Skip to comments.Child Molestation by homosexuals and heterosexuals
Posted on 05/08/2005 9:27:50 AM PDT by St. Johann Tetzel
click here to read article
This is a SUPERB article exposing the real hard data and facts behind the Church pederasty crisis. Bookmark it!!!
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Definitely one for the record keepers. I just read part, have to run and will read the rest later. The last word for now in child molestation (that includes teenagers) and homosexuals. To deny there is a link is to be part of the problem.
Note to those rather new on this pinglist: This is one for you to read in its entirety, copy, and help those you know learn the truth; for their own protection and that of their children.
Let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.
P.S. Notice the huge number of child molesting teachers in the news? I suppose that's because teachers aren't allowed to marry? Or is it because those who pervertedly want to molest children choose that profession in order to get close to their victims?
I know you ain't on the list no more, but thought you'd like to see this definitive article.
Thanks for the ping.
I thought it was important enough to spend the time necessary so I transcribed it via scan and text recognition software from the hard copy and attempted to correct any mistakes the scan to text made. I did not attempt to correct the END NOTES.
Several years ago, one of my patients brought in her teacher's contract from the early 1920s. Her employer, the government school, told her and made it part of her contract, that she was not permitted to date. If she were caught doing so, she would be fired. That part of the contract later changed, but I doubt that, before it did, it bred a bunch of GLSEN types.
I was continually amazed at the hypocrisy of the Boston Globe for their reportage on the priest scandal. The paper screamed about Cardinal Law and the 'cover up' of priests like Paul Shanley, yet they were the ones who had reported glowingly about Shanley back when he was a 'relevant priest who could talk to the young', all the while knowing that he was an early supporter of NAMBLA. The Globe NEVER mentioned the priest abuse scandal in terms of homosexuality, it always couched it in terms of pedophilia in order to take the heat off their homosexual activist friends.
What is even more scandalous, more evil, is the fact that the USCCB joined the mainstream media in making it into a "pedophilia" issue, by intent, with malice.
When the Cardinals went to Rome to first meet with Pope JPII, when the stories were fresh in the Boston Globe, multiple bishops were saying that we had a "homosexual priest" problem.
However, by the time the USCCB had their own first meeting to deal with it, they had decided on, or been coerced into, labeling it a "pedophilia crisis," despite knowing quite well it was a homosexuality issue.
How did they get away with it, IMO?
During the weeks leading into that first USCCB meeting, the New York newspapers were running gossip column stories about "outing" one of the US Cardinals.
When that USCCB meeting started, Bruskiewitz wanted it to deal directly and primarily with the homosexual priest crisis.
He was voted down and silenced by the rest of the USCCB. And the USCCB ever since has called it a "pedophilia" problem, even though their own John Jay Report findings are diametrically opposed to their cover story.
Fast forward to the 2004 elections: Ratzinger tells McCarrick to refuse communion to pro-abort politicians.
Kerry asks McCarrick for a "personal meeting" that summer, and McCarrick grants it.
After that meeting, McCarrick misrepresents Ratzinger's letter and says to the USCCB that Rome supports McCarrick in NOT refusing communion to the likes of Kerry.
What are the chances that Kerry did NOT know what all the New York newspapers knew going into the first USCCB meeting about the pederast crisis? The New York newspapers were in Kerry's back pocket!
What are the chances that Kerry did NOT use that information, about a homosexual Cardinal that COULD STILL be outed, to influence McCarrick's decision to disobey Rome and direct the USCCB NOT to refuse Kerry communion.
McCarrick recently tendered his resignation early for when he turns 75.
Lots of other reasons have been given, but knowing the circumstances above, I think we know better.
I read somewhere, just after John Paul II's death, that he didn't cotton to the whole accusation of homosexuality thing because he was sensitive to that issue on account of having grown up under first Nazi, then Soviet occupation. Apparently, it was typical to try to bring someone down politically, or personally by using an accusation of homosexuality. He may have let his personal experience with this cloud his judgement. I don't think Benedict XVI will have the same probelm.
I've read various codes of conduct for public school teachers from around 100 years ago; female teachers had to be single (the inference was that a married woman would be too busy with her household duties to give teaching the time it needed), could not date or be seen in the company of a man, had to be of good character. A male teacher could not frequent places like bars or card parlors, gamble, and IIRC, drinking was taboo. There were other stipulations, but the basic standard was that a teacher had to be of very high moral character in order to teach children.
Were it only so today.
See my comment to Mark, above.
My (no doubt limited) understanding tells me that in those days, "dating" was more or less a risque behavior.
It's pretty damning.
Thanks for connecting the dots. It will be very interesting to see how quickly BXVI replaces McCarrick. I understand that the pace of these procedures can be rather, shall we say, leisurely. If his successor is named and installed soon after McCarrick's 75th birthday, that will be a signal to the other members of the lavender clergy.
Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Thanks for the informative post.
Yes! This should be required!
Does McCarrick really wield that much power over the rest of the bishops? I'm not denying your connection of the dots. I'm just stunned by it. Do you have any other info to back this up or is it just an informed hunch?
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.