-irritationandangermanagement/loveyourenemy-lovingallyourenemies.asp

Helen---"Twit" is a good

Helen---"Twit" is a good word for him.Right on.

I don't know

I don't know whose worse..  Bill Maher, or the idiots that laugh and applaud anything he says. 

Amateur Psychology

For all you amateur psychologists out there, Bill Maher's father was Catholic and his mother was Jewish. Go to it friends!

I Wonder...

If, in Bill Maher's mind (what a pitifully painful place that must be) all those in any group are to be smeared by what the weakest in that group have done, then shouldn't he be tarred by the same scandals that have clung to the entertainment industry like fetid barnacles on the hull of a rotting ship?

Bill, it's known as the Golden Rule - treat others as you would like to be treated.


"All that is necessary for the trimuph of evil is that good men do nothing."

- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

www.conservativeboot...

Ah hem...Baraka Hussein Obama, Jr.

geoff gale...

Excellent point:  we need to look no further than Baraka Hussein Obama, Jr.'s words and analysis of issues using this same technique.

We're still 7.5 months away from the GE, and his campaign has already given us:

"Typical White Person"..."that clings to guns, religion, anti-immigration sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations [from being jobless for the past 25 years]..."..."that's afraid of black men as they walk down the street"...

"God Damn America!!!"

"The United States of KKK!!"

 "America's chickens are coming home to roost!!" (applause, from the "typical black people")

And here's one more thing that I found that was interesting...

“for the first time in my adult lifetime I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

"for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback… not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change." 

The top quote is from ABC and Fox news.  The bottom quote is from CNN.  Anyone see the difference?

"

I don't see what's so

I don't see what's so outrageous about his comments.

The Catholic Church has actively protected pedophiles.

They deserve much more than a verbal tongue lashing.

The pedophilia problem is rampant and little has been done to rectify the situation.

Nice work Bill Maher in keeping this scandal in the open. 

That really dosn't suprise

That really dosn't suprise anyone here, Leon. We would be suprised if you did see it.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

There's the opening line

There's the opening line in his attempt to change yet another thread into The It's All About Leon Show starring Leon. 

Bass, So you think the RCC

Bass,

So you think the RCC has handled the pedophile crisis within its walls in an honest and just fashion?

 

peds are a human

peds are a human phenomenon, not a Catholic phenomenon...

the Church handled it badly in many instances...

but they handled as well as any human organization could...

news flash: everyone on earth is imperfect

unless you have some scientific research that proves Catholics are less perfect than the rest of us...?

or is your extensive expertise on peds and the RCC based on Comedy Central...

Sorry...the elephant in the

Sorry...the elephant in the room is the fact that it was not a "pedophile" problem; it was a "homosexual" problem.

Exactly how many priests molested girls?

I don't think it was

I don't think it was "either/or" but "both".

Jer

Nah Jer, Homosexuality

Nah Jer,

Homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia.

You're either a pedophile or you're not.  One's sexual orientation is irrelevant in predicting deviant/illegal behavior.

Leon...

Homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia.

I'm not saying that it does.  But there are homosexual pedophiles as well as heterosexual pedophiles.  With regard to the specific problem of sexual abuse of young boys by Catholic priests, I think it's self-evident the former are the issue.

If I'm off base here, please explain.

Jer  

 

Jer, Perhaps, but there

Jer,

Perhaps, but there are two things to consider:

1)  Were the priests homosexual by nature or did they simply have more access to boys?

2)  Does the illness of pedophilia supercede sexual orientation?  So straight or gay is irrelevant when children are your interest.

mb, If it was a

mb,

If it was a homosexual problem, how do you explain all of the young girls that have also been abused?

Nice try though. 

How about some numbers

How about some numbers Leon, instead of your usual B as in B, S as in S?

Nice try though.

So MB, Are you claiming

So MB,

Are you claiming that Catholic priests haven't molested any girls?

The point is, even a handful of girls being abused makes your claim worthless.

Unfortunately, it's much more than a handful.  While boys are more often the targets of creepy Catholics, a sizable number of young girls have also been targeted.

Here's a great article out of Dallas documenting the protection of priests by the Catholic church.

In the beginning of the article they state:

Most protected priests were accused of sexually abusing minors - primarily adolescent boys, but also younger ones, and a sizable number of girls of various ages

LINK

Girls have indeed suffered at the hands of these monsters. 

What does that mean with regard to your silly comment? 

It's not a homosexual issue, it's a ped issue. 

From what I can find about 1 out of every 5 victims is a female.

20% is a major proportion. 

 

Leon,1) Stop typing your

Leon,

1) Stop typing your posts as if this was a rampant problem within the Roman Catholic Church, it is not.  If you bothered to look up statistics, you will find that it is less than 2% of priests.  However, Yes, 2% too many.

2)  The secular world has a much, much, much, much, much, much bigger problem with pedophiles than any number you can find in the Roman Catholic Church.  Just look up your local city, State, etc sex offender database (which includes convicted pedophiles), it outnumbers GREATLY any number you can find in the Roman Catholic Church....yes percentage wise too.

3)  Do you call the ACLU, NAMBLA monsters? If not, why not?  They have BOTH been involved in pedophile and ownership of child ponography?  why the hypocrisy?   

4)  Not excusing the monstrocity committed by a FEW priests within the Church, just showing you your incredible hypocrisy and selective outrage.  according to statistics, a child is safer with a priest than their own parents when it comes to pedophile, than their own teacher, local policemen, etc, etc, etc. 

4)  I hate to agree with you at any point, but you are somewhat correct.  Pedophile, for whatever reason is a much bigger problem with married men than it is with single men.  Proves also that the numbers of priests committing thiss horrific act are much smaller than you, the MSM make them out to be.  Also proves that it has nothing to do with homosexuality.....However!

5)  99.9% of the priests convicted of pedophile have turned out to be homosexuals.  go figure. 

6)  As for you citing some news story as your prove, please.  The media hates the Church with a passion, they hated it before the priesthood scandal and they will hate it long afterwards. 

Why do you get so easily influenced by the MSM?  why? 

I already knew the


So MB,


Are you claiming that Catholic priests haven't molested any girls?

That's not what I said, and you know it. Don't extrapolate. I said the same thing to Balboa yesterday.

I already knew the numbers, Leon, I was checking to see if you did.

And how does "How about some numbers?" (which I asked you) translate into "Catholic priests haven't molested any girls" Which you are asking me if I am saying?

Throwing out baseless accusations disguised as innocent questions is a thoroughly disingenuous and sneaky way of discussing a topic.

 

Leon,  Furthermore, how

Leon, 

Furthermore, how about Bernie Ward....where is the left wing outrage by individuals like you who love attacking the Church?

You do know who Bernie Ward is, right? 

Well, I am guessing that since the MSM hasn't told you, you probably do not know.

Bernie Ward was a very popular Liberal radio host in California that enjoyed an immense Liberal audience in the West Coast. 

Yes, this example of Liberal values man has been arrested and charged with owning, watching, and being involved in pedophilia. 

 

Where is the Liberal outraged?  Where is the MSM outcry?  where?  did you even know this had happened? 

 

I am sick and tired of those that attack the Church on this subject who are such great hypocrites.

They run and defend the ACLU, don't have a clue about Bernie Wards and then they show selective outrage against the Church. 

Bernie Ward is a hero to West Coast Liberals, even after his arrest, he has been defended by countless Liberals including Libereal politicians...

where is YOUR outrage, the MSM outrage, hypocrite? 

 

So that means the problem

So that means the problem wasn't that they were fondling underage boys, it's that they weren't fondling underage girls?

That doesn't make sense.

Yeah, It's a discrimination

Yeah, It's a discrimination problem that they molested boys, not girls.

<sarc off>

That's not what I said, and you know it. Don't twist my words.

To quote Leon, "Nice try though."

 

Well you seemed to take the

Well you seemed to take the pedophile part of it out of the equation, meaning that it was the homosexuality was the problem.

It was mainly a homosexual

Don't be cute. You knew what you were doing.

It was mainly a homosexual molestation problem. The number of boys far exceeded the number of girls...something like 80/20.

 

Yes, but the problem isn't

Yes, but the problem isn't that they're homosexual.

The problem was that they

The problem was that they were both....homosexuals with a penchant for young boys. The numbers indicate that far more of the molestations were homosexual in nature. Which indicates that homosexuality was a significant factor, more than simply pedophilia. And it wasn't even pedophilia, technically, since most were post-pubescent. However, I would definitely call it sexual abuse of a minor.

→ Motherbelt

There is a term for homosexuals who molest young boys . . . pedophile.

♣ a seal

mb, It's an access

mb,

It's an access issue. 

The fact that these priests have limited access to girls and still managed to molest enough girls to forma a significant proportion of the victims points to this fact.

A ped is a ped.  Sexual orientation is irrelevant when your mind is that disturbed.

"I don't see..."

"I don't see...I don't see...I don't see...I don't see...I don't see..."

OPEN YOUR EYES!!!

 

jpatch...

jpatch,

You're defending the RCC against Maher? What color hats do you wear with your clown costume while at kid shows?

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

Falling for the media perspective

Methinks we spot a little rhetoric here. Hear me out. It turns out that a statistically unusual number of pedophile priests joined in the years just before Vatican II. The cases of abuse come from priests all within the same age group. And yes, the abuse cases are overwhelmingly homosexual. Surprisingly few abuses against girls, and way below the statistical norm. In fact, except for this "crop" of priests, the statistics for other priests are way below the statistical average.

A lot of people who study this issue feel that it was an unfortunate conjunction of problems. There was a (pardon the pun) spike of homosexual entrants for those years, and the church was unprepared for the psychological differences. Priestly celibacy is a complex and powerful issue (I speak from hereosexual experience on that), and I can only imagine what homosexuals faced. Further, the people who really fumbled the issue were the bishops. I place a lot of respect on the bishops - all the more infuriating when they screw up. Reality is that when all these cases started cropping up, the bishops should have responded quickly and pastorally. But instead, they followed their lawyers' advice, and tried to buy silence from victims. (Of all people, you'd think priests would know better than to follow lawyers' advice!) That didn't work well.

As for your other points, Leon, let's get real. The church drew up new rules of engagement. We've also paid out three billion dollars, and have funded as many counseling centers and programs as possible. The church has done what it demands everyone do when confronting our own sins. We've made sincere apologies, worked hard for restitution, and made as many amends as are possible. You have a right to be disgusted at the sin, but disgust at the sin doesn't give you the right to ignore the repentance.

Leon, I'm surprised at you. You have swallowed the media's perspective ... hook, line, and sinker. You claim that the problem is still rampant? And that little has been done to rectify the situation? That's a media myth.

And you know what I've discovered? Everyone loves the media ... when they're distorting in your side's favor.

Exactly KC.... ....and

Exactly KC....

....and this constant Catholic bashing with the msm is getting way past irritatingly old...unless of course it is a political figure on the leftist side..then they embrace or spin the Catholic Church for a moment when reporting on said political figure as long as it is a leftist...

Oh I could go on and on with their agenda driven hypocrisy.

Really beyond sad in my opinion. 

"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill

→ Thank you KC

Your take on this issue is not too much unlike mine.

I saw it this way:

Boy during the period you cited in the 60s realizes he has a tendency towards homosexuality and is filled with shame for his feelings.  And in the 60's homosexuality was certainly a shame trip.

Confuses the gift of celibacy as a disollution of wrongful desire.  "Yes, certainly if I take a vow before the Lord, I'll be free.

Enters seminary only to find many others are of the same mind.

Friendships develop, and a secret society also develops within the Church.

♣ a seal

My experience

I can only speak of my experience. When I entered the Jesuits in the early 1980s, maybe a quarter or a third of the entrants were gay (that I knew of). The gays didn’t bother me, and it really wasn't a gay culture. (On the other hand, the yuppie, passive-aggressive, extremely political culture bothered me a lot.) Some of my gay friends admitted that they went into religious life, thinking that once they had taken a vow of celibacy, their sexuality didn’t matter. If you weren’t going to have sex anyway, it no longer mattered if you wanted to have sex with other men. They all eventually admitted that their sexuality wasn’t something they could ignore. They had to address it. Now, not to brag about my former order, but the Jesuits had plenty of resources available to help guys deal with their sexuality. The Jesuits are filled with psychologists, and since Jesuits give retreats all the time, they have to be trained in spiritual counseling.

That wasn’t true for most of the regular parish priests, in my time. The ordinary diocesan priests were given comparatively little training, and some of the young guys were simply pushed out of the seminary and had to make it on their own. That’s how it was for many years. In some ways, it's no wonder why some of the regular parish priests turned out to be so "damaged."

The abuse scandal has changed some of it. Regular priests are being given more attention. Now, how much, and how effective it is … I don’t know. Time will tell.   

KC!!!

Now here is a valid argument!  Nice.

It's more original than what I've been hearing.

It's reasonably delivered too.  Love the rhetoric jab. 

All I'm missing are names and numbers for this demographic.  Maybe an outside article that sets up all the individuals accused and connects the dots. 

I don't care if it's from a "Pro-Catholic" or "Anti-Catholic" site either, as long as the verifiable info is there.

And even if you can't find it right off the bat, I'll keep it in mind and keep an eye out for something fitting this theory in the future.

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Thanks, trach

For the hard statistics of the point about the pre-Vatican II priests, I’ll cite the report commissioned by the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference, done by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. (I'm not a statistician myself, and don't claim to be. But this is what someone sent me.)

One thing to note – according to this study, the incidents rose to a frightening peak between the years 1970 and 1980. Then it drops off dramatically. Anyway, say a priest takes about eight years to go through the seminary and find himself out in the world. Give another five to ten years before a predator priest feels ‘safe” enough to begin abusing kids. That means that the abusers were likely accepted into the seminary about 15-20 years before the abuse cases start happening. Given that the incidents reached a peak in the late 1970s, that suggests that the abusing priests were all accepted in the late 1950s or early 1960s.

What’s interesting to me is that the cases start declining dramatically for priests accepted right after Vatican II. During Vatican II, the church adopted a much more modern attitude toward sexuality, in a variety of ways. (No one said it was a more promiscuous approach, just modern.) I’m thinking that maybe the more adult attitude toward human sexuality helped stop the dark side, almost as a side effect.

Guess who was one of the driving forces at Vatican II, and who championed the shift in church attitudes? John Paul II!

Great read.  Glad I

Great read.  Glad I checked back on this.  Thanks KC! 

-PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Question here

What are Maher's ratings?  I know of no one that watches his show.  Or is this something along the lines of Sirius where ratings don't matter - only subscribers.

And speaking of subscribers - is HBO losing theirs?

Just wondering.

Bringin' me in...

Dizzy,

If his ratings were through the roof and one of your leaders told you to watch him- You'd be the first to grab the popcorn...Oh, wait a minute...they let you watch the YouTube video without paying HBO for it. Great Comedy! Sheer Irony! Your masters just told you, "Don't look at Bill Maher, don't you dare watch him! Ok, go ahead watch him and then comment!"

Just like watching "girls gone wild" tidbits and videos on FoxNewsChannel- NBers favorite "go to" show for the latest on dirty, naughty skanks. Who needs HBO's Cathouse 2 or RealSex? Anyone ready to go see the "Puppetry of the Penis"! Here's the link...

http://en.wikipedia....

Anyone have a "wristwatch"? Probably not on this site!

Syrius


 

Ummm...

The thing is, I force myself to watch Bill Maher for the sole purpose of staying informed.  If that means that I have to be informed of Bill Maher's complete lack of intellectual or political *acumen* (shout out!!), then so be it.  At least I'm hip to the current wave of insults being vomitted by Maher and his followers.  And sometimes the show could border on being funny...if the topics weren't always the Catholic Church, George Bush, and the military.  Gosh if I were to be so astute as to make an Obama-like observation...but Bill Maher and Keith Olberman use the same routine, no?  What are they going to do when President Bush is out of office?  Is the WHOLE show gonna be about the plague that is Christianity?

So, of course, you come here with no commentary on the content of his show.  Must we endlessly board this carousel of ignorance?  Bill Maher, like someone has brilliantly pointed out already, is a "professional" mocker.  He stands for nothing.  He defends nothing.  He believes in nothing...except himself and his day to day quest for hedonistic satisfaction.  Does he mock Islam on his show?  No, he's afraid.  Does he mock Imams on his show?  No, he's afraid.  His whole show is just a sad metaphor for the cancer that his ideology spreads.

 

"Professional" mocker?

jpatch,

"What are they going to do when President Bush is out of office?"

REJOICE!!!

"Is the
WHOLE show gonna be about the plague that is Christianity?"
...Maybe, you do know...

"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."-P.J. O'Rourke

He's a comedian. Waaaa, waaaa, waaaah!

Syrius

"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott

 

You seem to have taken an

You seem to have taken an extra dose of douche pills today.

Have a rough weekend?

 

Daddy, when I grow up, can I be a mocker?

Mockery. That’s what Maher does for a living. He mocks people. He mocks politicians who disagree with him. He mocks religion, for any number of reasons. (It’s revealing, though, that the moment he starts on religion, it’s always about sex. What does that tell you?) He doesn’t offer reasons. He simply smirks, and tosses off a handy slogan. He runs from debate. Oh, he invites an occasional conservative on his show, but when he’s actually in front of a conservative, he’s completely intimidated. Not only that, whenever the conservative makes a point, Maher throws out a slogan to the crowd (which is packed, naturally, with people who think that hooting and hollering counts as political discourse).  

Ask yourself. When you were a kid, did you want to grow up to be a mocker? Other kids wanted to be firefighters, or soldiers, or doctors … but did you know anyone who wanted to mock people for a living? Sure you did. He was the kid who wanted to be popular by putting others down.

We had a name for those kids. Punks. (Ok, we had several other names for them also …)