Hello, fake ScientistInDC,
I would appreciate it if you don't abuse my alias, ScientistInDC.

Pax, if the victims were "well into their teens," you're suggesting that the priests weren't pedophiles. Technically, they should be described as pederasts.

The point I was making wasn't a semantic one, really. I was drawing the distinction between homosexuality, which the Church views as a perversion but psychologists don't, and pedophilia, which is unquestionably a perversion. A healthy gay man isn't attracted to 8-year-old boys, just as healthy heterosexual men aren't attracted to 8-year-old girls. And according to the training I received in a Catholic Church-sponsored program to recognize pedophiles, the adult relationships that pedophiles have may very well be heterosexual. No matter how you feel about homosexuality, it's wrong to view pedophilia as a natural extension of an adult's sexual orientation.

There's a good discussion of this issue here: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/557962.html

The Catholic Church has always listed abortion under the breakage of the Commandment against murder from the very beginning of Church history. Ensoulment is another issue altogether and has nothing to do with when life actual begins. Has she never read a Catholic prayerbook or Cathechism? All of them which have the approval of the majesterium of the Church have always listed abortion as a breakage of the Commandment against murder. A woman's culpablity depends on the situation, but it is still a serious sin which needs to be confessed. It also incurs automatic excommunication if the woman or those involved know about it.

To Laughing at This:

The Catholic Church has NOT had different positions on abortions throughout the years. It has remained steadfast against abortions for two thousand years. Apparently, you know nothing about church history. Possibly you should try educating yourself before making statements for which you know nothing about.

To puzzled in Minneapolis:

Politicians are free to say anything they want about their own beliefs, they can't, however, pass those beliefs off as those of the Catholic Church when those beliefs are not in line with Church teachings. For those of you who do not agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church, it does not change the fact that the Church and its members also have the right to its teachings and beliefs. And, no matter what religion or institution, politicians do not have the right to align their personal beliefs when they think it suits their own political agenda.

Bottom line is that killing unborn children is never the answer. And, the women who buy into this do not feel that they really have a choice. They feel that abortion is their only choice because they are scared, and feel they have no where else to turn. And, it is because of people like Nancy Pelosi who devalue life that women turn to abortion because they buy into the propaganda that they have no other choice. Rather than fighting for programs that would help women, their answer is to kill the innocent child who has nothing to do with the sins of its parents.

If you haven't, go to some of the pro-life Web sites and read the testimonials of women who have had abortions. You will learn about the pain that these women suffer because of the choice they made. I would not want this for anyone and pray that those who have had abortions will find peace through God's ever abundant mercy.

And, whether or not you believe in God, and whether or not you want to admit it, there is something intrinsically wrong with any mother really wanting to make the choice to kill her unborn child. I don't believe that most do. And, there is something wrong with any other Mother, such as Nancy Pelosi, truly wanting this for another of her sisters.

Umm, pedophile priests aren't homosexuals, I don't think. See http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html. I've also seen reports that male pedophiles, when they respond at all to adults, are attracted to adult women.

"Quickening" is felt at different times in gestation, depending on the woman's personal awareness of fetal movement. It is not so long ago that quickening was felt to be the time the fetus was suddenly infused with its soul and began to be "alive". Of course, with ultrasound, we know that the human embryo is full of wildly multiplying cells that produce a rudimentary and primitive human in very short order, indeed. (Long before quickening.) Abortion is, quite simply, the removal of a developing human. It is ridiculous to base it on quickening or any other concept. Regardless of your feelings on the validity of that life, it is stupid to say that an aborted fetus is NOT a human life. It is not a plant, a cat, or dog, or anything non-human. It IS human. When you remove it from the uterus preterm- and when you dispose of it, you have destroyed a human. Wanted or unwanted, it is human. To argue "soul" is for religious scholars and for guilty parties who participate in the wholesale loss of human life. I can see that, and I'm not even religious.

This issue is about the blind leading the blind, again.

Watching the ignorance at play of those who proclaim Eternal Life (Warren, questioning Obama's) asking "When does life begin?" is indeed pathetic.

And then even so more, is to watch ignorant against ignorant persist to argue where precisely is that "starting point?"

That's no more than an argument about who's ignorance is greater than the other.

People, please wake up from soporific teachings based on dogma. That's why State separate from Church makes great sense.

Kudos for Obama for his admirable answer "That question is beyond my paygrade", well echoing Socrates, one of the great Sages of manking, who in Greek said the same thing: "I only know that I know nothing".

Those who insist on "The Truth", go borrow McCain map to hell, where he is going to go and catch Bin Laden. Or, just ask him how far hell is from where he stands.

Insisting on knowing that which is unknowable is the greatest ignorance.

I don't understand: if people, including politicians, feel free to pronounce their belief that the soul is created at conception, why can a politician not remark on the evolution of that position over the ages, and express her thoughts on the issue?

too many abortions would unfairly reduce the supply of children available to the priesthood

Michael McGough, your article sucks so much. Unhelpful, divisive, sarchastic at best. Give us information, not twisted crap.

Nancy Pelosi also thinks that Natural Gas is not a fossil fuel.

She also cannot understand a principle as simple as Supply and Demand in relation to gas prices. Either that or she is intentionally holding the country hostage through the elections.

And she is two heartbeats away from the White House.

It's embarrassing. If Democrats are worried about the global image of the USA, many of them should quit, starting with this disgrace.

I used to wonder how some of these IDIOTS get elected and
then I see where there districts are. San Francisco, that explains it all.

This journalist lists only one other competing catholic view from the evolution of the idea, missing the most important point about where it came from. Actually the Catholic church's anti-abortion views came less than two centuries ago. Previously children did not have souls until being baptized; if you die first (stillbirth, etc) you go to limbo, not heaven or hell. The church became anti-abortion because Napoleon III convinced the Pope to change their policy for nationalist growth reasons, as France's population was growing very slowly during the 19th century. If you know the real history of this position you can see it had to do with 19th century politics and imperialist expansionism, not ancient christian doctrine. But the author makes a good point, that it is completely inappropriate to use religious views as justifications for acts in public office.