Are the Bishops Moving the Goalposts?

Surely, you meant extreme moderates?
.
Opposition to abortions of convenience, and legally enshrined prohibition of federal funding of such, is neither extreme, nor religious. It is nothing less than reasonable and moral. It is only in the perverse milieu of the "anything goes" 21st century that such notions could be perceived as extreme.

Gunny-
It's intriguing that someone such as yourself, often a fierce critic of media manipulations and agenda-driven sensationalism, would now succumb to the malicious media campaign of slander waged against the Catholic Church. I suppose when propaganda aligns with one's own preexisting bigotry, it should be embraced, yes? The ends justify the means and all that. What's wrong with a fictitious expose when its lies serve as harbinger to a more vocal anti-Catholic populace? Naturally, the fact that the prejudices of the American public are seen exactly for what they are abroad means nothing to you as you bask in the domestic serenity of your ignorant bliss. Even anti-Papists abroad recognize the huge discrepancy between reality and American sensationalism on this topic. It's simply another sad episode in America's long history of bigotry and self-preservationist illogic. Can't let the Church get too strong here, now, can we? We wouldn't want our sanctimonious Puritan/atheist majority to lose its comfortable social elevation.

Maybe I'm just a self hating Catholic who hates people who hide behind religion while their brethren are doing dispicable things. But that's just me.

Actually, yes. If the Bishop receives a salary, then s/he pays income taxes on it just like everyone else. It is only the institution of the church/temple/mosque/etc *itself* that is tax-exempt, not the employees.

Next rant.

Tax-exemption stems from the Church's status as a charitable organization. The Catholic Church is the single largest charity in the history of the world, an organization whose charitable endeavors know no bounds. But, despite this, you'd rather penalize the Church due to 5,000 allegations of abuse by individuals over a period of 60 years among a clergy of several million over that period. Sensible?
~
Naturally, you are also livid that your tax-dollars pay pedophile teachers; alcoholic, wife beating cops; and corrupt, adulterous politicians? Yes? You're naturally an advocate of stripping the police departments, public schools, and governments of citizen-derived tax dollars that provide the salary for the overwhelming majority of the well-intentioned individuals within these institutions? Yes? Naturally, because if not, then you're rantings must stem from simple vehement bigotry, rather than principled denunciation of individual wrongdoing...

@Exiled:
.
Yes, I am very much in favor of stripping the tax-exempt status for all charities including Acorn, Planned Parenthood, and the NRA. I shouldn't have to support the activities of groups I don't agree with - and neither should you.
.
The crimes of people who are public employees, including police officers, politicians, and soldiers is a matter for the courts. The fact that I pay the salaries of people who commit crimes does, in fact, make me very angry. That is why I support vigorous prosecutions of anyone who commits a crime. That said, I am happy to pay my tax dollars because I receive a benefit when the cops patrol the streets, airmen patrol the skies, and construction workers maintain the roads.

As for the Catholic Church's charity being "boundless," well that is just absurd. Also, there were 5,000 allegations of abuse?! Wow, that is stunning. I had no idea it was that bad. That's monstrous. I may have to reconsider the next time my priest makes a pitch for the Annual Catholic Appeal.

Choska-
Don't be obtuse. 5,000 allegations out of, at the very fewest, 2 million Catholic priests since the 1950s. No matter what institution, religion, culture, ethnicity, society, etc., no matter how benign the intentions, how righteous the cause, people are fallible. There will always be those who cross into the realm of moral decrepitude. To hold the Church, and the billion souls it currently represents, to account for the sins of no greater than 5,000 during the past 60 years is a travesty, an unwarranted and indefensible slight against a beacon of good, a tireless defender of the poor, caretaker of the sick, champion of the downtrodden, and counter-balance to the monopoly of power that pervades human cultures. Furthermore, to fault the Church for succumbing to the contemporary psychology of the times, which suggested the effectiveness of treatment and removal, which was the common practice through the 1980s, including the US public school system, is, again, a disparate application of your alleged principles. Finally, the decentralization of the Church, the unwieldy federation of singular Dioceses, absolves the Vatican of any wrongdoing, or lack of foresight, in the relocation of alleged offending priests. These decisions were made at the Diocese level, not Rome. More often that not, these allegations stem from America. I suggest, sir, that the so-called 'abuse scandal' is more an indictment of American society and its moral weakness, than it is a testimony to the flaws of the Church.

@Exiled, you have your facts completely and totally wrong. According to a report commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops there were 110,000 priests in the US between 1950 and 2002. That is a far cry from the "at least 2 million" you assert.
.
Furthermore, there were 11,000 allegations of abuse against 4,392 priests. That means that 4% of the priests in the Catholic Church were alleged to have committed sexual abuse.
.
I got the data from the American Catholic newsletter here:
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp
.
Moreover, you seem to want to blame the abuse on American society. Then how do you explain the abuse in Argentina, Australia (Pope Benedict apologized for that), Austria, Canada, and Ireland. Read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
.
So, your facts are completely wrong.
.
Now, in your post you accuse me of making "unwarranted and indefensible" slights against the "beacon of good." Well, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, I'm not the one coming on to a public forum and telling falsehoods as part of an effort to excuse the Church's defense of pedophiles.
.
Moreover, I'm not the one who thinks that the sexual abuse scandal was "so-called." There was nothing "so-called" about the rape of boys and girls by Catholic Priests. It was monstrous and it happened, and no amount of lies from people like you will erase it.
.
The only evidence of moral weakness I see in our society comes from people who would defend those who abuse children. But then, I have principles when it comes to being against pedophiles.

Choska-
Are you being intentionally disingenuous? Or, simply obtuse, as I earlier concluded?
.
At the least, 2 million Catholic priests globally! I never said, US.
.
You say, 4,392 priests, I said 5,000 allegations. I meant 5,000 alleged priests involved. So we in agreement on these numbers.
.
I never said, "so-called abuse." I said, "so-called abuse scandal." There has been abuse; there has not been a scandal.
.
Now, try replying without manipulating and misrepresenting my words.
.
Thanks.

@Exiled
.
You're right that this sort of abuse is something that all large organizations are going to have to deal with.

The problem is not that the abuse exists, but how it is handled. How many other organizations do you know where the standard procedure for dealing with a case of child abuse is to shield the abuser from the legal consequences of his action, move him to another area for HIS protection, and to threaten the abused and his/her family to prevent them from speaking?

"You may want to check the First Amendment."

Why? Does it protect pedophiles. Because I know it says nothing about tax exemptions for the Catholic or any other church.

@spob
.
I did check the First Amendment, as well as the statutes and additional laws that modify what is protected speech and what isn't.
.
There is no law that protects people who cover up crimes. In fact, while people have the right to claim 5th Amendment protection regarding self-incrimination, they do not have the right to simply tell lies to law enforcement officials who are investigating a crime. Doing so is, in fact, means that the liar is committing a host of other crimes.
.
But then, having read your posts and witnessed your extensive knowledge of legal issues, I guessing that you very familiar with how far one may tell lies and not face criminal or civil penalties.

…it's a good meal, try it. If Amy brings in more biz for IHOP, maybe they'll create a special in her honor? The Amy Sullivan Special[tm] would have the pancake toppings arranged like the face of the Virgin Mary. The bacon would be pinned to a cross of French toast sticks with toothpicks (the added bonus; French toast is not part of the normal RTFnF deal). And on special occasions the IHOP staff would sing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” when serving.

Now that's obtuse!