The revised Home page is up. A few things to fix up still but it’s pretty well finished. The new page “Chronology of the Persecution, Prosecution and Incarceration of Perry Dunlop” is there but still, as you see, “Under Construction.” I still have links to pull in and then have to carry on getting things in sequence. As I said before, the information is scattered about the website and I did want to pull it together so we can see it all in one spot. Will get back to that but had to get this much posted in order to get today’s media posted :). So, bear with for now. It will be resolved and organized.
Enough for now,
Sylvia
April 16, 2008
MY OPINION:
Is Pope Benedict’s “Trip” Part of the Healing and Reconciliation regarding “The Church” and sexual abuse?
THE WORLD IS QUICKLY CHANGING FOLKS!!
However, the “intervention strategies”, we are witnessing being “implemented” today, have been “in-the-making” since the
early 1980’s.
Pope Benedict was barely off the plane today when he made statements regarding sexual abuse.
Local Priests, in their effort to “appear” to be “prophesying”, testified to news media, that, they are hoping and “praying”, Pope Benedict, addresses sexual abuse issues.
GET REAL!! This is no work of “Prophets”, hoping or praying. THIS has been on the “agenda” for years. THIS is not new for anyone, “in-the-business”.
I believe, this “trip by Pope Benedict”, is in part, a “public relations” tour in an attempt to “PROMOTE Worldwide”, the “Universally” introduced, “healing and reconciliation” perspective, social intervention strategy.
The focus for “social scientists”, “policymakers”, “politicians”, “legislators”, etc., is, “shared responsibility”, for past alleged and real transgressions; i.e.) many combined, social, political, environmental, biological, economical, physiological, genetic, psychological, psychiatric, etc., factors, “caused”, what many of us “interpret” to be, immoral and/or unlawful “choices”.
The focus includes, whereas, “Individuals” “should” not be held responsible or accountable. Perceived deviant acts and/or deviant acts of omission are therefore, a consequence of multiple factors and “individuals” are NOT to be held, individually responsible or accountable; “Shared responsibility”.
(I could go on, but I am sickened with this whole state of affairs. Will this “perspective” be afforded to the “ruling class” only and their conduits, or will the “meek” among us, like Perry Dunlop, also be afforded with the same absolute, exonerations?)
Again, the focus includes the avoidance of “personal accountability and any consequences”, which would have “historically” been associated with immoral and/or unlawful deviance.
We remember, “The Boston Archdiocese”, “Cardinal Bernard Law”, etc.
The aforementioned “cycle” to disclose, prosecute, admit and convict some of the “accused”, didn’t take very long, did it? There were “real” consequences, for some, for the immoral and unlawful acts and acts of omission, they were guilty of perpetrating.
Whereas, in Canada and the Cornwall “sex abuse allegations” with particularity, we haven’t even had “disclosures”, about alleged events occurring in or before 1993, let alone, prosecution, admission, conviction and consequences.
“WE”, in the “Cornwall issues”, are moving directly into “healing and reconciliation” “stage”, through civil litigation payouts, gags, education seminars, lectures and distribution of public dollars, for social programs, perceived to be necessary and helpful remedies.
Non-disclosure and “alleged payouts”, with “alleged money” for WHAT?
Nothing has been admitted to. “Healing and Reconciliation of WHAT???”
WHAT Allegations? Hello!!
WAS THERE REALLY EVER “actual” sexual abuse in Cornwall as alleged?? Hello!!
Furthermore, I also believe this trip by Pope Benedict, was “included” as a strategy and “condition”, which helped to facilitate and expedite the United States disclosures, process, etc., as previously referenced.
I believe, part of the “settlements”, re: the United States disclosures, included, “The Return” to the United States by “The Holy See” and the “concerted” attempt at re-birth, of the, “NEW and IMPROVED”, “Roman Catholic Church” in the United States.
HOWEVER, with the “re-birth”, “so-to-speak” and the NEW “healing and reconciliation” intervention strategy, being implemented, there also comes, much additional “change.”
Pope Benedict, although briefly, upon his landing in Washington, made what I consider to be inflammatory statements, which, upon further study by scholars, special interest groups, etc., will elicit vigorous debate, from various “sectors” of society.
One statement I believe I heard Pope Benedict say, was that, “guilty paedophiles” would not be allowed to be priests. “MY COMMENT”: I believe this is exactly why, there is NO ADMISSION of guilt, no serious prosecutions and instead, there are “civil payouts”, with many, many “allegations”, these days.
I believe Canada, is being utilized as the “test”, social environment, for the “prototype”, or “New Social Intervention Strategy”, to be implemented “worldwide”, via various means.
MY point is; 1-) no disclosure, 2-) no reporting-investigating, 3-) no admission of guilt-responsibility-accountability, 4-) no prosecution, equals, 5-) no conviction, 6-)no consequences…..and 7-) unsafe communities.
A “civil payout” to a “complainant” in exchange for “secrecy” and “withdrawal of allegations and/or charges”, does nothing to “protect the community”, including, the vulnerable, among other things.
In the same context as the above-mentioned, although vague and ambiguous, was where Pope Benedict stated, “we” will address the issue of “homosexuality” later.
Pope Benedict stated that homosexuality and paedophilia were not the same.
Well, NO KIDDING. I believe, there can be homosexual paedophiles, just as there can be heterosexual paedophiles or bi-sexual paedophiles.
In addition, we have seen in many “cases” of alleged sexual abuse, allegedly perpetrated by so-called “people in positions of authority” and against young people, where, “the accused” are saying, the sexual acts were “consensual” and implying, in part, “homosexual acts.”
It is my opinion and I believe, “The New World Order”, in this context, relating to “The Church”, social policy, public administration, legislation, etc., will include “using” and “modifying” the “homosexual card”, to explain away, or “rationalize”, perspectives of society and the perceptions society currently has, about “The Church” and “homosexuality”.
This will, of course, effect-influence, perceptions, interpretations, legislation, etc., etc., surrounding “acts and/or acts of omission”, “allegedly” perpetrated by many of the Clergy and/or other prominent citizens.
IN an attempt to appear to be coming into the twenty-first century, “so-to-speak”, it also “opens the door” for “The Church” to re-visit its “position” on homosexuality, Clergy marrying, women in the Clergy, etc., etc.
This “Papal Visit” is much more “complicated” than many of “us” wish to believe.
Amen to that brother.
Apparently the Popes bible is missing James 5:16
Confess your faults (sins) one to another,
and pray one for another,
that yea may be healed.
Post: Bear With Me….
Some reflections on the comment by Prima Facie
You can bet the Church would like to have reconciliation and put the sexual abuse behind it. This is most desirable but the path there will be very disruptive. It is rather like a drunk who wants to be sober but when you stop drinking you are hit with withdrawal symptoms which are not pleasant. I think the pope would like to correct the problem but I don’t think he is determined enough to accept the pain that will be needed in the transitional period. The most hopeful thing reported from the Holy Father’s remarks was that the Church would be better off with fewer priest who were good priests. Perhaps in the back of his head he is thinking of a purge of the perverts leaving the church to rebuild from a much smaller base. This would be a good thing but at the same time it is so horrible to contemplate that leaders are tempted to look for an easier way. I don’t think there is an easier way! The homosexuals in the clergy may or may not be the majority but they have the control and they will not give it up easily.
The shift from personal responsibility to shared responsibility is commonplace in the confused moral thinking today. There is no talk of personal sins but only of social sins. I think this sloppy uncatholic thinking is part of our problem.
http://www.narth.com/docs/catholic.html
You have a canny observation in noting that Perry Dunlop should also be able to use this thinking. He committed no “sin” yet he is the one being really punished. Why can’t he attribute it all to all these psychological and other factors you mention? That escape is available to the child abusers but not to Perry. Good Point! The Holy Father mentioned the need for sound moral teaching and if we get that then there will be an end of talk of shared responsibility instead of personal sin. Re-establishing sound moral teaching with emphasis on avoiding personal sin is a necessary step in correcting this abuse problem.
Amnesty:
Healing and reconciliation need to start with the truth. As long as the abusers can travel around claiming the mantel of innocence there will be no healing for the victims who are told continually their “allegations” are not believed. This remans true no matter how much public money is spent to make the victims happy. I am convinced that the collective ability of society to rectify the evils of the past is very limited. We should not think that apologies and payouts for events that happened generations ago can bring healing and reconciliation. We get focused on making everything right that happened long ago and ignore the evil that is happening now right under our noses. We cannot change the past, we can only change the future. The very effort to compensate for old wrongs creates new wrongs and the cycle goes on.
The situation on Cornwall is rapidly becoming fixed history. The protection for the abusers is so effective that they will never be held accountable. Perhaps it is time for the community to offer an amnesty. The church should come clean and name the priests who have abused children, and remove them permanently from the ministry. In exchange they would get amnesty for their crimes and the church liability should be limited to something affordable perhaps a hundred thousand per victim. It would be a bargain compared to the lawyer costs they are now paying. This truth telling could be the basis of a real healing and reconciliation.
Vicarious Liability:
This problem occurs with the church and in the schools, as well I am informed by a friend who is familiar with that situation. If the employee ( say a teacher ) abuses a child sexually the school board will back the teacher to the hilt and get them off. If the teacher gives the child a well deserved scolding, one which reasonable people would understand is for the good of the child, and the parents complain the teacher is hung out to dry. A minor dispute gets real punishment while a real crime goes unpunished and continues to happen over and over again. This is why organizations should be able to avoid or limit vicarious liability, and have its cost greatly limited, if they can demonstrate that they are taking all possible precautions to prevent an evil, and that it is known that even with the best of efforts the evil cannot be eliminated completely for first offenders. Child sexual abuse is one of those things that cannot be always predicted for a first offender. Shrinks may say they can test for this but do they put up their own money in a guarantee of the people they give a pass for?? They do not and this tells you what their opinion is worth. After this first offense they should never be trusted and any organization that does trust them should feel the full weight of their vicarious liability. Perhaps an arrangement with some commercial bonding agent similar to employees trusted with money and valuables could be used. Let the bonding agency vet the employee and put down the money to cover the liability when/if they are wrong.
In the trade off between correcting all the evils of the past and stopping the evils that continue in the present sometimes we have to let go of some of the old offenses to get a new footing to stop the evils of today. That is what amnesty and modified vicarious liability could do for us. Change the future because we are failing miserably in correcting the evils of the past whose evils continue gaining momentum every day.
Homosexuality and Pedophilia.
The Holy Father has backed down a bit by dropping the talk of not ordaining homosexuals and now talking about excluding pedophiles from the priesthood. This is no doubt in response to the furor that the homosexual lobby makes when there is any link drawn between homosexuality and pedophilia.
http://www.narth.com/docs/blame.html
This furor is akin to the furor of Islamic supremacists when someone says that Islam is a violent religion. Islamists credibly threaten to kill anyone who says they are violent thereby proving that the charge is true. The supposed distinction between Homosexuality and Pedophilia is likewise an illusion. The furor of the response tells us that the charge is true. Just try and get the homosexuals to exclude the pedophiles ( NAMBLA ) from their gay pride parades and you will learn that these two groups support each other. The Pedophiles are starting down the same road as the homosexuals in having their perversion declared to be normal by the psychological profession.
http://www.narth.com/docs/debatecontinues.html
Homosexuals and pedophiles are alike in that they have lost control of their sexual appetite. When lust calls it must be satisfied immediately and very often there is a preference for a younger partner. Youth is preferred and one leads to the other.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26940
The parade of phony politicized scientific studies telling us that pedophilia is OK is beginning. This is the same technique the homosexuals used over a thirty year period to get their perversion recognized as normal.
http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/pederasty2.html
Homosexuals and Pedophiles are birds of a feather and they flock together. When the pope changes this terminology he is yielding to pressure. If he allows himself to be pressured in this matter how likely is it he will exclude even the pedophiles who are presently condemned ( at least in public ) by all?
April 17, 2008
2341hrs Eastern Time:
Well, “myomy”, you have “reflected” upon my blog, so I will reply. I figured I’d hear from you about my “blog”, discussing paedophiles, homosexuality and “The Church”.
I “sense” others would like to point out where I am “dreadfully” “wrong”, but they have learned from experience, what and when, to refrain from commenting.
Coincidentally, I have also found that, others happen to speak-out, with what they would have liked to say; amazing, wouldn’t you say. HA!!
An awful lot of referencing to “NARTH” documentations, wouldn’t you agree “myomy”?
“NARTH” “National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.” “NARTH” “upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care, and the right of professionals to offer that care.”
Your comments; “the phony politicized scientific studies telling us that pedophilia is OK is beginning. This is the same technique the homosexuals used over a thirty year period to get their perversion recognized as normal” and “Homosexuals and Pedophiles are birds of a feather and they flock together” and “Homosexuals and pedophiles are alike in that they have lost control of their sexual appetite. When lust calls it must be satisfied immediately and very often there is a preference for a younger partner. Youth is preferred and one leads to the other”, just about sent a couple of “readers” in my home into shock, with disbelief, about what you obviously believe. You have your religious beliefs and so do we. “religious Rights”. “myomy”, are you, “The Word of God”? You sound like “It”. “myomy”, “are we sinners destined to hell?”
“myomy” It is my belief you regularly post comments, as I do, at the http://www.theinquiry.ca website.
I have been compelled to contact various friends/readers and acquaintances, from around North America to review your posting and references. They have replied to me.
I understand, as I have “contacts” who believe as I do, you have many “contacts” who believe what you do.
May I ask again, is your belief, “The Word of God”?
What my posting and your posting clearly displays to me, are the very wide differences between us. The “gap” is wider than ever and it continues to grow.
The disagreement we discuss, has been argued forever.
I am not about to post links to various “documents” providing different assertions than you and I will not engage on a “mission” to convince you of my beliefs. I know what I believe. However, you may believe, “there is only one belief….right?”
I am simply blogging “my opinion” as you are. I happen to disagree with you.
I am currently attempting to solicit a comment about these “blogs” from a therapist or representative directly from “NARTH” “National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.”
Well Prima Facie you asked a question several times about Word of God etc..
Let me answer you this way. The Holy Father has been writing about the “Dictatorship of Relativism” and I noted that Bush in his speech welcoming the Holy Father to the US made reference to this.
In a world where some no longer believe that we can distinguish between simple right and wrong, we need your message to reject this “dictatorship of relativism,” and embrace a culture of justice and truth. (Applause.)
You can read the whole welcome speech here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/04/20080416.html
Bush focused on an important point there is no right or wrong when you have a dictatorship of relativism. If there is not such thing as right or wrong which is absolute and beyond any culture and higher than any opinion then anything goes. Ultimately you cannot say that it is wrong for adults to abuse children sexually and Perry Dunlop should not have gone to the CAS with his information even though the law said that he should make this disclosure because he should have followed orders or what was clearly the desire of the Cornwall Police Department. Moreover there is nothing wrong with putting Perry Dunlop in Jail because the Judge gave the order and he has the authority to do so.
With the dictatorship of relativism nothing is raised above the level of just another opinion. You and your friends have your opinions and I and my friends have my opinions and there is no point in trying to convince another of your opinion, beyond simply stating it, because in the end nothing is true or false anyway.
I don’t recall who made this analogy in the first place but I like it. The mind is like your mouth. You open it to put something in and then you close it. It is false to claim that it is always a virtue to have an open mind. Once you know the truth your mind will be closed to all the alternative explanations. If you are never closed minded you are a know nothing.
My question for you: Is it possible for any of us to know something to be “true” which deserves more respect than just another opinion?
My answer to this is Yes.
NARTH:
You quote the principles that NARTH operates under which say that individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction should be able to ask for and receive effective psychological care. The professional organizations controlled by homosexuals are trying to say that it is unethical for a psychologist to offer this care. This would be consistent with their opinion that homosexuals are born that way. The professional organizations are voluntary and so they can promote a cause that may not be acceptable to me or NARTH but these people are stalinists and it won’t be long before they exercise their will through the power of government. When that happens the good psychologists who want to help homosexuals with unwanted sexual attraction will be thrown in jail and NARTH will be shut down.
My question for you: Are homosexuals born that way and would it be ethical for a psychologist to try and help them out of it?
My answer to this is: No and Yes.
Hello “myomy”. Oh, I see where Sylvia has posted, she know’s nothing about the goings on of the Pope, yesterday and will just let “bloggers, blog on.”
In response to your reply to my first response to your first reply to my blog on Sylvia’s post dated April 17, 2008.
I interpret your reply to be vague, ambiguous and a kind of “flip-flop”, “back-peddling”, although minimally, from your first reply. I also interpret your comments to imply that “you” know “the truth” regarding “The Word of God” and specifically surrounding “homosexuality and pedophilia”. Again, I ask, are you “God”? Do you possess the complete knowledge and unmitigated, undisputable interpretation of the “Will of God”?
Or, do you believe, there is no “interpretation”. There is only what you know to be “truth”? Is the “truth” you “profess”, similar to the “truth” other religions profess?
How can I argue, you further provide your interpretations of George Bush’s speech, implying, he is also speaking “the truth”. Poor, George, it appears to me, he has been hi-jacked by every cause known on earth.
Your Question to me: Is it possible for any of us to know something to be “true” which deserves more respect than just another opinion.
My Answer: YES. But, I offer my opinion based on my knowledge, education, experiences, religious beliefs, interactions with significant others, etc., etc. In the event I am also asserting that my opinion is “the truth”, then I will prepare myself with undisputable, validated and corroborated evidence, ready and willing to support my assertions, beyond reasonable doubt.
References to groups or associations like “NARTH” to apparently, “validate” or “discredit” my/your assertions, are, a “dime a dozen”.
I have all kinds of available access to research and other “authorities”, which will counter, any claim you or anyone makes, about anything. I will not embark on that kind of “adventure”. HOWEVER, in the context of these particular blogs-comments, I infer by your writings, that you believe, you, have “the truth”. Well, “Praise The Lord.” Wait until I confront my Priest, because, I was led to believe, he was “preaching” “the truth”.
Dare I even mention, “secular versus non-secular, monasticism, secular spirituality, secular society, education, etc., etc.”
“myomy”, you have included multiple insertions of various “NARTH” website documents. I am hoping you are offering your opinion, with supporting documents, as opposed to your declaration that you “speak the truth”, after your consideration of “NARTH” documentations.
Your Second Question: “Are homosexuals born that way?
My Answer: I believe some homosexuals are born homosexuals and some, for various reasons, have chosen homosexuality as a lifestyle; but in no way, do I even enter the same universe of “belief”, that you spew, in the closing comments of your blog-comment entitled, “Some reflections on the comment by Prima Facie. Dated April 17, 2008.” Furthermore, I do not believe “NARTH” espouses your beliefs, referenced above.
So, “myomy”, your real agenda on http://www.theinquiry.ca?
What do you think about the Cornwall Public Inquiry?
I will be absent for a few days. I will be in the U.S. for work-related reasons.
Thank-you “myomy”, you have provided confirmation of several concerns, I have had..
Subsequent to my interactions with “myomy” in this blog space, I sent various queries, with attached “pdf” files to several acquaintances, soliciting their review and assessments of recent interactions I have had with “myomy” on this website.
IN addition, I sent “NARTH” the same queries with attachments. I directed them to Sylvia’s website http://www.theinquiry.ca and to the specific blogs entitled, “Bear With Me”, dated “April 17, 2008. I identified myself as “Prima Facie”.
I brought “NARTH” to the attention of the comments by “myomy”, i.e. “Homosexuals and pedophiles are alike in that they have lost control of their sexual appetite.” “When lust calls it must be satisfied immediately and very often there is a preference for a younger partner.” Furthermore, “myomy” writes, “Youth is preferred and one thing leads to the other.” Also, “myomy” writes, “The parade of phony politicized scientific studies telling us that pedophilia is OK is beginning.” “This is the same technique the homosexuals used over a thirty year period to get their perversion recognized as normal.” And, “myomy” writes, “Homosexuals and Pedophiles are birds of a feather and they flock together.” “When the pope changes this terminology he is yielding to pressure.”
As readers will see, “myomy” has filled his blog with links to various “NARTH” documentations.
I stated in a blog, that I didn’t believe, even “NARTH” believed or represented what “myomy” writes, in the same breath, as debating “truth”.
As I mentioned, I contacted several people including “NARTH” and asked them to review “the information” and reply to me. I asked “NARTH” two questions. One question was, “Is it fair to suggest, comments such as the one’s above, written by “myomy” are indicative of the beliefs and practices of “NARTH””? “I ask this, because “myomy”, inserts various “NARTH” documentations.”
I requested a “prompt reply.”
“NARTH” representatives were first to reply.
One reply was, “No, and no. We ignore blogs because they seem to be populated by nuts.”
Another reply was; “”No, and no.” “We try to ignore blogs as they are filled with personal opinions and partial quotes.”
I’ll have to “mull” over the “nut” reference, as how it applies to me. Maybe, I could agree, everyone else is a “nut”, but, not me? No, I guess, I am a little nutty.
Let me begin by briefly reminding you of two things I mentioned earlier in this series of blogs..
There is danger from a stalinist tendency to seek control over those you don’t agree with through the illegitimate use of government power.
Often people prove something true by their actions which they deny with their words – such as the Islamists defending the peaceful nature of Islam by killing those who do not agree.
Both of these are self defeating strategies.
What is the purpose of your contacting NARTH? They have tons of material on their website that speaks for itself. Will NARTH be condemned, attacked and hopefully shut down unless they completely condemn my blogs which included links to NARTH material?? Like any two parties there will be agreement on some points and disagreement on other points. Why start a NARTH witch hunt requesting a “prompt reply” based on my blog ? Whether NARTH needs to be concerned about this and give the evasive response of not commenting on blog “nuts” you have demonstrated your own instincts with this initiative.
The instinct to achieve stalinist control through the power of government or threats is surely more dangerous than any over eagerness to persuade others of the truth of your beliefs, – wouldn’t you agree!
Finally I commend you and wish you well in your introspective self examination re ” blog nuts” . . .
You ask: What do you think about the Cornwall Public Inquiry?
I would say that the Cornwall Public Inquiry is a current living example for all to see of the institutional response to allegations of sexual abuse in the Cornwall area. It is more of the same old same old that is best summed up with the adage “Shoot the Messenger” This institutional response is a tortured effort to reconcile a law that was written by people who believed that sexual abuse of children was gravely harmful and should be discouraged by criminal penalties and the modern mentality spawned by Alfred Kinsey that sees nothing wrong or harmful in abusing children. Kinsey was a pedophile himself and clearly abused children or oversaw their abuse in his “research” according to his own data. Many in the Kinsey camp will claim that it may even be good for children to be sexually stimulated at an early age. This viewpoint is widespread but still “closeted” in homosexual terminology since many people who believe these things do not admit it openly. We are witnessing a continuing movement with the homosexuals coming out of their closets and the decent family oriented people crawling into closets. It is a culture war with grave consequences for civilization hanging on the outcome.
Well, myomy, when I came to this sentence in what you first wrote:
“Just try and get the homosexuals to exclude the pedophiles ( NAMBLA ) from their gay pride parades and you will learn that these two groups support each other.”
I decided to check with a google search on nambla “gay pride march” which produced over 3,300 entries.
The charge seems to emanate from U.S. right-wing TV shows but is clearly contradicted by actual history. NAMBLA was allowed into the San Francisco parade of 1992 but it turned into a public relations disaster for them:
“…NAMBLA marched, and you never saw such an outpouring of hatred from the crowd. At every point along the route they were booed, they were hissed, they had beer cans and rocks thrown at them, threats and insults were shouted at them. Walking the length of the parade must have been an excruciatingly long two hours for them.
They never asked to march again.”
Then, to make it official, in 1994 NAMBLA was expelled from the IGLA in a meeting in New York by an 89% majority vote.
So it seems you are lucky~things aren’t as bad as you suspected.