Sen. NAMBLA (R-VA)

Just when you think Lil Ricky Santorum can't top the last outrageous thing he's said, he says something even more batshit crazy (or craven). Actually, the brain fart from Ricky of which I speak is not that recent. It's only recently come to my attention via the Santorum Exposed site (by way of Atrios).

Last Wednesday, 2 Political Junkies blogged about Sen. Man-On-Dog's 2002 statements that blamed the actions of pedophile priests on Boston's "liberal" atmosphere.

Now we find out that when an AP reporter asked Santorum in 2003 to clarify those remarks he had the following to say:

"In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it."

That's right, Sen. NAMBLA is saying that if you're a boy, say, age 13 or older and you were sexually abused by a Catholic priest in the Boston area, it was likely consensual sex because as long as these children were post-pubescent; they were "men." Anyone out there with a 13 year old that would like to dispute that? Massachusetts law certainly has something to say about the age of consent. I will provide the Senator with the information:

Chapter 265: Section 23 Rape and abuse of child Section 23. Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall, for the first offense, be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction, and for the second or subsequent offense by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years, but not less than five years; provided, however, that a prosecution commenced under the provisions of this section shall not be placed on file or continued without a finding.

But does a good Catholic family man even need to go to the law? Does not a good Catholic family man know that a priest -- someone who according to Catholic Catechism acts "in persona Christi Capitis" -- is more than just a trusted authority figure? That a priest is during transubstantiation (the act of turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ) the "image of Christ" apparently does not confer any special responsibility or culpability when regarding a child as a sexual object. According to Dear Ricky, the child has equal responsibility as long as it's "consensual" which, again, Sen. NAMBLA seems to believe is a possibility between a child and an adult (priest).

Moreover, he cavalierly dismisses the fact that there were male children molested in the United States since 1950 who were between the ages of 1 and 7 (2.4%); that 11.8% were boys between the ages of 8 and 10; and that a whopping 51.2% of the boys who were molested were on the cusp of post-pubescence (ages 11 - 14). And, of course to prove his point that these were consensual gay "relationships," Santorum must blind himself to the fact that 19% of all the children molested were girls.

Ricky must also blind himself to the fact that since girls are highly discouraged -- and for most of the time under consideration outright banned -- from serving at the altar, priests have far more access to little boys than to little girls.

But why go into all this detail? Don't most good Catholic family men naturally recoil in horror at the thought of a priest sexually molesting a child without any need to go into stats and verse and chapter of the law?

What is wrong with Sen. Santorum that when faced with his own bizarre statements that Liberals caused priests to be pedophiles he has to go into full Blame The Victim Mode?

Just how sick and twisted is this man? Does he really believe the views he spouts or is just willing to cause further pain to the survivors in an attempt to cast aspersions on liberals?

Does it matter?