 |
 |
‘We Told You So, Boston'; Your Homosexual Network Twenty Years Later
We Were WarnedMarch 2002 This is what Marshner says today. In the book, Fr. Rueda detailed – with meticulous footnotes – what, already then, was the growing network of “support groups,” counseling referrals, newsletters, and organizations of homosexuals and pro-homosexuals in the churches of the United States, including the Catholic Church. The network was particularly effective within the Catholic Church: at one point in the late 70’s, a key staffer at the Office of Public Affairs and Information of the U. S. Catholic Conference/National Conference of Catholic Bishops was a leader of the Washington, D.C., homosexual movement as well as president of Dignity, the pressure group which seeks to force the Catholic Church to relate to homosexuals according to the tenets of the homosexual ideology. The name of the fair city of Boston appears frequently in Fr. Rueda’s pages, giving it the dubious distinction of being the birthplace of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (an interesting coincidence in light of subsequent developments). Also interesting to note is that one Fr. Paul Shanley attended the NAMBLA convention in Boston , supposedly on behalf of the then-Catholic Archbishop, Medeiros. In the early days of “gay liberation”, 1972, a National Coalition of Gay Organizations adopted a “Gay Rights Platform”. This list of demands included one to repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent – a matter of some obvious concern to pederasts. “Homosexuality is no sicker than heterosexuality,” proclaimed the Third Number of the NAMBLA Journal, “What is sick is society’s efforts to suppress [sic] and persecute it.” In those days, every type of sexual activity was considered equally deserving of “liberation”. As pederast theoretician David Thorstad proclaimed it in the pages of Boston ’s Gay Community News in January, 1979: “We should present ourselves not merely as defenders of our own personal rights to privacy and sexual expression, but as the champions of the right of all persons – regardless of age – to engage in the sexuality of their choice. We must recognize homosexual behavior for what it is – a natural potential of the human animal.” By 1998 Thorstad was blasting the gay movement because it had “retreated from its vision of sexual liberation, in favor of integration and assimilation into existing social and political structures … increasingly sought to marginalize even demonize cross-generational love.” Translation: the tacticians who won the internal battles, and therefore prevailed, realized that “We are everywhere” was a slogan that could sell. Man/boy love wouldn’t sell. Call it an “incremental” strategy, if you will. It is going to be a long, long struggle to re-establish in mainstream Catholic culture an understanding and acceptance of what the Catholic Catechism teaches on homosexual acts – namely, that they are intrinsically disordered, and under no circumstances can be approved, while at the same time men and women who have homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. A generation ago the first part of that was not disputed. It might be said that some of the trouble in Boston right now could be traced to successive bishops’ going overboard on the second part, on behalf of one of their priests. After all, priests are in the business of forgiving and healing people. It is understandable that a bishop would err in favor of thinking the best about and being quick to forgive his priests. The homosexual movement has been very successful at removing the sensitivity and stigma formerly associated with non-heterosexual attractions. The whole sexual liberation movement, hetero as well as homo, has expertly manipulated public opinion for close to half a century. People are so afraid of “judge not, lest ye be judged” that they feel they must tolerate anything. Had these de-sensitizations not been so successful, Fr. Geoghan might not have gotten away with as much as he did for as long as he did. Whereas in 1954 it was politically correct for seminary authorities to look hard at a young man’s sexual orientation, fifteen years later it was politically correct to be “open” to “new expressions”. And thirty years later, in many Catholic seminaries and diocese, it was positively retrograde to disapprove of homosexuality or to acknowledge its ties to pederasty. It is worth remembering that the 1960’s and 70’s were years of total turbulence in the Roman Catholic Church, with order only gradually becoming visible in the 1980’s and 90’s. Part of the zeitgeist of the 60’s was “don’t trust anybody over 30”. Well, people under 30 hadn’t had much experience with priestly pederasty, thanks to the vigilance of people over 30. But inherited wisdom was out of fashion, and the cautions of older and wiser men were laughed at. Maybe the old ways weren’t perfect – but was the new one? Under which system were more innocent people injured? The families of those victimized in Boston are probably wishing some things hadn’t gone quite so out of fashion. Some might be wishing that somebody in the Church had been a bit more “repressive” of Fr. Geoghan a lot sooner. Some even might be wishing that the right person in the Archdiocese of Boston had read Fr. Rueda’s book and heeded it. No Question A Generation AgoThere’s no question that Catholics had the right message a generation ago, says Marshner. The message was that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered,” but that those with homosexual tendencies should be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity, Then came the sexual revolution and the normalizing of homosexuality by the American Psychiatric Association in 1972. After that, the whole culture changed. Should we blame only the Catholic church for this? They were caught up in the times. But what is more important is whether or not we have learned anything. The town of Amherst and the Globe are following the same route today that the Cardinal took ten years ago. They see a friend who appears kindly and friendly and they find it hard to believe he would molest anyone. Their desire to protect their friend is understandable, but how can they be doing so when they now realize the misery and unhappiness that their friend will cause? If anyone still believes that a molester always looks like a monster, they had better rethink their position. Most of them are just like Fr. Geoghan and Principal Myers, nice, friendly guys who want to help. Quotes from the Globe articles make this abundantly clear. In one, two experts critical of Law were quoted, one of whom said, “It was highly known by [the 1980s] that sex offenders were highly likely to repeat their behavior.” That is true, but if Cardinal Law is being pilloried because of his actions in the 1980s, what does that say about the conduct of Amherst and the Globe in 2002? Or how about this quote from the Globe? “Medical evaluations of Geoghan, which repeatedly cleared him to return to parish work after incidents of sexual misconduct in the 1970s and ’80s, changed dramatically in the mid-1990s.” But this is 2002. How about people like Principal Myers? Why aren’t we judging him by the new standards the Globe has articulated?
|
