Blooper

First, I'm not a reporter. I write editorials with a bone to pick. That doesn't mean one has the right to play loose with the truth. But one has to stay focused on the theme. And my theme was pedophile priests and the hypocrisy of Ratzinger. 
 
Second, look up the several definitions of "rabid." You will find that they are not as demeaning as you assume. It was the word that I wanted to describe Ratzinger's devotion to protection the doctrinal purity of the church. 
 
Third, the 'dog' reference was a play on his moniker as "God's Rottweiler." It was a metaphor not a comparison . . which I think worked out splendidly and was very apt. 
 
The number of priest accused of molesting children is about 5 percent of the population of U.S. priests. I don't know, or care, what the percentage of molesters is in the general population, and neither do I think it germane to my argument. It doesn't matter one bit to the scope of the problem if it is larger or smaller in the priesthood than in the general population. As someone pointed out above, one priestly pedophile who was protected by his bishop and transfered to another parish to continue his sexual abuse is one too many. 
 
My piece was about hypocrisy, and about the collusion of the catholic bishops, Ratzinger included as cardinal and pope, in the molestation of children and the cover-up and the spending of billions of dollars worth of poor catholics' tithing "nickels," both to support the coverup and to support the Pope's lavish lifestyle while he pontificates and accuses American secularism and materialism as the root of the the priestly pedophile problem. 
 
I stand by the piece as written

Guest