So how is it possible for someone who has no love whatsoever for children can see the necessity for an impassioned defense of them while the Florida Department of Children and Families and the Catholic Church cannot?

A little more than one year ago, a woman from the Florida Department of Children and Families took custody of Rilya Wilson from her foster mother, who’d been caring for the child in the stead of her drug addicted mother. Presumably not knowing any better, and certainly not suspecting the worst, the foster mother surrendered custody of the four-year-old, assuming the girl was being cared for by the State. In the meantime, because she felt burdened by a heavy workload, Rilya Wilson’s caseworker falsified documents suggesting all was well with the child, that her development was going along nicely. No one ever bothered to check up on the girl … the woman from the Department of Children and Families was an imposter familiar with the case; no one has seen Rilya Wilson since.

Consider also the Catholic Church’s continuing pedophilia problems: Paul Shanley’s arrest in San Diego only helped to underscore, yet again, Cardinal Law’s approval through inaction, not to forget the Catholic Church’s abject refusal to deal with the matter appropriately. The overall issue has morphed: in the beginning of the scandal there was great discussion of how the Church should make it their mission to not only protect children, but see those offenders – both past and present – prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Now liberals are unnaturally preoccupied with married / female priests and the end of celibacy; religious conservatives are equally preoccupied with the return of the Latin mass and the Church’s inability to make restitution (or whatever the hell they’re worried about; no one can tell, such is the incoherence of their message).

You’d be right to consider both issues and ask, What’s the connection? The connection is, quite frankly, one of my life’s most profound contradictions: Anyone who knows me even casually can tell you of my ferocious dislike of children; in the scope of meaningful life, they are unnecessary, loud, difficult to handle, a financial drain, ignorant and destroyers of autonomy (that is, whatever should remain of your autonomy after the federal government micromanages your life to pieces). None of these things are the faults of the children themselves, of course, but they are nonetheless true statements which I employ in defense of my position. (No, the journey isn’t worth the end result, don’t even try it. Child rearing is a life sentence, and should be avoided.)

Yet, as someone so alertly pointed out recently, for someone who dislikes children as much as I do, more than enough column space has been (and will continue to be) spent coming to their defense; therein lies the Great Contradiction. In this he meant because I’m pro-life, because I spoke so passionately against Andrea Yates, because I took up for the memory of Danielle Van Dam, because I have blasted the Church for their inaction (and will continue to do so). The contradiction exists because children are unique among all residents of the world in that they are true innocents to their plight and are most deserving of our protections. There aren’t such things as acceptable reasons to molest, kidnap, rape, drown or otherwise destroy a child or his innocence; anyone offering what he believes to be defenses for these or equal horrors is a farce as a human being, a jackass, and should probably be shot to death besides. The position is clear: my zero tolerance is miles beyond and better than anything conventionally called zero tolerance, even as considered by the Church.

So how is it possible for someone who has no love whatsoever for children can see the necessity for an impassioned defense of them while the Florida Department of Children and Families and the Catholic Church cannot? How does it happen that State child service employees and Cardinals come second and third to a guy who, other than in areas of protection, simply couldn’t care less if another child is ever conceived? How can it be possible a Mid-western columnist writing a book called The Case Against Compassion cares more than the Catholic Church?! Doesn’t that somehow seem very, very wrong?

That sound is thousands of keyboards being plunked as angry letters of reply are being written and sent. Let me save you the trouble: Yes, I understand State child service caseworkers and burdened by their workload; yes, I understand this wouldn’t be the case if people were better parents; yes, I understand the circumstances that saw Rilya Wilson’s abduction are few and far between; yes, I understand these offending priests have mental illnesses; yes, I understand that forcing priests to remain celibate and unmarried is an old and antiquated idea, et cetera, ad infinitum. These are all obvious to any rational thinker.

The problem arises when you begin accepting those excuses, no matter how rooted in truth they may be, instead of marrying yourself to those basic moral responsibilities children command. Even if she was unbelievably burdened by her workload, why couldn’t this caseworker at the absolute least make one phone call and ask, “How’s Rilya doing?” From this the story would have come out, the effort to find her would have begun. And why couldn’t Cardinal Law, after first learning of pedophile priests 20 years ago, make phone calls and say, “Nowhere in civilization should people be molesting kids; you’re suspended until we know the truth, Father, and I’m calling the police.” The notion you should reject is the one suggesting doing right is so difficult there are such things as extenuating circumstances to justify the taking of a child’s innocence or, worse yet, life.