This post here is a continuation of the discussion in the “Incomplete Analysis” section.
I also used to think that the problem was that bishops just didn't want to deal with the problem because it is too emotionally wrenching.
But at this point it's not that simple.
Even after the lawsuits began to turn into a flood in the early 1980s, and the word spread among the bishops that THE basis of liability in the lawsuits was bishops shifting priest-wolves around to new, unwary flocks, THE BISHOPS CONTINUED SHIFTING PRIEST-WOLVES AROUND TO NEW, UNWARY FLOCKS.
MOST of the priests were being shifted MULTIPLE times. When the priest-shifting bishops look at the files following the priests being shifted, they know what the score is.
So, think: What is the difference between, on the one hand...
(a) a bishop shifting a priest, being followed by sexual predator accusations, to his third parish, with no warning to the new flock, aware that lawsuits are being filed, at that moment, to make money from the bishops decisions like that which abet other priests' sex acts;
...and, on the other hand...
(b) a bishop AGREEING WITH the predator priest, by a wink, to shift the predator priest to another location, SO THAT the predator priest will have access to a new group of innocents from which to solicit sex paid for with Church funds.
The difference is the space between these two lines...
//
...because in the first case there is no wink.
Stand back and look at the Church, panoramically.
Several years ago, to "come to grips with the problem," the Church paid for the John Jay Study.
What did the Study do? Look at available data, and use various investigative measures and statistical means to estimate the true dimensions of the problem?
No.
It counted beans.
The John Jay Study counted only:
(1) cases in which there had been an admission by the priest;
(2) cases in which there had been a criminal conviction of the non-admitting priest; and
(3) cases in which money was paid-out by the Church.
By doing this, the study found a little over 10,000 victims.
Yet, investigation after investigation by police and reporters have found that in the vast majority of cases, BISHOPS FAILED TO REPORT PARENTS' CLAIMS TO AUTHORITIES.
There are CLEARLY several tens of thousands of such instances generated by the mass production efforts of notoriously promiscuous priests. (Believe this, Tom: As I pointed out in a previous article here, the evidence is enormous that male homosexuals are innately promiscuous.)
The unreported cases were not studied at all. The bishops did not go to the John Jay people and say, "Listen, we are actually aware of about 3 times as many accusations as there are confirmed cases."
In effect, our current pope is accused of LYING about such cases.
Compare this NYT article...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/europe/27pope.html
...with this admission by the Judicial Vicar of the Munich Diocese...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/03/26/2010-03-26_before_he_became_pope_benedict_told_german_priest_accused_of_pedophilia_hed_get_.html
The New York Daily News article says that RATZINGER CHAIRED THE MEETING WHICH TRANSFERED THE SEXUALLY-ABUSIVE PRIEST, WHO HAD BEEN PLACED WITH THE MUNICH ARCHDIOCESE FOR THE PRECISE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING PSYCHOTHERAPY TO TRY TO STOP HOMOSEXUAL-STYLE ANAL AND ORAL ABUSE OF BOYS BY THE PRIEST, TO FULL DUTIES IN A NEW MUNICH PARISH WITH NO WARNING.
In effect his defense, today, is, "I got behind the wheel of the car, but I did not touch the steering wheel, and I was not even AWARE OF the steering wheel -- so don't accuse me of driving the car into that crowd."
In effect, you are looking at no change.
In effect, after DECADES of lawsuits, the same attitudes seem to be prevailing.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not ready to quit the Church.
I love the Church.
But that's the point: I love the Church.
So, read these words carefully: EVEN OUR POPE HAS ENGAGED IN THE BEHAVIOR WHICH ENABLES HOMOSEXUAL PRIESTS, WITH ZERO SELF CONTROL, TO PREY UPON NEW AND UNWARY FLOCKS.
AND HIS PRESENT MODE IS REALLY AN EXTENSION OF THE SECRET TRANSFER POLICY: RUN AND HIDE.
Don't be discouraged. Pray. God always answers prayers.
But remember: Our nasty public criticism of such behavior may be part of the answer to our own prayers.
Showing posts with label sexual abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexual abuse. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Incomplete Analysis of Gay Scout or Gay Priest Issue = "Lying"
Years ago, when The Philadelphia Inquirer first began to rail against priests molesting young men and boys, Inquirer articles would persistently call the priests "pedophiles." One would always see the word "pedophiles" 10 or 20 times in any given article -- but never, ever the word "homosexuals."
Finally, the Inquirer began to (a) criticize the Catholic Church for "pedophile priests," AT THE SAME TIME it (b) criticized the Catholic Church for adopting a policy of banning "homosexuals" from the seminary.
I thought, "That's it! I'm sick of this!"
I e-mailed the writer of an article criticizing "pedophile priests," telling him that pedophiles prefer female victims 9-to-1, whereas the guilty priests clearly preferred male victims 9-to-1, which made it 9 x 9 or 81 times more likely that the average priest WASN'T a "pedophile," but simply "gay" -- a homosexual. I cited him two on-line investigations verifying that the priest who was the subject of the writer's most recent article was "doing" an ADULT male while he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what that is called? That is called 'homosexual.'" I then pointed-out ANOTHER prominent case where investigation showed that the priest offender was "doing" ADULT males WHILE he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what you'll find if you investigate every priest? You'll find that virtually ALL of them are simply homosexual.
"So," I continued, "When the Inquirer runs articles CRITICIZING the Church for banning homosexuals from the seminaries, and then CRITICIZES the existence of 'pedophile priests,' it is really telling the Catholic Church to go 'north' and 'south' at the same time."
The Inquirer article writer responded, "Gee! Good point! I never thought of that!," and then he continued calling offender priests "pedophiles" without ever mentioning the word "homosexuals" or "homosexual conduct" in future articles.
The Court system is in on the contradiction, too, in the case of Boy Scouts of America.
Both the media and the courts also go after the Boy Scouts from both ends of the issue.
Suppose the Scouts were to announce a policy of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts in the same tents at night during camping trips.
The country would justifiably go wild. People would ask, in anger, "Have they flipped? Are they crazy?"
Simple question: Why isn't knowingly putting a gay boy or a gay Scout leader in the same tent with another male THE EXACT SAME THING?
There's good evidence that putting gays in tents with other males is even worse than mixing boys and girls in tents. Various studies have found that male homosexuals are enormously promiscuous. A 2004 University of Chicago study recorded a promiscuity problem that was so bad that "chaste" was defined as "15 partners or less." Only 12.3% of those questioned had had 15 partners or less. 60% had had more than 30 partners. More than 40% had had more than 60 partners. Sex with 60 people of the same gender.
One psychologist proposed that male-male sex involved "two grazers," whereas male-female sex involved "one grazer and one person seeking a stable relationship."
The media and the courts, after they support lawsuits against the Boy Scouts for "bias against gays," support lawsuits for sexual molestation of boys and young men in the Scouts, the same way they go after the Church on this.
The American media, and the courts, need to get their policies straight.
Even this morning, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article criticizing the Boy Scouts for feeding into bias against homosexuals, but, as usual, says nothing -- not a single word -- about the problem of mixing heterosexuals and promiscuity-prone effeminate males in the same tents.
Right now, when the media and the courts refuse to talk about male homosexual promiscuity, and support infusion of homosexuals into the position of priest or Scout leaders or Scouts, in effect they are lying, lying, lying, lying, lying.
Stop the lying.
Finally, the Inquirer began to (a) criticize the Catholic Church for "pedophile priests," AT THE SAME TIME it (b) criticized the Catholic Church for adopting a policy of banning "homosexuals" from the seminary.
I thought, "That's it! I'm sick of this!"
I e-mailed the writer of an article criticizing "pedophile priests," telling him that pedophiles prefer female victims 9-to-1, whereas the guilty priests clearly preferred male victims 9-to-1, which made it 9 x 9 or 81 times more likely that the average priest WASN'T a "pedophile," but simply "gay" -- a homosexual. I cited him two on-line investigations verifying that the priest who was the subject of the writer's most recent article was "doing" an ADULT male while he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what that is called? That is called 'homosexual.'" I then pointed-out ANOTHER prominent case where investigation showed that the priest offender was "doing" ADULT males WHILE he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what you'll find if you investigate every priest? You'll find that virtually ALL of them are simply homosexual.
"So," I continued, "When the Inquirer runs articles CRITICIZING the Church for banning homosexuals from the seminaries, and then CRITICIZES the existence of 'pedophile priests,' it is really telling the Catholic Church to go 'north' and 'south' at the same time."
The Inquirer article writer responded, "Gee! Good point! I never thought of that!," and then he continued calling offender priests "pedophiles" without ever mentioning the word "homosexuals" or "homosexual conduct" in future articles.
The Court system is in on the contradiction, too, in the case of Boy Scouts of America.
Both the media and the courts also go after the Boy Scouts from both ends of the issue.
Suppose the Scouts were to announce a policy of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts in the same tents at night during camping trips.
The country would justifiably go wild. People would ask, in anger, "Have they flipped? Are they crazy?"
Simple question: Why isn't knowingly putting a gay boy or a gay Scout leader in the same tent with another male THE EXACT SAME THING?
There's good evidence that putting gays in tents with other males is even worse than mixing boys and girls in tents. Various studies have found that male homosexuals are enormously promiscuous. A 2004 University of Chicago study recorded a promiscuity problem that was so bad that "chaste" was defined as "15 partners or less." Only 12.3% of those questioned had had 15 partners or less. 60% had had more than 30 partners. More than 40% had had more than 60 partners. Sex with 60 people of the same gender.
One psychologist proposed that male-male sex involved "two grazers," whereas male-female sex involved "one grazer and one person seeking a stable relationship."
The media and the courts, after they support lawsuits against the Boy Scouts for "bias against gays," support lawsuits for sexual molestation of boys and young men in the Scouts, the same way they go after the Church on this.
The American media, and the courts, need to get their policies straight.
Even this morning, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article criticizing the Boy Scouts for feeding into bias against homosexuals, but, as usual, says nothing -- not a single word -- about the problem of mixing heterosexuals and promiscuity-prone effeminate males in the same tents.
Right now, when the media and the courts refuse to talk about male homosexual promiscuity, and support infusion of homosexuals into the position of priest or Scout leaders or Scouts, in effect they are lying, lying, lying, lying, lying.
Stop the lying.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Message to His Holiness Pope Benedicy XVI
Holy Father,
Look at what they have you doing ... hiding behind the words of Cardinals, like Eve hiding in the trees after she realizes that she is naked, after you transfered wolves to new, unwary flocks.
Wake up, Holy Father, wake up.
You can do better than that.
Shock the world. Shock the Devil.
Look at what they have you doing ... hiding behind the words of Cardinals, like Eve hiding in the trees after she realizes that she is naked, after you transfered wolves to new, unwary flocks.
Wake up, Holy Father, wake up.
You can do better than that.
Shock the world. Shock the Devil.
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.
Pimping.
* * *
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.
* * *
THE GENESIS OF THE PROBLEM
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.
Examples:
'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?
That is called, "TWO HOMOSEXUALS ENGAGING IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX."
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.
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.
Pimping.
* * *
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.
* * *
THE GENESIS OF THE PROBLEM
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.
Examples:
'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?
That is called, "TWO HOMOSEXUALS ENGAGING IN HOMOSEXUAL SEX."
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.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Ah, Damn! It Looks Like It's True: Ratzinger Knew
Many of us Catholics have long wondered, with fear, if the accusations and lawsuits about bishops transferring boy-abusing homosexual priests from one parish to the other to cover-up wrongdoing and to "smooth things over" to avoid scandal would ever involve a pope.
Well, it appears to be the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it has happened.
We don't have "hard-copy," yet -- a publicly-available digital copy of the German-language document verifying that Ratzinger, himself, before he was Pope Benefict XVI, participated in a decision transferring a homosexual wolf prone to preying upon young male lambs to a new and unwary flock -- but we have the next most reliable thing: In the New York Times, what the Rules of Evidence in American jurisprudence refer to as an Admission Against Interest by a presiding lawyer for the Church that such a document in fact exists.
If the New York Times article is not contradicted in the next few hours, we have what amounts to a Stipulation: Ratzinger knew.
In December, 1979, a priest named Peter Hullermann in the Catholic Diocese of Essen, Germany was accused of molesting three boys by the boys' parents. Fr. Hullerman did not deny the charges. His psychotherapist subsequently indicated that Fr. Hullermann was an out-of-control sex abuser. The priest in charge of personnel matters in the Diocese of Essen had Father Hullermann transfered to Munich Diocese, presided over by Ratzinger when he was Archbishop there, for treatment. The letter preceding Fr. Hullermann's transfer refers to Fr. Hullermann's need to see a Munich psychiatrist because he represented a "danger" requiring that the Diocese of Essen "remove him from pastoral duties," and added that Fr. Hullermann could teach religion "at a girls' school" -- i.e., because he is too interested in boys.
At a January 15, 1980 meeting personally presided-over by Ratzinger, Ratzinger and the other members of the Diocesan Council approved the transfer of Fr. Hullermann, whom they describe in the minutes as "a priest from Essen in need of psychiatric treatment," to St. John the Baptist Church in Munich.
Then, on January 20, the Vicar General of the Munich Diocese cc'd to Ratzinger, personally a memo confirming that Fr. Hullermann had been "returned to full duties."
Rev. Lorenz Wolf, Judicial Vicar in the Munich Diocese today, publicly admits that he has copies of the January 15, 1980 meeting minutes and of the January 20, 1980 memo.
It's clear to a moral certainty -- Pope Benedict XVI, himself, when he was Archbishop of Munich, personally participated in the transfer of another out-of-control homosexual priest preying on young boys to a new and unwary flock without warnings.
Suddenly, even the Pope is what lawyers call a "knew-or-should-have-known" case.
Well, it appears to be the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it has happened.
We don't have "hard-copy," yet -- a publicly-available digital copy of the German-language document verifying that Ratzinger, himself, before he was Pope Benefict XVI, participated in a decision transferring a homosexual wolf prone to preying upon young male lambs to a new and unwary flock -- but we have the next most reliable thing: In the New York Times, what the Rules of Evidence in American jurisprudence refer to as an Admission Against Interest by a presiding lawyer for the Church that such a document in fact exists.
If the New York Times article is not contradicted in the next few hours, we have what amounts to a Stipulation: Ratzinger knew.
In December, 1979, a priest named Peter Hullermann in the Catholic Diocese of Essen, Germany was accused of molesting three boys by the boys' parents. Fr. Hullerman did not deny the charges. His psychotherapist subsequently indicated that Fr. Hullermann was an out-of-control sex abuser. The priest in charge of personnel matters in the Diocese of Essen had Father Hullermann transfered to Munich Diocese, presided over by Ratzinger when he was Archbishop there, for treatment. The letter preceding Fr. Hullermann's transfer refers to Fr. Hullermann's need to see a Munich psychiatrist because he represented a "danger" requiring that the Diocese of Essen "remove him from pastoral duties," and added that Fr. Hullermann could teach religion "at a girls' school" -- i.e., because he is too interested in boys.
At a January 15, 1980 meeting personally presided-over by Ratzinger, Ratzinger and the other members of the Diocesan Council approved the transfer of Fr. Hullermann, whom they describe in the minutes as "a priest from Essen in need of psychiatric treatment," to St. John the Baptist Church in Munich.
Then, on January 20, the Vicar General of the Munich Diocese cc'd to Ratzinger, personally a memo confirming that Fr. Hullermann had been "returned to full duties."
Rev. Lorenz Wolf, Judicial Vicar in the Munich Diocese today, publicly admits that he has copies of the January 15, 1980 meeting minutes and of the January 20, 1980 memo.
It's clear to a moral certainty -- Pope Benedict XVI, himself, when he was Archbishop of Munich, personally participated in the transfer of another out-of-control homosexual priest preying on young boys to a new and unwary flock without warnings.
Suddenly, even the Pope is what lawyers call a "knew-or-should-have-known" case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)