Someone needs to ask Elena Kagan about this

Why is the Obama Administration siding with the Vatican on this:

I’m slammed on my day job, so invite others to write how it makes you feel to have the President of the United States side with The Vatican instead of hundreds of thousands of crime victims of the pedophile epidemic in the Catholic Church. It was the U.S. Solicitor General, joined by the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Justice Department who filed briefs in favor of The Vatican Friday May 21st, in the lawsuit from Oregon that Jeff Anderson and other plaintiff attorneys are trying to take all the way to the Pope.

Do you agree that the .17 square miles of real estate that is the Vatican is a sovereign nation? That a mall sized pile of cement populated by leaders of a religion, who go out from that nation all over the globe propagating their message, is a sovereign nation?

Like Italy and Germany?

Am I getting this right?

The Office of the U.S. Solicitor General who wrote the amicus brief is headed by Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Hearings confirming Kagan onto the Court are scheduled for June in D.C.

OK, can we stop pretending that we're friends with these guys now?

For the last twenty years, we've heard all kinds of conciliatory crap towards Jews coming out of the Vatican. It was all horsepuckey, of course, no matter how much Rabbi Marc Gelman wanted to believe it. They believe we killed Christ, they've always believed we killed Christ, and when he comes back, we'll get him again!

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Now I'm not one of those people who sees anti-Semitism around every corner, like Woody Allen in Annie Hall talking about someone saying "Jew eat?". But all this nicey-nice stuff from the Vatican always struck me as creepy. I knew the shiv was there at the ready, and so it is:

A website quoted Giacomo Babini, the emeritus bishop of Grosseto, as saying he believed a "Zionist attack" was behind the criticism, considering how "powerful and refined" the criticism is.

The comments, which have been denied by the bishop, follow a series of statements from Catholic churchmen alleging the existence of plots to weaken the church and Pope Benedict XVI.

Allegedly speaking to the Catholic website Pontifex, Babini, 81, was quoted as saying: "They do not want the church, they are its natural enemies. Deep down, historically speaking, the Jews are God killers."

He's not all wrong. We do NOT want their church. Even those of us who are nonobservant as Jews want no part of a church that throughout its history has stood for persecution of heretics, the amassing of power, the cynical abuse of mankind's quest for meaning, and harbors and protects pedophiles.

If you believe that Y'shua of Nazareth actually existed, it doesn't matter whether you believe he was divine or just a cool guy with a message that we should all be nice to each other. The fact of the matter is that the deeply corrupt organization housed in Italy and populated by creepy old men does their messiah no service and pays him no tribute.

Why are the media not touching this story?

Look, I realize that ultimately this is about the faith of millions of people. I recognize that Roman Catholicism as a religion speaks to a great many people. I know that there are a lot of people who hold with papal infallibility; perhaps not most American Catholics, many of whom pick and choose from the menu, but many. I also understand that when you're talking about religion, you have to step carefully.

But I'm not talking about Catholic doctrine here, or if I am, it extends only to the doctrine of papal infallibility. But I'm sorry, if your religion requires that you hold a man who aided and abettted the sexual abuse of children as infallible, perhaps it's time to become an Episcopalian:

The Pope was drawn directly into the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal last night as news emerged of his part in a decision to send a paedophile priest for therapy. The cleric went on to reoffend and was convicted of child abuse but continues to work as a priest in Upper Bavaria.

The priest was sent from Essen to Munich for therapy in 1980 when he was accused of forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex. The archdiocese confirmed that the Pope, who was then a cardinal, had approved a decision to accommodate the priest in a rectory while the therapy took place.

The priest, identified only as H, was subsequently convicted of sexually abusing minors after he was moved to pastoral work in nearby Grafing. In 1986 he was given an 18-month suspended jail sentence and fined DM 4,000 (£1,800 today). There have been no formal charges against him since.

The church has been accused of a cover-up after at least 170 allegations of child abuse by German Catholic priests. The scandal broke in January but the claims, which continue to emerge, span three decades. Critics say that priests were redeployed to other parishes rather than dismissed when they were found to be abusing children.

Again and again and again and again. Case after case after case -- only this time in involves this particular pope directly.

Fifty years ago a presidential candidate had to assure voters that were he elected, the Pope would not be making policy. It's a step forward that such steps are no longer required, but for the last six months, a Catholic Senator has been almost single-handedly blocking health care reform in this country; a man who is willing to deny health care to actual children over the Church doctrine on abortion. We are not a Roman Catholic nation, whether Bart Stupak likes it or not, and his lies about abortion funding serve neither him, nor the country, nor the Church. (Well, maybe they serve the interests of the Church.)

But while the media are willing to be all Eric Massa, all the time, because it is a salacious story, they are unwilling to cover this reality of systematic beatings and sexual abuse of children in monasteries BECAUSE IT WILL OFFEND PEOPLE? On what altar are we sacrificing children to the interests of a corrupt hierarchy masquerading as the keepers of the religious flame? Does it serve Christ to protect pedophiles while children suffer a lifetime of shame and psychological damage? Are the media there to serve the Vatican or to inform? Why does the Vatican get a free pass on activities that would get anyone else thrown in prison for a long, long time?