Out & Proud & Preaching… The Link Between Clergy Abuse & “Gay” Priests

“The pedophile scandal in the Catholic Church is not a pedophile scandal. The vast majority of victims are post-pubescent teens and young men. The real problem in the Church that everyone sees and few will say out loud: gay priests.”  (Matt Walsh, Twitter)

I’m taking some heat on Twitter today because I said that the real problem in the Catholic Church isn’t pedophilia but gay priests. As the statistics clearly show, the vast majority of predators in the clergy were homosexual and the vast majority were not pedophiles. The same study that reported those figures did try to absolve gay priests by claiming that their homosexuality had nothing to do with anything. But this is an assumption — I think a plainly absurd and unprovable assumption — that is not born out by their own statistics.

And the problem goes beyond sex abuse of minors. As Rod Dreher has been reporting, and liberal publications agree, homosexuality runs rampant in the modern priesthood. Sexual activity between priests, and between priests and seminarians, is not uncommon. I think it is rather difficult to separate these facts from the fact that teen boys were so often sexually victimized. Is it just a coincidence that gay priests exist in such large numbers, protected by gay cabals within the Church, and at the same time there happen to be a bunch of priests molesting pubescent boys? Are these two realities entirely separate from one another?

Take the case of the scummy Cardinal McCarrick. He has been accused of preying upon young boys. But most of the stories that have come out about him revolve around his sexual exploits with seminarians. Grown men, in other words. Yet we are told that the fact of his homosexuality is irrelevant. How could it be? If he were not a homosexual, he would not have molested boys. Who could dispute this? I’m not claiming that all homosexuals molest boys. I am claiming that only homosexuals molest boys. A non-homosexual, by definition, is not attracted to males.

I will be told that sex abuse is about “power” not sex, but of course this is ridiculous. It is about both. If all you seek is power over someone, there are other ways to achieve that aim without sexually assaulting them. If you choose sex as your means, then it would follow that you are sexually attracted to your victim.

80% of the victims in the Church have been males. Is it difficult to see how thousands of boys may have been spared this experience if there had not been so many homosexuals in the priesthood? Or are we going to pretend that even a heterosexual may attempt to get his thrills by molesting a 15 year old boy? If so, I have no idea what the words heterosexual and homosexual mean anymore.

I have been accused of focusing on this issue because it implicates gays while ignoring abuse perpetrated by heterosexuals. That couldn’t be further from the truth. I have written extensively about the epidemic of (mostly heterosexual) abuse in the public school system. There is very little public interest in this problem, and I have not been able to generate much through my own efforts, but not for lack of trying. As I have observed, it is probably not a great idea to have women in their 20’s teaching teenaged boys, just as it is not ideal to have men in their 20’s teaching teenaged girls. We may not always have much of a choice, but the problems inherent in such an arrangement are apparent.

In a similar way, it is not a good idea to have homosexual men living together in rectories and seminaries, and working closely with teen boys. This is not a homophobic theory I am positing. It is an observation I am making based on 50 years worth of data. It is nothing but moral cowardice to refuse to face the facts.   Source – The Daily Wire

Comment:

Given the above facts, the criteria already set out by the Vatican document Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders (S. C. Rel., 2 Feb., 1961) which contains the following warning, is worth noting: Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers. 

This prohibition on ordaining homosexuals is repeated in 2005 here  so, there can be no possible justification for seminaries to continue accepting and ordaining homosexual men,: “…  the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].  Source

Or, must we ignore the facts, and opt for political correctness to “move with the [ever-changing] – and ever-more sexually permissive – times”?

Australia: Priests Facing Jail for Refusing to Break Seal of Confession…

From Lifesitenews

CANBERRA, Australia, June 12, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A new law in Australia requires Catholic priests in Canberra to break the sacred seal of confession to report a child-sex abuser. The law, which has drawn fierce opposition from Archbishop Christopher Prowse of Canberra, could result in faithful priests being jailed who refuse to comply.                             

                                                                                                                                                                   A bill passed on June 7 by the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) extends mandatory reporting of child abuse to cover churches and church activities, including the Catholic confessional. All the political parties in the Assembly supported the measure.

A  Catholic priest cannot violate the seal of the confessional, which means that he cannot repeat what he is told by a penitent confessing his or her sins, without incurring automatic excommunication. The Catholic Church teaches that confession is a sacrament, a place of encounter between the Christian and Jesus Christ. The priest who hears the confession is merely Christ’s instrument of forgiveness.

Hitherto the confessional was exempt from ACT’s reporting laws; from March 31, 2019, priests who do not report confessions regarding child abuse to the police risk prosecution.

Archbishop Prowse slammed the new law, saying “priests are bound by a sacred vow to maintain the seal of the confession. Without that vow, who would be willing to unburden themselves of their sins, seek the wise counsel of a priest and receive the merciful forgiveness of God?”

Prowse, the archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn, wrote an essay in the Canberra Times last week explaining why legislating against the seal of confession will do much harm and no good.

“First, what sexual abuser would confess to a priest if they thought they would be reported?” he asked.

Prouse explained that it is the common experience of pastors that child abusers don’t confess their crimes to either priests or police. If the seal was removed, the theoretical possibility abusers might confess and be counselled to turn themselves in would be lost.

“Second, the government itself has acknowledged [with] the [Catholic] church’s ‘Truth, Justice and Healing Council… that […] it [was] difficult to see systematic abuse of the seal of confession,” Prowse wrote. “People who attend confession are sorry for their sins, indicate resolve not to sin again and seek God’s mercy. Pedophiles carry out evil and unspeakable criminal acts. They hide their crimes; they do not self-report.”

Third, he pointed out that priests do not necessarily know the identities of people who confess to them.

Fourth, he said that such a law attacks the inviolate seal of the confessional.
Originally the ACT government invited the archbishop to meet with the Attorney General to discuss the importance of both the protection of children and the seal of the confessional. However, the legislature began to debate the new bill before this meeting could take place. The archbishop decried this loss of opportunity for dialogue, pointing out that the proposed new law threatened religious freedom.

“Religious freedom is the freedom to hold a belief and, secondly, the freedom to manifest belief in community and in public, privately and individually in worship, observance, practice and teaching,” he explained.

“The government threatens religious freedom by appointing itself an expert on religious practises and by attempting to change the sacrament of confession while delivering not improvement in the safety of children,” he continued.

The new reporting laws will require priests to report allegations or offenses related to children to the ACT Ombudsman within 30 days.

Two members of the ACT Legislative Assembly thought forcing priests to break the seal of the confessional was a step in the wrong direction.

Andrew Wall, a former student of Marist College, a school notorious in Australia for child sex abuse allegations, said that while some of the child protection measures in the new law were “overdue”, he objected to its extension to the confessional.

According to the Canberra Times, Wall said forcing priests to break the confessional seal “significantly impinges on an individual’s freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom of individual rights.”

Vicki Dunne, the second member, pointed out that a priest who breaks the seal of confession incurs an excommunication that can be lifted only by the pope. In addition, it would undermine Catholics’ trust in the “sacred, sacramental and sacrosanct” rite.

“We need to stop and think twice before we pass legislation that requires Catholic priest to break the seal of the confession,” she had warned.

Comment: 

I have to admit, golden beaches, beautiful homes and sunny climate notwithstanding, I’ve never felt the slightest desire to visit Australia, let alone live there. Now it’s on my list of countries in which I will never set foot.  I mean, the sheer nerve of the  grand-sounding numpties at the ‘Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory’ to threaten  jail for Catholic priests who adhere to a law of the Church which is entirely rooted in and bound up in divine law, as expressed in the above image, is breathtaking.

Would Australia dare to interfere with – and legislate against – any other religion, as it has outlawed a sacrosanct tenet of Catholicism?  It is, of course, a stupid and unworkable law, as outlined in the Church’s response above but it is revealing of the bigotry and nastiness of the Australian lawmakers that they would even think of passing such an evil law … the weather may be sunny over there in Aussie-land but they can keep it.   I’ll not be visiting Australia – ever.  What about you?  

Smyllum Abuse Diabolical – If True…

A young boy was beaten black and blue after catching two nuns in an embrace, an inquiry has heard. A witness said he was six or seven when one of the nuns went “mental” and lashed out at him in a boiler-room at a care institution in the 1960s.

He told Scotland’s child abuse inquiry the “vicious” assault left him bruised and with blood coming out of his ear and nose. The witness, who cannot be identified, was speaking of his experiences at Smyllum Park orphanage in Lanark, which closed in the 1980s. He said he moved to the orphanage, run by the Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul, in the mid-1960s and was never given any love, affection or praise from the nuns and staff.

Physical abuse in the form of slaps and kicks was routine “for trivial stuff”, he told the hearing in Edinburgh.   Read entire report by clicking here

Comment:

Reading some of the horrendous allegations from former orphans at Smyllum Park is earth-shattering.  If even some of these allegations are true then nobody in their right mind would seek to justify such abuse in any way whatsoever. 

However, it would be mindless to presume guilt, not least because, if such apparently unbridled brutality were the norm at that institution, all sorts of grave questions arise, beginning with what sort of women were choosing to enter the  Religious Life and why? 

Anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at the Rule of any of the great Religious Orders knows that prior to the “reforms” of Vatican II which followed the Council at its close in 1965, they were renowned for their strictness.  Not only the enclosed, contemplative Orders, but the active Orders, such as the Daughters of Charity, were bound by detailed rules throughout their daily lives.  Permissions were required from Superiors for every little thing, and the idea that two Sisters could find a corner to engage in physical or sexual activity in a boiler room or anywhere else, just beggars belief.  That’s not to say it didn’t happen. Obviously, I don’t know, and these allegations do date from the 1960’s when laxity in the Religious Orders as elsewhere, had taken a foothold. 

That still leaves the question of the sort of women choosing Religious Life, and their motivation. Were our Religious Houses jam-packed with evil women who detested children and enjoyed inflicting pain and suffering such as that described by former orphans at Smyllum – or, again, assuming the truth of the allegations, is there another explanation, beyond the obvious diabolical activity at work in the souls of the guilty?   And were there no postulants or novices who left before final vows in disgust to report this scandal to the Bishop, let alone the police?  Surely not every nun was immersed in such evil and brutality.  Those are the first questions that came to my mind on reading about the Smyllum scandal. What are the questions you’d want answered? 

Cost of Corruption in Westminster – £20

Cardinal Vincent NicholsOne of our English readers emailed me today to share the self-explanatory article below. Click on photo to reach original source.

Cardinal Vincent Nichols (pictured, right, waving goodbye to the last vestiges of Catholic Faith in his archdiocese) plans to share  a platform with Fr Timothy Radcliffe, notorious dissenter and advocate of “gay rights”, at a youth conference being organised in the Archdiocese of Westminster, with young people (or more likely, their unsuspecting parents) asked to fork out a cool  £20 per ticket for the privilege of having their faith and morals undermined, if not destroyed. £20 seems to be the  modern day equivalent  of 30 pieces of silver on Cardinal Nichols’ treacherous watch. The young (34 year old) mother whose blog article appears below is fighting a valiant battle to defend the family in the current crisis, so be patient if you detect a certain innocence in her comments about the Cardinal, including the remark about him ‘happening’ to be  a speaker at the same event, as if he didn’t know exactly what he was doing when he agreed to share the platform with Fr Radcliffe.  

From the Blog: Faith in our Families…

Many people have contacted me since reading my last article Women Priests, Gay Sex, and Communion for the Re-Married: Is Fr. Timothy Radcliffe an appropriate speaker for Flame2 Youth Conference 2015? Mostly, people have been angry that a man with these views would be allowed to speak at a UK youth event. Many others have thanked me for alerting them to this issue as they had no idea what Timothy Radcliffe’s views were.

I believe parents and youth ministers alike would have sent their kids to this event in good faith, not realising that Radcliffe holds these views. If parents want their kids to listen to a speaker like Radcliffe then fine, but is the responsibility of CYMFed to be honest as to what they are providing.

It’s such a shame, because Flame 2 could have been such a fantastic event – if only they could employ speakers who are in line with the Catholic faith. I truly hope Flame 2 successfully goes ahead without Radcliffe. There is of course still time for CYMFed to drop him and find another speaker – let’s hope they do. But until that time, they will continue to be held accountable for the fact that they are continuing to sell tickets without informing people of Radcliffe’s views.

Half of the 10,000 tickets have already been sold – many bought in large quantity by youth groups and dioceses.  Since the information regarding Radcliffe’s views has now been brought to public attention, the responsibility to inform parents of Radcliffe’s views also lies on the Bishops, clergy and youth workers who are asking parents to part with £20 per ticket and more importantly, to trust them with the care of their children. They have now been put in a very difficult and embarrassing position. Of course they have no choice but to inform parents of the situation, but this will most likely result in many parents wanting a re-fund and feeling extremely let down.

Cardinal Vincent Nicholls will be speaking alongside Fr. TImothy Radcliffe at Flame 2, which is being held in his diocese of Westminster.

Another key point is that ultimately the buck stops in one place ecclesiastically and that’s at the desk of Cardinal Vincent Nicholls (who also happens to be speaking at Flame 2). It is in his archdiocese that Flame 2 is happening so it’s his responsibility in a unique way to safeguard the orthodoxy of the event and how it could affect the faith formation of those children attending.

It seems to me that the parents of those attending are the last to know in this situation, but it is with them that the real power lies. Let us not forget that prophetic declaration of St John Paul II:

 “…families will be the first victims of the evils that they have done no more than note with indifference.”  – Familiaris Consortio Para 44.

The church teaches that parents are the primary and most influential educators of their children and their protectors. However, it seems the largest youth conference in the UK deems it unimportant to alert parents to the dissident views of one of its speakers. If my child attended this event and was exposed to a speaker like Radcliffe I would be livid. As a parent I would feel betrayed. Have CYMFed considered how much damage their lack of transparency regarding Radcliffe is going to cause regarding the trust of the parents?

Never before in history has our human right to be the primary educators and protectors of our children in British society been so far removed. Now, according to the Education Act 1996, parents have no right to remove their child from a sex education lesson advocating same-sex marriage. A doctor has no obligation to inform the parents of an under 16 seeking contraception or abortion if he deems them to be Gillick competent. One cannot help but remember the chilling words of Lady Helen Brook, founder of the Brook advisory centre:

“It is now the privilege of the Parental State to take major decisions – objective, unemotional, the State weighs up what is best for the child…” – (Lady Helen Brook The Times 16 February 1980)

I this the direction CYMFed is taking? How does CYMFed expect the child’s parents make an informed decision regarding Flame 2 if they are not given the facts? Are CYMFed recognising and respecting the parents’ role as primary educator and protector? Or are they acting as some sort of ‘Nanny State’?

I would encourage you to join the ever increasing amount of people writing to CYMFed asking why they feel Timothy Radcliffe is  an appropriate speaker for a UK youth event? And to ++Vincent Nicholls asking why he is letting this happen in his diocese?   Source

CYMFed

07528 643 420

admin@cymfed.org.uk Cardinal Vincent Nichols

020 7798 9033

enquiries@rcdow.org.uk

Comments invited…

Compulsory Sex Education in Scottish Schools… Or Compulsory Child Abuse?

animatedchildrenplayingA petition has called for statutory sex and relationship education in Scotland’s schools.

Schools should be compelled by law to teach sex and relationship education, according to a youth organisation which provides sex education.

A Scottish Parliament committee is to consider a petition from Sexpression:UK.

The group said Scotland had a high rate of teenage pregnancy, sexually-transmitted infections and homophobia.

The Scottish Parliament Information Centre said local authorities were mainly responsible for sex education.

The petition calls on MSPs “to urge the Scottish government to introduce comprehensive sex and relationship education (SRE) into the Scottish education curriculum and make it statutory for all schools to teach”.

Jack Fletcher, advocacy representative at Sexpression:UK and an Aberdeen University medical student, is to appear before Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee.

‘Needs improvement’

“At present, there is no statutory SRE in the Scottish education system,” Mr Fletcher said.

“I feel very strongly that this is an area that needs vast improvement and that legislation should be passed for comprehensive high-quality SRE to be taught as statutory in schools at primary and secondary level, with age-appropriate measures taken towards content.

“This is a priority because although teenage pregnancy has fallen greatly in recent years, the rates in Scotland are still one of the highest in Europe.

Sexually-transmitted infections are still rife due to lack of contraception use.”

 “Homophobia is rife in schools and this is an issue that needs effective confrontation, of which education is key.”

He added: “Consent is a huge area of ambiguity and this only adds to sexual violence, rape and verbal harassment.

animatedteacher2“This is not treated with the concern it deserves”

The organisation claimed that nearly a quarter of schools had no SRE-trained staff, while three-quarters of denominational schools would not discuss contraception.

In advice to MSPs, the Scottish Parliament Information Centre said only religious education and Gaelic instruction in certain regions of Scotland were enshrined in law.

“Rather than being set out in statute, the school curriculum is established through guidance issued by Education Scotland,” it said.

“The Scottish government note that responsibility for sex and relationship education lies primarily with local authorities.”  (emphases added)  Source

You can watch Jack Fletcher give evidence to the Public Petitions committee live or on demand at BBC Scotland’s Democracy Live website.

Comment

As if brainwashing children via the media  into thinking that they can’t even buy a tube of toothpaste without thinking whether or not it will attract the opposite sex, and as if the media preoccupation with sexual matters hasn’t already sexualised children big time, the sexperts now want even more power over young minds and souls.  Any teacher of religious and moral education will tell you that the subject is never far away from the surface in Scottish classrooms as elsewhere. So, should we see this latest move to force-feed the young with sexual matters as a particularly sinister development?   DOES compulsory sex education equate to institutionalised child abuse?  I’m only asking the questions – you provide the answers, please and thank you!

Scotland: Campaign Launched To Prevent State Ownership of Children…

The Scottish Government’s planned Named Person scheme will undermine parents’ authority over their own children and allow state officials unprecedented powers to interfere with family life. That’s why so many are saying NO2NP.

The NO2NP campaign has just been launched amidst claims that, although the Named Person legislation is not due for implementation until 2016, already parents are being told by the authorities that their children have a Named Person overseeing their well-being.

We discussed this legislation in early February, although not many parents appeared to be too worried about it, some saying it would come to nothing. Well, according to the parents on the video, it certainly has come to something for them.

Is the “Say No To Named Person” campaign a good idea? Should the Catholic Church in Scotland support it? Should parents protest, vigorously, this invasion of family life, which is surely tantamount to re-defining the family as the politicians north and south of the border have so arrogantly re-defined marriage?

We should do everything we can, in practical and spiritual terms (a novena to the Holy Family springs to mind) to prevent what is, in fact, the Scottish State taking ownership of the nation’s children. Tell us your ideas for practical and spiritual action to combat this latest assault on personal freedom and family life. Or maybe you disagree: perhaps you think this legislation is a good idea… Really?

Surely Abusing Priests Should Be Dismissed From Ministry?

Surely Abusing Priests Should Be Dismissed From Ministry?

The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland has today announced details of three safeguarding initiatives, which will be launched over the next 12 months. In a letter read out at all of Scotland’s 500 Catholic parishes yesterday (24 November, the Feast of Christ the King) the President of the Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop Philip Tartaglia said:

“We recognise the trauma and pain that survivors of abuse have suffered and we are committed to providing for them both justice and healing.” The Archbishop added that 2013 had been “a test of faith” for Catholics, but the Church was committed to “consolidation of our safeguarding practices, the renewal of trust in our unshakeable commitment to atoning for abuse in the past, guarding against abuse in the present and eliminating abuse in the future, and supporting those who have been harmed.”
Archbishop Tartaglia also promised that all the initiatives were being “launched in a spirit of openness and transparency” and in recognition of the fact that “safeguarding is a priority within the Church, and all who work in the Church must realise this.”

The initiatives concerned are:

1. Immediate publication of all Diocesan Safeguarding Audits from 2006-2012, giving a statistical breakdown of reported safeguarding incidents during those years.

2. An external “Review of Safeguarding Protocols and Procedures” which will review the suitability and robustness of safeguarding procedures and the quality and rigour of their implementation nationally. The Very Rev Dr Andrew McLellan, CBE, former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and former Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons will direct this.

3. A Statistical Review of all Historic Cases of Abuse from 1947-2005

A full description of each of these processes is given below.

Commenting on his participation in the review process, Dr McLellan said:

“I have agreed to chair the review panel which will instigate and complete a review of ‘Awareness and Safety’ in the Catholic Church in Scotland. My appointment is a generous sign of respect not simply for me but for the Church of Scotland; and I am pleased to be able to help the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland in what has been for them a difficult year. But my first concern is not to support the Catholic church: rather it is to seek the best protection of many vulnerable children and adults. In pursuing that aim I will be determined to discover the truth and to make clear recommendations. I am very much encouraged by the independence I will have in selecting the membership of the panel, detailing its remit and deciding on its timescale; and by the assurance I have been given that the Catholic Bishops will accept our recommendations.”


Dr McLellan added: “Over the remaining weeks of 2013, I hope to turn my attention to these matters so that I can announce the particulars of the review process and structure early in 2014.”

Mgr. Hugh Bradley, General Secretary of the Bishops’ Conference said:

 “The Bishops are delighted that Dr Andrew McLellan has agreed to chair a review of Safeguarding procedures and practice. Dr McLellan is highly respected Church leader, a dedicated public servant and a man of the highest integrity, we look forward to receiving his report and commit ourselves to acting on it.”

Responding to the announcement, the Catholic Church’s new National Coordinator for Safeguarding, Tina Campbell said:

“These are incredibly positive and exciting developments, I look forward to working with the Bishops of Scotland, our clergy and the many dedicated people across the country who both implement and support our National Safeguarding policies and procedures in their parish communities. The work of Safeguarding is an important ministry in the Church and it is a privilege to be involved in it.”  ENDS

Comment:

Click on picture to read source of above press release, and then tell us your thoughts on this fraught issue. I’ve been receiving some very unpleasant emails from an alleged victim who thinks I’m “thick” because I told him that the number of abusing clergy is very small (not an excuse, just a fact) and that the majority of these priests appear to be homosexual – men abusing boys.

Well, whether or not I’m “thick” is not the issue. The issue here is, are the bishop dealing sufficiently thoroughly with this scandal of child abuse? Would they not be better to apply the penalties available to them in Canon Law, to dismiss abusing priests, rather than focus on “safeguarding” initiatives? That is, deal head on with the problem priests rather than tinkering at the edges? Surely, children should not have to be protected from abusing priests – surely the priests should not be there in the first place?

But then, I’m a simple gal – what do the more sophisticated minds out there think?