For the past two days, a steady barrage of news headlines like these has dominated the Philadelphia Inquirer. Today's Inquirer blog, Blinq features a roundup of blogosphere reactions.

Here (via Blinq) is a photo of yesterday's front page:

Huge news locally, and considering all the time I've devoted to the Philadelphia Inquirer, I guess I'm "blogligated" to say at least something. (If I didn't, it would almost be like ignoring Hurricane Katrina.)

But what am I supposed to say? That pedophilia is bad? That I am against it? That the coverup is in many ways worse than the crimes? For the life of me, I'm at a loss to know what to say. I'm not Catholic, I was never molested by a priest (or for that matter, anyone else, even if there were a few adult attempts), and my father once warned me that a seminary student who was trying to get me to read St. Thomas Aquinas was probably more interested in something else, and that seminary students were "notorious" for that sort of thing. It had occurred to me already, as I was pretty hip to that stuff, very cynical from a very young age, and unlikely to have been a victim. Certainly, it is despicable and criminal to take advantage of the young and trusting. But I don't remember being that way myself. Does that makes me evil?

I'm so cynical that I'm almost tempted to take Cardinal Rigali's advice (proffered in the lead headline on today's front page):

Don't Read Report, Rigali Says

By David O'Reilly

Inquirer Staff Writer

Cardinal Justin Rigali said yesterday that Catholics should avoid reading the district attorney's grand jury report, which accuses past leaders of the Philadelphia Archdiocese of covering up years of sexual abuse by priests.

Its "prolonged explanations of the abuse" are "very graphic," the Roman Catholic archbishop said in an interview at his Center City office yesterday.

The 418-page report, released Wednesday by District Attorney Lynne M. Abraham, also "gives a very slanted view" of how the archdiocese now handles sex-abuse cases, he said.

"I don't think it's of value to families," Rigali said.

Nor is homosexuality -- in the priesthood, or anywhere else. In an earlier post, I wondered whether there was a connection between the ability of society to openly discuss homosexuality and the fact that sexual abuse cases that used to be successfully covered up are being reported, litigated, the subject of survivor meeting groups, and huge headlines that cannot be ignored -- even by the most cynical people. If we accept the argument that homosexuals are to blame (after all, male-male sex is homosexual), does that necessarily mean that society's openness about homosexuality caused the problem? Might it also be what helped expose and shed much-needed light on the problem? Here's what I said last year:

This may sound counterintuitive, but I have grown a little tired of hearing that the "gay movement" is somehow to blame for the hemmorhaging of reported cases. While it may seem self-apparent to some, it can be argued equally plausibly that the reason so many cases have been reported in recent years is precisely because "the love that dare not speak its name" now can.

When he was a child in the early 1960s, a very effeminate friend was raped and beaten by bullies, and he managed to find his way to the nearest police station, where, in his bloody and beaten state, the police laughed at him, and called his mortified father, who ran down to the police station and proceeded to beat his son again in front of the still-laughing officers.

Tough love? Acceptable parental behavior? Not by today's standards.

What was once unmentionable, if not unthinkable, is now something that can be reported -- to your mom, to your dad, to the cops.

So, for the sake of this argument, if the vast majority of priest sexual assault allegations involve older male teens (and are thus homosexual in nature as opposed to strictly pedophilia), isn't it fair to at least ask whether or not the recent increase in reporting is a result of the ability of people to talk about it? I mean, hell, if there's a national debate about gay marriage, it's downright laughable to expect anyone to remain silent about a priest's behavior!

I have long seen the scandal as resulting more from abuse of privilege than anything else. If I decided to run around and prey on teenagers at the nearest high school, I would not expect to get away with it for long.

Priests, on the other hand, have been able to hide for years behind their status and power, and they no longer can.

The whole issue is literally out of the closet -- and I think the kneejerk attempt to blame the gay movement fails to address what may be a reason why more and more people are daring to speak up.

Articles like this carry on at great length about homosexuality being the problem, but I have not seen one acknowledge that were it not for the relatively new freedom to discuss homosexuality openly, there would never have been such a debate.

(But for the death of the closet, perhaps?)

Back in 1962 -- long before the "gay movement" -- the Catholic Church had an official policy of silence and denial.

While the Catholic Church has not asked me whether homosexuals (celibate or not) should be allowed to enter seminaries (or, if admitted, kept within a closet beyond mere celibacy), neither have I asked them whether or not homosexuals or homosexual acts are intrinsically or objectively disordered.

I'm not intrinsically or objectively Catholic, so I'd rather not offer gratuitous advice on things that aren't my intrinsic business.

However, whether any particular group of people is disordered depends on a lot of factors, and while everyone has the right to an opinion, in logic I don't see what gives the Catholic Church any more right to set standards of what is intrinsically disordered than any other organization. Or any more right to avoid disagreement and criticism.

If the Democratic Party declared that Republicans were intrinsically or objectively disordered, they'd have to expect that some Republicans would disagree, even vociferously. That's because people -- whether disordered or not -- don't especially like being judged. This is not to say that Republicans are the moral equivalent of homosexuals, nor that the Catholic Church is necessarily wrong. (I disagree with the church's position, but that does not entitle me to make absolute pronouncements or enjoy the status of being necessarily right.)

It's just a recognition of intrinsic reality.

Pronouncing people intrinsically disordered invites them to do the same in return, and I don't think it's a good way to win a debate. The church's position on homosexuality within the church really isn't my business, but it's public pronouncements about homosexuality would seem to be directed at people other than Catholics, so I think that gives me the right to speak up at the risk of sounding like a busybody.

Not to dwell on what I've already discussed, but when WorldNetDaily and Andrew Sullivan (who know more about these matters than I do) agreed about the invitability of a showdown on homosexuality within the Catholic Church, I made the following observation:

While I don't think homosexuality equates with "filth," I suppose many do, and they think that moral revival means homo removal. Far be it from me to advise the Catholic Church, WorldNetDaily, or Andrew Sullivan. I can only speak for myself when I say that there's too much preoccupation (on both "sides") with religion as the enemy of sex. If you don't agree with a religion, either don't join it, change it if you can, or quit. Likewise, if you don't like a particular form of sex, then don't have it, or quit. Whether it's religion or sex (or drugs for that matter) barring harm to others, there's as much a right to do a thing as there is not to do it. Aren't my soul and my penis my business? If so, then why should I concern myself about the penises and souls of others? And unless I want to have sex with them or join their churches, why should they concern themselves with mine? For the life of me, I'll never understand why these things have to be so emotionally charged.

Whether it's too late for the Church to slam the closet door is a different question than whether it's a good idea.

They haven't asked my advice, and at the risk of discussing things that aren't my business, common sense would seem to suggest that closets and open inquiry do not mix.

What I have no way of knowing, of course, is how many of the guilty priests would have been successfully screened out of the seminaries by the new rules which would apparently ask questions about homosexual desires. Sure, they can weed out honest homosexuals that way....

But isn't asking a pedophile whether he likes boys a little like asking a terrorist whether he has a bomb in his luggage?