That study is here.

On page 13 they report the average nationwide rate of child sexual abuse in 1992 was 246 children per 100,000.  

That seems much more plausible to me than 9.6%.

"Experts disagree on the rate of sexual abuse among the general American male population, but Allen says a conservative estimate is one in 10. Margaret Leland Smith, a researcher at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, says her review of the numbers indicates it’s closer toone in 5 …

A 2004 U.S. Department of Education report reported that "the most accurate data available" reveals that "nearly 9.6 percent of [public school] students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career."

Wow.  Can those numbers be accurate?  I find that hard to fathom.

How are they defining "sexual abuse" and "sexual misconduct" here, would relatively minor things like inappropriate comments and off-color jokes qualify?

Music at Mass today: choir, piano, tambourine, and a bongo drummer.

Par for the course in these parts. 

One thing that has puzzled me: why did they rig the 2009 election?

If the president is a mere sock-puppet, and all the candidates are vetted to remove anyone who might rock the boat, they why rig the outcome?  Seems like all downside (resulting protests) with no benefit.

Perhaps they fear that a reformist president with popular backing might wrest power from them, no matter how toothless the office is on paper?

Children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, step-father, or mother's latest boyfriend.  These men are not celibate.  Give men unsupervised access to children and some small percentage will molest them.

Do you have any evidence that celibate men are more likely to molest children than sexually active men?  I've never seen any such evidence.

Wait, that's your definition of "libertarian?"  I though the term for that was "federalist." 

The "wiggle room" appears confined to this paragraph:

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

That would seem to leave room for someone who was perhaps confused about their orientation for a period of time during adolescence, but has matured into a secure heterosexual identity.  It would also perhaps leave room for the "ex-gay," someone who has (or believes they have) changed their orientation as a result of therapy, prayer, or whatever.

Someone who still believes they have a homosexual orientation would not appear to me to qualify, whether or not they embrace celibacy.

No, the desire itself is characterized as "objectively disordered," the desire does not make the person "objectively disordered."

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter.

Your might reject the distinction between person vs. orientation/tendency, but to accurately describe the Vatican position you can't skip over that distinction.

Ah, you're thinking of Protestant Heaven.  Catholic Heaven is much more fun...

"Other than tradition?"  I suspect tradition is the core reason for much of the support.  People who grew up to organ hymns in church are naturally inclined to think organs sound more "churchy" than other instruments.

Also, I think there's something to be said for a distinct style of liturgical music that is different than popular music.  If I go to a club on Friday night and listen to music performed on electric guitar, drums, and piano, then hear the same instruments used in church Sunday morning, those instruments will seem ordinary, vulgar, profane...

Whereas traditional hymns set to organ music, or chant or other vocal music, has a very distinct style.  For me at least, it marks it off as "this is a sacred space" in a way that music that apes popular music cannot.

I agree that there are many things beside music that divide Christians.  My point, though, as a practical problem is: what kind of music could we use if we all wanted to worship together?

So far, we have people who love old hymns and King Prawn who loathes them.  We have people who were Christian rock drummers and people who can't abide praise music.  We have people (including me) who prefer Gregorian chant, and Misthiocracy who would prefer no music at all.

Are you suggesting that if we set aside what we want and let Christ lead us, he'd lead us all to embrace the same style of worship music?

I'm very glad it had that effect on you.  It's not my cup of tea.

Which brings up an interesting point: we're all agreed that music should inspire the congregation, but it's clear we're inspired by different styles and genres of music.

I suppose it's inevitable that people will seek out and join congregations that play the kind of music that moves them.  Still, it saddens me to think that music ends up dividing Christians into rival camps rather than uniting us.

In #124 you suggested that you don't believe in anything outside the material world.  In other words, you don't believe in God.

If true, it seems that your disagreement with the Church runs far deeper than questions of sexual morality or how the hierarchy is organized.  Or are you proposing that in the name of "changing a bit with the times" the Church should discard the entire Creed and embrace atheistic materialism?

Such is the human condition.  Always has been, always will be.  There is nothing new under the sun.

That is precisely my point.

You are saying that the future is so incredibly bleak that life will not be worth living.

How should I know?  It's a secret agenda...