Friday, May 22, 2009

Donohue employs a violently deviated Clinton defence

Mr. Donohue, this is to you personally.

You have your own platform. Explain how any of this:
Regarding sexual abuse, “kissing,” and “non-contact including voyeurism” (e.g., what it labels as “inappropriate sexual talk”) make the grade as constituting sexual abuse. Moreover, one-third of the cases involved “inappropriate fondling and contact.” None of this is defensible, but none of it qualifies as rape. Rape, on the other hand, constituted 12 percent of the cases. As for the charge that “Irish Priests” were responsible, some of the abuse was carried out by lay persons, much of it was done by Brothers, and about 12 percent of the abusers were priests (most of whom were not rapists).
Qualifies as something acceptable from a person in a position of religious authority, regardless of their hierarchal status in your so-called Holy order.


You included, buckwheat!!!!!

Explain it, you sick sonofabitch!

In the name of the God you so claim to defend, (sorry, you only defend a "church"), you have just made the exploitation of children acceptable, priest or not, and you have ignored that it all happened in that same corrupt establishment you call a "church".

I hope Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan have the opportunity to watch your nuts fry on a barbeque.

No comments: