The Bishops, let alone the secular media, have not been honest about the sexual abuse scandal that has been shattered the trust faithful Catholics once had in their Church.
The lie at the heart of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Charter for the Protection of Children which the Bishops have refused to acknowledge is this: more than 80% of cases involving sexual abuse by Clergy are cases of homosexual men abusing not children, but pubescent and adolescent boys.
The Bishops cannot be trusted to honestly confront the scandal because they refuse to confront the reality that the cause of the abuse is directly related to the homosexuality of the Clergymen who have engaged in attacks against youngsters.
In the United States, this fact reveals the hypocrisy of the USCCB which has lost all credibility in its very public promise to confront the scandals seriously and effectively.
But it’s just not the American Bishops.
The situation is the same in other countries and among other Conferences of Bishops.
It is very clear that almost universally Bishops refuse to admit that the sexual abuse which has brought such shame and embarrassment to the Church is mostly the work of homosexuals in the Priesthood and Religious Communities.
None of this would have been possible but for what many believe is a significant and organized homosexual underground, of which prosecutors are beginning to reveal only a small part, the proverbial "tip of the iceberg".
Nor is this anything new. Neither does it just involve Priests.
Consider the case of Archbishop Rembert Weakland, who ruled the Diocese of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in the years 1977-2002.
He openly admitted to being homosexual and to having had many partners in life. Throughout the term of his office – for 25 years – he continuously opposed the Pope and the Holy See on many issues, particularly criticizing and rejecting the teaching of the Magisterium on homosexuality. He supported and protected active homosexuals in his Diocese, helping them avoid liability for sexual offences they repeatedly committed. At leaving his office, he defrauded about a half million dollars to support his ex-partner.
Likewise, consider one of the most influential leaders in the Church of his time, Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legion of Christ, who turned out to be bisexual and to have perpetrated serious sexual offences against many members and underage students in his own congregation, including even his own son!
Then, there are the scandals involving those who held positions of influence and authority within the Holy See.
One remembers the case involving Archbishop Juliusz Paetz, who was dismissed from his office as Bishop of Poznań in 2002 and John Magee, Bishop of the Diocese of Cloyne, dismissed in 2010 on the grounds of molestation and covering up the sexual abuse committed by 19 Priests in his Diocese.
Long before their scandalous downfalls, Fathers Paetz and Magee had worked together in Vatican for many years as part of the closest, most influential associates of the last three Popes.
Need other examples to be convinced?
Whenever a Bishop was personally involved in homosexual activity or abuse, everything was blocked by local or Vatican hierarchy.
Decades passed before Bishops Patrick Ziemann of Santa Rosa in California (1999), Juan Carlos Maccarone of Santiago del Estero in Argentina (2005), Georg Georg Müller of Trondheim and Oslo in Norway (2009), Raymond John Lahey of Antigonish in Canada (2009), Roger Vangheluw of Brughia in Belgium (2010), John C. Favalora of Miami (2010) and Anthony J. O'Connell of Palm Beach in Florida (2010) were removed from office for active engagement in homosexual affairs.
Not only the number of serious sexual offenses proves the power of underground, but also – to an ever greater extent – the degree to which the process of selecting Bishops was subjected to homosexual influence and how many were allowed to make a great “career” in the Church despite their having perpetrated horrific offenses.
The situation involving former Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, DC is a classic case in point.
The recently released Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report confirms the efficiency with which such cases were covered up and concealed, the often insurmountable blockade of all attempts made within the Church to protect the wronged, to strive for elementary truth and justice.
The Catholic faithful have been made witnesses to a terrible phenomenon – it turns out the comfort of homosexuals was considered more important than the fate of children and youth as well as the fate of the whole Church.
How could all this have happened?
One explanation can be seen in the fear and confusion of the Clergy, particularly in certain Dioceses and Religious Congregations who, when faced with the truth, escaped into silence, unable to articulate even elementary statements on the teaching of the Church on the subject.
Why? What were they afraid of?
They must be afraid of those in positions of authority who wield power and promise reprisal upon any Priest who would dare to confront them.
In order for such evil to be concealed and tolerated, it is necessary that the right people hold key positions, and that not only a homolobby, but a homoclique is created.
Just such a reference was made by Archbishop Scicluna, the main person responsible for sorting out such cases in the Church, a “prosecutor” in the Disciplinary Section of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
He spoke during the symposium entitled “Towards Healing and Renewal” held in February 2012 in Rome, devoted to the problem of sexual abuse in the Church.
On behalf of Benedict XVI, he strongly condemned not only the perpetrators, but also their superiors in the Church who covered up their deeds, and called for a strong opposition to such behavior, open cooperation with the police, taking the path of cleansing set out by the Holy See.
Archbishop Scicluna stated that the more organized offenders are the more successful they are in protecting their own interests and the more successful they are in bringing harm to others and in destroying the credibility of the Church.
A particularly valuable comment in the discussion has been made by F. Professor Józef Augustyn SJ, who said:
“The problem, in my opinion, is not “in them” but in our reaction “to them”. How do we, ordinary Priests and Religious Superiors, react to their behaviour? Do we yield to fear, step back, call for silence, pretend the problem does not exist? Or do we face the problem, are explicit about it, take away their influential positions, remove them from their offices? They should not work in seminars or hold any important positions. If a homosexual lobby exists and has inluence in the Church, it is because we give in, withdraw, pretend, and so on.”
Concealing the behaviour of dishonest persons, which will sooner or later be exposed anyway, destroys the moral authority of the Church.
How can the Catholic faithful put their trust in a community which tolerates such arrangements?
If we make an a priori assumption that no lobby of homosexual Priests exists, we actually support the phenomenon.
For decades, the Church has done just that and the homosexuals among the Clergy have gotten off scot-free and preyed upon the most vulnerable.
In Part Two of this article, the ways in which such an elite and power homosexual lobbies form within the Church will be explored.
No comments:
Post a Comment