The American Bishops seemed to me to fulfill their responsibility of protecting their entire constituency. All of it, past, present and future. It seems to me they have their priorities, which can't be everyones.

There are some who will never be happy until every perp has been tortured to death. That can't be the Bishop's main priority. That has to be protecting their congregations and their Church from these abusers. I can't help but think it's tragic all the way around, and if the perp can be treated, they should be. Not all can, I know. And even those who can should not be around children again.

The leadership of most profound movements always seem to be extreme, more extreme to some than to others. The Civil Rights taken for granted today have been shoved down the throats of political conservatives. Every time. Too much, too fast, too expensive, not needed, "compassionate conservatism" will handle it.

In my state there is a regular fuss over not discriminating against someone because of sexual orientation. The right-wing, Christian fundamentalists pay for iniatives to remove that, even though they can discriminate on that basis when it comes to hiring their personnel.

Protection for workers on the job, well, that's still there. Environmental concerns, less arsenic in the water, like protection for workers, there's the conservative mantra. Too much, too fast, too expensive. "Oh, don't get us wrong!! No one wants to protect the Earth, workers, whatever, more than us!! No one!!! But right now it's too much, too fast, too expensive!"

I don't know that leadership has coopted the membership as much as they have to be out front. It's their job to articulate, to push, to agitate, to move. It has to be out a bit beyond the edge.

They have to be, or there isn't an issue. I remember not being able to understand the feminists, at all. Not even a little bit.

And, we're most of the way there, and it doesn't seem so bad. Don't know what all the fuss was about.

Arf