Papal Infallibility Not All It’s Cracked Up to Be

Font Size» Large | Small

WATCH OUT JOHNNY - The sex abuses in the Catholic church must stop.

With the number of abuse cases at the hands of the randy hobbits of the Catholic Church, it sometimes seems as if every altar boy in the western hemisphere has been touched, pinched, chased around the sanctuary, or introduced to a smidge of priestly BDSM on the down low.

A handful of these cases would be outrageous, thousands of them intolerable. Yet, the Church continues to stonewall investigations and do little or nothing to the priests involved. I don’t think harboring them in secret and periodically moving them to a new parish so they can groom a new crop of tender young lads is exactly what Jesus would’ve done.

Sorry, Our Bad
But now, the Pope his ownself is implicated in keeping the problem secret and perhaps lying about it. Meanwhile, his church is fracturing while his earthly minions protect his vestment-swaddled rump instead of doing right by their flock. His response?  Sorry, our bad.

That whole papal infallibility thing is a sweet deal when your impiety is showing, eh Ratzie?

The Pope may believe he’s above the fray and that somehow being God’s personal PR man on Earth makes it OK. I get the whole contrition thing. After all, that’s how the church justified keeping the abusers under wraps. Hate the sin, love the sinner – victims, apparently, need not apply.

Unfortunately, sins don’t have the same concept of  “special circumstances” as secular justice does. If ever cases begged for something extra to be tied onto the Big Sins, it’s these. Children (God’s I presume) were abused, sometimes repeatedly. Their abusers lied about it. When caught, the church covered for them. When the number of cases reached critical mass, Vatican leaders – up to and possibly including the Pope – covered for them and worsened the effect to the power of 10.

The church seems to be racking up the charges like some loon on America’s Stupidest Car Chases.

How about the hypocrisy? The church preaches that homosexuality is a sin and that sex is only to procreate junior converts for the fold.

What About the Victims?
And what of the victims? They’ve been sentenced to emotionally scared lives without – unlike their abusers – the possibility of parole. They must endure opening themselves up to ridicule and having their legal claims denied or suffer in silence rather than invite the wrath of the Holy See.

TIME FOR CONFESSION - Hate the sin, love the victim.Where’s the outrage? Former Senator Rick Santorum, an allegedly pious Catholic, suggested that “man on dog” sex would result if sodomy laws were repealed and homosexuals conducted their sex lives as they saw fit. I haven’t heard him speak out about the priests. Are only secular homosexuals indictable under this sin Rick?

What about Catholics? Don’t parishioners have an obligation or at least desire to make the church a better, more loving place? If the Vatican refuses, can’t individual parishes give them a place where they can receive kindness and love rather than a hand on their crotch?

What about protestants? They aren’t taking to the streets to protest the Pope’s actions. They should remember that the next time they feel obliged to preach at Muslims for being evil because some of their number are bomb-toting idiots.

Right now, the Vatican is operating more like a political party than a church. The spin goes on. The “Heckuva job Ratzies” are being broadcast.  The Vatican’s damage control is the same as the Bush Administration’s after Katrina (and I don’t mean the physical kind either) – bad. The Pope and other church officers must stand up and take full responsibility – financial, moral,and spiritual. They need to resign and fight for the justice due the victims.

Your Holiness, you’d better act soon, before it’s too late, or you’ll not only suffer God’s wrath, but the temporal world’s as well.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

10 thoughts on “Papal Infallibility Not All It’s Cracked Up to Be


    Many homosexual leaders have admitted that there is a natural link between a homosexual orientation and child sexual abuse.

    Studies on the frequency of homosexual child molestation

    For example; Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.

    A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles.”

    Another 2000 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that”. . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories” for sexual activity;’ These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old. Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%.” A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that ” . . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.”
    A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual

    Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.
    In a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, sex researchers found that “The proportional prevalence of [male] offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent.” Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals have acted as “chicken hawks” – that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.
    In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested. A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger.

    There are occasional scientific attempts to deny or obscure the fact that a disproportionately high percentage of active homosexuals also molest children. These studies are invariably afflicted with one or more fatal flaws.

    A typical example, oft-quoted by gay rights activists, is the July 1994 Pediatrics article by Jenny, Roesler and Poyer that finds that “Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.” The fatal flaw of this study is that it studied sexually abused children with a mean age of just 6.1 years. Children of this young age are usually targets of true pedophiles, those persons with no sexual attraction to adults of either sex. By contrast, homosexual pedophiles are usually classified as “ephebophiles,” persons sexually attracted to pubescent or post-pubescent underage children.

    The “ten percent” myth

    There is much propaganda claiming that homosexuals comprise about ten percent of the population in the United States and in many other nations. Even the names of many homosexual organizations and initiatives reflect this number: ‘The Ten Percent Foundation,” “Project Ten,” and the “One in Ten Club” are a few examples. Some leading homosexual authors continue to insist that one in ten persons are born “gay.”

    As Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen claim in their book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, “. . . it is simply a matter of the odds –one in ten–as to who turns out gay, and who straight. Each heterosexual must be led to realize that he might easily have been born homosexual himself.” Kirk subsequently boasted about how effective the homosexual propaganda campaign has been when he said that “When straights are asked for a formal estimate, the figure played back most often is the ‘10% gay’ statistic which our propagandists have been drilling into their heads for years.” The purpose of the “ten percent” figure is to create in the public mind an easily-remembered “everyone knows” idea that homosexuals make up a much larger percentage of the population than they do in reality.

    The original source of the “ten percent” statistic is Alfred Kinsey, the world’s most famous sex researcher. His best-known “finding” held that ten percent of the male population is “more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. This is one male in ten in the white male population.” Kinsey also claimed that four percent of all males are exclusively homosexual throughout their entire lives. This percentage is not only the basis of the homosexual-rights “ten percent” claim, but also serves as a cornerstone of the sex education classes being taught in the United States and much of the rest of the world today.

    Researcher Bruce Voeller explains how the mere constant repetition of this statistic made it true in the minds of many, I campaigned with Gay groups and in the media across the country for the Kinsey-based finding that “We are everywhere.” This slogan became a National Gay Task Force leitmotif. And the issues derived from the implications of the Kinsey data became key parts of the national political, educational, and legislative programs during my years at New York’s Gay Activist Alliance and the National Gay Task Force.

    After years of our educating those who inform the public and make its laws, the concept that 10 percent of the population is gay has become a generally accepted “fact.” While some reminding always seems necessary, the 10 percent figure is regularly utilized by scholars, by the press, and in government statistics. As with so many pieces of knowledge and myth, repeated telling made it SO. In fact, the numbers are much smaller. There have been a number of major studies gauging the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. The aggregated results of these studies surveyed more than 218,000 men in several countries and show that 2.6 percent of the male population has ever had a homosexual experience in their lives. So much for the “ten percent” myth.

    Definitions and calculations

    The John Jay study on the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States defines “pedophiles” as people who “exhibit recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, urges or behaviors related to sexual contact with a prepubescent child over a period of at least six months duration.” When people speak of the current crisis being a problem involving “pedophile priests,” they are addressing only a small portion of the situation. According to the John Jay study, most of the sexually offending priests are not true pedophiles. They are, instead, “ephebophiles,” who “exhibit these same fantasies, urges or behaviors towards post-pubescent youths.” Generally, the John Jay study recognized that pedophilia can be defined as the molestation of children aged ten and younger. The National Review Board study defines “ephebophilia” as “homosexual attraction to adolescent males,” a definition that certainly is validated by quotes by “gay rights” activists elsewhere in this artic1e.

    The John Jay Study clearly shows that, as the age of the victims rises, the percentage of victims decisively shifts from primarily female to overwhelmingly male. The results of the study stand in stark contrast to United States Department of Health and Human Services statistics, which show that male-on-male child sexual abuse in the USA comprises only 14.4% of all sexual abuse committed by males. In other words, in the general population of males who sexually abuse minors, only one in seven molest boys. In the population of priests who sexually abuse minors, six in seven molest boys. Figure I graphically depicts the numbers of alleged victims of sexual abuse incidents, grouped by gender and age. One can clearly see the percentage of victims is overwhelmingly male.

    Many experts have claimed that there is a much higher percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood than there is in the general population. Let us assume for a moment that the concentration of male homosexuals in the priesthood is four times greater than it is in the general population-about ten percent. We find that a homosexual priest is (85.3%/10.0%)/(14.7%190.0%) = 52 times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual priest. If we use the more reasonable assumption that five percent of all priests are homosexual ‘ (still about twice the average in the general population), we see that a homosexual priest is (85.3%/5.0%)/(14.7%/95.0%) = 110 times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual priest.

    It is well known (and logical) that homosexuals with a desire for young children purposefully seek employment that will bring them into proximity with the greatest number of children possible. The most “promising” jobs of this nature include clergymen working in youth ministry, Boy Scout leaders and schoolteachers. This is primarily why homosexual teachers have been involved in more than eighty percent of all recorded cases of teacher/pupil sex. And it may also explain why homosexuals are trying so hard to force the Boy Scouts of America to accept practicing homosexuals as leaders. Some homosexuals may see such acceptance as one more step toward achieving general social recognition and approval for homosexual activity, and nothing more. For homosexual child molesters, however, such recognition by the Boy Scouts would provide more ready access to children they can abuse.

    A nationwide survey of school principals showed that they received 13 times as many complaints about homosexuals sexually molesting students than they did about heterosexuals molesting students. Other studies have shown that homosexual teachers are from 90 to 100 times more likely to molest students than heterosexual teachers. Supporting quotes by active homosexuals as further evidence of the strong connection between active homosexuality and child molestation, many homosexual leaders have openly admitted that there is a natural link between a homosexual orientation and child sexual abuse.

    Many homosexual organizations and leaders not only admit to, but support, the sexual abuse of children by homosexuals. An editorial in the San Francisco Sentinel, a member of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalist’s Association, claimed that the love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous. We must not be seduced into believing misinformation from the press and the government. Child molesting does occur, but there are also positive sexual relations. And we need to support the men and the boys in those relationships.

    The notorious North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), one of several organized pedophile groups, almost always has a photo of a pre-teen boy on the cover of its NAMBLA Bulletin, as well as many others in its pages.

    Pedophile Philip Hutchinson’s poem entitled “Choirboy” is entirely typical of the fare found in the Bulletin; “You look like a cherub, but you’re worldly-wise. You’d love to have me think you’re newly-born, but I can spot the twinkle in your eyes; you know damned well how much you turn me on. Between us, you’re the satyr — I’m the saint, so shed your sacred robe and bare your skin, surrender to my touch without restraint, and later, put your halo on again.”

    One of NAMBLA’s flyers says that there is no age at which a person becomes capable of consenting to sex. The age of sexual consent is just one of many ways in which adults impose their system of control on children. . . Amazing as it may seem in this child-hating and homophobic society, boy lovers [pederasts] find boys attractive and like their spontaneity and openness. Convicted pedophile and NAMBLA member David Thorstad has said that “I think that pederasty should be given the stamp of approval. I think it’s true that boy-lovers [pederasts] are much better for children than the parents are . . .”

    Like the “ten percent” myth, the concept that adults can legitimately have sex with children originated with the A1fred Kinsey team. Sex educator and Alfred Kinsey co-researcher Wardell Pomeroy said that “People seem to think that any [sexual] contact between children and adults has a bad effect on the child. I say that this can be a loving and thoughtful, responsible sexual activity.”

    Interestingly, while the mainstream press and liberal groups systematically pillory the Catholic Church, they entirely ignore the well organized efforts by professional associations to decriminalize and normalize child sexual abuse. There exists a determined effort to decriminalize and destigmatize sexual relationships between adults and children in preparation for “normalizing” them. For example, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an upcoming edition of the group’s psychiatric manual of mental disorders. At about the same time, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published a special edition in December 2002 discussing whether pedophilia should remain a mental disorder. As early as 1988, a leading American psychological journal, Behavior Today, claimed, “Pedophilia may be a sexual orientation rather than a sexual deviation. This raises the question as to whether pedophiles may have rights.”

    Frequency of molestation by individuals

    Among the general class of male sexual deviants (both homosexual and heterosexual), pederasts (boy molesters) are found to be much more prolific in their offenses than pedophiles (girl molesters). The most extensive study performed on the relative degree of predatory behavior of these two classes of male sexual deviants found that 153 pederasts sexually molested 22,981 boys over an average period of 22 years, while 224 pedophiles molested 4,435 girls over an average period of 18 years. This means that each pederast molested an average of 150 boys, and each pedophile molested an average of 20 girls-a ratio of 7.5 to one.

    Confession of a Monsignor

    It is clear, even without reference to the numerous reports throughout the recent years, that homosexuals have infiltrated the ranks of the clergy to an astonishing degree. In some corners of the Church, such behavior has long been seen as acceptable. To cite just one recent example, Msgr. Richard Sniezyk, appointed to head the Diocese of Springfield-in-Massachusetts after its bishop resigned amid sexual abuse allegations, said in an interview that the

    recent scandal in the Catholic Church stems from a belief among some priests during the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s that sex with young men was “acceptable”: Monsignor Richard S. Sniezyk, 66, the leader of the Springfield Diocese until the Vatican names a bishop to replace Thomas L. Dupre, said that as a seminarian and then a young priest … he heard of priests who had sex with young men, but “no one thought much about it” because priests didn’t recognize how mentally and emotionally damaging their behavior was … “It was that era of the ’60s most of it took place from the mid- ’60s to the early’ 80s- and the whole atmosphere out there was, it was OK, it was OK to do.”

    It is easy to look back on the crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States and place blame on the Vatican, on the bishops, on the seminaries, or even on our society’s permissive attitude toward sexuality in general. But much terrible damage has already been done -to the victims, to the Church, and to the souls of many whose faith has been shaken or even destroyed by the scandal.

    We often hear from the homosexual-rights movement that “gays” are “born that way.” This may or may not be true, depending on which of the hundreds of conflicting studies we choose to believe. In the most fundamental sense, this point is irrelevant. We are all born with weaknesses, a direct result of our fallen natures. We can deal with these weaknesses in one of two ways. We can accept them as crosses given to us by God, and we can glorify his Name by struggling to overcome them with the aid of his grace. Or we can simply give in and use the “born that way” excuse, the weak and cowardly road that is a vote of no-confidence in God’s grace and its ability to save us.

    Alcoholism has been proven to be genetic. Yet our spouses do not accept the “born that way” excuse if we arrive home stinking drunk every night. Kleptomania may indeed also be genetic, yet no court in the land has ever accepted the “born that way” excuse as a defense against shoplifting charges.

  2. Pingback: Traduire RSS

  3. By the way, I recognize that the Church is, now, standing up and making the sort of affirming statements regarding the innocence of the children and the guilt of the abusers. This is commendable, though far too late for those who were victimized by priests who were known by the Church officials to be pedophiles but were shuttled from one unsuspecting congregation after another. This is a shame from which the Church can never wash itself entirely clean; it can only atone for their sins by making damn sure they never again protect a pedophile priest from the legal consequences of their crime and swilftly and strongly support the victims of abuse in their recovery. If the Church hierarchy proves to the public that they have changed, they can be forgiven their earlier guilt, though that guilt can never be forgotten.

  4. As a victim of child molestation — though not by a priest — I can attest to the devastation it causes in the child’s life right through adulthood. While punishing the abuser does not magically resolve the confusion, anguish, guilt and shame caused by the abuse, it at least attests that society views the abuser, not the victim, as the guilty party. This is important because children are most likely to blame themselves, view themselves as responsible for the abuse (even if they aren’t told this by their abuser), see themselves as dirty and unworthy. By covering for molester priests, the Church not only allowed the abuse to continue to victimize more children, it failed to stand up and say to the children, “It wasn’t your fault. You weren’t the dirty one. The shame you feel does not belong to you, it belongs to the one who abused you.” That sort of affirmation along with actually allowing molester priests to face the legal consequences of their crimes would have both helped the victims heal as well as have ended the abuse the abuse of more children.

    Shame on the Roman Catholic Church for having shielded molesters for so long. They deserve every bit of derision they get for this collective sin.

  5. The reason there hasn’t been a peep out of the anti-homosexual contingent (Santorum et. al.) is that they’re against homosexuality that is between two CONSENTING ADULTS. Rape of a child doesn’t involve either consent or two adults, therefore it’s fine with them, possibly even a “perk” of being a priest.

  6. Pingback:

Give Us Some Choice Words