Skip to comments.Vatican attacked (by gay groups) over cardinal's claim of homosexuality and paedophilia link
Posted on 04/14/2010 6:49:02 AM PDT by NYer
Gay rights groups have condemned the Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, for claiming that the Catholic church's sexual abuse crisis was linked to homosexuality and paedophilia and not celibacy among priests.
Bertone, who is considered Pope Benedict's number two, sparked the controversy on a visit to Chile when he suggested gay sexuality was to blame for the church's child abuse scandals.
Homosexual associations in Italy reacted with anger and indignation. The biggest group, Arcigay, called the cardinal's words "shocking and irresponsible". The president of the gay media service, Gaynet, said if senior church officials "feel constrained to dump the blame on homosexuals, it says a lot about the current state of desperation in the Vatican".
Gay rights advocates in Chile also waded in. "Neither Bertone nor the Vatican has the moral authority to give lessons on sexuality," Rolando Jiménez, president of the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation in Chile, told AP.
No reputable study exists to support the cardinal's claims, said Jiménez added. "This is a perverse strategy by the Vatican to shirk its own ethical and legal responsibility by making a spurious and disgusting connection."
The cardinal, who is known for his blunt and sometimes tactless manner, made the remarks at a televised press conference in Chile's capital Santiago.
He said: "Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia. This pathology is one that touches all categories of people, and priests to a lesser degree in percentage terms. The behaviour of the priests in this case, the negative behaviour, is very serious, is scandalous."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
“Vatican attacked by Gay group”...you mean the NYT?
Oh, and AIDS isn’t a Gay disease.
I think the Vatican needs to go on the attack. Stop using polite language and mumbling about “some experts,” and go into some nauseating detail about exactly what “gay rights groups” do with each other. Use quotes from their own literature, about how they feel about nubile teenage boys. (Can boys be nubile? Better look it up.) Quotes from some of the letter Weakland wrote to his toyboy, perhaps ...
Charlton Heston did it with the Gangster Rap, remember? He went to Time Warner’s stockholder meeting and read the lyrics to the “music” they were selling. Yes, it’s hideously disgusting, but that’s what the behavior of homosexuals is, too.
I think the Vatican has to stop making excuses for why they have Priests abusing children, get back to their biblical justification if any for celibate priests, and pledge to hold their Priests to God’s standards, not try to use man’s fallen standards to excuse their behavior.
80% of the incidents are with boys. The most common characteristic of were molested boys between 11-14. Anyone who went to Catholic school knows that there were too many fruity priests and the only molester I knew of was a bad drinker as well.
Fags are more likely to be teen and child molesters.
I’m shocked by the suggestion that there is a link between homosexuality and men who molest boys. What possible connection could there be between 85% of pedophilia and male-male sex?
The Cardinals claim is absolutely correct, homosexuals are 49 times more likely to be in jail for abusing a child than their heterosexual counterparts, that’s from FBI statistics folks... Anyone telling you otherwise is flat out lying.
I know I don’t find women trying to entice our Cub Scouts away from day camp when we hold it every year!
These people are just flat out dishonest about themselves, no not every homosexual is a pedophile, but as a group they are far more likely to be a pedophile if they are homosexual. That’s just facts folks.
There. . .fixed it.
Gays just can’t seem to face facts
Instead of trying to disprove the allegation the gay groups attack the messenger.
Hmmmm. Where have we seen this before?
Next thing you’ll be telling me is that there is a North American Man Boy Love Association which is always welcome to march in “Pride” parades.
I think you need to wake up and realize no one in the Vatican is making excuses for why some Priests abused children. Acknowledging the existence of the link between homosexuality and sexual abuse of minors is not an excuse but a necessary task.
They know it’s true unfortunatley.
They know, yes they know, they know, they know, they know. They just can’t escape their tormented consciences, they wail so loudly, but just can’t escape, oh yes indeed they know.
I think FReepers need to learn how to read. The Cardinal is explaining a) what sort of people infiltrated the priesthood, and why those people are being deliberately excluded from the priesthood. One cannot solve a problem one has not identified. Why defend militant faggots and pederasts?
get back to their biblical justification
if any for celibate priests,
It's hard to "get back" to something when one has been continuously doing it. The leftist secular press ignores it, of course ...
and pledge to hold their Priests to Gods standards,
Already done. LSP ignores it.
not try to use mans fallen standards to excuse their behavior.
Vatican is not offering excuses. Vatican is identifying perpetrators by category.
Chalk one up for the Cardinal. Bertone has gone up a notch or two in my book.
Yes, they can have it both ways, and isn't that the crux of perverted sexuality?
It sure sounds like an excuse. And the news seems to report it as an excuse. In public relations, perception is reality. We aren’t supposed to win the public relations game, we are supposed to preach God’s word and follow his commands.
The thought of describing homosexual sex acts in detail makes me feel ill. (And I’m not pregnant right now, either ;-). It’s important to have men like you and dear Mr. Heston who have more intestinal fortitude than I do!
“80% of the incidents are with boys”
Yeah, but what’s the connection between having sex with males and homosexuality? (/s)
They didn't "infiltrate", like they were spies. These are men who went through training, and were ordained into positions by other men who supposedly were inspired by God to make those decisions.
And does the Catholic Church have a prohibition on Priests who confess to having homosexual urges? I didn't think so.
As to the celibacy issue, the statements made that prompted this article sure sound like giving a worldly reason for not abandoning celibacy. If you are selling celibacy as biblical, what difference does it make if having celibate priests meant you had to work harder to keep them from sexual impropriety?
Put another way, suppose hypothetically it was proven that celibate people were twice as likely to molest children. Would that mean the Church should stop ordaining celibate people? Not if the celibacy is commanded by God. So why bring it up?
We've read several time in the past month posts citing officials of the Catholic church arguing that the Catholic Priests aren't any more likely to abuse kids than Protestants, and this one had a quote from an official church source saying that priests aren't "any more likely" to be abusers than the general population. That certainly comes across as applying worldly standards as opposed to Godly ones, even if it is accompanied by contrition and statements to do better.
“Supposedly ‘heterosexual’ men are mainly responsible for male on male pedophilia sex according to gay groups”
The common-sense response to this, of course, is why would heterosexual men want to have sex with males? To which there is no answer, except that boys don’t count as males. I guess humans are unisex until the age of 16.
They would be welcome to refute the association with empirical data.
Oh, yeah, empirical data supports the Vatican’s assertion.
[quote]And does the Catholic Church have a prohibition on Priests who confess to having homosexual urges? I didn’t think so.[/quote]
Actually, the Church used to have a policy of throwing out men who even had the appearance of homosexuality. There was zero tolerance for limp wrists, lisps, effeminacy, etc.These policies were liberalized in the “sensitive sixties”.
And don’t forget that a lot of the men who were closet homosexuals didn’t have consciences-they entered the Church for a purpose, to have access to young men. Why would someone who has this motive in mind bother to confess his sins? He would conceal them in the confessional because he didn’t give a crap about the Faith.
By the way, this is not to denigrate the men who are priests who do struggle with these temptations and want to do the right thing. They should have never been ordained, but they are not in the same league as those who have no conscience and became priests for base motives(much the same way bad people want to be in politics, or teach public school girls to have access to them, or whatever).
Well, there's your problem right there.
Sorry, but it's that simple.
Saboteurs would be a better analogy, though, than spies.
And does the Catholic Church have a prohibition on Priests who confess to having homosexual urges? I didn't think so.
Well, guess what?
You're wrong, again! In fact, that prohibition is not new and has been restated several times.
So why bring it [clerical celibacy] up?
Because people both inside and outside the Church are using the homosexuals' hideous misdeeds as a club with which to beat up the longstanding discipline of clerical celibacy. IOW, we didn't bring it up, our enemies did.
That certainly comes across as applying worldly standards as opposed to Godly ones, even if it is accompanied by contrition and statements to do better.
OK, that's how you see it. I see it as a reminder of that business about beams and splinters in folks' eyes. Remember that? It's in the Bible.
My oldest son mentioned that he didn’t see what was wrong with homosexual marriage. I explained to him about the free-exercise issues and so on ... and then asked my husband to explain in detail what “gay” really means, that it’s not something like “brown-eyed” or “Chinese.”
No it's not, which is why it was originally called Gay Cancer. You know to demonstrate that it's not.
For statistical data, see the 2004 U.S. Department of Education study titled Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature, http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/index.html. Page 36 of the study reports Percent Same-Sex Misconduct as Percent of All Misconduct Reported in the four major studies cited as 28.3, 17.8, 7.5, 27. These numbers correlate very closely with FBI statistics from the 1960s and 1970s that 30% of all molestation of minors occurs at the hands of homosexuals. This latter data is almost impossible to locate online now, given government political correctness these days.
If homosexuals, who only make up 0.7% of the population, a statistic universally accepted prior to the political correctness that infiltrated the twin APAs in the 1970s, account for 30% of abuse of minors, then homosexuals are 40 times more likely to molest than their heterosexual counterparts.This is the reason that the CDF, in SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOL.HTM stated:
10. Sexual orientation does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
13. Including homosexual orientation among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A persons homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
14. The sexual orientation of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individuals sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing (cf. No. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to manipulate the church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws (cf. No. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination (cf. No. 9).
In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law.
15. Since in the assessment of proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. No. 17), strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they affect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the) homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which could include such things as family participation in the health benefits given to employees (cf. No. 9)?
16. Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. No. 17).
Everyone needs to review RELIGIOSORUM INSTITUTIO, Instruction on the Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders, by the Sacred Congregation For Religious, February 2, 1961, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23religios.htm
D) The Required Chastity
29. Importance Of This Point; Young Persons Are To Be Properly Instructed And Warned Of Its Dangers
Among the proofs and signs of a divine vocation the virtue of chastity is regarded as absolutely necessary because it is largely for this reason that candidates for the ranks of the clergy choose this type of life for themselves and persevere in it. Consequently:
a) Watchful and diligent care is to be taken that candidates for the clergy should have a high esteem and love for chastity, and should safeguard it in their souls.
b) Not only, therefore, are clerics to be informed in due time on the nature of priestly celibacy, the chastity which they are to observe (cf. can. 132), and the demands of this obligation, but they are likewise to be warned of the dangers into which they can fall on this account. Consequently, candidates for Sacred Orders are to be exhorted to protect themselves from dangers from their earliest years.28
c) Although virginity embraced for the kingdom of heaven is more excellent than matrimony, nevertheless, candidates for Sacred Orders should not be unaware of the nobility of married life as exemplified in Christian marriage established by the plan of God. Therefore, let them be so instructed that, with a clear understanding of the advantages of Christian matrimony, they may deliberately and freely embrace the greater good of priestly and religious chastity.
d) But should superiors find a candidate unable to observe ecclesiastical celibacy and practice priestly chastity, then, completely ignoring any other outstanding qualities, they should bar him from the religious life and the priesthood (cf. Stat. Gen., art. 34, S 2, 4 ), conforming to the following directives and using all prudence and discretion in the application of the same, namely:
30. Those To Be Excluded; Practical Directives
1. A candidate who shows himself certainly unable to observe religious and priestly chastity, either because of frequent sins against chastity or because of a sexual bent of mind or excessive weakness of will, is not to be admitted to the minor seminary and, much less, to the novitiate or to profession. If he has already been accepted but is not yet perpetually professed, then he should be sent away immediately or advised to withdraw, according to individual cases, no matter what point in his formation he has already reached. Should he be perpetually professed, he is to be barred absolutely and permanently from tonsure and the reception of any Order, especially Sacred Orders. If circumstances should so demand, he shall be dismissed from the community, with due observance of the prescriptions of canon law.
2. Consequently, any candidate who has a habit of solitary sins and who has not given well-founded hope that he can break this habit within a period of time to be determined prudently, is not to be admitted to the novitiate. Nor can a candidate be admitted to first profession or to renewal of vows unless he has really amended his ways. But if a novice or a temporarily professed religious gives evidence of a firm purpose of amendment with good grounds for hope of success, his probation can be extended as provided for in canon law (canons 571, S2; 574, S2; 973, S 3; Stat. Gen., art. 34, S 2, 3 ).
Well-grounded hope of amendment can be provided by those youths who are physically and psychically normal or endowed with good bodily and mental health, who are noted for solid piety and the other virtues intimately connected with chastity, and who sincerely desire the religious and priestly life.
3. A much stricter policy must be followed in admission to perpetual profession and advancement to Sacred Orders. No one should be admitted to perpetual vows or promoted to Sacred Orders unless he has acquired a firm habit of continency and has given in every case consistent proof of habitual chastity over a period of at least one year. If within this year prior to perpetual profession or ordination to Sacred Orders doubt should arise because of new falls, the candidate is to be barred from perpetual profession or Sacred Orders (cf. above, no. 16) unless, as far as profession is concerned, time is available either by common law or by special indult to extend the period for testing chastity and there be question of a candidate who, as was stated above (no. 30, 2) affords good prospects of amendment.
4. If a student in a minor seminary has sinned gravely against the sixth commandment with a person of the same or the other sex, or has been the occasion of grave scandal in the matter of chastity, he is to be dismissed immediately as stipulated in canon 1371, except if prudent consideration of the act and of the situation of the student by the superiors or confessors should counsel a different policy in an individual case, sc., in the case of a boy who has been seduced and who is gifted with excellent qualities and is truly penitent, or when the sin was an objectively imperfect act.
If a novice or a professed religious who has not yet made perpetual vows should be guilty of the same offense, he is to be sent away from the community or, should the circumstances so demand, he is to be dismissed with due observance of canon 647, S 2, 1 . If a perpetually professed religious is found guilty of any such sin, he is to be perpetually excluded from tonsure and the reception of any further Order. If the case belongs to the external forum, he is to receive a canonical warning unless, as provided for in canons 653 and 668, there be grounds for sending him back to the world (cf. Stat. Gen., art. 34, S 2, 4 ).
Lastly, should he be a subdeacon or deacon, then, without prejudice to the above-mentioned directives and if the case should so demand, the superiors should take up with the Holy See the question of his reduction to the lay state.
For these reasons, clerics who in their diocese or religious who in another community have sinned gravely against chastity with another person are not to be admitted with a view to the priesthood, even on a trial basis, unless there be clear evidence of excusing causes or of circumstances which can at least notably diminish responsibility in conscience (Circular Letter of S. C. of the Sacraments, n. 16; Canon Law Digest, 4, p. 314).
Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
5. Very special investigation is needed for those students who, although they have hitherto been free of formal sins against chastity, nevertheless suffer from morbid or abnormal sexuality, especially sexual hyperesthesia or an erotic bent of nature, to whom religious celibacy would be a continual act of heroism and a trying martyrdom. For chastity, in so far as it implies abstinence from sexual pleasure, not only becomes very difficult for many people but the very state of celibacy and the consequent loneliness and separation from ones family becomes so difficult for certain individuals gifted with excessive sensitivity and tenderness, that they are not fit subjects for the religious life. This question should perhaps receive more careful attention from novice masters and superiors of scholasticates than from confessors since such natural tendencies do not come out so clearly in confession as in the common life and daily contact.
What the Vatican said is true. Back in the 1980s, I knew a priest who could not wait to retire because he was so distraught about how the Church allowed many homos to become priests. He said the seminaries were full of them.
You should be questioning why our Congress allowed a rapist President to remain in office when he was impeached.
“Supposedly “heterosexual” men are mainly responsible for male on male pedophilia sex according to gay groups.”
Thats always a chuckle to hear that. They don’t even seem to realize that the things they say are being done by “heterosexual” men, are the very DEFINITION of homosexuality. Male on male pedophilia? Thats as gay as it comes.
Id like to see a man caught buggering a teenage boy explain to me how he is actually hetero.
The prohibition, expressed in many links from the sites you referenced, always include the modifier "deep-seated", when discussing homosexual desire as a prohibitor.
It was my belief after reading about why so many Preists were homosexual that people who had homosexual thoughts, but renounced them, were accepted into seminary, and the links you provided seem to support that possibility.
I support the church's view on Homosexuality, I brought it up because of the original comments I was responding to, which suggested there was no way for homosexuals to become priests.
Obviously homosexuals become priests, as the point of this article is the argument that it was homosexuality in the Priesthood that caused a lot of the problems. Since the Priesthood is made up of men who have been ordained by others acting under the define inspiration of God, it seems there must have been some measure of acceptance for properly repentant homosexuals, in order for so many to be Priests.
There was a very interesting sentence in one letter, which pointed out that being "chaste" is not the same as being "celibate", and that homosexuals lack the capacity to freely sacrifice marriage for God's service, since they do not have the desire for traditional marriage.
How did an Infallible priesthood get infiltrated? It has to be the fault of the men who ordained them. We know that men can be evil, that is why the Church has a structure in place that puts the ordination in the hands of others who are led by God.
This isn’t like some pickup softball game. You have a heirachical structure that strictly controls who serves the offices of the Church. The Priests didn’t choose themselves, according to Canon God chose them, through God’s already chosen leaders, chosen by others of God’s chosen.
Obviously at some point that broke down, but you can’t simply blame the bad Priests for infiltrating — that’s what bad people do, the blame is on the good people that were supposed to STOP the bad people from infiltrating.
I may simply be looking at this too much from a religious perspective, rather than a political one. I don’t know.
But it seems that the point of church governance is to protect the Faith from those who wish to deliberately lie about their goals and motives.
I mean, we certainly expect that Pope didn’t lie his way into the position, right? There are policies in place at every level to check for a sincere belief, a true heart, before putting people into the Priesthood.
I know from an earthly perspective that bad people get to be Pastors. We even tend to expect that in churches where there is little oversight, but where every congregation does their own thing — it’s easy for a man to deceive a laity.
But in churches like the Catholic church, there are men of proven faith (like the Pope) who are in charge, and that control filters down to the ordination of individual Priests. You would expect that this policy would make it much less likely for liars and people without conscience to be put in charge of flocks of the laity who count on the Church to protect them from wolves.
Seriously. I have absolutely no idea what that term means. I've never heard it before.
And yes, you do blame the bad people for doing bad things, and you blame the supposedly good people for failing to do their job, if indeed they did so fail. You cannot properly do the latter, though, if you do not understand what their job is. Specifically, you have to understand the limits of their job, and how the organization is organized.
The point of this article is that the good people are identifying what sort of bad people they're dealing with, and what steps they're taking against the bad people. IOW they're doing their jobs.
Even one (there may be more) of the Kennedys is trying to bring down the Pope. Heard Kathleen Kennedy Townsend on the Barbara Simpson radio program say that she would like the Pope to resign!
“It sure sounds like an excuse.”
How? The comments he made explained why the abuse started. It did not in any way excuse why the bishops so often poorly dealt with it. Explain to me how, therefore, it sounds like an excuse?
“And the news seems to report it as an excuse.”
Is that surprising? These reproters are the same people who make things up out of thin air or lie to you in other ways EVERY DAY.
“In public relations, perception is reality.”
Thank goodness I’m not in public relations. I deal with reality. Real reality.
“We arent supposed to win the public relations game, we are supposed to preach Gods word and follow his commands.”
And that’s what he was doing - by telling the truth about the link between homosexuality and abuse. Homosexuality is an abomination.
No Catholic will ever defend the indefensible. Most of the sex abuse that took place dates back to the 50's and earlier, long before JPII. I would ask you, however, what is being done in non-Catholic communities to stop predatory sex abuse of children? This is not limited to the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church here, through its bishops in the USCCB, have implemented a program to prevent future occurrences. This includes all members of the community who come in contact with children, from janitors in the schools to volunteers who teach children at the parish level. We all are subjected to fingerprinting and a police background check. We are also required to attend classes on how to identify sexual predators and what actions to take. This is possible because of the centralized nature of the Catholic Church. It is also the reason why the media have been able to focus a laser beam on us. This is not possible in the non-Catholic denominations where there is no one to take responsibility.
Worse still, is the sex abuse of children in the education system.
And then there are the camp counselors, Big Brothers of America and the list goes on and on. There is plenty of guilt to go around.
What are you doing to stop these abuses?
Are there men doing that? Seriously?
Yep... we have to have full time perimeter security... they show up day one.. and just sort of wander around, by day two or three they are wandering around in clothes that look very much like the adult volunteers... Happens EVERY year.
My goodness. Someone at the Vatican said the truth and is getting to the root of the issue concerning the priests who molest little boys. Same sex attraction and molestation is called homosexuality or the homosexual expression of bi-sexuality!
The tolerance of homosexuality in the seminaries and priesthood has been a disaster for the church. Either the church is going to protect kids from perverts or the church is going to protect it’s sexual perverts. So far the perverts have won out.
They are doing even worse in public schools. In ten years will will have thousands of public school abused boys coming forward as men.
The tolerance of homosexuality in the society at large has been a disaster for all. Why do we expect the Church to be different when we, the society at large, celebrate pederasty with laws. entertainment and street parades?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.