Better use our heads.. Two.

As said at the current end of Foley thread, the Dems have now set up 'the perfect storm'

Michael Gaynor writes:

"What's 'beanbag', Dad?
"It's like what we call 'Cornhole', son."

Umm... Well, sorta. But that's splitting hairs much like Avaricious and {not}Mr Rogers.
What he actually DID was adhere to the concept that no one has the right to demand formal public recognition and acceptance for their private lifestyle.

Well, I dunno.... Can the writer {he is Catholic} say exactly what's wrong with that? I dont recall seeing anything hypocritical about it, at the time. Anti-Rome feeling WAS much more widespread, but that is exactly a counter balance.

But the Republican leadership ALSO embraced the values of the Dems, and turned a blind eye, or refused to raise that eyebrow, on naming him to a sensitve chair, given his rumored predilections toward tasty chicken.
The writer then gets back on that track by going on to illustrate his point by citing the Dems charges {carried by the media} against Rick Santorum

However..

Again, at the end of it... should we use common sense.. we use the Catholic clergy as a template:
Priests are, one assumes by their religious beliefs, typically heterosexual.
But one doesnt cast a blind eye if said priest breaks the vow of celibacy... it should not be covered up.
But, as we can EASILY understand by looking back, priests are ALSO more likely to be closet homosexual.

So, let's just examine a hypothetical situation {though it has probably really happened} in a red state diocese:

Two forty-something priests in separate churches are brought up on parisioner charges of inappropriate behavior toward youth in their flocks

Father Howdy has made advances to at least one 17 year old girl, admired her appearance and asked for a picture and when she would turn 18.

Father Doody has made advances to at least one 17 year old boy, admired his appearance and asked for a picture and when he would turn 18.

The diocese responds with reassignments and warnings toward both; telling them they will be relieved from any pastoring duties if any more complaints are heard.

Unfortunately, Father Howdy is caught en flagrante with an 18 year old girl and it comes out that he began seeing and having sex with her when she was 17.
The Diocese censures him and removes him from pastoral duties. He accepts that grudgingly, but remains in the church and campaigns to return to pastoring

Father Doody also fails to abide by the sanctions and another case is found where he is cruising young boys by internet, and gets really hinky in private messages which come into the hands of those who are anti-diocese.
The diocese is ready to censure and remove him from pastoral duties but he retires, instead.

It happens,at that time, that the bishop is about to retire and this group, of which Father Howdy is an active participant, decides to lobby the Archbishop to name its choice to succeed the bishop they were arguing with over years.

So they wait until the right time to reveal the evidence to the press.

Now... the question is: Is it right and proper to distinguish between the two situations?

Or is it politics, i.e.; 'Someone is gonna get cornholed, one way or the other.'