What if Polanski were an abusive priest?

The Catholic Church forgets one thing as it tries to set up this comparison. The Church hid and covered up the abuses. It's the institutional abuse that outrages people. The Church knew of the abuse and would just shift the abuser to another parish and a new set of victims.

FREE POLANSKI

(but only after he serves his jailtime, of course.)

Well said...

what if he were a senator from Massachusetts named Kennedy - his case would be dismissed and he would go on to a distinguished career and we would name buildings after him.

I think that, as a friend said, it is probably time that Polanski face the music for what is a pretty terrible bit of behaviour, but it seems to me that the comparison with priests is not entirely apt. After all, film directors don't generally have a role in helping to legislate on matters of morality, nor are they generally in positions of direct trust when it comes to the supervision of minors. Polanski did something wrong, but he was not someone who was expected to have more than a normal regard for the welfare of a child (sadly he did not even have that normal regard). I think that one reason why the broader society has a real problem with the abuses by priests is the perception of hypocrisy, whereas Hollywood directors were never assumed to be especially virtuous (whether those assumptions are correct is another matter). I'm not all that impressed, though, by the apparent closing of ranks in the film community; he did do something pretty bad, after all, no matter what the victim now feels.

While I do agree with this column, I have to say that Bernard Law should be behind bars as we speak, and instead, he is living a nice life in Rome. That jerk could be considered worse than the individual pedophile priests as he just shuffled them around from Parish to Parish allowing them to continue to destroy innocent lives.

Polanski belongs in jail, of course, but Reese's comparison between sex scandals in Hollywood and the Catholic church is terribly flawed.

First, no one in Hollywood purports to be holy, celibate representatives of Christ on earth.

Second, no "higher ups" in Hollywood knowingly conceal horrific child sex crimes and deliberately move child molesting directors to unsuspecting churches where they can molest again.

David Clohessy, National Director, SNAP-Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests

Interesting points. I'd point out that there aren't many pedophiles known in the entertainment industry, and they certainly are not usually exalted and praised. Michael Jackson's career and reputation suffered very big setbacks due to the allegations against him. Woody Allen's relationship is strange, but he was never charged or convicted of pedophilia, And even that non-criminal relationship caused some serious damage to his reputation.

Hence, I think religious folks claiming a double standard are stretching it just a bit. Pedophilia in the entertainment industry is not so widespread, and it usually isn't tolerated when it's discovered. Polanski is certainly a unique case, but an isolated one as well, hardly a symptom of a huge double standard between priests and most other child abusers. And keep in mind, priests do hold themselves up to a higher moral standard, so the hypocrisy of religious leaders committing sexual abuse to children is worthy of special disdain.

Let's buy some rope.

What if Polanski were an abusive priest?

He probably would have picked a 13 year old boy.

Gareth! Check your logic here. A crime is a crime! No matter what role a personal holds within society, regardless of the expectations that come with said role. Carry your reasoning to it's logical conclusion and we will find a group of people whom you would argue are no longer morally culpable for their actions. The "Eh, what do you expect? He was in the film industry" defense is void of any shred of integrity. So if a person is not expected to be virtuous, they don't have to be? Yikes Gareth!

I think the comparison between Polanski and abusive priests is incredibly appropriate. It's comparing pervert against pervert. A criminal to other criminals. It is shocking to consider how the public (more notably members of the Hollywood community) can hold such a disgusting inconsistent opinion on the matter. There's a double standard and it's wrong, and we as a society need to address it.

But Roman Polanski never pretended to a rabbi, minister or priest, did he? He never took vows committing his life to the service of others or was ordained was he? He never presumed to be an ordained representative of Jesus Christ did he?

No, Polanski was what he was, just your garden variety sexual predator who was caught and convicted, but who because he had the ability to flee, fled. But thankfully his conviction for the sexual abuse of a minor does not expire because of the passage of years and he will be held accountable.

The fact is that there are any number of priests known to have "fled the country" to avoid being held accountable for the sexual abuse of girls and boys.

There are more who were shipped to the foreign missions, sent to Rome to study or otherwise transferred out of the country by their bishops or religious superiors because of the rape of adult women in addition to the sexual abuse of children.

The important difference that Reese does not mention is that very few sexually abusive priests of girls, boys, young women, men, vulnerable adults, and that includes sisters and nuns, have ever been tried in a criminal court and found guilty, very few.

Moreover, the sorry fact is that there are a lot more that those we know about and that's closer to or more than 10%.

Visit the web site of former Benedictine monk, Catholic priest and psychotherapist at www.richardsipe.com or www.bishopaccountability.org or www.napsac.us

Unfortunately, very few sexual predators among the Roman Catholic clergy ever find their way even into a civil courtroom because the statutes of limitation have expired.

They didn't even need a get out of jail card because they received a completely free pass as did their bishops or religious superiors, if they were order priests or brothers.

And why is that?

Because bishops and religious superiors chose not to report the sexual molestation and rape of minors to the police, they chose not to remove them from ministry, they chose not to reach out pastorally, to warn parishioners but instead transferred them to another parish in the diocese where their predatory and criminal behavior continuned unchecked.

Keep in mind that the reason the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church even BEGAN to do much of anything in regard to the sexual abuse of untold numbers of children was because of the revelations of the Boston Globe newspaper in Massachusetts.

Unfortunately, their actions in 2002 were no harbinger of Accountability & Transparency.

Far from it.

Bishops in New York, Colorado, Ohio, Maryland, Pennsylvania and others have viciously opposed any states' movement to bring the sexual abuse statutes regarding the sexual abuse of children into the 21st century and spent millions of dollars, hiring law firms, lobbyists, public relations firms, and spin doctors to do it along with instructing their state Catholic Conferences to bankroll the same kinds of actions.

Would that it were possible to get all the living pedophile priests and the enablers into a civil court.

Most of them along with their enabling bishops or superiors will never be held accountable for their crimes and mortal sins in this life.

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware

Overall, I think it's natural to make the comparison. However, priests are usually at a higher moral standard than members of the entertainment industry, whether it's fair or not.

What is #4 talking aboutm, Ted Kennedy didn't rape a child. What on earth is the connection.

Roman Polanski, pig that he is, never claimed to be the keeper/savior of children's souls. There lies the difference. Child abuse is "soul murder" and, to my knowledge, Polanski never vowed not to do that. I still think Polanski should rot in prison until he dies and then should rot in hell WITH half the priests in Massachusetts

Reese says 4% of priests abused. But you can multiply that many times because cardinals, archbishops, bishops and other church officials simply shipped offenders to new parishes to offend again. Since the media caught on, these same church officials have lied, hired squads of lawyers to hide evidence, and blamed the victims and media for their problems.
They may be right about Hollywood's sleazy response to Polanski, but for church leaders to be self-rightousness and act like victims when they ruined thousands of lives and still hide behind lawyers is a travesty. Sadly, they know no shame; only spin.

Sherman -

"The Church hid and covered up the abuses." Polanski hid in Switzerland. Doesn't avoiding trial constitute a kind of cover up? And this article raises an excellent point that the "institutional abuse" being propagated is by the entertainment industry. It's totally hypocritical for those who would protest an behalf of a child rapist simply because of his vocation.

There is a huge difference between killing someone in a car accident and having sex with a child, ballway. a HUGE difference. kennedy did not INTEND to kill anyone. both got away with their actions, but that is where the comparison ends. and even though polansky has now been arrested, he has still essentially escaped scot free considering what he did.

The guy raped a 13 year old child. He admitted it. He was sentenced. He ran. He has been living a very large life. He is a no different than any other pedofile. Or abusive priest.

CAWP. By extension Cardinal Medeiros should be in jail as well. (Cardinal Law's predecessor). And certainly Cardinal Cushing before him is not clear of guilt. My point is, as much as you want to ball up your righteous anger, and focus it all on Cardinal Law. You can't blame just one person. The problem was systemic and wide spread. If there was one bishop who knew about an abusive situation or a particular crime, you can bet there were dozens, if not hundreds, of lay people who were holding onto the same scandalous information. Yet we did nothing, well, perhaps it was worse than nothing. We just whispered/gosipped amongst ourselveWe are all guilty of either cowardice or negligence, and we will have to answer for it someday.

First, Protestant clergy have abused at at least the rate of Catholic clergy, but probably at a greater rate. Start here: http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/protestant-clergy-abuse-equals-or-exceeds-catholic-clergy-abuse/ (Catholic clergy are easier to trail; Protestant clergy just disappear without any paper trail.)

From now on, let's be more accurate and say "Pedophile Ministers", OK?

And, let's put Polanski in prison, permanent.
http://www.polanskiprison.blogspot.com

If Polasnki were an abusive Priest, the victim would most likely have been a boy.

Why the hell is Bernard Law still free after obstructing justice for so many years?

3 differences:
- Polanski's was statutory rape, not rape
- Polanski's victim is not interested in pursuing punishment for him, she has moved on, while the priests's victims have had great difficulty getting their allegations acted upon
- The church boo-hooing about Polanski is the institution that covered up pedophile priests' conduct and kept moving them from parish to parish so they could find new victims. Shame on the church for comparing the two.

The title of this article should really be "What if Roman Polanski was any regular person who did not have the means nor the talent to direct films."

He would have been sent to jail long ago, done his time and we would have been done with it.

I understand that the judge in the original trial did not necessarily want to accept the plea agreement. Guess what, he doesn't have to accept it. He is not the one who gave alcohol and drugs to a 13 year old girl and then raped her.

I say drag him back here and let him do the time that he is supposed to have done over thirty years ago.

What if ?
What if Polanski was a serial killer ?
What if Polanski was a martian ?
What if Polanski was a cantalope ?
What if ? What if ? What if ?

That's funny because from where I sit, I think if Polanski was a priest he probably would be elevated to Bishop.

I've witnessed Catholics defend their priests just as much as the Hollywood elite are defending Polanski. I've seen Bishops shuffle priests from parish to parish just like Polanski roamed Europe. And I have yet to see one Bishop charged with obstructing justice nor heard any public outcry demanding it.

I know of one priest who was removed and his parishioners knitted a prayer shawl for him. ... Read More

I usually only hear talk of forgiveness because that is what the church is all about.

Now they are the victim? Please.

Almost 50 years ago, an Anglican priest in my home town was molesting children in his rectory office. He was a well respected citizen of our town and even had a street named after him. He was eventually found out of course and transferred to a different province where he continued with his paedophilia. He died well into his eighties but was never formally charged with any offence and so did not get involved with the law. The street remained named after him. For the past few years, a group of us tried to get the street renamed and have recently succeded. We had opposition to our efforts and our detractors used the same arguments... it was a long time ago, he was a good guy otherwise, best to forget it, etc. Our point is you can't forget it. To forget it is to sanction it. It does not matter how old the crime is or what the circumstances were. Polanski had sex with a thirteen year old girl. He should have faced the consequences thirty years ago. Not to mention the crime of Paedophilia, the crime of flight from justice is equally as serious. Mr Polanski, be a man, come back to the USA and show the world paedophilia is not OK.

Polanski is not a fugitive from justice, as much as he's a fugitive from sentencing. He's already faced a judge on this matter. He pled guilty. He was supposed to be sentenced to time served (a very light sentence, to be sure, but the laws were very lax then in these matters), and fled because the presiding judge seemed to be on the verge of breaking a sentencing agreement.

Yes, he did a very bad thing, but please report it correctly. There's no way he's going to be re-charged with child rape, under today's laws, in a new trial. He's returning (if the U.S. can get him back) to face sentencing, and that's it.

Bottom line, which is what people are trying desperately to forget is that she was 13, he was in his 40s. I remember when it happened and was about the same age. It was shocking then and Polanski would not have left the country if he believed what he did was right. It was the swinging 70s after all and she was a willing 13 year old, right?
It's stupefying to think anyone is ok with what he did.
They said he would have had a max of 2 - 4 years for the crime had he remained in the country. Now? Hopefully he spends a lot more quality time with his fellow criminals behind bars. He is a scum if there ever was one.

So the church is looking for the same kind of misguided support Polanski benefits from? That doesn't seem to be the best approach. They should be accepting responsibility and demonstrating their efforts in preventing further incidents.

The comparison is outrageous.

Priests abused their power as spiritual and community leaders, positions that frequently put them in close quarters with children with the full knowledge and consent of their parents. The church covered up the abuse for decades. The priests were part of a systematic and ongoing pattern of despicable acts within a body that supposedly espouses morality.

Polanski took advantage of a teenage girl one time in the 70s. He faced trial, was convicted, and then skipped town when the crooked judge (now dead) tried to change the terms of his plea agreement. The writers quoted in this article are right to observe that priests are held to a higher standard. But shouldn't they be?

Both are reprehensible and anyone covering for either pedophile is morally bankrupt. The drugged sodomy of a 13 year old girl and we are even having a discussion? Oh America, I miss you.

Catbert, no Ted Kennedy did not rape a child. However it is widely believed that his nephew did, and Ted did everything in his power to secure an acquittal despite overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Hey LW,

Ted didn't just "kill someone in an accident". He fled the scene of the crime and tried to cover it up. His actions, albeit different than Polanski's, were just as dispicable.

Polanksi belongs behind bars, IMHO.

Consider what he did, not his wealth or fame. Time does not diminish guilt, nor do apologies relieve pain. Of course the likes of Hollywood support him, they probably relish the idea of producing a film based upon the rape.

Catbert - the Point of the Kennedy reference is that he committed a crime for which he was never held accountable (not rape but certainly just as serious), but because he was a powerful celebrity he was allowed to move on and is now viewed as a great man - much as the entertainment industry is doing in this case.

There is clearly a double standard.

@ 34,

Ted Kennedy's nephew was acquitted of raping an adult, not a child, so unless there is some other Kennedy rape accusation to which you are referring, this is an unfair comment.

Roman Polanski should serve a custodial sentence for drugging and raping a child, and further, for fleeing the country before serving his time. I don't care what kind of cinematic genius he is --if he was Bob Jones the bus driver down the street and he gave your 13 year old son/daughter/sister/brother alcohol and drugs and then raped them a few times, I think anyone in their right mind would have a problem with it.

With all due respect to Mr. Polanski's years and genius, and his troubled life, he is not an "alledged" child rapist. He is a convicted, admited child rapist, found in flagrante delicto on the basis his own videography of the event, and his own plea. I do hope justice is tempered ("to be made stronger") by appropriate mercy in his case, as his is a damaged soul, and as per the wishes of his victim, but we cannot consider such until he is returned to the US. Until such time he is, alledgedly, an ordinary bailjumper, a crime in itself, for which he should stand trial. Only in the movies does one escape to "clear one's name". This isn't a movie.

No one, in their right mind who has a life to live, gives one hoot about “what-ifs”. Roman Polanski is what he is, which gives you plenty to deal with and speculate about as it is.
The Catholic priesthood and episcopate is loaded with homosexuals and that, in itself, is something to deal with. And I dare say, harshly. Ordinary homosexuals priests should be thrown out of the priesthood. Criminal homosexuals priests should be in jail and if they get out of there, they should be incarcerated in an ecclesiastical dungeon chained to the wall with a foot of filthy water on the floor swimming with rats and they’ll be in good company. That is exactly what should have happened to Cardinal Bernard Francis Law.
Cardinal Law did two things right while he was a bishop. One, he promoted the need for the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” which was eventually written and published. The other thing he did was to publicly and formally condemn Freemasonry. I suppose he deserves some consideration for those two important things.

"- Polanski's was statutory rape, not rape"

Statutory rape is rape - in this case, her mother helped Polanski get in her. When you're 13 you can't exactly refuse the quaaludes and alcohol your parents give you (they can legally keep spanking you until you cave in, you probably can't afford to move out, etc.).

Polanski is a convicted felon. He was tried in a court of law and by todays standards, he would be labeled a Level 3 Sex Offender. Woody Allen and the other 100 perverts of Hollywood who show no shame whatsoever by supporting this slimeball should be publicly castigated by the media and by every decent human being who believes in the rule of law. Its not like this slimeball served a day in prison for anyone to even ask that he get a pardon or a more lenient sentence. People like him are anathema in our society and should be treated as such.

"Ordinary homosexuals priests should be thrown out of the priesthood. "

What difference does it make if a priest is homosexual or heterosexual, if he's following the rules, staying celibate, and having neither homosexual sex nor heterosexual sex?

I believe the comparison is just as one poster said a pervert is a pervert and a crime is a crime. Also, I would lke to point out I cannot beleive anyone would have sympathy for this man and those who do, must not have or had a little girl. If it were my daughter he would have more to worry about than extradition. Also, I seen more post and opinions on Micheal Vick and dogs than I see with this, which is not even close to what this man did himself but this is the great American society we live in and want to push or beliefs and ways on the rest of the world. Can you see why we are the most hated country inthe world?

Sex laws have been built on misconceptions and myth.
The Supreme Court just ruled on sex offender laws where some factions of our government think by some inert reasoning that sex offender should be quarantined like some virus steaming from draconian/Islamic radical view that sex offenders should be executed. I have seen for myself, video taken in another country where a sex offender is placed on a pole much like the Catholics use to use a pyramid shaped object and have them sit on it and spin, the pole travels through the body looking for the throat but if not found its ok cause the sharpened end of the pole will come out somewhere to the delight of these very strange people. The heritage of the act is in its self a throwback to troglodyte’s who are so obsessed with any sex they can find & the only way to deal with this kind of "hierarchy" of historic hysteria. A word taken from hysterectomy, hysteria is tied to castration used to make animals less threatening which clearly explains the atmosphere we have made for our selves.
Anyway we are supposed to be the most advanced nation and we still have a death penalty when the rest of the world except for nations we are still warring with, {think!} While other nations went home our weapons dealers and torture lovers delighting in support for the death of people they don’t know or want to simply because they don’t know how to get money with out taking it from someone by force. Is that supposed to includes mutilations? In my humble opinion that alone are terrorist activities as much as severed hands, ears, heads, or making a case with nothing more than an obsession justified by lies.
The truth about the sex offender registry will come out soon enough. When it does, People will see how the use of the registry was created, and by exactly who and why and the devastation it has created and the worthlessness of the use of it. It’s origin in the Jim Crow hangum laws that brought disgrace to our nation allowing thieves and murderous societal bigots who have trashed any shot at making good of a program in its design to make money destroying our nation and its people. We can not play god and we can not survive using this behavior model because we are compounding the problem since the numbers increasing to include the children they report to protect.
It's a ruse designed by people who are getting rich off the castration/hysterectomy/health care/physic care of people through sex laws that have gone wild. What about the people who are being used by the Medicare programs that requires these mutilations for both men and woman after they take their means of support? Can't you see? You have created the model and it is worthless! [Why don't we just indiscriminately kill people we don't know? That’s statically the next sex offender] because over 90% of all new offences are people not on the sex offender registry and the numbers are increasing not decreasing so as a behavior model is really worthless
So what is the use of such laws as the sex offender registry other than to terrorize people? With the murder of so many sex offenders and the continued disregard for life by the use of the registry it’s just a mater of time before the federal government will be held liable for the deaths through federal court.
In a nation where a statement may have a double or triple meaning and our entire linage can be traced through mud, guts, and beer it’s nice once in a while to get the picture of what is meant instead of what some thinks someone may have implied. So it is from the trenches to the hill. Remember the game where someone says something in someone’s ear then passes it the same way to the next; the person advocating such destructive laws are the ones who need to be section 8 by simple brake down of the issue not sex offenders. Best regards

There are three things wrong with this comparison.

1. The majority of pedophilic priests got away with it. They were transferred; or the statute of limitations had run out; or they called their accusors liars or said that their victims consented to the offense.

2. None of the priests faced life in prison, which the presiding judge considered giving Polanski after suddenly reneging on the original plea deal.

3. The priest's victims pursued prosecution or lawsuits for years. Polanski's victim claims that the courts have hurt her more than Polanski did.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/29/polanski.victim.profile/index.html

Make that 4 things: none of the prosecutors are respecting the victim's wishes to move on.

Ted drowns gilr!
Ted keeps getting elected!
Roman drugs & rapes 13 year old.
Hollywood keeps supporting him.
See a pattern here libs?

We hold those who say "no sex outside of marriage" to that standard.

We also come down hard on cover-ups and those who repeatedly offend after being caught.

There is no evidence to suggest there was any cover-up of Polaski nor any evidence to suggest he continued his behavior after being caught. I also don't see any evidence of hypocrisy on his part.

This doesn't excuse what he did but it does explain why people are much angrier at the Roman Catholic Church, which not only covered up such abuses but had a system in place that in some cases allowed the hypocritical, abusive priest to continue abusing young people.

If the 1950s- to 1980s church had done so much as held an ecclesiastical trial and gave all those found guilty a choice: resign the priesthood and accept a lifetime ban on working with minors within the church, or spend the rest of your life in an adults-only monastery, they wouldn't have had nearly as bad a public reputation when it became public. But they didn't. They covered it up, send the priests to rehab, pronounced them cured - granted, some of them were but some were not - and assigned them to new parishes without alerting the parishioners.

to # 24-----it was rape, not "satutory rape." He drugged the girl and gave her booze. She said no and weakly tried to resist, but it certainly wasn't consentual. He sodomized a 13-year old......how gross is that? They weren't "making love"----it was RAPE. If Polanski had tried to molest someone closer to his own age, she might have been strong enough to push him off and run away. Instead, he picked someone physically weaker than himself. So don't defend the perv.

Also, Polanski has a thing for young girls. He was having sex with actress Natasha Kinski when she was only 15. He was 50 or so at the time.

Celibate by canon law means they can not marry a woman. Most priests and bishops have had/still do sexual acts. They only led everyone to believe a different interpretation of celibacy.

The comparison is patently ridiculous. If Polanski was a priest he would never have been charged or arrested. If his victim came forward today and claimed to recall the events or claimed to have resurfaced repressed memories the majority of people would at best give it a passing thought.

The amount of self serving whining I've been reading from priests the last few days is really unseemly. I'm amazed that an organization where, according to Rev. Reese, one in 25 members will abuse their position of authority and molest children, has the brass to show its face in public, let alone play the poor put-upon victims. If they want to pick a fight with Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen, that's their right, but those guys don't go to church anyway. There are plenty of us who do, and who don't have sympathy for either, rapist directors or rapist priests. Complain to me about double standards when the number gets down to 0.4%.

Polanski gave her booze and qualudes. He then raped her - orally, vaginally and anally - think about that - a 13 year old girl...

He pled down from a number of charges, and then fled. He never served any time - that's just wrong. If he served time, how did he escape?

And why does it matter that the church is a symbol of morality? Do we only critize and charge moral people, and then let the sleaze-b*lls go free? Of course a church is held to a higher standard, but under the law, they are the same.

Come on, he's guilty and he needs to serve time, even if it's just for fleeing, and Hollywood should be ashamed of themselves.

What nonsense these apologists for the Catholic Church are telling.
1. Two wrongs don't make a right.
2. The people defending Polanski are Hollywood nutcases, not the public at large. Most Americans want ALL pedophiles locked up: priests AND Hollywood directors.
3. Very few priests had only a single victim. So Polanski should be locked up for 50 years, and those priests for 1,000.
4. Polanski did not have accomplisses covering for him. Only 4% of priests molested children, but 0% of them went to the authorities, so 100% of them are guilty.
5. Anyone who not only thinks that a 13-year-old girl has the legal right but also the emotional maturity to consent should seek treatment immediately before he winds up in prison and some innocent girl winds up in a living hell.

I have found the article very fascinating in light of reading Fiona MacCarthy's biography of Eric Gill, one of the pioneer "distributists" of the first half of the twentieth century. Gill, though a Dominican tertiary, was a consistent pedophile but according to the book "Degenerate Moderns" by E. Michael Jones, he consistently confessed he was extremely poor in his behaviour. (As one of the first children diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, I am extremely curious as to whether experts on that topic will study Gill soon since I strongly suspect it as the cause of his sexual problems).

When one actually reads Gill, one is struck by how far ahead of his time he was (MacCarthy says this is true but I think she understates the point). In a sense, though Gill is not forgiven at all, especially if we compare him with Dorothy Day (his views were not radically different) or even Chesterton or Belloc.

Hi MikeyP,

ST: Admire Mike for creating a Religious Ruckus

I have not read all the comments, yet I have participated elsewhere in Internet-Land on this subject.

Mike you framed the argument WELL..
There is a parallel between certain priests, Roman, and the public.

NY television reported, the girl (now married) forgave him.

What if Polanski was a woman (teacher) should be the story line....

How about Phillip Garrido?

Sure there's a double standard. Polanski was criminally prosecuted and convicted. Most pedophile priests never are.

First, Polanski is a child rapist and should be locked up. The fact that so many in Hollywood are defending him is proof that they are all as perverted and sick and disgusting as Polanski. There is no excuse for anyone who drugs and rapes a child. It is rape, plain and simple.

Secondly, for anyone that believes that there is no double standard when it comes to the Catholic Church, you are only kidding yourselves. There is no excuse for what those sick men in priest collars did to the countless children. The bishops also screwed up by not reporting them to the authorities. However, while the media continues to focus on the Catholic Church, it blatantly turns a blind eye to the similar scandals in other denominations, and public schools such as in California and Texas.
Read the stories at the links below and then tell me why wasn't there more of an outrage with these cases?

http://voice.stblogs.com/2009/06/15/where-is-the-media-now/

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/021807dntextycsex.1bd0f05.html

Why is it the abuse problem was just centered on Catholic clergy when similar problems occured in public schools, reform schools and other churches? I am not trying to minimize the scandal in the Catholic Church. I am just trying to point out the truth. Despite what our tabloid media likes to like, the sex-abuse scandal was not a Catholic or celibacy related problem, but a problem that has permeated many institutions in our over sexualized society.

I think there are two things going on here. First, Polanski is NOT a priest - which means he neither vowed to live a life of God (which surely includes not abusing minors) nor did he preach of such a life and then hypocritically engage in activities that directly contradicted his preachings. I find those who solicit prostitution, say, far less abhorrent than the televangelists or governors of NY who vehemently denounce such practice and then are caught with their pants down. Second, the reason pedophile priests are in so much trouble is twofold - 1) they were hidden within and protected by the walls of the Church (hello hypocrisy!) and 2) charges were brought against them by their victims. I would argue that no one would force the victim of a pedophile priest to testify or relive his/her ordeal if s/he did not want to - or, better yet, if said victim proclaimed publicly that they, in the spirit of Christ, forgave their abuser.

So, Catholic priests and the Church - Roman Polanski is not one of yours. He did something, he actually ADMITTED it and was willing to pay the agreed upon price until it looked as though that price had some dastardly fine print in the guise of a rogue judge. We should not hold a hollywood director to the same standards as priests - one is there to entertain us and the other is there to live a life of example for us to follow. If the argument was made that, because we're holding him to the same standards as priests that Hollywood is then entitled to the same privileges as the Church...how well would that go over?

These are apples and oranges, both fruit, but of vastly different consequence. Stop pointing fingers and get over yourselves. Take responsibility for a tragedy and DO NOT allow it to occur again.

Just to set the record straight, after initially hiding from justice, Ted Kennedy eventually did face the music. He stood up in a court of law, pled guilty, and received a suspended sentence and probation, which he served. It was a light sentence, but no lighter than any other first time offender might receive.

Roman Polanski, on the other hand, has spent decades making movies and enjoying his freedom rather than face the music. Justice demands that he be returned to the U.S. to be sentenced, and to serve that sentence.

Ah, yes. We all know how vigorously priests were prosecuted.

WHAT?!?

The fact remains that if Polanski is returned to the U.S., the charges are likely to be dismissed due to judicial misconduct.

The victim herself has complained about the original presiding judge, and there are numerous affidavits signed against him. Now the current presiding judge has said that he will consider throwing the case out.

The victim has said numerous times that her "living hell" was caused by the courts hurting her more than Polanski did.

She's not a 13-year-old any longer. She wants to move on. She didn't want this publicity-seeking judge to bring cameras into the courtroom to record him sentencing Polanski to LIFE IN PRISON. But society never wants rape victims to heal or move on. Women are supposed to stay perpetual children. This idea that we "can never get over it" is a pale variant of the idea that "she will always be tainted." In the name of sensitivity to rape victims, society is perpetuating the myth that once "sullied," a woman-child is polluted forever.

Very little has changed from the 1970s and mob-lynching Polanski will not cover this fact up for long.

Yes, it is outright hypocrisy as is the whole attitude of the modern media dominated culture. First they act as pyromaniacs and when they fire they have intentionally set gets out of control they present themselves as firefighters. I thought that one of the prinicples of democracy is that all are equal under the law. As for the fallacy that in the Catholic Church the courts were judging an endemic institutional matter. This is simply false as I understand that crimes are committed by individuals who are the ones who are tobe judged. Hollywood (meaning film makers and other media gurus) promotes promiscuity right left and center, as well as violence and other aberrations. Those of them who have been caught with their pants down are defended by their peers. They were able to get over the idea that sexual abuse of minors is a problem exclusively belonging to the Catholic Church and priests. The truth is that it is endemic in the whole of society. Besides, the so called progressive society which considers abortion as a constitutional right, distributes condoms supposedly to control AIDS and other ills doesn't seem to get it that it is acting as pyromaniac and then presenting itself hyoocritically as fire department. It can't have it both ways. The same folks who are intent on killing babies before they are born rent their garments at sexual abuse of minors. More hypocrisy.

France as a haven
Jerold Lindner, a Jesuit priest and credibly-charged sex offender with $ millions in settlements, reportedly fled to France until a statute of limitations court ruling was decided in favor of accused sex offenders. Then Lindner returned to California.

why is it that people associate priests with morality? history proves there is no correlation. reason/logic also confirm that. there have been religious people that were moral. there have been atheists that were moral. there have been immoral people from both sides of that fence as well. that tells us one thing: you cannot correlate morality with the presence, or lack, of any religious beliefs. the two are completely separate.

I suppose you could argue the religious are more 'offensive' in that they TRY to lump morality in with their beliefs in a supernatural being. But for many today, the Catholic church is merely an irrelevant business organization. Their views on Polanski, or any issues of morality, have no meaning.

I am gong out on a limb and saying that we do not know the extenuating circumstances surrounding Roman Polanski's night with an under-age girl. Only those present know the truth. Lot's of what ifs. What if the girl looked 18 and lied about her age. What if the girl was quite take with being in the company of a famous Hollywood director and looking for free drugs, booze and yes, sex. What if she was looking for some notoriety in the form of a Hollywood discovery or just bragging rights to her friends. All that aside, he was admittedly wrong by his pleading guilty and then leaving the country so as not to face any jail time. But to compare this to the Catholic church and pedophile priests who take an oath to God and supposed to comfort and protect their flock but instead became the very wolf in sheep's clothing they sermonize about on Sundays is ludicrous. Two totally different circumstances. I'd like to see Polasnki return to the US, clear up and be free of the legal matter. It appears the "victim" moved on and forgave and as he did not live the rest of his life victimizing, as did the priests, Everyone is entitled to one mistake and surely he has paid the price in other ways.

Seriously? So---the church is saying what ezactly??? "So there---we are not the only ones who defile children!!!". Are you kidding me? What is the point? It is wrong to hold spiritual leaders to a higher standard than Hollywood Directors? Thank god I'm an atheist (i love saying that)

"Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops."(Luke 12:2-3)
Sister Maureen (#12) is right. There must be an enormous number of clerics and lay who sit on information regarding sex offenders, abusers and molesters, because that is what they learned to do growing up. The worst thing a person can do is not to sin, but to get caught. How many "good" families keep family members, or friends, or members of their police force or race from having their "dirty linen" hung out on the line?
How many accusers have been treated as the guilty by press and onlookers? A consiracy of silence still grips this issue. Many have sinned themselves and wish not to be the first to cast a stone. But who benefits? The pedophile, at least until we will all be brought out into the light. Or do we no longer believe that eventually there will be a "just Judgement"?

Better yet...what if he were a Kennedy? Guaranteed to walk if the jury were in Massachusetts...

Hypocrisy is not a crime. What he did and what those priests did are the same thing. Only difference is, the Hollywood Lefties really don't give a darn what their own do.

"The same folks who are intent on killing babies before they are born rent their garments at sexual abuse of minors. More hypocrisy."

Meanwhile, it's perfectly unhypocritical to be intent on 12-year-olds giving birth, condemn condoms, pay bride prices or accept dowries for 12-year-olds, and promptly get them pregnant...but something can still be wrong without being hypocritical

"I am gong out on a limb and saying that we do not know the extenuating circumstances surrounding Roman Polanski's night with an under-age girl. Only those present know the truth. Lot's of what ifs. What if the girl looked 18 and lied about her age. What if the girl was quite take with being in the company of a famous Hollywood director and looking for free drugs, booze and yes, sex. What if she was looking for some notoriety in the form of a Hollywood discovery or just bragging rights to her friends."

Her *mother* was quiet taken with being in the company of a famous Hollywood director and sought bragging rights - that's why she made it easier for Polanski to rape the kid. Do you think parental permission from a parent of the kid is an extenuating circumstance for abusing a kid?

""Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops."(Luke 12:2-3)
Sister Maureen (#12) is right. There must be an enormous number of clerics and lay who sit on information regarding sex offenders, abusers and molesters, because that is what they learned to do growing up. The worst thing a person can do is not to sin, but to get caught. How many "good" families keep family members, or friends, or members of their police force or race from having their "dirty linen" hung out on the line?"

Brilliant observations, and very true!

There are some similarities. Pedophile priests were protected and hidden by their church. Polanski was protected by the Republic of France though it was unnecessary to hide him.

To this day the Catholic Church has said NOTHING about a very well known Catholic web site that has been reported as passing pedophile images. It is reported and denounced here http://conocereisdeverdad.blogspot.com/ and here http://tinyurl.com/y9uuzmz
(all in Spanish yet VERY high traffic)
The Church has done NOTHING about this although it has been exposed for YEARS

Take care of the beam in your eye. I don't care what they do with Polanski but it would nice if churches take care of perverts with the same zeal they point fingers at others.

#75 : I am not condoning Polanski's actions or that of anyone having sex with a minor. I do not think parental permission is an extenuating circumstance and would find the parent just as culpable of the abuse. That Polanski is guilty as charged isn't the point since he admitted his role to the courts. Sometimes the rich and famous are easy targets for being set up. Do I think he might have been duped? Possibly. If the victim truly was a victim, she would never have forgiven Polanski for what he did because she knows the real story behind the circumstances. The thing is he didn't continue raping under-aged children as did priests. The Catholic Church is far more despicable for moving the known pedophiles from church to church and community to community creating more victims and leading their innocent flocks to the proverbial slaughter in the form of sexual abuse.
We all know much of Hollywood represents debauchery and an anything goes life style but they don't profess to be the pure, holier than thou protectors of the innocent. Polanski is one of them and so they rally in his defense but not so sure they would if he were a repeat rapist.

"It appears the "victim" moved on and forgave and as he did not live the rest of his life victimizing, as did the priests, Everyone is entitled to one mistake and surely he has paid the price in other ways."

I personally know someone who was molested by a priest. He personally forgave him and even offered up acts of self-denial for the sake of that priest. And yet, if you asked him if that priest still has to have his day in court, he'd tell you yes without hesitating.

"Pedophile priests were protected and hidden by their church."

Nice, trendy alliteration - pedophile priests. Most of the priests who were molesters did so with children older than Polanski's victim. Every priest who did that deserves a long time behind bars. So does Polanski.

#79: I do not disagree with any of what you say and in fact have a friend who was a victim of molestation by a priest when they were 12. Many priests molested kids younger than 13 also. Does Polanski deserve his day in court? Absolutely. After 30 years and a "victim" who forgives, a judge who is deceased, etc, etc, I feel he should come back to the US, have his day in court and be given a probationary term but not spend any time in prison. My line of thinking is that perhaps he too was a victim of that evening 30 years ago and none of my thoughts have anything to do with pity over what happened to his wife at the hands of the Manson clan. Lest we forget, some famous people in Hollywood have gotten away with murder, literally.

"Why is it the abuse problem was just centered on Catholic clergy when similar problems occured in public schools, reform schools and other churches? I am not trying to minimize the scandal in the Catholic Church."
Posted by matthias September 30, 09 09:45 AM

Actually, Matthias, the "everyone else did it" defense is an attempt to minimize the scandal. The principal problem with that approach is simple - the Roman Catholic Church claims for itself a unique, divinely-based moral authority. It chose to cover up a crime of monstrous proportions, and in doing so, compounded the crime by enabling these criminals to rape even more kids. This corrupt hierarchy aided and abetted the rape of thousands of kids. Sadly, there is little difference between Polanski fleeing to Europe and Law fleeing to the Vatican. Polanski deserves prison, and Law deserves trial and, if convicted, prison.

And most experts will tell you that pedophilia is about power, not sex, so the idea that this abomination is a result of an over-sexualized society makes little sense. I think we can accurately view the Church's institutional enabling of child rape in the context of its own perpetual desire for power.

Ontheleft,

But the Catholic Church also understands humans will sin and that we all have free will. There are many in the name of the Church just like any other organization who have committed evil acts. if your into judging feel free to judge those individuals but not the Church. Those who truly follow the entire truth of the Church do not condone evil acts considered by men and women associated with the Church who go against waht she stands for.

OntheLeft,

My point is not the "everyone else did it defense". My point was that other institutions and religions which all claim there own moral authority have exhibited their own patterns of abuse and cover-up. But those went largely ingored by the media.

Take a look at this excerpt from the Christian Science Monitor :

"From available research we now know that in the last 50 years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases. The Christian Science Monitor reported on the results of a national survey by Christian Ministry Resources in 2002 and concluded: “Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant”. Sexual abuses within the Jewish communities approximate that found among the Protestant clergy."(Mark Clayton, “Sex Abuse Spans Spectrum of Churches”, Christian Science Monitor, April 5, 2002, p.1)

So why aren't these other Churches recieving the same treatment by the press? Why isn't there a massive outcry agianst them? The answer is simple, there is a double standard when it comes to the Catholic Church.

I also want to correct your statement comparing Cardinal Law and Polanski. Cardinal Law was never arrested and charged with a crime. There were no mandatory reporting laws in Massachusetts at the time. He was free to leave the country if he chose. Polanski however was arrested, confessed and convicted of a crime, which is why he fled. Don't take this to mean that I am defending Law's actions. He is guilty of covering up the scandal and not protecting the children of his diocese. But there is a big difference between the two cases.

Your claim about the Church's "perpetual desire for power" makes no sense. It is just another fabrication that came out of the distorted facts surrounding the sex-abuse scandal. Approximately 80-90% of all cases actually involved ephebophilia with is the disordered attraction of homosexual males to boys between 11-17 years old. This was proven in several studies but conveniently left out of media reports because it is more fashionable to make it sound like it is just a Catholic problem and not a problem of active homosexuals hiding in the priesthood and other ministries.

One thing is missing from your comparisons with Roman Catholic priests and bishops, this rape was reported immediately and the accused has had his day in court and was convicted. The judge in the case did not recognize a plea bargain and that is sad but not an excuse to be a guilty party and abscond to a foreign country. The RCC priests in question were not reported and the bishops hid them in institutions which told the bishops that they were "cured" and able to return to ministry. Since the scandal the USA bishops have made it a point of letting the civil authorities get involved asap and investigate the truth or lie of the situation.
I can't recall any convicted priest who went to another country to avoid a prison sentence... Polanski is a convicted felon and should serve his time, because he pleaded guilty to the crime!

"If the victim truly was a victim, she would never have forgiven Polanski for what he did because she knows the real story behind the circumstances."

I heard that she didn't forgive him, she just wanted the case to stop because *she* (and later her husband and children too) kept getting treated badly by the press over it.

Mr Polanski plead guility to the crime. He fled the U.S. to avoid sentencing.
He is a convicted felon!!!

Posted by proud2bcatholic October 1, 09 04:18 PM
Posted by Matthias October 1, 09 04:25 PM

Those individuals you reference while defending the Church are the very ones who profit most from the Church's insistence on its moral infallibility. My point remains - the Roman Catholic Church has, for centuries, pursued a claim of moral authority that has been at odds with its actions. And it has been primarily a political institution (one dedicated to the acquisition and maintenance of power) since at least 325 CE. It has used absurd claims of moral superiority (and the accompanying ability to damn souls for eternity) to control populations, and in the process, accumulate a great deal of wealth.

As for "double standards", it seems to me that a lot of Catholics have considered anyone who brings up these crimes as anti-Catholic. You've seen that bit on these blogs and elsewhere for years now, and people use that absurd characterization against this newspaper for its reporting of the scandal. There is no double standard here. Politicians like David Vitter, John Ensign, Mark Sanford, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and Dan Burton, among many others, railed at Bill Clinton's marital infidelity, insisting on his resignation or removal from office. Yet, when their own infidelities were revealed, they sang a rather different tune. As long as the Vatican insists that it is the sole arbiter of morality, it will be rightfully hammered when it acts in an immoral manner. And its actions throughout this abominable matter, to this very day, could not have been more immoral.

As for Law, I suggested that charges should be filed for his role, he should be extradited, tried, and, if convicted, incarcerated. And Polanski should be extradited and incarcerated.

#87. All well and good but if you were a jury, you could not come to a just conclusion based on hearsay. He was wrong, I don't refute that fact. He plead guilty to the charges yet from accounts I have read, the probation report indicated that she consented. Perhaps at 13, she thought she was being worldly and got in way over her head. That he took her to the then empty home of Jack Nicholson and fed her Quaaludes tells me his intent was less than honorable. All I'm trying to say here is that he should not be compared to priests who continued to molest and rape children. They church knew and kept it a dirty little secret. The priests did not turn themselves due to any guilt on their part and instead were exposed by victims coming forward years after the fact.
At that, some denied the allegations right to the end of the trials.

A curious pattern with the priest sex abuse is that the alleged victims and their families invariably said that they reported it to the church at the time, and the church didn't do anything about it except pay them the hush money they were looking for. Well, if someone raped me or my child, I'd go the police rather than report it to their employer looking for a payout!

I know here in L.A., some of the people who got in on the $660 million church settlement had dubious claims of abuse. They struck me as the type who are always slipping on wet floors, finding razor blades in Halloween candy, weird things in their fast food, having minor fender benders that leave them in neck braces for months, always getting "injured" on the job, etc.

The big difference with Roman Polanski's case is that the victim reported the crime immediately, not decades later. He admitted committing crimes and chose to flee the country. The decades-old accusations against priests were mostly very successful extortion attempts. Every accused priest was presumed guilty. But if you're Kobe Bryant, Bill Clinton, Rob Lowe, Michael Jackson, William Kennedy Smith or Roman Polanski, you're presumed innocent. Even if you admit guilt, don't worry about it. It's just an indiscretion!

"Approximately 80-90% of all cases actually involved ephebophilia with is the disordered attraction of homosexual males to boys between 11-17 years old."

BTW, the term ephebophilia also covers the disordered attraction of adults of either gender to boys and/or girls between 11-17 years old (yep, including the minority of straight men who go all "but girls mature faster than boys!!!" or "her parents gave me permission!!!" or "girls didn't date me in high school so I'm making up for lost time!!!" and including female teachers who threaten to flunk male adolescent students who don't put out for them whenever asked and so on).

"Perhaps at 13, she thought she was being worldly and got in way over her head."

At 13 she thought she was obeying her mother and was pushed in way over her head.

Maya,
Your ignorance is stunning. When it happened to me, it was confusing. Here was a man who I had been raised to believe was holy, was god's representative on earth, how could he be doing something wrong? My mind couldn't handle or process it. I shut down, buried it. I also knew that no one would believe me because it was so outrageous and so far beyond anything I could conceive. Heck, it was years before I could admit it to myself.
For me there was never a goal of hush money, or even real money. The most important thing I got out of the lawsuit I was in was RCC paid therapy for up to the rest of my life, as I try to put it back together.
For you to assume that "I know here in L.A., some of the people who got in on the $660 million church settlement had dubious claims of abuse. They struck me as the type who are always slipping on wet floors, finding razor blades in Halloween candy, weird things in their fast food, having minor fender benders that leave them in neck braces for months, always getting "injured" on the job, etc." is absolutely outrageous. This is particuarly true when you consider that many of these people, lost so much, faith, trust, hope, peace, sometimes family. Some of them (a ptifall I avoided) tried to deal with their pain and isolation with recreational pharmaceuticals, numbing their pain the only way they could find. It does mess up ones life.
I would argue that it is easier when it is something that can be reported at the time, because you get help, you get treatment, understanding, support, can heal and grow. For me, my pain festered, buried, unacknowledged, untouched for almost 20 years. That has an affect on someone, confidence, nerves, which can lead to coordination issues, a tendency to get hurt, not to mention self destructive tendencies.
For you to just look at a few people from the lawsuit who made it onto the news and assume that they seemed like frauds is arrogant beyond comprehension. Most of those people never got their faces in front of a camera, most probably chose not to, and that is fine.
Having been through the process, meetings with my lawyer that left me shaken and almost incoherent, meetings with a State Police investigator who brought up even more information... In fact, the priest in my case, I supplied information regarding the priest and his home that he didn't know, that was backed up with pictures he had, that I had forgotten about until that meeting. I went through meetings with a therapist as part of the process, 3 hours a day, 2x a week, for four months.
To take it further, there was then a hearing in front of a magistrate, lawyers for both sides, who examined everything. It was not just a matter of calling an attorney and getting added to a list.
Normally, on these boards, I am more temperate in my comments, but you touched a nerve. You really need to step back and get some perspective on your comments, how they might hurt or marginalize someone who has already been through the unspeakable.

#92; Ever read Lolita?

I'm neither Catholic nor anti-Catholic, so I considered myself fairly objective during the allegations of clergy misconduct, and I think Maya makes a good point. She was talking specifically about people who reported it to Church authorities but not the police. Decades later they complained that the Church didn't report it to the police!

Statutes of limitation exist for very good reasons. How could any of us defend ourselves against decades-old accusations? Bill Clinton was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick decades after it allegedly happened, so it couldn't be pursued in court. Roman Polanski's victim reported the crime right away, he admitted guilt and he's still getting the benefit of the doubt! Consent is never an issue between 13 year-old girls and men in their 40s.

A lot of anti-Catholic elements in the media seized on the scandal of 2002 and it descended to the level of a witch hunt. There were real victims, but there were also a lot of people who knew they'd get the benefit of the doubt and a big payday. Due process and the presumption of innocence went out the window.

Hey #24, your "first of all it's statutory rape,not rape", well, First of all, since when is there a difference when the Child is only 13 years old? And second of all, she Was raped. You obviously did not read the transcripts from her testomony when she was a child...she was drugged, and then told him "no" and "stop" repeatedly and he ignored her. Then, in order not to get her pregnant, he finished her off by sodomising her.
What the hell is wrong with you and you're logic?

NewsBusters: Not a Catholic Priest? Boston Globe Pretty Quiet on Child Rapist Polanski
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2009/10/03/not-catholic-priest-boston-globe-pretty-quiet-child-rapist-polanski

I think there is a lot more to this Catholic-priest sexual-abuse matter than meets the eye. As 'Matthias' notes above, the Catholic Church isn't being hit with as many lawsuits as some Protestant denominations. I think that the focus on the Catholic Church serves a whole lot of different agendas. Nor do I minimize the suffering of those who were abused by priests; but I can't help imagine what a kid thinks who finds that a President lied or was profoundly dopey enough to start a war on false information. And maybe that same kid, the day after he is no longer a 'child' legally, joins the military and winds up in the middle of that war, or its spin-offs. I've put my thoughts in a Post on my site: http://www.chezodysseus.blogspot.com

Sorry - my Post on this actually has its own address: http://chezodysseus.blogspot.com/2009/10/priests-and-roman-polanski-post-by.html.

As you can see, I neither Tweet nor Twitter and have my hands full just with a PC.

Stewart,
The issue for the Globe and against the Newsbusters website is fairly obvious.
1. The Globe's investigative reporting broke the story on the RCC shuttling priests around so they could find more victims. They are the ones who broke the story and they ran with it, and thousands of victims are grateful.
2. The RCC scandal broke locally, where the Globe has it's readership and where there was news to be discovered, where there was news to be published, written, commented on, fresh and local.
3. Polanski admitted to the crime, was convicted and jumped bail before sentencing after the judge refused to recognize a plea deal.

Those are the basic facts. How does this apply? The Boston Globe is a local newspaper, which is going to put most of it's resources into covering what is happening locally. It is not going to put extensive resources into uncovering or reporting what has already been uncovered. Polanski ran from sentencing. He has been found guilty. While he escaped custody and prison thus far, that is still hanging over his head. There is no massive cover-up by the "moral" leadership on a worldwide basis to keep him from being "outed," or to keep feeding him new victims.
The decision to cover a bail jumping child rapist being caught in Switzerland, who has already been convicted does not require the attention of more than the big news bureaus. It doesn't require anything more unless a columnist CHOOSES to write about it.

What would a Globe editorial have to cover? He was arrested, confessed, plea bargained. How about an editorial, "Oh, this is terrible, he needs to come back and serve jail time, how can justice be denied this long?" That has been said already.

Newsbusters is complaining because old news, no new information, is not given extensive coverage and attempting to compare it to investigative reporting of tens of thousands of minors being abused by thousands of priests. It is time for a bit of a reality check, my friends.

What if Polanski was:
Frederic Mitterand, Duplessis from Quebec, Coasa Pia group from Portugal, Roger Took, Charles Manson, Archbishop Raymond Leahy, Vatican II homosexual clergy dying from AIDS years later, a member of any clergy or lay movement in Norh America (Legionaires of Christ, Foi de Charite, Opus Dei, Madonna House, Community of St. John, Taize) that keeps all the perversion in the community?
it will be the same - criminal is a criminal - no matter how you slice it.

Should churches or our federal Gov, be held libel for the murder of sex offenders? By use of this behavior model we are compounding the problem since the numbers are increasing to include the children we purport to protect. Castration/ hysterectomy/health care/physic care of people through sex laws? So what is the use of the sex offender registry other than to terrorize people? With the murder of so many sex offenders we have to wonder who trains terrorist to mutilate for the church’s obsessions?
Sex laws have been built on misconceptions and myth.
The Supreme Court just ruled on sex offender laws where some factions of our government think by some inert reasoning that sex offender should be quarantined or executed. Video taken in another country shows where sex offenders were placed on a pole much like the Catholics use to use a pyramid shaped object and have them sit on it and spin, the pole travels through the body looking for the throat but if not found its ok because the sharpened end of the pole will come out somewhere to the delight of these very strange people who think such thoughts are a bit barbaric. The heritage of the act is in its self a brutal throwback to violent uneducated people who are so obsessed with any sex & the only way to deal with this kind of "hierarchy" of historic hysteria. A word taken from hysterectomy, hysteria is tied to castration, we are supposed to be the most advanced nation and we still have a death penalty when the rest of the world except for some nations we are still warring with/selling weapons too, while other nations went home our weapons dealers and torture lovers delighting in support for the death of people they don’t know or want to simply because they don’t know how to get money with out taking it from someone by force. Is that supposed to include mutilations? In my humble opinion this alone “is” terrorist activities as much as severed hands, ears, heads, or making a case with nothing more than an obsession justified by lies. The registry’s origin in the Jim Crow hang~um laws that brought disgrace to our nation allowing thieves and murderous societal bigots who have trashed any shot at making good of a program in its design to make money destroying our nation and its people. We can not survive using this behavior model because we are compounding the problem since the numbers are increasing to include the children they purport to protect.
The doctoring, castration/hysterectomy/health care/physic care of people through sex laws that have damaged everyone it has touched. What about the people who are being used by the Medicare programs that requires these mutilations for both men and woman after they take their means of support? Digging around in someone’s genitalia because you want what a weaker nation? Can't you see? You have created the model and it is worthless! Why don't we just indiscriminately kill people we don't know? That is statically the next sex offender, because over 90% of all new offences are committed by someone “not” on the sex offender registry and the numbers are increasing not decreasing so as a behavior model this is really worthless.
So what is the use of such laws as the sex offender registry other than to terrorize people? With the murder of so many sex offenders and the continued disregard for life by the use of the registry it will be no time at all before the federal government will be held liable for their deaths through federal court?

If you watch his films carefully, you will note short clips that are obviously simulated child sex abuse, why have these clips that last 1 or 2 seconds not been cut from the films and is that not child pornography?

However, a significant percentage of women prostitute their own children, even as infants, now how many of them do you see in court?

So, really, the true cause of the chain is actually mothers that prostitute their own children, but the abused and drugged child does not have a chance in the future.

Polanski should get no jail time whatsoever. Instead he should receive an apology from the judge who screwed him.

Any comparison between a director who had sex with a teenager and a pedophile priest who molests dozens if not hundreds of kids is ridiculous.