The sleazy saga of disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley keeps introducing characters we really don’t want to know.
Such as this retired priest (in photo), and his revelationsthat he had intimate contact with an underage Foley in the mid-’60s. The apparently unrepentant priest described his relationship with the 12-year-old altar boy as "light touching" and a bit of nudity — except for that time when booze and tranquilizers got the better of him, which he really can’t recall.
The priest, now living out his golden years on a Maltese island, also noted wistfully that issues such as molestation and sexual harassment are "in the eye of the beholder." Right. The priest and the altar boy: just another May-September romance.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- Daniel on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Daniel on Open thread 11/8
- sursum on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Death penalty review promised
- DavidB on Open thread 11/8
- Phantom on So they said
- Phantom on Roberts already wants a fourth term
46 Comments
Matters not one whit. Doesn’t excuse Foley in the least.
And this priest has rationalization issues all his own. “. . .in the eye of the beholder.” Right.
can someone please tell me why sick perverts seem to always pop up in positions of authority?
senatorpriest
*shivers*
Sure, Will, that’s easy. Those in positions of authority have the upper hand.
If you read the comments of a few of the pages regarding Foley, they admitted that they didn’t tell him to take a hike because they were afraid of losing their position as a page. Priests and altar boys would be the same. As for other perverts, age is often the leverage.
There’s not much incentive for being an altar boy though, I mean you only get paid on fuderals and weddings, on sundays and weekday masses none of us even wanted to serve.
Please check the source of your photo!! An innocent man’s photo was mistakenly published as the priest:http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003285992http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
Thank you.
>can someone please tell>me why sick perverts seem>to always pop up in>positions of authority?
>Sure, Will, that’s easy.>Those in positions of>authority have the upper>hand.
That didn’t answer his question.
>Matters not one whit.>Doesn’t excuse Foley>in the least.
What gets me is the people who will condemn one and defend another on the very same issues based only on who’s political party they represent.
Good point rox. I think that the numbers are probably the same in and out of power positions; however the person in power can use that power to intimidate.
For example – if I referred to roxanne as being a ‘fox’ and tried to follow up she could simply smack me and that would end it. However, if i were her boss the situation gets VERY different.
Maybe in this case it’s because Christians are so easily seduced by power and authority?
If I were her boss and said she was looking very attractive, wouldn’t that be something to look into?
Bill,
If you feel that way, then perhaps we’re interpreting Will’s statement in different ways. I’m curious to know how you interpretted it.
Ben, good point!
Actually, as a woman, if a boss told me that I was looking attractive, I wouldn’t necessarily take that as a sexual or even a sexist comment. If that was the comment, and nothing else, it wouldn’t be a big deal.
rox – I agree. I use my own test for comments: how would I feel if a man said that to my wife? “That suit looks nice on you” – a nice complement in my view. The real key in my comment above was “following up on it”.
I remember in employment law we discussed this issue at length. I don’t think any of us want a sterile workplace where human interaction is squelched. As one female co-worker said, if she tole me that I looked good today should that be a problem? NO! (I told her she would have to get new glasses!)
Will
GET PAID? I guess I got screwed, I never got paid!(no pun intended)
can someone please tell me why sick perverts seem to always pop up in positions of authority?
senatorpriest
Why else would you spend millions for a six figure a year job or take a vow or poverity for life?
it does not matter.
what he did is still sick and the COVER UP is even worse. The republican party of corruption needs to GO
This whole sordid affair is just a reflection of the decline in morals in modern american society. Pedophiles come in all walks of life. With the push to bring homosexuality into the mainstream alot more of this will come out. Now lets stir it up. The Catholic church has condoned this behavior in the past and now they just cover it up and pay off the victims. Foley will say and do anything to justify his behavior.
The only cure for Pedophilia is the death penalty.
C’mon Pam…you are the queen of the sweeping generalization!
Morals in decline…Homosexual/pedophile direct correlation…Catholic Church condoning pedophile priests.
Bobbed Hair, Rock&Roll…those were supposed to be moreal declines as well. Puleez.
Some (More than some, even) Catholic Church officials are indeed guilty of your accusations…and they should be double punished. But to say “the Catholic Church condones” is just…flat out wrong and prejudice in it’s purest form.
As to your main point…
“Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
This is just a sample of medical/psychological evidence relative to their being no link between the two behaviors. Exceptions, of course…like everything
I happen to (emotionally, anyway) agree with applying some midieval rehab to pedophiles. As far as homosexuals are concerned, not my dance, but who cares, last time I checked they haven’t messed up my or my family’s life.
But your assertion about the correlation is ignorant BS.
My mistake…my ire was directed at ictsux…not the delightful Pam
• “The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching.” — Assyrian tablet, c. 2800 BC
I think it would be interesting to study and understand why pedophiles are drawn to the priesthood. That vocation seems to have more than it’s share of perverts. Anyone have any ideas as to why this is so?
My guess Mary – and it’s a sad one:
A person realizes he has gay inclinations but has been inculcated with the belief that it is inherently evil. So, he tries to “stuff it” be being celibate and goes to the Priesthood where he hopes faith can control his instincts. It doesn’t work and manifests itself pathologically.
I think that also has relevance to Foley: he exists in the “right” where they say that being gay is evil. He closets it deeply but that doesn’t work. It then manifests itself pathologically.
I also think there is a desire to get caught. Some time ago I posted a link to a psychologists comments saying much the same thing.
I would contrast that with, for example Barney Frank who openly has relationships – WITH ADULTS. Or a certain female blogger here who has referenced her “significant other” – presumably also adult. In my opinion that is not pathological – nobody is being exploited.
Being homosexual and in the closet I can understand, but most pedophiles are not gay. It seems strange that a priest would be sexually attracted to a child more than another adult. I think it’s a pathology that needs to be studied more in order to understand it better than we do.
Mary – I suspect that whether it is homo or hetero the fact that it is closeted and suppressed leads to pathology.
Disclaimer: I am definitely NOT in any way a professional in this area – this is only supposition.
The one thing I do know is that those who lack internal impulse control often seek external ways to control their behavior. That’s why they’re more drawn to fundamentally strict environments, cultures, and religions.
NAMBLA is supported by the ACLU.Fred Phelps is also supported by the ACLU.Raj Goyle is a former employee of the ACLU.Raj Goyle is sending out all kinds of mail pretending to care about children and claiming that he can “stop” Fred Phelps.Political opportunism at its worst!—–Many prominent Democrats have supported NAMBLA:http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2006/col20061012.asp
Hey Prollie Paul!
I’ve missed your softball posts.
Rush Limbaugh was ALSO defended by the ACLU!
I SAY AGAIN:
Former Florida Rep. Mark Foley’s biggest mistake was being a Republican. If he was only a Democrat, he could still be in congress. He would only have to accept a censure, receive a standing ovation from his fellow Democrats and continue to be voted back in at each election. Newspapers across the country would come to his defense. If only he was a Democrat.
You gotta point there, WryTangle.
The Democrats haven’t run on the “let’s all hate gays” ticket.
It’s the hypocrisy, not just the offense.
Paul–The ACLU-Raj Goyle connection is the only hope that Bonnie Huy’s got.
I can understand why you’re spamming the WEBlog and the LTTE with it.
If only she’d actually done something worth running on in the last six years in the legislature, your shilling would be a lot easier.
Alas, she hasn’t.
But she did embarrass herself when she asked the KU president why Ann Coulter got hit in the face with a pie when she spoke there.
Turned out, Ann Coulter hadn’t been hit with a pie there. Different college, oops.
What a maroon . . .
Well THERE”S rightie! We haven’t seen you in awhile.
The best you got is a talking point? “Look at the Dems?” Weak “right” quite weak.
And look at Foley arch conservative who belonged to many arch conservative organizations along with our own Todd Tiahrt.
Isn’t it one of the basics of “conservatism” to demand personal responsibility even to the point of blaming victims? Well arch conservative Foley aint practicing that is he.
The leadership of the GOP kept his dirty little secret. And then when it was revealed?
Foley did what he did because uh……YEAH because he was GAY…..oh wait….it was because he was DRUNK!…..No that’s not quite it….He did it because he was molested at an early age! Yeah that’s the ticket!
Some party of personal responsibility, huh?
So NOW they get rid of their protected little pedophile AND they get to blame being gay on early childhood trauma AND they get to portray gays as pedophiles! This spin make ya positively dizzy!
Good point, JR.If Foley had been a democrat, the GOP would be foaming at the mouth with absolute glee.
Marymoon,Of course they would because Democrats are their political rivals. What’s your point?
If Foley had been a democrat, the GOP would be foaming at the mouth with absolute glee.
Posted by: Mary Caruso | October 22, 2006 at 09:13 AM
Just like the democrats are now!
Hey Ben, My wallchart of world history has the Assyrian Empire starting at 1900 bc. Can you footnote you 2800bc quote for me?
Will and RA, My point is that the right, the left, the GOP, the Democrats, both are just two sides to the same coin. Most resonable people fall into the middle somewhere. All the slings and arrows from both sides just distract and take energy away from the real issues. I’m sick of being stereotyped by those of you who can only see left or right and black or white.
historybuff – unfortunately it is one of a whole buch of quotes I came across doing an internet search for another quote. Cannot really vet it. I have seen a number of quotes about “today’s kids” going back “forever”
;^)
RA – too bad buddy. Your rightie talking heads have been playing their moral superiority BS for so long you guys deserve whatever you get. By the way, why should Rush Limbaugh have any need for Viagra? He isn’t married. He isn’t a fornicator is he?
Hey Paul, the Rev. Jerry Falwell was also “represented by the ACLU. You obviously have NO IDEA as to what the ACLU does. The ONLY thing they do is take on cases involving the first ten amendments, otherwise known as the “Bill of Rights”.
I happen to be a card carrying member of the ACLU and my question to you is why aren’t you? And just because a lawyer or law organization represents a client in court, in no way means that they agree with client or the client’s views.
http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html
dave – you have to understand that in Paul’s little GOP world anyone who works to guaruntee constitutional rights to someone he doesn’t like is evil. He feels the same way about a defense attorney who represents someone he disagrees with.
“He isn’t a fornicator is he?”
Posted by: Ben Huie | October 22, 2006 at 07:48 PM
No, Ben, I have never heard of him having “criminal” intercourse with the other sex. But I suspect that he is a normal male who just wanted to be prepared in case he got too frendly with a Democrat female. :)
Fornicator \For”ni*ca`tor\, n. [F. fornicateur, OF. fornicator,from L. fornicator.]An unmarried person, male or female, who has criminalintercourse with the other sex; one guilty of fornication.
Hey dave,
I know you are new. Let me introduce you better to Paul.
Paul has been busted on so many distortions, half-truths, and outright lies that we have lost count. His FAVORITE support links are from Ann Coulter but he once attempted to win an arguement with a link to a chat room!
By the way? Did you notice Mr. Rosell did not even address the subject of this thread but instead tried a re-direct to attack Raj Goyle? See that is not surprising. The Foley story scares the hell outta Paul. He wouldn’t even touch a Foley thread for more than 2 weeks. He was waiting for orders. Probably he still is.
Most of us believe that Paul is a “proll” or a paid poster. Watch him a bit and you’ll likely decide the same.
So don’t worry too much about Paul. He is mostly the forum idiot. He is the epitome of a depthless neocon shill. If he didn’t post here, we’d probably have to make him up.
Next? Paul will show up (maybe) to whine that I treat him unfairly.
What a shill you must be, too, JR! It’s okay, go ahead and admit it, as no sincere, thinking person could hold the views that you do, be so sanctiminous and self-righteous, and be so hateful, all at the same time. Is this an example of the tolerance of the left?
Hey, look everybody, it’s the random numbers and letters troll, here with a cheap hit-and-run.
You call it “hitting hard,” I call it “hardly hitting.”
Run away now lxw45389 or whoever you are next time . . .
Aww the games afoot!
Nice email addy ya got there “we”. Now who are you REALLY? I mean since you seem to KNOW me and all? Are you Paul hiding out?
My first accusation of being a shill “we”. And it comes from a little person hiding in the dark.And then other shots came in from the dark.
I’m not sincere? First I’ve had that one too.
I’m not a thinking person? Clearly I think differently than you do…..IF you do.
Sanctimonious? With Paul yeah. Hard not to be given his history here. Self righteous? How so? Hateful? Yup. I hate liars and manipulators.
“Is this an example of the tolerance of the left?” No not really. I dislike Paul and I admit it. I should be nice to him anyway? I’m weak. Sorry. Is YOUR post an example of the courage, honesty and integrity of the right?
Come on back “we”. Wear your real nic next time.
I’m so proud. I’ve got my first little snivelling troll.
Yup . . . that’s how you know you’re scoring, when they troll you, heh heh.
So Ben,Is my wall chart wrong or right on the 1900 bc thing? I mean, if you misspoke it is good to admit…..publicly, as in the same forum in which the misinformation was spread……right?Yes, I speak of things beyond ancient Assyria.