Wednesday 10 April 2024

 

THE RC GAY SEX SCANDAL – ABUSE OF THE TRUTH

By Stephen Green

The first bit of misinformation to nail in the ‘paedophile priests’ story is that all the abuse is actually ‘paedophile’, in that it is being perpetrated on little children.  The majority of the perpetrators (reports vary from two-thirds to 90%) appear to have been sexually interested in teenage boys rather than primary-school children.  And that 13-17 pubertal age-group happens to be the one which a good number of homosexual men will readily admit attracts them.

The second canard is the contention that sex scandals in the church are derived from celibacy and not from homosexuality.  In other words, that it is the Roman Catholic Church’s rule that its priests must be celibate which turns them into rampaging abusers.  The figures don’t bear this out.

Something between 4% and 6% of priests in the US Roman Catholic Church are reckoned to be abusers.   (The New York Times, 12/01/2002, found 1.8% of priests involved, and four out of five victims were male.)  Christian Voice is not upholding celibacy amongst priests; both Testaments assume those ministering in either Temple or Church are married.  Furthermore, we read in the Bible that believers in general, not a subset, are ‘a kingdom of priests’.  But to be fair, if celibacy were at fault, why do around 95% of Roman Catholic priests manage to avoid interfering with those in their charge?

On the other hand, homosexual men seem attracted like wasps around a jam jar to paid and voluntary positions involving proximity to teenage boys.  The Paedophile Information Exchange which existed as a campaigning group in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s had men with a wide range of sexual preference, from small children up to teenagers.  According to its last Chairman, two of the group’s executive were in voluntary work with children; one as a scoutmaster, the other as a Sunday-School teacher.  (Smith S in ‘Betrayal of Youth’ pages 242-243)

The vicious campaign to force the US Scouts movement to allow homosexual men to serve as scout leaders was only partly for hurt feelings of being discriminated against  (and even then it was because ‘the gays’ did not like the assumption that they weren’t safe around young boys).  The real reason was to open up the recruiting pool.

Apart from the Scout Movement, teaching and the Church are other professions attractive to predatory homosexuals.   (incidentally, although teaching has had more than its fair share of sexual predators, no-one is pointing fingers at the profession as a whole.)  And in the Church, the one denomination which requires its men not to be married is an obvious choice.

Secularists are constantly telling the Church to move with the times, to be reconciled to modern evils like abortion and gay rights.  US lesbian columnist Tammy Bruce writes this about the Roman Catholic Church: ‘The institution may not have adapted to the feminist and gay civil-rights movements, but the priesthood sure did.  The result of all that reconciling is what we’re dealing with today – predatory gay priests seducing adolescent boys.’ (Bruce T, The death of right and wrong, 2003 Three Rivers Press, New York p47)

The sexual abuse scandal seems to have been at its peak from the 1960s to the 1980s.  These were decades, according to the Washington Post, when more than half of the priests surveyed by the Council of the National Federation of Priests identified a ‘homosexual subculture’ in their diocese or seminary.  (Hanna Rosin, Priest Survey: Gay Cliques ExistWashington Post, 16/08/2002) In his book Goodbye Good Men, investigative reporter Michael Rose documented the homosexual infiltration of the American Catholic hierarchy.  Some orthodox men told him they left the seminary after suffering sexual harassment by homosexual faculty members and students, while others were drummed out as ‘too rigid’ after they admitted to being opposed to homosexuality. (Bruce T, op cit, pp225-226)

And still those secularist journalists berate the church in general and the Church of Rome in particular to be less dogmatic about sexual mores and subjects like abortion and homosexuality.  Christian Voice is not an apologist for Roman Catholicism, but it rather seems on the subject of the evils of sodomy in its seminaries, and faced with the problem of sexually-compulsive gay men swamping them, that successive popes have not been nearly dogmatic enough.

Tammy Bruce asks: ‘Why have these damaged gay men joined the priesthood, only to betray their vows to God and to society?  How have they dared to destroy the lives of children in their selfish effort to obtain sexual satisfaction?  The answer lies partly with them and partly with our society, since these malignant narcissists have been brought up and developed by our rotting culture.  … The abuse of children by Catholic priests, I contend, is the most perfectly clear microcosm of the conscious and subconscious agenda of the left to make society – all of it – look like them.  In this instance, it is gay men, and the Gay Establishment, using the church for their gratification while simultaneously blaming the church for what certain gay men have inflicted.’  (Bruce T, op cit, p224)

1 comment:

  1. "Now anyone who knows me will attest to how much importance I place on being fair, balanced and honest in any given situation."

    No Gene, you are malicious, cruel, two-faced, hypocritical, bigoted and as genuine as a seven pound note.

    And as for paedophilia, how about the man whose arse you creep round day and night, denying and justifying his excusing, concealing and connivance at the buggery of small boys and the rape of little girls by Catholic priests? I refer of course to Joseph Ratzinger. Had Ratzinger unfrocked Kiesle in 1985, the abuse of children at St Joseph's would not have continued for a further three years. That is a FACT, no matter how often you try to deny it.

    Ratzinger's apology in full reads as follows [my footnotes}:

    “I can only express to all the victims [1] of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness. I have had great responsibilities [2] in the Catholic Church. All the greater is my pain for the abuses [3] and the errors [4] hat occurred in those different places [5] during the time of my mandate."[6]

    1 ALL THE VICTIMS, Gene: victimS, plural: you can tell this by the S on the end of the word. All the victims of sexual abuse that occurred during Ratzingers time as Archbishop of Munich [1977- 1982] and later head of the Congregation of the Faith and Pope - that is, 1985 - 2013. The phrase "ALL THE VICTIMS therefore must include the victims of Stephen Kiesle between the years 1985-1988, when Ratzinger failed to unfrock Kiesle. [2] I HAVE HAD GREAT RESPONSIBILITES [see 1 above]: and one of those was to detect, root out and expel priests and others in the Catholic Church whose favourite hobby was buggering small boys and raping little girls. These GREAT RESPONSIBILITIES obviously include those children abused by Stephen Kiesle after Ratzinger failed to unfrock him in 1985. [3] THE ABUSES - these must include the abuses committed by Stephen Kiesle after Ratzinger failed to unfrock him [unless you can prove differently, Gene?].
    [4] THE ERRORS - these must include Ratzinger's failure to unfrock Kiesle in 1985 and probably his failure to alert Fr Thomas Ryan that he was allowing a convicted paedophile rapist to minister to the young people in his church.
    [5] THOSE DIFFERENT PLACES - except, of course at St Joseph's Church, Penole, CA, where Stephen Kiesle, still a priest, continued to abuse children during the years 1985-1988 - Ratzinger made it clear that his apology did not include this, didn't he, Gene, and you can prove that, can't you? What's that? oh, you can't? Dear me, and YOU call ME a lying tosser... [5] DURING MY MANDATE: that is, during the years 1985 - 2013.

    It is clear to anyone whose mind has a greater ratiocinatory capacity than a pair of skid-marked underpants that Ratzinger was apologising for all the sexual abuse committed on his watch 1985-2013 by priests whom he failed either properly to oversee, accurately to diagnose and condignly to punish, as well as arranging for their being unable to access children and young people ever again.

    "I can only express to ALL the victims of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness." It's that word ALL that gives it away, Gene: I'm sorry if it's confusing.

    "Detters can we leave A.N. WILSON and ARIANNA HUFFINGTON behind?"

    Not until you have dealt honestly with this example of your lying bastardy:

    'Gene writes beautifully - something not always the case with authors of trail-blazing literary works.' [A.N. WILSON]

    "The genius of James Joyce is alive and well and living amongst us. His name is Gene Vincent." [A.N. WILSON]

    'I was enthralled. A new star has shot into the literary firmament. [ARIANNA HUFFINGTON]

    When you are going to admit that you have made these reviews and their authors up? Make no mistake: I am going to keep on asking until you tell the truth, or I lose patience, inform Mr Wilson and Ms Huffington and let nature take its course.

    ReplyDelete