The controversy swirling around Rick in the past week has focused on his remarks blaming liberals and the city of Boston for the Catholic Church's clergy sexual abuse scandal. But Rick has had even more to say about this than what the Philadelphia Daily News unearthed from the Catholic Online website.
Two years ago, in 2003, an Associated Press reporter asked him to clarify his original remarks about Boston. Once again, Rick stood by them, then went on to say this:
"In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it."
Post-pubescent men? Is Rick saying once a boy hits puberty he is an adult? Is he saying that 12, 13 and 14 year old boys who were molested by trusted authority figures were not actually raped but engaging in a "basic homosexual relationship"?
Wow. Does that mean that if a middle-aged man (or, for that matter, a 21 year old man) engaged in a sexual relationship with a 12, 13 or 14 year old girl, Rick would consider that a basic heterosexual relationship? Is he familiar with statutory rape laws, and why those exist?
Once again, in this interview, Rick takes the culpability for sexual abuse off the abuser-priests -- as if teenaged boys who were molested had some say in the matter, or possibly even consented (12, 13, 14 year olds!) to sexual relationships with the priests who were preying on their trust, vulnerability and innocence.
It is insensitive for Rick to blame liberals or Bostonians for priests who molest children. But,
it is absolutely unconscionable to place any responsibility at all on the children that were victims of this horrifying abuse.
Sign this petition and tell Rick to apologize publicly for his appalling insensitivity.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall if one of Rick's teenage kids ever got molested by their minister!
He distains public schools. He does not even know basic child abuse laws and his wife is an attorney.
Democrats have an obligation to expose this idiot.
When will the people of Penn. wake up?
(Let's just say he's making this personal.)
Does Santorum actually equate a consensual gay relationship amongst peers to be the same as a cooercive relationship involving sexual abuse between adults and children? Hmmmm. I think I just figured out who the real pervert is.
/santorum
Pennsylvania laid the biggest turd ever with this guy.
You have a deal, we promise. Please let your friends know about us too.
Think about his offensive blather in light of that little fact.
Granted, you have NAMBLA and other radical, fringe groups that believe this, but he's claiming the pro-pederast view is so widespread in the Boston area that it's considered normal. Even among social conservatives you usually don't hear that sort of garbage; the worst most of them will say is that current attitudes will eventually lead to acceptance of pedophilia.
What a Santorum.
http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/
dude is weird
P.S. I read that his director of communications, who was just outed as gay, says he and Rick have been together for 8 years and he stands behind him. Are these people for real?
God what a self-righteous idiot!
True, guys think about sex ever few seconds, or at least that's the popular view. In my experience it sure is close. But when most guys think about sex all day long, it doesn't involve boys or dogs or whatever, it's simply two adults getting it on. Santorum's public statements force one to conclude that his sexual fantasies do not always involve two or even several consenting adults. The guy's a perv.
Yet another case of someone preaching pious sex to the masses in an effort to pass himself off as being sexually pure and moral beyond question, and convincing all the voters and probably even himself of his purity, when in reality the guy is a raging pervert about to lose control.
A hundred times I've heard people expound this craziness. When I have the opportunity to argue, I ask them, "If God did not exist, would you go on a rampage?" to which they often reply, "Yes indeed I would; but God does exist, so I don't. But you, however, evidently you disbelieve in God, so my working assumption is that you are even now trembling on the threshold of an abominable crime spree. Lord help us! Run, women and children, run! If only all your type could be jailed or executed! Someday, someday..."
2.) ...it's "pseudo-Christianity" in light of the Parable of the Samaritan.
Many instances of such scapegoating in the past have been very unfortunate occurrences, to say the least, for various minority groups throughout history. Horrible atrocities have ensued when governments target a group for political gain or distraction.
We as a society must know by now that this kind of behavior is wrongheaded and dangerous.
Never again.
...ya gotta remember, this is a guy who saw nothing wrong with keeping his dead baby around home for a while.
How many kids does this guy have again? Six?
"If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it."
He's trying to conflate consensual adult sexual activity with an adult having sex with a minor who is legally and developmentally unable to consent. He's saying, "Well, Massachusetts is so friendly to gay people, what else can they expect?" He's either too stupid to tell the difference between a predator preying on children and two adults doing as they please, or he's counting on at least some people who also hate gays being that stupid.
Now, this doesn't make his comment any less offensive. He's putting this revolting position into the mouths of his opponents. But understand – he's not saying he thinks this. He's saying WE think this. That's almost worse.
In your description, "He's either too stupid to tell the difference between a predator preying on children and two adults doing as they please, or he's counting on at least some people who also hate gays being that stupid."
He is saying that people who believe that homosexuals have the right to consensual adult relationships shouldn't be surprised that those relationships lead to pedophilia. However, in saying that, he is demonstrating that he believes the two are basically the same.
A middle-aged person with a 13 year old is undesirable, but a 13 year old playing with a 14 year old does not seem to me like it should be a crime.
I do wonder, though, if he'd feel the same way if what happened to me happened to one of his children. I feel sorry for them with him as their dad.
In fact, just today the Post-Gazette ran an editorial blasting him for his Boston remarks. Pittsburgh is embarrassed by this fool!
by the way, I dig this website. It's great ammo, baby. Lock 'n load...
I look back on it with shame.
However does he also think that pedophile rape among Christian clergy is limited solely to the Catholic brand of Christianity?
And does he also think that Catholocism _isn't_ Christianity?
I ask because very often the first mistaken notion -- that homosexual equals pedophile -- is very often also accompanied by the notion that Catholics aren't Christian and that only Catholics have epidemic -- or nearly pandemic -- pedophile problems.
www.myspace.com/santorum