Posted on 07/18/2007 1:48:09 PM PDT by topcat54
Cardinal Roger Mahony has announced that the Church will pay out $660 million to more than 500 victims of sexual abuse by priests. It’s the Catholic Church’s failure to act swiftly and decisively on the matter that has disillusioned and enraged church members and victims. No one likes a cover-up, especially religious devotees who believe the church is a means of salvation and priests are mediators between the people and God. But there remains a more sinister cover-up.
The Church must come to grips with reality and admit that the priesthood is so dominated by homosexuals that Paul Wilkes, who studied 600 parishes for his book Excellent Catholic Parishes: A Guide to Best Places and Practices, makes this telling observation, “If we drove all the gay priests out of the priesthood, our Masses would be on videotape.”1
I find it interesting that all the sexual abuse is done exclusively by pedophiles, seemingly a heterosexual malady. Are we to believe that not one case of sexual misconduct can be attributed to a single homosexual priest? There are anywhere from 8,000 to 22,000 homosexual priests. If the priesthood is made up of such a high percentage of homosexuals, then it stands to reason that at least a high percentage of the church’s so-called pedophile problem is really a homosexual problem.
The church’s unbiblical, illogical, and irrational policy that priests must not marry and remain celibate is being blamed for the sexual scandal. Such an argument is off the mark. Has anyone noticed that the priests aren’t, in 95 percent of reported cases, having sex with teenage girls? The male priests are having sex with young male parishioners. The problem of sex abuse is not because of celibacy; it’s homosexuality. Homosexual men are becoming priests because that’s where young, impressionable, and vulnerable boys are found. Of course, the idea that priests should remain unmarried is a religious fiction given that priests in the Old Testament were married and had children (Ex. 6:23), and Peter, the supposed first pope, was also married (Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; cf. 1 Tim. 3:4–5).
The Roman Catholic Church has had a difficult time recruiting men to the priesthood. Homosexuals see this as an opportunity. Why not go where there’s an almost unlimited supply of young boys whose parents consider priests to be god-like? Are we surprised that the Boy Scouts have also become a target of homosexuals? Once again, it’s where boys can be found for recruitment purposes. Liberals attack the Scouts for not opening its leadership ranks to admitted homosexuals, while these same critics attack the Catholic Church for giving “pedophile priests” easy access to children of the same age.
Catholics are taught that priests and nuns are spiritually special and set apart for God’s work. I can still remember sitting in my fifth grade class at St. Germaine’s Catholic School in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, when Father Hugo would enter the class. Sister Mary Josephine would always ask, “Who wants to be a priest when he grows up?” Only one boy, my best friend at the time, Salvatore LaMarca, refused to raise his hand. Of course we wanted to be a priest. Being a priest was a one-way ticket to heaven. It was like getting a “Get out of Hell Free” card.
Devout families—and predator priests frequently chose their victims from the most ardent parishioners—had been taught for generations to exalt, respect and trust priests. Who could imagine dear Father Tim—who came to dinner, played with the kids, counseled mom, acted like a dad—would do something so sinful? Doubting the priest would cost you your spiritual security.2
It’s no accident that early Hollywood designated the priest as the most trusted of film characters. Spencer Tracy, Bing Crosby, and Pat O’Brien made their careers with movies like Angels with Dirty Faces, Boys Town, Going My Way, and The Bells of St. Mary’s. Every parish dreamed of having a Father Flanagan for its priest or a priest who just looked like Pat O’Brien. Notice that almost in every case the priest was a friend and confidant to young boys. It came with the territory. Parents always knew their children were safe with a priest.
Film-making in the early years was nearly dominated by Jews, as Neal Gabler describes in his highly informative book An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. Even so, Catholic clergy were almost universally depicted as decent and caring spiritual leaders. Louis B. Mayer “was a close friend and a great admirer of New York’s Cardinal Spellman, with whom he dined every time he visited New York, and a large portrait of Spellman in his red vestments was the first sight that greeted visitors to Mayer’s library.”3 It was the church’s “respectability” that impressed Mayer. “If a character appeared on screen wearing a clerical collar it served as a sure sign that the audience was supposed to like him.”4
Toby Westerman reports, “A gay culture is growing among clergy of the American Catholic Church that receives support from members of the hierarchy as well as from those directly involved in the training of priests, according to a Catholic priest-theologian.”5 The Vatican has found it nearly impossible to police its seminaries. Much of the problem is a lack of will and fear of a backlash from an already depleted clergy.
There has been a redirection of focus from a discussion of homosexuality to pedophilia, a nearly universally despised predatory behavior. The charge of pedophilia is being used as a smoke screen by homosexuals to fly under the sexual radar. While the general public excoriates the pedophiles among us, the homosexuals go merrily along debauching young men in the name of sexual tolerance.
In the April 1, 2002 issue of U.S. News & World Report, homosexuality was mentioned only once in the eight-page article on the Catholic sex crisis. Rev. Joel Garner, pastor of a Catholic church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, is quick to point out in the article that “the pedophilia problem has nothing to do with celibacy or homosexuality.”6 Throughout the article, the sex scandal is called a “sex-abuse scandal,” “youth-sex-abuse,” “sexual misconduct,” “predatory sexual behavior,” but never a homosexual problem. Author Marianne Szegedy-Maszak, confuses the readers of U.S. News even more (on purpose?) when she reports, “Despite the common image of a priest sodomizing a 9-year-old altar boy, most of the priest abusers are technically ‘ephebophiles’—that is, they abuse adolescents rather than children.”7 In any other dictionary, the description of an ephebophile would be a practicing predatory homosexual.
The article begs the question. It’s not just “adolescents” who the priests are abusing, it’s adolescent boys. If pedophilia is the problem, then why aren’t the priests having sex with young girls in the church? The church is covering up its crisis to save its reputation, and it’s no less true that thesereporters are covering up for the homosexual rights movement. John Leo, an editorial writer for U.S. News, touches on the real issue when he writes that true pedophiles are rare, and the super majority of the priests involved in this sex crisis are not pedophiles. “But the church is reluctant to mention the distinction,” Leo writes, “most likely because opening up the issue of sexually active gay priests is itself explosive, even apart from charges of abuse.”
The homosexual lobby is so powerful and intimidating that almost no one wants to suffer from its unbridled wrath. So for cover, the priests are charged with pedophilia in order to hide the fact that homosexuality is the real culprit.
2. Johanna McGeary, “Can the Church Be Saved?,” Time (April 1, 2002), 31.
3. Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood (New York: Crown Publishers, 1988), 285.
4. Michael Medved, Hollywood VS. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 51. Roman Catholic and Episcopalian clergymen (e.g., Life with Father and The Bisho’s Wife) were most often chosen to represent the church because they were easily identified because of their clerical garb, most specifically a special collar. Most Protestant clergymen wear no special attire. They generally look like businessmen.
5. Toby Westerman, “Suffer the Children: ‘Gay’ culture in Catholic Church grows Priest says scandal really about homosexuality, not pedophilia,” World Net Daily (March 24, 2002).
6. Angie Cannon and Jeffery L. Sheler, “Catholicsin Crisis,” U.S. News & World Report (April 1, 2002), 57.
7. Marianne Szegedy-Maszak, AChastity and lust: Is there a psychological link between sexuality, celibacy, and predation?,” 55.
8. John Leo, “Of rage and revolution,” 12.
Re "Cardinal goal was protecting Mahony," column, July 17It is a mistake to think that Cardinal Roger M. Mahony is trying to protect himself. He is trying to protect his flock. If you are a Roman Catholic, you believe that the church is essential for salvation. Over the years, it has been clear to the Roman Catholic hierarchy that anything that undermines the confidence of the faithful in the church risks driving people away, thereby dooming them to hell. Therefore, the best thing to do about the misdeeds of priests is to cover them up. As the reasoning goes, the harm done to boys through molestation is far less than that through eternal damnation.
This runs entirely counter to the views of our modern secular society. Protestants don't have this problem because they do not believe that the church is essential for salvation. Roman Catholics are going to have to find a way out.
RORY JOHNSTON
Hollywood
Unless, of course, he is elected Bishop of Rome.
I’ll second P-Marlowe. It is almost a certainty that the plaintiff’s lawyers were working on a contingency of somewhere between 25 and 50%; most probably in the one-third to 40% range. (I’m not familiar enough with the local market to narrow it down any more than that.)
We don’t know the details, but right now I’m thinking the $660 million which is being reported is the amount that goes directly to the plaintiffs. I’m thinking that is an odd number and I suspect that the actual settlement was 1 Billion Dollars and the $340 million dollar difference is what goes to the plaintiff’s lawyers. I’m thinking they only reported the NET to the plaintiffs in a vain attempt to look like this was a small settlement. :-)
Surely this is satire or sarcasm, isn't it? It has to be.
If someone really meant it, then that is just about the sickest Christianity in the history of our faith. It's worse than Jonestown.
There are some very large, very wealthy denominations out there. If there were practices of hiding homosexual abusers in the ministry, you can bet your bottom dollar that trial lawyers would have been after those millions.
They have not been able to do so. That gives us some indication of the difference in how these homosexual pedophiles are either aided or abetted in other denominations. I could be wrong, but is the complicity of these bishops that has made the RCC vulnerable, not individual acts by individual priests. The RCC's exposure wouldn't have been anywhere close to this level if it had been individuals who were not then secretly harbored and repositioned by the bishops.
Well said. Every denomination is going to have issues at one time or another with sexual sins. What has always bothered me the most about all of this is not the awful homosexual predators preying on young boys. That is awful without a doubt. But even if it had just been sexual sins with adults, whether homosexual or heterosexual, what bothers me the most is the fact that it has NOT been dealt with over the years in biblical, Christlike or God-fearing manner, but swept under the rug for years.
It is the moving around of the predators within the church that is so very telling of how unbiblical and how the organization does not even attempt to abide in Christ. From what I understand, the knowledge of these heinous sins went pretty far up the organizational ladder. Even if it did not, when it was all exposed a few years ago, even then, the biblical mandate was not followed, the Holy Spirit was not harkened. Even now, the organization that calls itsels a "church" is following man's ways of dealing with the issue.
Where in scripture is there anything said about paying money to those you have sinned against in a sexual sin? Where was the repentance of the priests and their those above them? Where was the outrage that such a system of concealing child predators in their organization? Where is the outrage now that thinks that paying people off is pleasing to the Lord? There is no excuse now for anyone in the entire organization to not be aware of what has and is going on.
I am sorry but I don't really see how anyone could explain to others that Christ exists in that organization. Unbelievers mock that idea. The whole cover-up and now pay-off just sickens me, not to mention what they did to begin with.
The RC reaction that I see from those that I know is one of concern, their eyebrows furrow but then they talk about how many of the accusations are false. It doesn't matter if 99% are false to me. What matters is what they did about it - did they follow God, or did they follow man, or worse yet, did they try to minimize and do a spin? We all make mistakes. Some of them are major. I certainly have done and continue to do my share. But what tells all about the nature of a person, about which god they follow is when they are confronted (by people or the Holy Spirit) and what they do or say after. I see some confession, but little repentance and then, after that, just man's way of dealing with things, not the Lord God's as set forth in His Word.
Cheap at half the price. 8~)
lol. You should know better than to quote the NIV to ftd. Those “male temple prostitutes” are a real drag. 8~)
That certainly is likely, but it's not the reason for the RCC's disgusting behavior. None of these popes is ill-informed. None of these popes is naive. None of these popes is not in complete control.
This pope, most especially.
No, I heard one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs say very clearly that the defense attorneys were charging over $670 per hour for their defense.
By the way, I understand there is a confidentiality agreement attached to the settlement. The plaintiffs can't talk about the cases or their experiences and the Diocese does not have to produce any information. That is probably worth more than the money settlement to the Diocese.
Now that's interesting because on Monday they kept insisting that "all corroborating documents would be released" as part of the deal.
I guess they figure by stating this they can look fair-minded and open, when in truth zilch will be released and Mahoney and his criminal Cosa Nostra will continue on as if nothing had happened.
Same old, same old.
For those with ears to hear, let them hear and be forewarned.
That jives with what I heard Monday.
Interesting how these true figures aren't being reported accurately.
Read the Jesuit oath.
Secondarily, I relate to you from my own mother's perspective as well as my own that Mahony is perfectly possessed. That is a technical description.
Watch the DVD documentary, "Deliver Us From Evil." It's mesmerizingly sad, but it helps us to understand how this cancer is systemic.
“No, I heard one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs say very clearly that the defense attorneys were charging over $670 per hour for their defense.”
There’s a big difference in the hourly rate charged by the private attorneys defending the Diocese and the defense attorneys hired by the insurance companies to defend the Diocese under the policies. They both show up to defend; five in tailor made suits and one in an “off the rack” suit. One does the work the others do the public relations.
Secondarily, I relate to you from my own mother's perspective as well as my own that Mahony is perfectly possessed. That is a technical description.
I'm sorry; I don't really understand your post.
Mahoney is the RCC. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be where he is today.
And if you mean Mahoney is demonically "possessed," you won't get much debate from us gentlemen. 8~)
I knew I should have gone to law school instead of Europe. Memories fade, but a good tailor-made suit lasts for years. 8~)
Mahoney is both a product of the Catholic church and the head of the church in his See. He IS the church for the members and priests in the Los Angeles area. If the Vatican didn't like what he was doing, they could 'promote' him to a job in the Vatican sorting paper clips.
It is a rare Kennedy by marriage who can actually successfully appeal from her Bishop to the Vatican.
The Church recognizes the difference between those with SSA versus those who actually take part in the “lifestyle”. All are called to be chaste, so *in theory* there shouldn’t be a problem. Now, whether in practice this is the case, I’m not sure. It would be interesting, if unknowable, to find out what percentage of priests with SSA “act out”.
Without a doubt, SSA will more likely have you face more rigorous judgment prior to being admitted into the priesthood.
But, if one wants to molest children, it makes the most sense to go where the children are.
Sarcasm or idiocy. The RCC doesn’t believe this. I think the average person in the pew would happily vote to toss the pedophile priest and the enabling bishops to the lions. I know I would.
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.