'Gay cover-up must end'

Surveys on clerical sexual abuse consistently show that at least eighty percent of abuse cases are about male religious abusing pubescent males. I have endlessly pointed out this fact that anyone with a normally functioning brain and not in the state of drug-induced hallucinations cannot walk around: homosexual priests abusing teenage boys are responsible for the overwhelming majority of cases of clerical sexual abuse.

I have endlessly pointed out that if eighty percent of the two percent of religious guilty of sexual abuse are homosexual then logically 'clerical' sexual abuse is not a function of being a cleric but of being a homosexual. Third, something I have not spoken much about, all this raises the critical question of how and why so many homosexual men made it through the seminary and on to ordination. This third point is one that still needs a lot of investigation and explanation.

Does one think this information has made any impression on the reporting and commentary on clerical sexual abuse? No way. And we know why, don't we? It is because clerical sexual abuse, which represents only a small proportion of the physical and sexual violence across the Western world in government schools, hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the handicapped, old age homes, employment, the services...I could go on, is being used in the bitter campaign against the Catholic Church specifically, and against traditional morality and Western Civilisation in general. You see, the Catholic Church is the one institution that is standing solidly against this bitter hate-filled campaign, whose promoters would say or do anything to forward their cause, something that is being confirmed daily in the media's frenzied attack on His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has once again brought the issue of homosexuality and clerical abuse to fore in his comment gay cover-up must end. He covers the same ground as before, adding updated information. I recommend his comment to the reader, but let me quote one passage to demonstrate that the enemies of the Church and Western Civilisation would say anything, no matter how dumb and outrageous, to advance the cause. Margaret Smith, professor of something or other, claimed that while Donohue has the figures and proportion right about clerical sexual abuse, he has drawn 'an unwarranted conclusion', that is, that the eighty percent of the priests were homosexual:

The majority of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature. That participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man.

Understandably, Donohue asked if performing homosexual acts exclusively on teenage boys was not a sign of homosexuality, what was. He thought there was a breakdown in logic in Professor Smith's messy weaseling assertion. So do I.

How many homosexual acts in what range of defined circumstances constitutes homosexual behaviour by a homosexual whose identity is authentically gay? There's a good opportunity for academic waffle. And if 'participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man' does that mean one can be authentically homosexual merely because one imagines that one has a gay identity? Does that mean that one can be authentically homosexual if one has never indulged in homosexual acts, but only in heterosexual acts? Let me stop there. We know this academic waffle is meant to muddy the waters and evade the obvious objectionable conclusions - objectionable to the many bitter homosexual activists engaged in the attack on the Church and Western Civilisation. Donohue ends his comment with the following figures on clerical abuse:

As reported in 2004, between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent of the victims were male; in 2005, it stayed the same; in 2006, it dropped to 80 percent; in 2007, it climbed to 82 percent; in 2008, it jumped to 84 percent; and in 2009, it stayed at 84 percent.

Comment: gerard@gerardcharleswilson.com