Commenters do tend to dislike my mentioning the Catholic sex scandals, and I understand that. Normally people who talk about that are doing it to attack Catholics.

My mind doesn’t work that way.

In fact the thinking this got me off on reminded me I used to get my ammunition reloaded at the Columbia Bible College.

If you are in serious intelligence work, and not a CIA bureaucrat, Bible Belt missionaries are good people to know. If you were in the African bush or a part of Bolivia where goat is a delicacy, the nearest white man is likely to be missionary.

But can you imagine someone in the Ivy-League-run CIA bureaucracy lowering himself to go to a local Bible College to get information and basics from the only people who go into those areas on their own?

I needed information and I went to where it was.

The New York Times had a black reporter who was making up his stories. Like the black woman on the Washington Post who was making up her feature stories, nothing was done until, being black, they were inevitably offered a major award, in her case the Pulitzer.

In each case, when a major award was being offered and a giant scandal threatened, the editors suddenly declared the black was lying. The probability that they didn’t know it before is zero.

In fact, the story at the New York Times actually quoted memos over several months about this black star reporter who made up his stuff and what to do about it.

But the fiction was maintained that nobody knew about it then.

I can’t help it if the same leftists who scream about the Catholic sex scandal have this case of total Double Think where liberal newspapers are concerned. I do not believe that a newspaper, whose whole job is finding out facts, can be unaware that some of its major reporters are making it up.

By exactly the same estimate, I do not believe that any Catholic bishop could be unaware that other bishops were shifting deviates around.

But another basic fact about this whole thing has been ignored, one which liberals are as anxious to avoid as any conservative is. The Church has repeatedly stated that it did allow the deviates to run wild, and it stated flatly that the reason it did that was that it was following the expert line, the Mommy Professor line, that the deviate should be treated and not rejected.

The Church has pointed out, REPEATEDLY, that it was following the Social Expert Line of the last generation, the Liberal Line that let rapists go out repeatedly, that said that Society was responsible for the “so-called criminals.”

That is exactly what DID happen. That is what the Church SAID happened.

But I have yet to hear one single person who gets upset at me for getting angered about the whole thing even MENTION this aspect of it.

On boy molestation, the Church keeps pointing out that it did exactly what Mommy Professor said it should do. All I get is people bitching about MY saying that the Church did EXACTLY what the Church SAID it did.

If one gets out of this respectable conservative defensive mode, seeing what actually happened, what the bishops and the Pope SAY happened, is the best denunciation of giving over one’s morality to Mommy Professor that anyone could imagine.

But, damn it, this is the kind of thinking that respectable conservatives get PAID to avoid.

Be it the New York Times or the Vatican, my approach is, within the bounds of being human, as consistent as I can make it.

And only because I am so consistent I see the REAL lesson here, which some of our best commenters missed badly.

For the POPE to say that he was led into something hideous because he gave up his morality to Mommy Professor, and for BUGS commenters to say we should not touch this is, let’s say, a bit disappointing to me.

But then again, it shows me once again that, no matter how good you are getting, sometimes you still need the Old Man to point to the crux of the matter.