Santorum Blames Liberals for Pedophile Priests

Santorum Blames Liberals for Pedophile Priests January 6, 2012

Just how whacked is Rick Santorum? Whacked enough to blame pedophilia by Catholic priests, protected from the police for decades by the church he belongs to, on liberals and “moral relativism.” He even thinks it’s hypocritical for liberals to criticize priests for raping children because they favor sexual freedom for adults:

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning “private” moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

There’s nothing at all “startling” about it. Those who think the government has no business telling consenting adults what they can do sexually obviously do not believe that any adult should be allowed to rape a child, under any circumstances. And as Andrew Sullivan points out, those pedophile priests in Boston were protected by Cardinal Law, who is about as theologically and politically conservative as it gets (and who not only is not in prison — where he belongs after aiding and abetting the rape of hundreds of children — he’s got a high-ranking position in the Vatican).

"Wait now - "More specifically, Jezebel turns men into 'emotionally castrated males' and she defeminizes ..."

That Darn Jezebel Spirit Again
"I was thinking more along the lines of DarkMatter2525, a feminized and shortened version of ..."

Taylor Thinks ‘Bully Pulpit’ is a ..."
"Satan's pastors?Like Ozzy or Dio?Sweet."

Taylor Thinks ‘Bully Pulpit’ is a ..."
"This is what Trump thought the Green New Deal was."

Trump Asks Aides to Look Into ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Reginald Selkirk

    He even thinks it’s hypocritical for liberals to criticize priests for raping children because they favor sexual freedom for adults

    He just doesn’t seem to have the intellectual voltage to understand “consenting adults.”

  • daved

    It’s a minor point, but Law no longer has that high-ranking position at the Vatican. He just passed the mandatory retirement age. He’s still a Cardinal, but he’s out of that job. Also, once past the retirement age, cardinals are no longer allowed to vote when electing the next pope. Just heard this on the radio recently.

    Oh, and I agree entirely that he should be in jail for covering up, and abetting, the sexual predator priests around Boston.

  • anteprepro

    Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture.

    Objective Christian morality, where oh where did you go?

  • cptdoom

    It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning “private” moral matters such as alternative lifestyles.

    Remember, it’s “moral relativism” if you think adults should be left alone by churches to which they don’t belong. It’s “moral leadership” to conduct the largest criminal conspiracy in the history of humanity, one the stretched across decades (if not centuries) and national boundries to involve the entire Church. Not only was Bernard Law protected by the Church – he was given a cushy post at the Vatican, complete with diplomatic immunity – until the last couple of months, not one of the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops or Auxilliary Bishops (including Mr. Ratzinger, the current head of the church) has ever been held morally or legally accountable for the obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, payments of hush money, fraud and aiding and abetting of rapists that has occurred (IIRC, one Bishop has been indicted, but not yet convicted).

    Funny, it seems to me that the Church is helping create the morally vacuous society against which it claims to be fighting.

  • He doesn’t understand consent because it isn’t a concept in Christian marriage. Women submit, they don’t consent. Women don’t want sex they give it to the male.

  • Tualha

    Gee, Rick, I think maybe those wacky Boston liberals understand the difference between consensual acts between adults, which harm no one, and non-consensual rape of a child, which harms the hell out of the child. Which is more than you understand, apparently.

    Posted the same thing to the source, but somehow I doubt we’ll see it there. Not “civil” enough. Of course Mr. Frothy can be as uncivil as he likes toward people the church disapproves of.

  • Odd thinking from a man that is parroting the Vatican.s enabling philosophy. I would be curious to see him make use of this defense for the pedaphile Priests of Lafayette, IN that appeared briefly in the news. Is Santorum a Donahue bot?

  • anteprepro

    I just don’t understand this defense. Liberals say “sexual freedom” and the celibate priests of an institution who opposes this mild idea hear “freedom to rape”, and, despite prohibitions against sex in general as well as the utter lack of warrant for child rape in the advocacy for sexual liberation, take the distorted message in their own head to heart. Perhaps, if this scenario were even anywhere resembling reality, the apologists would do better for chastising the priests for their complete and utter inability to understand what “sexual freedom” means, in addition to the galling fact that these bastions of morality performed more horrible deeds under the influence of this supposed “moral relativism” than the majority of the actual people who were actively promoting “moral relativism”. But, I suppose that would mean that the apologists weren’t just looking for a boogeyman to blame the failings of their priests on and were intellectually honest individuals. Which is almost less believable than their idiotic blame game itself.

  • a miasma of incandescent plasma

    …it is no surprise that Boston… lies at the center of the storm.

    The Vatican moved to Boston??

    Add “culture” to the list of things that can overwhelm god’s omnipotence, along with iron chariots, malaria, and the Chief’s defense.

  • One of the earliest popes had tastes that would have made Caligula go “WTF?!” Guess that was the fault of modern liberals as well.

    “Alexander VI was so notoriously infamous and his history so large and well known that he has proved a great embarrassment to the modern Church vainly trying to portray a pious papal past. He has a unique record among the popes for the public prominence of his illegitimate children and the blatancy of his amours in the “Sacred Palace”. With his 12 bastard children (Collins Dictionary), including Cesare, Giovanni (Juan), Lucrezia and Jofre, and his numerous mistresses, the “Vatican was again a brothel” (The Records of Rome, 1868, British Library) and his debauched papal court was compared to the ancient “fleshpots” of Caesarea in which St Augustine (d. 430) revelled. Alexander VI was a sexual pervert, and lurid stories were bandied about by the intellectual underworld of Rome.

    “It was claimed that Alexander VI had sex with Lucrezia (1480-1519), his daughter by Rosa Vannozza dei Cattanei. One wit of Rome called Lucrezia “the pope’s daughter, wife and daughter-in-law”, and he reportedly fathered “nieces” with her (A History of the Popes, ibid.). It is not worth serious enquiry here whether he had two or three children with Lucrezia, as most acknowledge, but other aspects of his conduct must be noted. ” — http://one-evil.org/people/people_15c_Alexander_VI.htm

  • Blondin

    Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected.

    He’s just toeing the Vatican party line.

  • d cwilson

    This is actually a fairly common tact taken by many catholic apologists. Remember, the church is perfect and infallible, therefore, it couldn’t possibly be at fault for all the boy-raping. It has to be because it was infiltrated by liberals and homosexuals.

    It just has to be.

    Santorum ups the ante here by pretending that the entire scandal was centered around the Boston diocese and ignoring the decades of abuse that have occured all over the world.

    Anyone see those “Come home” ads the Catholic Church is running on TV to encourage people to return? There’s one shot inside a church with mom and dad smiling as their kids run up and hug a priest.

    Pretty much says why the church wants families to come back right there.

  • raven

    Anyone see those “Come home” ads the Catholic Church is running on TV to encourage people to return?

    Isn’t going to work.

    In the last few years, the US Catholic church has lost 1/3 of its members, 22 million people.

  • Francisco Bacopa

    He doesn’t understand consent because it isn’t a concept in Christian marriage. Women submit, they don’t consent. Women don’t want sex they give it to the male.

    I was going to say something similar, but We Are Ing beat me to it.

    They don’t understand how something like consent could be the primary factor regulating sexual morality because they don’t have that well developed a sense of what consent is.

    It’s sure as hell clear that Santorum doesn’t understand it.

  • JustaTech

    So, let me get this straight. “Sexual freedom” by liberals began in, what, the 60’s? This means that the priests would have to have taken this to mean “rape children” immediately upon the very first utteration of this idea by a proto-hippie, for my relatives who went to Catholic school in the 60’s to have already been warned to avoid Father so-and-so and Sister what’s-her-name.

    (Actually, none of them have ever said anything about trouble with the priests, but at least one of the nuns was “creepy, even for a nun”.)

    It’s amazing that the idea of sexual freedom is capable of traveling back in time and re-writing the culture of the RCC. Or, Santorum is an idiot.

  • Rick Santorum smearing his own feces around. Who’s surprised?

  • Tualha

    Whoops – the other reason we won’t see my comment on the source is that the article is from 2002.

  • jjgdenisrobert

    Oh, so when my Dad was raped in the happy go-lucky, sexual-revolution-filled FIFTIES, it was because of Moral Relativism??? How about the moral relativism that calls an abortion a “miscarriage” (Santorum’s wife didn’t miscarry; the labor was induced because the pregnancy would have killed the mother) when it’s your wife, but murder when it’s someone else’s?

  • …cardinals are no longer allowed to vote when electing the next pope.

    Did Cardinal Law play any significant role in electing Pope Palpadict?

  • You can hardly blame those priests for succumbing to the wicked ways of our sexually charged and deviant culture. It’s not like they’re job is represent some sort of omnipotent being that makes moral demands on us or anything, or to tell others how they should and shouldn’t behave.

  • D. C. Sessions

    He just doesn’t seem to have the intellectual voltage to understand “consenting adults.”

    Why do you expect him to understand something totally outside of his own experience?

  • The “Catholics Come Home” ads are some of the most offensive I’ve ever seen, especially the one in the airplane hangar with people being shown guilt trip movies.

  • harold

    Also, once past the retirement age, cardinals are no longer allowed to vote when electing the next pope.

    And by the way, this is recent, and was put in place by the immediate prior pope, John Paul II. And the reason was to prevent the more liberal cardinals, many of whom were elderly veterans of the Vatican II era, from voting for his replacement

    One of the earliest popes had tastes that would have made Caligula go “WTF?!” Guess that was the fault of modern liberals as well.

    I’m always glad to see a Borgia reference, but I have to clarify a few things.

    1) Alexander VI was hardly and “early” pope. Early by Vatican standards would mean up to the fourth century AD. There had been popes for almost 1400 years before Alexander VI was elected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_VI

    2) It’s unlikely that he slept with his daughter, and his son Cesare was the real trouble maker, but he probably did behave somewhat like the fictional casts of The Sopranos or Sons of Anarchy, sleeping with attractive women whenever he felt like it and having adult enemies (who were similar to him) killed.

    3) Plenty of stuff that is as bad as or worse than anything Alexander VI ever did has gone on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_horrenda (note that this happened before the popes had moved to the Vatican).

  • I’m still hoping JPII will be held accountable.

    Pope Stephen VI had the body of the previous pope, Formosus, exhumed 9 months after his death to stand trial on a variety of charges leading to the invalidation of his election and all of his official acts. His corpse was seated in his throne and a mock trial was held. After his conviction, his fingers of consecration were amputated and he was posthumously excommunicated.

  • “…cardinals are no longer allowed to vote when electing the next pope.”

    I’m assuming you are talking about octogenarians here?

    I do believe that octogenarian Cardinals can be part of the preconclave meetings called general congregations. These are daily meetings in which the College of Cardinals prepares for the conclave and handles church business that must be attended to in between popes.

    An octogenarian cardinal who was steeped up to his holy ecclesiastical knee-britches in child abuse scandals in Ireland in the past, had this to say:

    “Even though (the over-80s) aren’t directly influencing the conclave, they do represent the church at large, and they can give others their insights based on their long experience,” said Cardinal Cahal Daly, retired archbishop of Armagh, Northern Ireland.”

    To think that this is coming from a Ccardinal who was an intellectual heavyweight, who presided over a series of sex abuse scandals, that rocked the Irish nation to its very foundations, just makes my blood curdle.

    Yeah, he returned to his first love, *philosophy* after he retired. Among his published works are Philosophy in Britain from Bradley to Wittgenstein and The Minding of Planet Earth, published in 2004.

    Erm…I daren’t say too much more, excepting, that it was such a pity that when it really mattered, he wasn’t more concerned about the philosophy of tortuous minds of folk, who, as tiny todlers suffered sexual abuse at the hands of *holy* men, on the most farthest point of Europe’s planet earth.

    The older, more experienced cardinals may even be sought out to offer advice, opinions or thoughts about what would be best for the future of the church. See what I mean…?

    Where in God’s name on planet earth were they, when the vulnerable lonely voices cried out in the wilderness? Nowhere – that is, if one doesn’t include the hopping on aeroplanes to escape from the part of planet earth, where the sex abuse was occuring, to the safe haven of Holy Planet Vatican.

  • eric

    I just don’t understand this defense.

    That’s because it doesn’t make sense. Its like saying Joe Bob in Kentucky hit his wife because some sheiks in Saudi Arabia say its okay to do so. Lots of different people think lots of bad things are okay – that doesn’t affect what you do unless you let it.

  • The Catholic Church has a pedophilia problem, has had that problem for decades (possibly centuries!), has actively covered it up in the past, and to this day has barely acknowledged that it’s a problem.

    And it’s all the fault of them damn hippies in the 60’s with their Free Love and Devil Weed and the liberalism just kept rolling from there.

    Does. Not. Compute.

  • dan4

    Santorum’s comment is kind of like a weird, right-wing inverse of Obama’s infamous “cling to their guns and Bible” comment (“Those Boston liberals, the ones who cling to their support of alternative lifestyles, are the cause of this scandal.”).

  • Pinky

    Santa’s Satan’s helpers (Liberals)made them do it.

    Variations on a theme.

  • laurentweppe

    Santorum claim are not surprising at all: for decades, the Holier Than Thou crowd claimed that sexual freedom for would lead to every act of depravity imaginable (hence the Gays=Child Molesters lie, hence the Gay marriage will lead to polygamy and animal rapes lie, etc…) and that all advocates of sexual freedom were of course depraved people whose sole goal was to make their limitless perversity legal. In fact, the term “la Gauche Pédophile” (I don’t think I need to translate) is still today part of the french far-right’s jargon.

    Of course, once people who were supposed to be the pillars of morality acording to the Holier Than Thou started to exhibite the very perversity they pretended to denounce, they needed to update the message: so of course “the liberals made them do it” would eventually become an excuse.

  • MikeMa

    The catholic church’s history of pedophilia and the covering up and protecting the abusers will continue it’s slow slide into mud. They could address the issue directly by turning over records and abusers and (maybe) most importantly, allow priests to marry.

    The celibacy thing has hurt the church throughout history with popes, cardinals and priests involved in all sorts of sex scandals. The whole history of celibacy in the church is built on hypocrisy. Today it engenders comedic criticism like, “these celibate men in dresses are telling us how and when to have sex”. Not a good thing for getting respect or building the trust of adherents.

    Religion will eventually fail completely but to broadcast that failure so insanely, Santorum and his catholic church are in deep trouble.

  • Pingback: Santorum Blames Liberals for Pedophile Priests | Dispatches from the Culture Wars | Fundamentally Flawed()

  • Late to the thread, but one anecdotal observation I think I should offer if I encounter an apologist like Santorum:

    Every liberal I’ve ever discussed the issue with was disgusted by the child molestation and called for more investigation and prosecution. They all wanted the child molesters and their accomplices brought to justice, and refuse to accept any excuses.

    There were people I’ve encountered who downplay the severity of the crimes, make excuses, shift the blame, or demand that priests be held to different legal standards than other people. They were uniformly conservative.

    Another line I’ve thought about giving out: “If you don’t know the profound, fundamental difference between same sex marriage and child molestation, you are a contributor to rape culture.”

  • Re:@25 Oops! My error… should have read ‘toddler’ and ‘occurring’. (Laptop is only 13 inches. Well, I suppose a bad tradesperson would blame its tools!

    @19 RB

    “Did Cardinal Law play any significant role in electing Pope Palpadict?”

    I’d surmise that he was not considered a very imperceptible figure in the whole patriarchal wretched blessed scenario, given his influential job status at the Vatican. Advocates for sex abuse victims criticised the late Pope John Paul II for giving Law the prestigious post after his mishandling of clergy sex abuse in Boston, which broke open the abuse scandals that shook the Catholic Church in the U.S. Law turned 80 so he’ll still probably be lurking around.

  • Pingback: free world()

  • Pingback: Newage Culture: An Overview | The Bronze Blog()