'Abuse claims close in on the Vatican'

Perhaps an alternative headline could be:

The unappeasable enemies of the Catholic Church close in on their most desired quarry.

No doubt some would claim that at best I am in denial and at worst complicit in the evil perpetrated by the Church in suggesting the alternative headline. The evidence on my website, including the comment immediately preceding this one, would contradict that claim. But dispassionately considering the evidence when it comes to clerical sexual abuse is not part of the game for those who want nothing less than the total destruction of the Church. Merely expressing a contrary opinion about clerical abuse is for someone like super-atheist Christopher Hitchens equivalent to committing an evil act. I do not name Hitchens at random.

Last Thursday (18 March 2010) a comment by Hitchens, Catholic abuse cover-up starts at top, appeared in The Australian. In about 900 words (yes, 900 words are all that's necessary) Hitchens attempts a case against the Pope that, if true, will have him trussed to a stake in St Peter's Square and burnt alive.

No one could doubt what dark thoughts and objectives entertain Hitchens' mind. The record is indisputable. He is the equivalent of the Inquisition figures his lurid imagination creates for his hate-filled propaganda and political activity. How can anyone uncritically accept Hitchens' accusations without a thorough checking and cross-referencing of the detail? You can, of course, if you are already in sympathy with Hitchens' political ideology and objectives. Is that where The Australian's sympathies lie?

There are holes, unsupported claims, and tenuous links in Hitchens' scribbled piece. He twists and misuses the quotation about the 'smoke of Satan' being in the Vatican. He obviously does not know that Pope Paul VI originally used the expression to refer to the materialist ideologies that intoxicate him and his mates. That was the smoke of Satan that was entering and befouling the Church. They are indeed the ideas that befouled the minds of those who took the innocence of children. But let me leave Hitchens for the moment. He is merely one of thousands in the media that have it in for the Catholic Church.

The first report on the Pope's apology to the Catholics of Ireland I found in the media was a Reuters report in The Herald-Sun. This surprised me. I would have expected the anti-Catholic Age to lock on to it without hesitation. Certainly the report's tendentiousness would have qualified it for a prominent spot in that feminist newspaper. The report passes on the scant information that Pope Benedict issued an apology to Irish Catholics. It then follows with the claim that the apology was met 'with deep disappointment by the victims in Ireland.' How did Reuters know that - that all victims were disappointed? They could not possibly know how the victims even in general felt about the apology at that point. Well, the reason for the report's cavalier tendentiousness was obvious a few paragraphs further on. It's all about political ideology.

But the pope failed to address widespread calls in Ireland for a radical restructuring of the church there, nor did he say that bishops implicated in the scandal should resign.

Irish victims expressed their deep disappointment.

"We feel the letter falls far short of addressing the concerns of the victims," Maeve Lewis of the group One in Four said.

She said it focused too narrowly on Irish priests without recognising the responsibility of the Vatican.

"There is nothing in this letter to suggest that any new vision of leadership in the Catholic church exists," she said, adding it should have addressed the fate of head of the church in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, whose resignation they want.

It is utterly repugnant that a group openly in political conflict with the Church brazenly exploits the tragedy and nastiness of clerical sexual abuse for political purposes. It is despicable and reprehensible that they, supported by the media, put themselves forward as representing all clerical abuse victims. It reduces one to staring incomprehension that a deeply engaged political group would dare to suggest the traditional centuries-old structure of the Church is responsible for clerical sexual abuse when they clearly represent the philosophies that underwrote the Council changes - changes which no reasonable reading of the Council documents could justify, changes within which the vast majority of sexual abuse took place. Ordinary use of reason is obviously no match for long-entertained ideological fantasy.

For a second representative response, I will briefly mention Anthony Foster's appearance on ABC's Breakfast program this morning. Foster's daughters were victims of clerical sexual abuse. As with all cases, this was a tragedy. The daughters' adult lives have also been a tragedy, which Foster attributes entirely to the Church. A generous settlement was agreed upon with Foster in the long run. But this is not enough. Foster's political activity against the Church is unremitting and unrelenting. He clearly wants, like Hitchens, nothing less than the destruction of the Church, and he will seek every opportunity to carry on his campaign. Like all enemies of the Church he will not tolerate any resistance to his campaign and will brand any attempt by the Church to defend itself as condoning clerical sexual abuse. In fact, this morning on ABC Breakfast he claimed that the Pope's apology was an attempt to set up the structures all over again to promote clerical sexual abuse.

No reading (given that one applies one's ordinary reasoning powers) could possibly justify such a claim. Foster has not read the apology. He does not have to. He has his response always ready whatever the Church says. He is unappeasable. Nor had ABC interviewers Virginia Trioli and Joe O'Brien read the apology. They just nodded meekly to another of Foster's performances, obviously not daring to delve into his political activity or to question the outrageous claim that the Pope was promoting clerical sexual abuse all over again. It really was a pitiful performance by Trioli who can and does make life very painful for interviewees who cannot justify their views.

The views and responses of Hitchens, Reuters and Foster are representative of the general response in the media whenever the Pope or other Church representatives take action or speak about clerical sexual abuse. Most of the media are like bleating lambs following the flock, either because they are governed by the same prejudice or because they don't dare to depart from the propaganda line fixed by the super-agents of the political action.

There is no doubt that Hitchens and Co imagine they sniff blood at the moment. What if they succeed in bringing down the Pope. I do not think they will, but what if...? What if all their aims are achieved and all the information and evil deeds they imagine have not yet been disclosed are disclosed, and the Church's hierarchy are brought to book? I would say, why stop there? If sexual abuse of children is evil and repugnant - and it is - why stop at Catholic clergy? Occasional media reports in Australia say the courts are clogged with child abuse cases (see my comments 1 2 ). Indeed, why only look at the sexual abuse of children? There is also sexual abuse of adolescents and adults.

If the super-agents are so pure of heart and deed when it comes to sexual abuse, then it seems entirely reasonable that they continue their campaign to uncover other forms of sexual abuse, bring to justice the perpetrators, and force payment of compensation to the victims. Surely an unrelenting rationalist like Christopher Hitchens would not baulk at such a reasonable and consistent suggestion. We can start with date rape. Many books have been written on the subject. If we take the standards of clerical sexual abuse in assessing wrong-doing then unwanted roaming hands and fondling must be regarded extremely seriously. In fact, it's called digital rape now, isn't it? I may be wrong about that. Terminology changes according to ideological whim these days. It's hard to keep up with the manipulators of our language.

While a small percentage of Catholic clergy was guilty of sexually abusing children over a fifty year period, how many males were guilty of forcing their attention on females - over the same period? We can begin our search by interviewing school and university staff and encourage women to come forward who have been the victims of action that fits into the range of sexual abuse. And what about the media companies? They must be a fertile ground for investigation. Naturally the question of compensation should be examined at the same time.

Surely men like Christopher Hitchens would not mind if we attempt to track down girls they have been in contact with, starting from the time they were eighteen-years-old. We cannot leave any stone unturned. Pursuers of the clergy have set the standards.

But let's not stop at making those guilty of sexual impropriety answer for their criminal acts. As Foster and Lewis (of group One in Four) have done, let's have a good look at the ideological background of sexual abuse. Social structures and ideology are determining in sexual behaviour, they say. I agree.

In the 1960s a big campaign to change ideas about sexual morality was incessantly pushed forward. Again, there is loads of literature on this. Not only was 'free love' the ideological norm, it was prescriptive. Overturning oppressive Christian sexual morality (you know, archaic rules about respect for women and no sex outside marriage) was a revolutionary act. An act of freedom. Of course, overturning repugnant standards meant doing things. Things were done and those who resisted the revolutionary action were guilty of supporting evil. I don't need to be more explicit - or to labour the point.

Then there were the works of Kinsey and Masters and Johnson. Let's look at the part they played - and logically the guilt they and their promoters must share in the growing incidence of sexual abuse. We already have a big program for our campaign. But there are other considerations.

To maintain absolute rigour and fearlessness in our inquiry we must surely consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of clerical sexual abuse cases are about homosexual priests abusing pubescent males. Now what serious academic of the social sciences could possibly ignore figures that scream out for attention? This is something to get one's academic teeth into. But it is not only a question for the secular academic. It must surely be cause for reflection in those that are and have been driven by the 'Spirit of the Council', as they understand the spirit, naturally. That spirit seems to be little different from the motivations of their non-religious brothers and sisters: demand for a democratic church, recognition of homosexuality as a legitimate orientation or preference, female priests, married priests, divorce and so on. It was all about freedom and equality, as it was in the secular world.

There are many factors in all this for the fearless social scientist to observe and analyse: the difference in moral or ideological outlook before and after the 1960s; what sort of behaviour was consistent with each outlook; the coincidence of a growing sexual abuse with the changes in sexual morality; the coincidence of the abandonment by some priests of the Church's teaching on sexual morality and sexual delinquency among a relatively small number of priests; how and why homosexual men - those abusing pubescent males - actually got through the seminary system - to name just some of the questions. But let me stop here.

There will be no pursuit of date rape offenders; little attention will continue to be given to the courts clogged with cases of (non-clerical) child sexual abuse; there will be no investigation of the connection between sexual abuse and cultural changes from the 1960s onwards; there will be no investigation into homosexuality and the clergy. Why? Because it is all about ideology. It's all about an ideology that wants to rid society of the Catholic Church. Even if that means indicting themselves by exploiting the evil of child abuse to forward the cause, the super-agents will do it. They will do it while doing all they can to suppress any attempt to expose them and their tactics.

-x-x-x-x-

Zenit Newsagency reported last Thursday (18 March 2010) that the Dutch 'paedophile' political party is dissolving itself. For those who do not know, that liberal nation has a political party that promotes 'cross-generational' relationships. The Dutch name for the party is Partij voor Naastenliefde, Vrijheid en Diversiteit - Party for (literally) Love of neighbour, Freedom and Diversity. They have an English section, which is not always good English.

The party is referred to as a paedophile party, but that is a little misleading, in the sense that it understates their full position. The paedophilia is simply a deduction from their extreme materialism. In my view they are more accurately - and logically - called an anarchist party. Running their materialistic outlook to the extreme, they propose no government restrictions on the individual unless it is absolutely necessary. That means among other things that the legal age of consent is put at twelve years. A child of twelve may live with someone and have sex. No ban on child pornography. Bestiality and incest are also legal. To see what else they allow and disallow I refer the reader to their website. The party was being dissolved because they could not get the necessary numbers to take part in national elections. But that is not the end of them.

The party's founders stated that the debate and controversy sparked by the platform impeded any serious discussion on its objectives; hence, its members opted for dissolution.

In a press release, however, they stated that certain members will be invited to speak as "freedom fighters" in an Amsterdam festival in May.

The party's communiqué added that although the organization is dissolved, the issues have not disappeared, and "a cultural shift is a matter of time."

The party's founders show themselves supremely confident. And why shouldn't they? They live in a country whose dominant political class is overwhelmingly materialistic in their outlook. The PNVVD is simply saying to that class, 'you are not being consistent, but you will in time recognise the consequences of your materialism. The same arguments for homosexuality are the same for paedophilia, bestiality and incest. You simply have not taken the logical step.'

The atheism of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and other super-atheists rests also on an extreme materialist philosophy.

Sex abuse claims close in on Vatican

Pope is against a culture of silence

Comment: gerard@gerardcharleswilson.com