Watch the language

Share Button

I’m rounding up a number of media reports of the day.  Most warrant comment but my priority right now is to get the articles up.  This one however I must comment on right now while it’s fresh in my mind, and because I believe it may be important.

11 April 2010:  Clergy who conceal abuse should be dismissed: Cardinal

In a newspaper interview Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco allegedly said that pedophilia is a “heinous crime” and even more serious when committed by members of the Church.  Bagnasco is quoted as saying that

“Proven cases of mismanagement, underestimation of the facts, if not outright cover-up, will have to be rigorously prosecuted within and outside the Church and, as has already happened in some cases, will have to result in the removal and dismissal of the people involved.”

That all sounds great.  I hope that what we understand by Bagnasco’s words is what he actually means.   That would be quite something would it not?  To have the head of the Italian Conference of Catholic Bishops advocate for the dismissal of clergy involve in cover up of clerical sexual predators.

BUT, Bagnasco it seems was talking of paedophiles.  He may not have been talking about all clerical sexual predators.

Surely we have all learned all too well by now that in this day and age what one refers to as paedophilia, another refers to as something called ephebophila, and yet another as pederasty.

Only weeks ago,   in a 20March 2010 article entitled “Too little, too late”  Mgr Scicluna, the Promoter of Justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was quick to point out to his interviewer that it is “incorrect” to refer to many of the 3,000 cases of the past 10 years as paedophiles.  According to Scicluna, the majority of the “cases” are ephebophiles, a  few are heterosexuals, and a very meagre 10% of clerical molesters are paedophiles.  (None it seems are homosexual.)

Here’s the exchange:

GC: That is, then, 3,000 cases of paedophile priests?

CS: It is not correct to put it like that. We can say that, in general, about 60 per cent of these cases chiefly deal with, more than anything else, acts of efebophilia; that is, sexual attraction towards adolescents of the same sex. In another 30 per cent, they are heterosexual acts. And in 10 per cent they are acts of true and proper paedophilia; that is, based on sexual attraction towards prepubescent children. The cases of priests accused of true and proper paedophilia have been about 300 in nine years. These are too many – for goodness sake! – but it must be recognised that the phenomenon is not as widespread as some would have us believe.

We need to watch the language.  These people truly seem to think that it is an insult to refer to an “ephebophile” as a paedophile.  In the eyes of Scicluan and his ilk ephebophiles are quite a few notches above paedophiles, and they seem to have the notion that one thing any decent respectable ephebophile is NOT is a paedophile.

As for the “heterosexual” priest -he may be guilty of the sins of fornication, or adultery, and of the crime of rape, but even if, let’s say,  the object of his perverted affections is a post menses 11-year-old girl, well, that’s not really that bad- he’s not  paedophile.

Explain that to the 13-year-old boy whose innocence was so cruelly violated by the priest he idolized.  Or the 15-year-old boy.  Or the 14-year-old girl violated by a nun.  Or repeatedly raped by her parish priest.

Tell that to their parents.  Explain it to God.  See if He understands that His priests are reserving the millstones for a select few, the scapegoats.

With this sort of  dancing on the head of a canonical pin Scicluna and his confreres can say, probably without batting an eye ,  “the phenomenon” of paedophila is “not as widespread as some would have us believe.”

What happens with these molester-friendly word games when we speak not of paedophile priests, but the startling phenomenon of clerical molesters?  or of the pervasive phenomenon of clerical sexual predators?  That would be 3,000 would it not?  not to mention  of course the hundreds if not thousands whose names never made it the Vatican because the local bishop subjectively determined there was no case or insufficient evidence.

My question then, the heart of my concern on this matter is this:  Are those who now seem to be boldly advocating  severe sanctions, including defrocking,  talking about all clerical sexual predators?  or are they talking about the relatively speaking miniscule 10% which the experts and most Church officials classify as paedophiles?

In other words, does the Cardinal mean severe sanctions, i.e., dismissal, for ALL clerical sexual predators and those who covered up for them etc. ?  Is he using the term “pedophilia”  broadly, as does the average layman?  Or, is the cardinal playing word and head games with us?

Let’s not be tricked by promises wrought through deliberate use of deceptive word games.

Does Cardinal Bodnasco want to clean out the sexual predators – all of them?  Or is he playing with our heads with plans to spare the 90% whom he and the experts deem to be the recyclable cream of the crop?

Watch the language.  Don’t be fooled.

Enough for now,

Sylvia

([email protected])

This entry was posted in Bishops, Clerical sexual predators, Ephebophile, Vatican and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Watch the language

  1. Rosalima says:

    Your recent article on St. Augustine seminary in Toronto prompted serious reflection as I pondered the sexual culture of our seminaries, priesthood candidates, Priests, Bishops and Cardinals.

    In world-wide news we have heard of a seminary in Austria moth-balled because of thousands of images of naked children on the seminary computers.

    In the news there was footage of seminarians in Ireland, groping one another, on the grounds of that particular ancient house of formation.

    Numerous priests are being charged for various offenses, such as the priest last year in the States who was apprehended by the police around 4 A.M. completely naked, jogging around a runner’s race track. His excuse for his nudity was that he sweat a lot when jogging!

    Then last year or the year before, there was that other strange incident on a passenger jet plane, in the States I believe, where a young woman was sitting next to a priest, and before the plane landed the young woman was calling for help because the priest was fondling her breasts!

    Some years ago we had an Oblate Bishop forced to resign, I believe from a diocese in B.C., because of his sexual activities with young native women during his time on Indian reserves.

    I remember years ago a book by Enrique Rueda, where he wrote about homosexuality in our Church and society. He even named some Canadian names in that work.

    Then, I believe last year, Randy Engel came out with her blockbuster tome entitled:”The Rite of Sodomy: Homosexuality in the Catholic Church”. That is a large volume, chronicling the history of homosexuality in the Catholic Church over the past two thousand years.

    So with this latest Bp. Lahey thing, and new court cases coming for him now in Newfoundland, it is painfully obvious that there is a cancer in the Catholic Church that has never been properly addressed and rooted out.

    Rev. Amorth recently was quoted as saying that there is no such thing as “a homosexual demon”; yet Rev. Bob Larson identifies and casts out such “unclean spirits” on a rather regular basis, the facts prove!

    So, what is the problem here?

    An old friend said to me once a long time ago: “Things are not as they appear”. I’ve found that a very useful bit of precautionary insight. We hear so much about pedophile priests, but we rarely hear about pedophile Bishops. We hear about homosexual priests yet very rarely do we hear about homosexual Bishops. If the seminaries have a preferred culture of homosexual friendliness, what happens to the homosexual priests when they are made Bishops? Does the “fullness of priesthood” drive out the demons of homosexuality and all the other demons resident in those ‘wolves in sheeps clothing’? Or do these homosexual Bishops go underground and, as history seems to demonstrate, the homosexual Bishops and loyal chancery minions persecute the good, loyal non-homosexual priests of those dioceses where the closet homosexual Bishops rule their dioceses in viciousness and mercilessness toward those clergy who are Marian-Eucharistic centered and or charismatically inclined?

    Someone I know subscribes to the monthly periodical, from the United States, entitled: Homiletic and Pastoral Review. The odd time said individual will share a copy of that journal with me and I am amazed at the articles that now are surfacing of good priests, priests loyal to God and the Pope in Rome, so badly abused by their Bishops.

    Early last summer my attention was drawn to an organization out of Detroit, featured in the May edition of the Knights of Columbus magazine. This group, called by the Latin name: Opus Bono Sacerdotii, take several thousand good priests, mercilessly thrown out by their disgraceful Bishops, and attempt to rescue said priests and reintegrate them into ministry, under a good Bishop, a Bishop aware of the double game being played in the Catholic Church, against so many innocent priests.

    So I guess what I am saying in this article is: it seems to me that, while some priests are guilty of sexual offenses, this homosexual culture in the Church, in the seminaries and most assuredly in our Chanceries, will not be dealt with until the Bishops, the homosexual Bishops, the homosexual seminary professors, the homosexual canon lawyers and the homosexual liturgists are put through Exorcism. Many may choose not to undergo Exorcism because they prefer to enjoy their closed door escapades and their sexual fantasies and their sexual get-togethers with like minded clergy. Fine. They can keep their unclean spirits if they want to, but at the price of their position in the Church. The sexually, demonically obsessed/possessed clergy must either be exorcised or resign.

    I see no other way out of this filthy mess in Our Lord’s Church, which must be a spotless bride before His Second Coming in Glory.

  2. Cheryl Helena Thomson says:

    Rosalima – As a former ordained Pentecostal lady minister, before I became a Catholic (a 13th-century Catholic, I tell whoever will listen), I agree with you and Bob Larson that homosexuality definitely has the common root of demonic oppression/possession. And I agree with your analysis. Yes, the anti-Marian/Eucharistic and I would add anti/Miracle hierarchy are persecuting righteous priests because they are following Satan’s agenda and are also perhaps themselves tainted with the stain of sodomy. I will follow-up on the Opus Bono Sacerdotii and the publication “Homiletic and Pastoral Review”. If you’d like to email me personally I am ladytopspeedreader at gmail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *