Tuesday, March 30, 2010

The Priest Sex Problem: Reassurance for the Catholics, Here...

For decades, now, we have been living with the "pedophile priest problem." We are sick-to-death of it.

We are sick of it because the very thing which is the basis of liability of the Church -- bishops enabling the problem by quietly moving priests from a victimized flock to a new, unwary flock, frequently with written recommendations -- caused the problem to go on and on and on and on and on.

Last weekend's revelations -- that even Ratzinger, before he became pope, participated in "pedophile priest" protection and moving -- are so discouraging. In effect, our bishops have engaged in homosexual pimping. I'll talk about why I switched characterizations from "pedophile" to "homosexual" momentarily. Right now, I want to talk about why I call it "pimping"...

Because, after so many decades of bad news and lawsuits, it is impossible for church administrators to not clearly apprehend the overall structure of the phenomenon:

A sexually-out-of-control priest lasciviously stares at male meat walking around him, grabs it and "does" it. He "does" young people -- usually while engaging in sex acts with adults males, too, here and there -- until the local complaints reach a crescendo. Then, the bishop moves him out with a happy letter of recommendation, and moves someone else in. Sometimes, the one coming in was just another "young-male-doing" wolf, staring at the new, unwary male meat "on the hoof" around him.

This has the impact of keeping the people in the pews happy and hopeful -- and in a mood to donate. (Would you keep donating to a parish whose rectory has become a "red light district"? No.)

Years later, the victimized young males come back for their compensation for the sex occurring years before. They go to one of us lawyers, a lawsuit is filed, the case almost invariably settles.

Structurally, the bishops and the homosexual priests and the lawyers have cooperated to reach into the till to pay for homosexual sex acts.

In the Church cases, the prostitutes are paying the "johns" with money from the pockets of passers-by, us.

When the bishops knowingly CONTINUE shifting priests around, once this pattern has been established, they really are consciously paying out our contributions as money for sex for the priests.

The "bottom line" structure of the problem, when a bishop lets a priest off the hook by moving him, is that they are "giving away the store" -- our store, the one we paid for -- so that priests can have sex with young men.

Is that an unfair characterization?

Years ago, sometime in the early 1990s -- in 1993, I'm fairly certain -- Bishop McHugh announced a capital campaign to finance old and new programs within the Camden Diocese. I was appointed our parish's chief collector. The other collectors asked me to ask Bishop McHugh if our work was to finance sex abuse lawsuit settlements -- i.e., were we financing priest sex after-the-fact.

When I asked Bishop McHugh that question when he came to our parish, Bishop McHugh fell silent, and then he said, "Pete, let me put it to you this way. If we catch any priest engaging in sexual misbehavior any more, then he's out on his ass!"

What I did not know, then, was that two years before, in 1991, before Bishop McHugh himself had written a Letter of Recommendation to the Diocese of Palm Beach, Florida for a sexual predator priest, Msgr. Philip Rigney, whom I, personally, had only recently investigated. Apparently because in 1992 a parishioner had given to our pastor a written statement to the effect that Msgr. Rigney had sexually molested him, the parishioner, repeatedly years before, our pastor was asked by Bishop McHugh if he thought that the Diocese should pay for the priest's criminal defense. Because I am a lawyer, Msgr. Korda asked me for a formal written opinion. I went out and talked to neighbors who knew the man making the statement. There was no doubt about it -- the young man, when he was a teenager, and two friends, were willingly dropping their pants and bending over for money for the sexual satisfaction of a priest who was clearly an out-of-control homosexual. The neighbors did not paint a pretty picture of either the priest or the boys.

The investigation helped me to form a sound opinion. It was this: The Church becomes the priest's family. If, after a careful investigation, it appears more-probable-than-not that the priest is innocent, the Church should pay for the priest's criminal defense. If, after a careful investigation, it appears more-probable-than-not that the priest is guilty as charged, they should "throw him to the wolves," and cooperate in his prosecution, in light of the Church's position of trust vis-à-vis the laity.

So, even as Bishop McHugh said what he said to us collectors, he was conscious of the fact that he, himself, had written one of the letters of recommendation forming the basis of demands in court that the Church pay out money for priestly sex.

Two years later, McHugh laicized the priest.

So, when Bishop McHugh was sponsoring the "Uniting in Faith and Mission" capital campaign, he was acutely aware of the priestly sexual abuse problem, and acutely aware that, in effect, a wrongdoer for whom he had written a letter of recommendation was enjoying the fruits of his protection.

And collecting money to shore up Diocesan resources thinned-out by huge insurance premiums and lawsuits.


* * *

Does the Bible have anything to say about all of this -- a Church that would probably do less damage to itself if it sponsored pornstar mud-wrestling contests?

Oddly, yes.

First, the gospels do something very odd. They portray Jesus appointing Peter as the first pope...

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew 16:17-19.

...and then they spend the rest of the time criticizing Peter nastily...

A few verses after Matthew 16:17-19, Jesus, to criticize Peter for not understanding that Jesus must die, says to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do." Matthew 16:23. Ouch!

And not too many verses before Peter's appointment, the gospel implicitly portrays the papacy, in the person of Peter, as sinking into the "sea of damnable souls"...

28 Peter said to him in reply, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." 29 He said, "Come." Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, "Lord, save me!" 31 Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" Matthew 14:28-31.

And, of course, Peter denies Jesus, AFTER Jesus predicts to Peter that he would do this...

69 Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. One of the maids came over to him and said, "You too were with Jesus the Galilean." 70 But he denied it in front of everyone, saying, "I do not know what you are talking about!" 71 As he went out to the gate, another girl saw him and said to those who were there, "This man was with Jesus the Nazorean." 72 Again he denied it with an oath, "I do not know the man!" 73 A little later the bystanders came over and said to Peter, "Surely you too are one of them; even your speech gives you away." 74 At that he began to curse and to swear, "I do not know the man." And immediately a cock crowed. 75 Then Peter remembered the word that Jesus had spoken: "Before the cock crows you will deny me three times." He went out and began to weep bitterly. Matthew 26:69-75.

I think that we, the lay people, are being told something -- that our Church would be led by the same weak, sinning politicians who lead everything else.

But, the "bottom line" concept being taught by God is this: "It is My Church, nonetheless."

Second, in my opinion the current age, in which the Church is almost committing suicide by its sin, while the secular system of justice goes after the Church for its sin, is discussed allegorically in the Book of Revelation!...

15 The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current. 16 But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth. Revelation 12:15-16.

So, do not be discouraged.
* * *


There is a Wives-Tale-level analysis of the problem afoot in our society which the media encourage. People read the stories about priests doing this and doing that to young victims, mostly boys, and say, "Ah-HAH! Priests are celibate! Celibacy must be the problem. Priests should be married, and that will solve the problem!"

In effect, the implication is that "by-and-large, if women to have sex with are not available to men, men are pre-wired to become like homosexuals, desiring to stick their thingies into male hindquarters and mouths!"

What nonsense! What nonsense! How many grown men reading this "turn homosexual" every time pregnancy or sickness makes their wives unavailable?

The truth is that the Church is attracting homosexuals. In fact, if you do a careful review of exhaustive media analyses of the priests' cases, you will see, again and again and again, reference to ADULT homosexual relationships between priests who like to victimize young males in their parishes and ADULT homosexual men.


'Stephen Palo said he cannot erase the image of his first sexual experience from his memory: Awakening from a sound sleep in the bedroom of his Blackwood home, 12-year- old Stephen Palo looks down and finds his parish priest massaging his genitals. Soon the priest begins oral sex." I pushed away," Palo, now 31, said in a recent interview. "I pulled the covers up to my neck. I felt like I was in the corner of the wall, apart from myself, just looking at it." Thus began what Palo said was a 15-year relationship of routine sexual contact between Palo, an altar boy, and the Rev. Joseph Shannon, who directed the altar boy group at St. Anthony of Padua Roman Catholic Church in Camden.' http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/1994_01_11_Graham_SourcesDiocese_Joseph_Shannon_etc.htm.

Palo would have been 27 when the sex finally stopped. So, the culprit priest was "doing" a 27 year old man.

Do you know what that is called? That is called, "TWO HOMOSEXUALS ENGAGING IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX."

"Arthur Austin alleges that abuse by Shanley began during a counselling session here, when Austin was 20, and continued for 6 years." http://www.bishopaccountability.org/assign/Shanley-Paul-Richard.htm#timeline

So, Fr. Shanley "did" Arthur Austin for six years, between 20 and 26 years of age.

Do you know what that is called?


The media minimize this part of the analysis. Why? Simple: Gays are the "poster children" of the liberal media. They love them!

In truth, nearly all of the cases are like this. Men don't "become homosexual" if they are "deprived of nookie." These priests are "doing" young males and older males NOT because they are "pedophiles," BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE HOMOSEXUALS.

In truth, pedophiles prefer girls about 9-to-1, in line with the ratio of heterosexuals/ homosexuals in society.

Thus it is not an accident that "MEGAN'S Law" is named after a girl. Her killer, Jesse Timmendequas, really was a pedophile.

The Catholic priest perpetrators, by-and-large, are simply gays -- homosexuals.

Studies verify that male homosexuals have a self-control problem, and so tend to be extremely promiscuous.

A University of Chicago study released in 2004 found that promiscuity among male homosexuals in Chicago is so bad that more than 87% had had more than 15 sex partners, and more than 42% had had more than 60 sex partners.

To put it bluntly, the male homosexual dysfunction tends to be a promiscuous thing.

That they tend to "do" multiple young males is a function of the fact that they are "gays looking for prime beef."

NOT priests mysteriously "made gay" by celibacy.

This is an important concept. It means that the media are actually refraining from going after the real problem -- gays in the clergy.

The genesis of the Church's problem, therefore, is not celibacy, but the fact that the ministry is attracting the effeminate in the modern era.

The reason why our Protestant brothers and sisters are so quiet, despite the fact that the lawsuits against the Catholic Church would seem to be a wonderful PR opportunity is that despite the fact that their churches feature a married ministry, THEY HAVE THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES. In their case effeminate married ministers are "doing" mostly young men in their churches!

Access to a heterosexual sexual outlet does not slow down the problem, because celibacy is not the cause.

But why, then, are Protestant churches (and synagogues, too, by the way) sued only about half as much for the same thing?

Simple: The Catholic Church is the only monolithic, persistently-existing target for the lawyers to shoot at. The Protestant and Jewish congregations suffer from a here-today-gone-tomorrow problem, and so are much harder to sue.

Why should the ministry attract the effeminate so much?

I think that the answer is that the churches are suffering from "ghettoization." Just as, beginning after World War II, the American highway system generated a white power exodus from the cities, leaving behind it a social vacuum filled by suddenly-ghettoized minorities, the Age of Screens, very obviously featuring the values of secular humanism's "nice-guy-ness," is successfully killing and replacing Western religious thought, generating a vocations crisis among white males, and leaving behind itself a vacuum which seems tailor-made for "gentle souls" -- the effeminate.

So, while gay rights organizations and women's groups and our liberal media hail the ordination of women as a remarkable advances in enlightened thinking, IN FACT THE EFFEMINATE ARE BEING GHETTOIZED IN CHURCHES BEING LEFT BEHIND BY TRADITIONAL CONGREGATIONS.

The shocking growth of litigable homosexual sex acts by Catholic clergy, and those bishops' letters abetting the orgy, are just one expression of a larger breakdown of religion in the West.

The rats are taking over the ghetto buildings.

We aren't looking at "enlightenment" and "progress."

We are looking at a social and religious cataclysm.

It is, I believe, a symptom of the "Great Falling Away" predicted in 2 Thessalonians 2.


  1. Let me say THIS about THAT

    OK, Lets say there are two groupings.

    1) Large quantity of green balls with a red dot

    2) Small quantity of yellow balls with no dot.

    Someone has a position to fill. We'll say 100 of them.

    Requirement - whoever fills this position may NOT have a red dot. If you posses a red dot, we can amputate that for you, so you will no longer have the use of that red dot.

    All semi-interested parties consider the situation

    The greenies with the red dot, indeed DO have some volunteers. They're willing to hand in their red dot. BUT, not many, enough to fill many of the positions.

    The yellows don't have that red dot. They have a pink dot. They know that the requirement makers are not quite on to this pink dot thing. so MANY of them are willing to try it out. They too are competing with the limited # of positions

    The requirement maker, desperate to fill these positions is glad to see the population come forth and volunteer to no longer have use of the red dot and fill the position. ABUNDANCE. A GOD 'provided' abundance!!! God truly works miracles.

    I'm not saying who is what, don't you think the requirements of forfeiting the use of the red dot and scaring off many not willing to make that sacrifice skewed the numbers a bit.

    Don't you think it might have an effect such as
    having a general population of 99% greenie with red dot, 1% yellow with pink dot,
    the population applying for and being accepted for the 100 positions might be somethign more like 95% greenie with red dot (forfeited) and 5% yellow with pink dot?

    Sure the intent of the job application and requirements REALLY were for you to be dot-less.
    When you have a red dot and you find yourself in these environs, there's not much to do with your red dot.
    When you have a pink dot, there's LOTS to do with it.

    If you need help translating this situation, I'll call you on the weekend

  2. I was reminded of a movie lethal weapon 2' where the main antagonists were hiding behind diplomatic immunity. The final scene was some south african diplomat who lets the gibson cop character know he can't do something because of 'DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY'

    Just reading article on some US cases trying to drag the pope/vatican into it. They want to get deposition, perhaps testify and make it look like the pope is leader of church or something silly like that. And the defense the vatican is building up is based on
    1) the bishops of the US (and I guess other contries) are NOT employees and do NOT take orders to do this, do that. . .

    The scales have to weigh the two. some parties claim that Diplomatic immunity can be bypassed if the US church and its bishops can be argued to be employees

    I just can't believe its come to this, the pope, the vatican holding out a diplomat's card and saying 'DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY'

  3. Whatever that means, Tom, it's okay -- we're all going to be sucked-up soon by the incipient mini-black-hole coming out of the Collider.

  4. thank heavens. This means, not that there is anything wrong with the celibacy requirement, but, i think more heterosexual males will stay far away from the priesthood. There is marrying to be done. Kids to be had . . .

    so, though straight males might make up 98 percent of the general population, they will only make up 75 percent of the population of priests. That leaves 25 percent to be of a population participating in disordered relationships, disordered tastes . . .

    The celibacy requirement is a magnifier of the disordered in terms of % of the priest population versus general population, reguardless of what their tendancy might be