“There, there my son, put your head right here….”

Filed in National by on August 5, 2008

A former Salesianum School priest is accused of sexually abusing four boys, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in Superior Court in Wilmington

but hey, at least they have a great sports program….

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (48)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. a parent says:
    August 5, 2008 at 11:53 am

    Your headline or whatever you call it is sick. There there….sounds like you think this is funny. Also, brilliantest is not a word. You should say “most brilliant blogger” not “brilliantest”

  2. Von Cracker says:
    August 5, 2008 at 12:41 pm

    should be “a grammarista”

    …it that a word?

  3. CJO says:
    August 5, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    I like the headline. It just confirms my belief of what a joke the catholic religion really is.

  4. Steve Newton says:
    August 5, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    CJO
    You may like the headline, but in the vein of Barack Obama and Rev Wright or John McCain and Rev Hagee, imagine this on the front page of the News Journal:

    Carney calls on Markell to disown and disavow anti-Catholic statements of his supporters at Delaware Liberal.

    Because when you put yourself out there supporting a candidate or a process, then suddenly your own edginess can become a weapon against those you support.

    And if you argue that the blog doesn’t officially support Markell, there is still the potential for this:

    Bill Lee calls on Democratic candidates to disavow or disown anti-Catholic statements in Delaware Liberal blog.

    How large a percentage of Delaware voters–especially Democrats–are Catholic?

    Funny how that funky culture of making the candidate responsible for the remarks of his/her supporters can turn around and bite anybody in the ass.

  5. CJO says:
    August 5, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Who says I support either candidate?

    I guess I should censor myself until the election is over.

    Fuck religion!!!

  6. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 5, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    steve,

    Well, when that happens Jason will have to ask me to leave. We are a blog not an extension of a candidates web page.

    A Parent,

    I am a non practicing catholic that attended Sallies & St. Mary Magdalen and sent 3 girls to St. Hedwigs. While the headline may offend you. What the catholic church has done offends me more.

    The title is not meant to be a funny, haha joke, it is meant to be sick, disgusting and everything that is wrong with the priests MY church covered up in your face get you to read title.

  7. Steve Newton says:
    August 5, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    Not you, specifically CJO, of course not.

    But the headline and the consistent anti-religious, anti-Catholic rants that occur repeatedly could become problematic.

    Besides, can’t you just imagine Revs. Wright or Hagee saying the same thing, “I guess I should censor myself until the election is over.”

    Look where that got them, and their candidates.

    Face it–if you’re going to play the game, everybody gets to play. That’s how it works, pal.

  8. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 5, 2008 at 1:57 pm

    religion poisons everything

  9. cassandra m says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    Bill Lee or Jack Markell or John Carney or whoever it is asking for the disowning and the disavowing will need to point out what — precisely — is anti-Catholic by the headline.

    The tasteless argument is an easy one to make. But I’m curious to know if you are actually asking these candidates to step in and demonize this blog for that headline?

  10. CJO says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Many other subjects considered detrimental to either candidate(or party) have been said over the past few months, but I guess religion is taboo.

    Are you religious, pal?

  11. Steve Newton says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    No, cassandra, and you should know better than that. But I am raising the issue that you can’t have it both ways, which everybody here seems to want to have it.

    I would be among your first defenders, as badly as I think you as a blog have handled all religious issues in the past. Nor is the observation original to me: it’s been made to me on several occasions by other people, offended Catholic Democrat voters.

    If you don’t honestly think there has been any anti-Catholic tinge to DL’s coverage of religious issues, then naturally you wouldn’t have anything to worry about.

    I thought long and hard before I posted that comment, because I know there is a chance somebody would actually take me up on it.
    And that’s not what I want. What I want is for you guys to realize that if you’re going to actually follow through with inserting yourself into real-world politics–if any of us are–then everything from murderboy on up stands a huge chance of being picked out and played in front of an audience that doesn’t know how blogs work.

    And that’s serious discussion we ought to be having.

  12. mike w. says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Good point Steve. Someone could pick out a few of the more vile things said by DE Liberal folks and say “See, this is what Markell supporters are like.

    Vile bigotry and ad hominems can bite you in the ass, especially if you’re contributers are going to come out and openly support certain candidates.

  13. CJO says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Welcome to the real world gentlemen. This is what people actually thinking and saying out here.

  14. CJO says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Why don’t you aske those 4 boys how they feel?

  15. mike w. says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    I’m not religious, however I will point out that the priest has been “accused” of these things. We don’t know at this point whether he’s guilty or not.

  16. Steve Newton says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    mike, I don’t support the Vile bigotry and ad hominems can bite you in the ass comment because–as I think I made quite clear in the last post (but I’ll do it again): the blogosphere is different, and people outside don’t understand that.

    Before anyone else says it, there are all kinds of comments on my own blog that could be used against any Libertarian candidate running–like my controversial discussions of pornography.

    Your own blog would provide fuel for fodder if carefully quoted.

    The point is we have to think about how we go from alternative to alternate media, what that means and if we all want to make that trip.

    I raised this issue because if we don’t think about it and talk about it among ourselves, trust me: we will be punked by our enemies.

    I specifically do not, mike, I say again do not intend this to be a dump on DL post. This blog IS the hub of the DE political blogosphere.

    But at the same time, cassandra, you can’t quail in defensiveness at the thought that someone might demonize DL, when DL routinely engages in the what could easily appear to be the demonization of conservatives and ReTHUGlicans

    I know that’s invective used (usually) to discuss ideas. But it’s not the normal political dialogue, and I don’t think it would transfer well (at least not quickly) into the world of people (voters) who think what the WNJ does is news.

  17. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    OHHHHHH well, well, fucking well what do we have hear?

    Steve Newton the ear to concerned Catholics? Do they share with you their concern for not being able to use the Condom during their Sunday night procreation time? How about the pill Steve? Do they whine to you about that? Do they rail against the little meetings that schools have to push out their agenda politically when it comes to IVF? What else Steve does the offended Catholic Community of Delaware tell you?

    WAAHHHHHHHH, DL is anti catholic, oh for GOD’s sake.

    You know instead of standing up to a powerhouse like the Catholic Church, I tHINK it is easier to stand up to a little blog. Make them the enemy, the pagan enemy to CRUSADE against.

    What a joke.

    Your little comments strike me as the same people complaining, “You know there just isn’t enough good stuff on the news. It’s all murder this, steal that”

    I’m in a lather now!

  18. CJO says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    And the republicans don’t use this tactic to demonize democrats? Just tune in to any A.M radio station.

  19. Steve Newton says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    dv
    Did you actually read anything I wrote or just ejaculate spontaneously again?

  20. Steve Newton says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Excuse me, I’ve got to get a tissue to clean your pseduo-outrage off my shirt.

    See, you get to raise controversial issues without any concern for people challenging you, but that doesn’t work all the way around, does it?

    Wipe, wipe.

    Face it, dv, you have every right to be tasteless and aggressive and as I said before I support that–but if you can’t take a hit, don’t cry to me.

    Cover it in chocolate.

  21. cassandra m says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Well, I share DVs disdain for the priests who perpetrated this whole business and for those who protected them for so long. Perhaps that makes me anti-Catholic too and many other Catholics feel the same way.

    If folks show up here to capture a few phases in an attempt to make some other candidate look bad, that is easy to do. There are not many blogs here that can’t be manipulatively quoted. It is becoming a commonplace for conservative pols to invoke the Daily Kos or MoveOn.org (without even quoting them) as a way to invoke fear and loathing of a certain (fairly effective) leftiness. It is stupid as all get out — but it does work to some extent with the appropriate audience.

    I’m not especially quailing in defensiveness here — I was looking to see how the libertarian version of identity politics would look. Your comment did certainly look like a threat. But this blog is not mine and the only thing I control here is my own behavior and words.

    I raised this issue because if we don’t think about it and talk about it among ourselves, trust me: we will be punked by our enemies.

    As I said, there are few blogs that can’t be manipulatively quoted. We really can’t stop that, even if we are on our best behavior, because we are dealing with topics that other would rather not see get much sunshine. What we can do is make sure that strong enough to fight back where needed. But if your point is to ask people to imagine a broader audience than the usual posting suspects when writing here, that would make sense to me.

  22. Resident Atheist says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    I just wanted to support CJO in the “Fuck Religion” proposition. Thank you.

  23. CJO says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    Maybe there should be a Delaware Liberal Lite.

  24. CJO says:
    August 5, 2008 at 2:46 pm

    “I just wanted to support CJO in the “Fuck Religion” proposition. Thank you.”

    Your welcome.

  25. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 5, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    Cover it in chocolate.

    is that some code for Pedophile priests I don’t know about?

  26. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 5, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    it’s called the News Journal

  27. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 5, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    or the now defunct Grapevine

  28. Von Cracker says:
    August 5, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    If “it” means frozen banana, then, no.

  29. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 5, 2008 at 3:12 pm

    Face it, dv, you have every right to be tasteless and aggressive and as I said before I support that–but if you can’t take a hit, don’t cry to me.

    I can take a hit, but just be ready to take it back. You see, I say what I want and don’t have reservations (few, very few)

    Apparently having an unfiltered opinion is a bad thing to the sensitive people that like to go around with blinders.

    so be it Newton.

  30. pandora says:
    August 5, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    I can’t believe I’m jumping into this…

    First, I’m not really seeing an anti-catholic theme. Steve, could you be more specific. I know I wrote a post on Catholics taking on the Pope over birth control, and I didn’t feel that was anti-Catholic. But maybe because I was raised Catholic I felt “entitled” to speak my mind.

    Second, Steve raises a bigger question, and one I can’t dismiss out of hand. Where are blogs heading and will we have to change? to become more careful?

    Third, DV is DV. He won’t change, and I wouldn’t want him to. Whether it’s Catholics, soldiers, or Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor DV is consistently provocative. He’s an equal opportunity offender! 🙂

    Maybe all blogs should add a disclaimer: The opinions expressed here by commenters are not necessarily express the opinions of DL contributors. Likewise, the opinions expressed by one DL contributor are not necessarily shared by all DL contributors.

    Too wordy?!

  31. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 5, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    better yet…

    We are not the tool of a specific party or candidate. What you read here while it may sometimes support a candidate does not mean we will not say something you disagree with or that candidate does.

    In other words, you don’t like what one of us says, oh well, get your own blog and make that one the most read one in delaware.

    Is this what it is like to be number one?

  32. Brian says:
    August 5, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    “bite anybody in the ass”

    Not bite….they did something else in the ass

  33. Steve Newton says:
    August 5, 2008 at 5:45 pm

    dv
    Quit pouting. I already said DL is the hub of the DE blogosphere. What do you want–genuflection?

    But it’s also disingenuous to try to pretend that several if not most of you posting here ARE trying to further certain political ends in real-world DE politics. And that you love to bask in the credit each time the MSM (such as it is here) throws you a bone.

    The most-read blog in Delaware still reaches far fewer people in a week that Al Mascitti’s radio show does in two hours.

  34. delawaredem says:
    August 5, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    Steve, I am a practicing Catholic, and I can tell you to mind your own business. You have no right to call me or anyone here anti-Catholic. Unless you define “Catholic” as embracing pedophilia, then there is no way you can say we are anti-Catholic. So either retract that statement, or I will be forced to call you a liar, or a supporter or pedophiles.

    As a Catholic, I am horribly offended by those alleged actions of certain priests and the actions of the Church in covering it up for untold decades. That deserves ridicule and attack. And you somehow say it doesn’t. Again, that makes you a defender of child abuse.

  35. Von Cracker says:
    August 5, 2008 at 6:24 pm

    ouch

  36. Steve Newton says:
    August 5, 2008 at 6:28 pm

    DD
    …and the horse you rode in on.

    dv didn’t ridicule abusers only in his original post.

    I said some of the posts could be construed as anti-Catholic, and I stand by it.

    When did you ever get the idea that you had the right to decide what makes me a defender of child abuse or an apologist for the church because I challenged some of the worst-taste writing on the blogosphere in dv’s original post, and you got upset that I did so

    You can call me anything you want, DD.

    “mind your own business” in a blog post?

    As Pandora has said, butting into other people’s business is what blogging is all about.

    You want to attack me because I don’t follow your party line? Feel free. But here’s a thought you obviously haven’t had: try reading what I wrote and responding to that, rather than doing your high-horse moral outrage bit in defense of a post that even one of your own bloggers called tasteless.

  37. Von Cracker says:
    August 5, 2008 at 6:28 pm

    as a practicing humanist, i hope the mocking and shaming will continue until full acceptance of guilt and restitution is made….and that goes for the whole lot of religions out there, including bush voters.

  38. delawaredem says:
    August 5, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    I want to attack you because you are engaging in what your side always does. For example, if I criticize the Bush Administration, I am anti-American. If I criticize the Catholic church for their admitted sinful wrongdoing, I am anti-Catholic.

    You know what you can go do with yourself.

  39. Steve Newton says:
    August 5, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    My side? Give me a break you twit. I was criticizing the Bush administration from day one. I am a stronger critic of American foreign and social policy than you ever have been.

    I didn’t say you were anti-Catholic, DD. I didn’t even say dv was anti-Catholic. For pity’s sake, actually read.

    What the hell is “my side”? Anybody who disagrees with your points or your methods?

    Here’s the interesting point of hypocrisy for you guys: at DL when one blogger says something and then the blog gets called on it, you all say everyone speaks for themselves. So none of the rest of you share any common responsibility. But if I call out dv on a trashy way to make a point, and suggest it actually hurts the cause you’re all trying to promote, all of a sudden I’ve called you all anti-Catholic and you raise the flag.

    I’ve been doing it with myself since I was about fourteen. I stopped when my palms got too hairy.

    If you had a clue in this particular debate, DD, you’d be–no, you’d still be ridiculous.

  40. pandora says:
    August 5, 2008 at 7:01 pm

    I don’t think we’re really disagreeing with each other. In fact, I think we agree. Perhaps it’s time to take a step back from our computers… think and regroup.

    Maybe this makes me a pollyanna. BUT I respect everyone in this debate – except A. Bundy, for he is dead to me!!! – and I’m really uncomfortable with the tone this post (not what DV wrote) is taking.

    Go ahead, take your best shot. It can’t possibly be any worse.

  41. Fr. Sarcasmo says:
    August 5, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    Wow. This whole thread looks like a scrotem totem.

    Don Viti on top!

    10 bucks says he won’t give a reacharound!

  42. CJO says:
    August 5, 2008 at 8:44 pm

    “But the headline and the consistent anti-religious, anti-Catholic rants that occur repeatedly could become problematic.”

    Ha Ha ,you did say it.

  43. Steve Newton says:
    August 5, 2008 at 9:28 pm

    There is a difference, CJO between characterizing the rants as anti-religious or anti-Catholic and the writer. And if you take it in the context of particularly what I wrote in response to dv’s third post, it’s hard to argue that I’m calling him personally anti-Catholic.

    And if you’re going to argue that dv hasn’t produced a consistent set of anti-religious rants–entertaining as many of them are–give me a break.

    I think dv is exactly what he portrays himself as: a man horrified and angered by what he considers hypocrisy, willing to say exactly what he thinks and damn the consequences. And I enjoy reading 99% of them.

    But the headline and the closing line of this post, combined, fall beyond the line in my opinion. And my point has always been that outside the blogosphere most people would agree with me.

  44. Andy says:
    August 5, 2008 at 10:34 pm

    In reality most every Bishop Arch Bishop Cardinal any one in a position of authority in the Catholic Church up to and including the Pope could probably be charged with a Felony crimes of Hindering prosecution for their overwhelming efforts in covering this crap up

  45. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 5, 2008 at 10:39 pm

    I love it when people try to label me.

  46. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 5, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    I DBB am anti catholic b/c I make fun of pedophile priests and the system that hid them for 100 years.

    I’ve seen it all. The more people type. and you guys LOVE to type, the more you learn about people.

  47. Professor Plum says:
    August 5, 2008 at 10:50 pm

    I win the $10!!!!

  48. Delaware's Brilliantest Blogger says:
    August 5, 2008 at 10:54 pm

    that is like 3 euro’s you know?

«
»