Catholic League Sets About Redefining Rape

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.William Donohue, President of the Catholic League has posted what is most assuredly his most sickening piece to date, no small feat for a man who once said:

"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."

But in Straight Talk About The Catholic Church Donohue sets about spinning the Catholic Church's record on child molestation and harboring of pedophile Priests. And this piece has it all. It's a virtual word salad of excuse-making and finger-pointing.

Also, no one got raped.
They're just a bunch of old cases:

80 percent of the cases of alleged abuse involve incidences that occurred before 2000.

And it was just Priests who got all caught up in that sexual revolution that we tried to warn you about:

most of the abuse occurred during the heyday of the sexual revolution, from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s.

There's obfuscation, the Church is the real victim, "because too often bishops have been quick to settle" they encourage fraud:

When $225,000 is dished out to a Michigan man who claims he was abused in the 1950s by a priest who died in 1983-and the diocese admits the accusation is unsubstantiated-it encourages fraud.

There's antisemitism, of course, that's a favorite topic for Donohue:

Why are priests being singled out when the sexual abuse of minors among other segments of the population is on-going today? ...there has been a slew of stories over the past few years detailing the extent of this problem in the Orthodox Jewish community; some rabbis still insist that sexual abuse cases should be handled internally.

And those pop psychologists, it's their fault we shuttled Priests from parish to parish, from country to country:

How often has the Church been ripped for following the advice of psychiatrists who thought they could "fix" molesters?

We didn't know what the law was:

Mandatory reporting of sexual crimes is not uniform in law or practice. In New York State, several attempts to blanket the clergy and other professionals have been met with resistance.

Once again, the Church is the victim:

What accounts for the relentless attacks on the Church? Let's face it: if its teachings were pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and pro-women clergy, the dogs would have been called off years ago.

Don't forget those cursed, heathen comedians:

The assault on priests as child abusers has become a staple in the arsenal of Jay Leno, Bill Maher, Denis Leary, George Lopez, "The View" panelists, and others.

Besides, isn't that Joy Behar Jewish? But the pi?ce de r?sistance comes here:

The refrain that child rape is a reality in the Church is twice wrong: let's get it straight-they weren't children and they weren't raped. We know from the John Jay study that most of the victims have been adolescents, and that the most common abuse has been inappropriate touching (inexcusable though this is, it is not rape). The Boston Globe correctly said of the John Jay report that "more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia." In other words, the issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia. When the National Review Board, a group of notable Catholics, issued its study in 2004, the team's chief, attorney Robert S. Bennett, said that "any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature."

Yep. Blame the gays. He's been saying this for awhile. Commonweal magazine fact-checked Donohue's claims about the John Jay study almost a year ago:

First, John Jay researchers did not measure the pubescence of victims. They collected two sets of data about victims. One, the "Cleric Survey," recorded the victims in the following age groups: 1-7, 8-10, 11-14, and 15-17. Researchers presumed that victims aged 11 to 14 were postpubescent; according to the Cleric Survey, 50.9 percent of victims were aged 11 to 14. That's why on page 56 of the "Nature and Scope" study the researchers claim that "the majority of alleged victims were postpubescent." It's not clear to me why John Jay would make that claim, given that researchers didn't collect data on victims' pubescence and that the DSM-IV defines a pedophile as someone with recurrent sexual desires for prepubescent children "generally aged 13 or younger." The American Pediatric Society actually says that for males the onset of puberty-not its conclusion-usually occurs between the ages of 10 and 14. So why would John Jay presume that victims between 11 and 14 years of age were postpubescent? What's more, according to the Cleric Survey, nearly 73 percent of victims were 14 or younger.

Words fail. Some people just need to go away. Homophobic rape apologists to the front of the line, please.