nihil nisi

By Diogenes (articles ) | Oct 15, 2006

The Boston Globe, whose investigative reporters copped a Pulitzer Prize for their aggressive treatment of priests who molested young people, offered a front-page farewell to the late Congressman Gerry Studds:

Gerry E. Studds, who championed environmental, maritime, and fisheries issues during 24 years in the US House of Representatives and lent an eloquent voice to health and human rights matters, died early yesterday.

Outside of the maritime industry, Rep. Studds was known to the American public primarily as the lawmaker censured by his colleagues in 1983, after his sexual affair with a teenage Congressional page came to light.

Rep. Studds did not resign in disgrace. He ran for re-election, and the voters of Massachusetts sent him back to Washington in 1984, and 1986, and 1988, and 1990, and 1992, and 1994-- always to applause from the Globe.

At about the same time, the Archbishop of Boston was continuing to hand out parish assignments to priests who were known to have molested teenagers. The Globe thinks that's terrible. Actually so do I. But one of us isn't being consistent.

Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 5 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Oct. 16, 2006 9:15 AM ET USA

    It doesn't matter what they say about Studds, the priests are still wrong.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 15, 2006 9:18 PM ET USA

    In the MSNBC obit, Studds' husband (remember, this is Massachusetts) says that Studds "was never ashamed of the relationship with the page." And the CNN/AP obit says that Studds "acknowledged having sex with a 17-year-old male page in 1973 and making sexual advances to two others and admitted an error in judgment, but did not apologize."

  • Posted by: - Oct. 15, 2006 8:49 PM ET USA

    Ah, make that "hypocrisy" please.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 15, 2006 9:31 AM ET USA

    It was not Massachusettts so much as it was the voters of his district. And their returning him to office is a sign of what is wrong with Americans everywhere. Their votes for him were a sign of self-interest, pure and simple. His district is composed of fishermen, not normally a group given to support for pederasty. But Studds brought them their pork, and they selfishly put their wallets ahead of moral propriety. But don't single them out; they're just like the rest of the country-selfish.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 15, 2006 8:38 AM ET USA

    Diogenes, your comment, "one of is isn't being consistent" could be true, or it could be not true. It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. The Globe seems more commited to persons who are at any rate consistent, and the superficiality of their reflexive disdain for hypocracy (ie. "well what do expect a gay man to do under the circumstances?") is evident. Thank you for calling them out.