There’s so much noise around Senator Rick Santorum’s statements about liberalism and sex abuse that what the Senator was actually saying has been lost in the process. Though he’s tried to get his message out in the press, it’s been sadly and unfairly filtered, which is probably why he approached me and asked for the opportunity to respond. Here, then, are his unedited thoughts. Senator Santorum, you have the floor.

——————————————–

Finally! Okay, let’s take a look at what I really said, and why I said it, and why the liberal media is saying what they’re saying about what I said and why I said what I said about what I said after they said what they were saying. Just to be clear.

First off, this all started because I wrote a column way back in ‘02 about the priest sex scandals. Here’s an excerpt:

“Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

Pretty clear, huh? The key here is “academic, political and cultural liberalism.” If a priest is living in a culture where people enjoy socialist-leaning theories, big government and uncensored expression, what’s to stop him from thinking that it’s okay to play with a little boy’s penis? Hey, “anything goes,” right? See? Not so crazy and controversial when you take out all the lefty whining and finger-pointing, is it?

It’s about where we draw lines as a culture. I’ve always said that. If we say it’s okay for men to have sex with men, then why not boys? It’s an open question as to whether saying it’s okay for women to have sex with men opens the door for women to “sex up” little boys and men to “do” little girls. That probably bears some thinking about as well. Having an attitude that sex of any kind outside of marriage is okay… that’s the problem here.

What we need is for marriage to be the ultimate societal litmus test for whether sex is an appropriate act. Because priests can’t marry little kids. So we want them to be thinking to themselves, “Hmm, is it cool if a persuade young Timmy to fellate me? Well, I’m not married to him. Ergo, it’s not okay.” See? If our clergy had those kinds of guideposts to dictate their behavior, none of this would be happening. How are they supposed to know the difference between right and wrong in today’s world?

I’m glad I’ve had this chance to clear things up. All I was saying, all that I’m still saying, is that political, academic, and cultural liberalism is a societal disease that can lead to priest-on-boy rape. It’s just something to think about, that’s all.

In conclusion, let me tell you a quick story, though I warn you it’s a little disturbing. I had this constituent, we’ll call him Gary. Gary was a bright kid, tops in his class. About three years ago, Gary gets into Harvard University. His family was so proud, even though they were wary of sending their child to Boston and the land of moral relativism. But they figured they’d taught him well, that he had values.

I don’t know if I even need to go on here - you’ve heard this story a million times and you see what’s coming, right? Gary starts reading Salinger, voting Democratic, seeing “art films…” A year later he’s found in an alley with a heroin needle in his leg, his hand lodged way up in the body cavity of an altar boy while sodomizing a dead prostitute on a burning flag. Yes, I know; it happens all the time. But this time it happened to Gary.

All I’m saying here is that, yes, what Gary did there was wrong, and he deserved the prison time he got. But how was he to know the difference between right and wrong? Given all the liberal world had taught him, how was he to know? How are any of us to know? That’s what I want to know.

Thanks to Mr. Felber for giving me the opportunity to explain myself. And God bless you all.

- Sen. Santorum (R.,PA)