I’m serious

Share Button

If all went as planned, the funeral service for ex-priest, convicted child molester and Liturgical guru Barry Glendenning was held at 3 pm, Wednesday, 17 August at Immaculate Conception Roman Catholic Church in West Bay(M”Chigeeng), Manitoulin Island. The church is in the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie. 

I have been told that Glendinning, who died 14 July 2011, was cremated some time ago.

 I have no idea what connections Glendinning had to Manitoulin Island, be it family or friends.

I was hoping someone would be able to attend to give us a report of the funeral service  but that unfortunately was not possible. If anyone has any further information please post a comment or send me an email at: cornwall@theinquiry.ca

Were his ashes scattered around the Island?  or tossed out to sea?  I have not the faintest idea.

Barry Glendinning has gone to meet his Maker.  I will pray for the repose of his soul. I will pray for peace of mind and heart for his many victims. 


And, problems with the diaconate in the Diocese of Providence Rhode Island.  Two deacons  in a row charged: one for exposing himself and masturbating at the roadside, and the other involved in some form of “inappropriate behaviour” with three young boys at school. 

10 August 2011: Deacon Laurence Gagnon charged 

17 August 2011: Westerly deacon arrested on charges of indecent exposure 


This one is bad news, but, in truth, not at all unexpected: 

18 August 2011: Are Mental Health Professionals Working to Normalize Pedophilia? 

A pro-paedophilia group calling itself B4U-Act is lobbying to  have the American Psychiatric Association remove paedophilia from its catalogue of mental illnesses. 

I actually don’t believe that paedophilia is a mental illness in the first place.  There may be exceptions in which an individual who molests is mentally ill, but, in most cases I believe that adults who sexually abuse children are both sinning (breaking God’s laws)  and committing crimes (breaking the law of the land i.e., man’s laws).   Did Our Lord say ‘Don’t hang a millstone around the neck of molesters – they’re mentally ill and therefore not responsible for their actions’?   I think not.  If He did I don’t recall hearing such rationalization to exempt those warranting a millstone. 

No matter.  That’s fodder for a discussion sometime, somewhere.  As it stands and has stood for may years, the American Psychiatric Association has paedophilia listed in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) 

If B4U-ACT has its way, not for much longer…

B4U-ACT wants paedophilia removed from the DSM.  NOT because its members believe that paedophilia is a sin.  NOT because its members believe that paedophilia is a crime.  No.  These paedophile sympathicers want paedophilia removed from the DSM because they believe that paedophilia is simply another “sexual orientation, and they want the “stigma” removed from being a paedophile! 

I’m serious. 

The keynote speaker at the conference was one Dr. Fred Berlin.

Dr. Fred Berlin has served as advisor to American bishops and has been quoted extensively as an ‘expert’ by prominent Catholics addressing the clerical sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church.  He has also given training sessions to judges, legislators, police officers.

The following links to articles referencing the paedophile-sympathetic Berlin in some fashion have been on Sylvia’s Site for years:

 Expert advises: sue your bishops 

Father Michael Peterson letter to the Bishops 

Church canonist gives contextual evidence at Inquiry 

I will leave it at that.

I’m going to list some of the information provided on the B4U-ACT conference brochure.  Your stomach will churn.  My did.  It still is. 

Pay attention people.  I have said it before and will say it again, we are on the verge of having paedophiles running our nursery schools and day care centres. Legally.  Some day in the not too terribly distant future, unless common sense prevails, someone will decide that it is good and healthy for both the paedophile and the child to engage in sex.  And, that will be it.

I remind Canadians yet again that the laws of the land prohibit all forms of discrimination based on “sexual orientation.”  The laws were presumably introduced to protect homosexuals.  I say presumably because the legislators and parliamentarians of the day insisted that the words “sexual orientation” be used vs “homosexual.”  Homeosexual was nowehere to be found.  It was “sexual orientation,” this despite repeated concerns expressed by countless persons that the laws could or would one day be used to endow paedophiles with special legal privileges and protection based on the claim that their so-called sexual attraction to children is a normal, acceptable and healthy “sexual orientation.”

Furthermore, we have hate crimes in Canada.  It is illegal to incite hatred against anyone based on their sexual orientation. 

Think child molester. 

Think trying to protect children from known molesters.

Think of being charged – imprisoned! –  for trying to protect your children from a child molester.

Anyway, here we are.  This is where we’re at.  Dr. Fred Berlin himself – the darling of countless Catholic Church officials and ‘experts’ in clerical sexual abuse and instructor of judges and who knows who else – the keynote speaker at a conference geared to normalize and de-stigmatize paedophilia and send huggy-bear-kissy-face hearts and flowers to paedophiles!

God help us!  This truly must be a case of social engineering at its basest and vilest.

What of the millstone?

What of the children?

I like to stick to Roman Catholic issues.  I am no proponent of making excuses for priest and bishops because non-Catholics are molesting as well.  Never.  But, it’s impossible to get into this filth without realizing that, when it comes to recognizing the abhorrence of child sexual abuse,  there are serious problems elsewhere which must be addressed if our children are to be safe.  It’s one thing to try to force Church officials to do the right thing and laicize (defrock) molesters and so on, but that fails to address the reality of judges who say no more than “Tut. Tut. Bad boy” to a clerical molester who has robbed countless children of their innocence and faith.  The same holds true for defence lawyers who fight tooth and nail to let these molesters  ‘walk’ on a technicality. And ditto for the Crowns attorney who actually plea bargain conditional sentences. 

So, I believe this is part and parcel of the whole sordid package.  Church officials should have been denouncing the thoughts of the Dr. Fred Berlins years ago. They didn’t.  They flowed right along with the pro-paedophilia tide.  And, as I said, here we are.  

Here, then, for the record, are a few links or extracts from the B4U-ACT website which contains links and information on the organization and the symposium, “Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM: Issues and Controversies” – the symposium at which Dr. Fred Berlin was keynote speaker. 

Rest assured Berlin wasn’t picked to be keynote speaker because he was expected to tell a legion of paedophile sympathizers that molesting children is both a sin and a crime, and that the sexual abuse of a child is an abhorrent and despicable act , and that child molesters should not be allowed around children, and that parents should have an inalienable right to protect their children and that includes knowing the abode of known child molesters and. for Catholics, which priests in which sanctuaries or hospitals or schools are known molesters.

No.  I think not.

 Read carefully. 

We are being ‘groomed’ to believe that child molesters are just super nice, gentle souls  who just happen to be sexually attracted to children, and that –  very, very, very important – not ALL of them molest, they just all have that “orientation” to molest. And even children are molesters because, well, they just have that sexual orientation.

That’s the thin edge of the wedge.  The very thin edge.

How terribly sick and grossly perverted is this?

Honest to goodness, here they are.  Not another word from me…

With the exception of #1 I have linked to the website page; if I have extrapolated only a portion you can read the entire text: 

(1)  November 2011: Dr. Fred Berlin: “Commentary on Pedophilia Diagnostic Criteria in DSM-5”

(2)  Living in Truth and Dignity  

Principles and Perspectives of Practice

At B4U-ACT, we believe that the following guiding principles are crucial when mental health professionals work with minor-attracted people:

1. DEVELOPMENT. We understand that the attraction to children or adolescents is both sexual and emotional, and that individuals do not choose to have these feelings. People who are attracted to minors usually recognize their feelings in adolescence or young adulthood, and feel that they are very different from other persons.

2. INDIVIDUALITY. We realize that other than their sexual and emotional feelings toward minors, minor-attracted people do not have any particular characteristics in common. They vary as do all people, and it is inaccurate to claim that all or most minor-attracted people have certain beliefs or personalities, exhibit psychopathology or specific personality disorders, or engage in particular behaviors. We do not assume that they abuse children, that they are prone to deception or violence, or that their sexual feelings are more compulsive or uncontrollable than other people’s. We see clients as individuals, not as a category.

3. HUMANITY. We believe that persons who are sexually attracted to children can be contributing members of their communities and that they deserve to be treated with respect. All clients should be treated in a caring, non-judgmental, and respectful manner. We see minor-attracted people as whole human beings, not as dangerous criminals or “deviants.” Therefore, we advocate the use of supportive therapeutic goals, assumptions, and approaches. Clients voluntarily seeking treatment should not be pressured or coerced to accept treatment modalities that they find objectionable.

4. NEEDS. We recognize that like all people, individuals who are attracted to minors sometimes want mental health services to deal with issues unrelated to their sexuality, but they are reluctant to seek help because they feel they cannot be completely honest as a result of their sexual feelings. Some minor-attracted people seek services to help them deal with issues that result from society’s negative reactions to their sexual feelings. Others seek assistance and support in finding satisfying lives and relationships while living within the law. We believe that in all these cases, clients should have access to compassionate and confidential services that meet their needs and that help them feel safe to talk openly about their sexual feelings.

5. CONFIDENTIALITY. We recognize that laws require the reporting of illegal sexual behavior and plans for such behavior, but they do not require the reporting of sexual feelings and desires. We appreciate the danger which could be posed to a client if his employer, family, friends, community, or anyone else found out about his sexual feelings. Thus, such information should not be divulged to persons beyond a provider’s staff. At the first session, or as soon as attractions to minors surface in a subsequent session, the therapist should inform the client exactly who on the staff, if anyone, will be told about his sexual feelings. The therapist should also provide the client with a clear statement of the cases under which illegal behavior, suspicion of such behavior, or plans for such behavior would have to be reported to the authorities.

6. STIGMA. We recognize the severe stigma directed against minor-attracted people by the media, politicians, law enforcement officials, and some mental health professionals. We oppose the perpetuation of false stereotypes and the use of language that instills fear in the public, fails to promote understanding, and ignores the humanity of minor-attracted people. We realize that stigma and stereotypes force minor-attracted people to remain in hiding and prevent those who could benefit from mental health services from receiving them. We do not believe this serves the interests of children, minor-attracted people, or society in general. Therefore, providers have an obligation within their profession and community to speak up and confront stereotype-perpetuating statements made by professional colleagues, family members, friends, and the media. Providers need to educate professionals and the larger community regarding persons sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

7. EDUCATION. Providers have an obligation to offer and engage in continuing education and professional growth activities on an ongoing basis in order to promote and develop a more accurate understanding of individuals who are sexually attracted to minors and to improve services for them. Such activities should challenge popular stereotypes rather than reinforce them, and portray the full humanity of minor-attracted people.

Updated July 18, 2008


(3) FAQ for mental health professionals

What do you mean by minor-attracted people?

We use this term to refer to adults who experience feelings of preferential sexual attraction to children or adolescents under the age of consent, as well as adolescents who have such feelings for younger children. It is important to realize that these sexual feelings are usually accompanied by feelings of emotional attraction, similar to the romantic feelings most adults have for other adults.

Are you talking about pedophiles?

Yes, but not only pedophiles. The American Psychiatric Association defines a pedophile to be a person at least 16 years old who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children and has either engaged in sexual activity with a child or feels distressed by the feelings of attraction. The term “minor-attracted person” includes not only pedophiles, but also adults and adolescents preferentially attracted to children but who have not interacted with them sexually and do not feel distressed by their feelings. It also includes adults who are preferentially attracted to adolescents (rather than pre-pubescent children), and who may or may not have engaged in sexual activity with them.

Why are you focused on the well-being of minor-attracted people? What about children?

Forcing minor-attracted people to remain secretive and without access to mental health care does not protect children. Stigmatizing and stereotyping minor-attracted people inflames the fears of minor-attracted people, mental health professionals, and the public, without contributing to an understanding of minor-attracted people or the issue of child sexual abuse. Minor-attracted people are unable to seek services when they want them, and mental health professionals are unable to reach out to them. Perpetuating secrecy, stigma, and fear can lead to hopelessness and even self-destructive or abusive behavior on the part of minor-attracted people, and disrupts the fabric of society.

It is also important to realize that some of the children or adolescents in need of protection are themselves developing an attraction to children. The attraction to minors does not suddenly appear in adulthood; minor-attracted people usually become aware of their sexual feelings in late childhood or adolescence, and are harmed by stigma.
Finally, no person should be denied their dignity and humanity because of feelings of attraction that they did not choose. Some experts have estimated that 0.5% to 7% of all males are attracted to minors, although there is no solid research to confirm this. If they are correct, it is likely that most Americans, without realizing it, have a good friend or loved one (possibly their own child) who is attracted to minors.

Won’t mandatory reporting laws require that I be reported to law enforcement?

Laws do not require the reporting of sexual feelings and desires. They require only that therapists report illegal sexual behavior, suspicions of such behavior, or plans to engage in such behavior. Therapists who have an understanding of attraction to minors realize that many minor-attracted people are able to refrain from sexual activity with minors.

(4)  Fact Sheet

It is unknown how many people in the general population are emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. Evidence suggests that many adults may have some feelings of attraction to minors, but these feelings are subordinate to their feelings for adults (Fedora et al., 1992; Freund, 1981; Freund & Costell, 1970; Hall et al., 1995; Quinsey et al., 1975).

However, some adults are preferentially attracted to minors. Most of those who have been identified are males. Experts estimate that 0.5% to 7% of all males are preferentially attracted to minors (Abel & Harlow, 2001; Farella, 2002; Feierman, 1990; West, 1998), although there is no solid data to support these figures. If these experts are correct, then between 600,000 and 8 million men in theU.S.are preferentially attracted to children or adolescents .

Attraction to minors typically involves feelings of affection and being in love (Howells, 1981; Ingram, 1981; Li, 1990b; Sandfort, 1987; Wilson & Cox, 1983). Preferential attraction to prepubescent children is called pedophilia, and preferential attraction to adolescents is called hebephilia (Ames & Houston, 1990; Feierman, 1990; Okami & Goldberg, 1992). Pedophilia is listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but hebephilia is not (APA, 2000).

No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood. A large number of theories involving hormonal influences, genetics, evolutionary processes, negative socialization, poor parental relationships, and childhood sexual experiences have been proposed, but most have not been tested scientifically, and none are supported by reliable evidence. In particular, there is no evidence to support the common belief that attraction to children or adolescents in adulthood is due to childhood sexual abuse (Freund & Kuban, 1993; Garland & Dougher, 1990; Hall, 1996; Li, 1990a).

Anecdotal evidences suggests that many pedophiles and hebephiles do not act sexually with children or adolescents, but it is not known how many do not (Hall et al., 1995; Okami & Goldberg, 1992).

A large number of studies show that a majority of child molesters are not preferentially attracted to prepubescent children or adolescents, and therefore are not pedophiles or hebephiles (Ames & Houston, 1990; Freund, 1981; Okami & Goldberg, 1992).

Studies of personality characteristics on average find low levels of aggression among pedophiles. Other than the attraction to minors itself, studies fail to find any abnormal or pathological characteristics. In particular, people attracted to minors have not been found to exhibit narcissism, psychosexual immaturity, low intelligence, aversion to adults, psychopathology, neurosis, or any personality disorder any more than people attracted to adults. The presence of these characteristics have been assumed, rather than being tested scientifically (Bradford et al., 1988; Langevin, 1983; Okami & Goldberg, 1992; Wilson & Cox, 1983).

Enduring feelings of attraction to prepubescent children first become apparent at puberty (Abel & Harlow, 2001; AACAP, 1999; Farella, 2002; Freund & Kuban, 1993; Johnson, 2002). Attraction to adolescents becomes noticeable later.

Reducing or eliminating attraction to minors is often attempted through reconditioning methods such as aversion therapy and masturbatory satiation, developed in the 1930s to eliminate homosexuality. The goal is to associate attraction to minors with boredom, revulsion, fear, shame, or physical pain. Sex-drive reducing drugs may also be administered (AACAP, 1999; Abel & Harlow, 2001; Crawford, 1981; Hall, 1996; Langevin, 1983; Maletzky, 1991).

Studies of the effectiveness of reconditioning methods to change feelings of attraction suffer from serious methodological flaws, and have led to inconsistent results. The few well-constructed studies have found that they are no more effective with pedophilia or hebephilia than with homosexuality (AMA, 1987; Freund, 1981; Hall, 1996; Langevin, 1983; McConaghy, 1999).

I suggest you take a deep breath, hold your nose, and browse right through the website to get a good feel for where we’re going to be led, and how.

Enough for now,


This entry was posted in Accused or charged, Clerical sexual predators and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to I’m serious

  1. Bobbie Bees says:

    Hrrrrrmmmmm. This is definitely a hot button topic for quite a few of us who frequent this blog.
    I for one don’t think the paedophilia is a sexual orientation or should even be considered similar to homosexuality.
    And the law has to refer to sexual orientation as opposed to homosexuality as technically homosexual refers to a man attracted to another man. A lesbian is a woman who is attracted to another woman. So by including Homosexual you exclude Lesbians, bi-sexuals, etc.
    Saying that someone can go to jail under hate law prosecution for protecting their child is absurd. Parliament would have to repeal the ‘Age of consent’ law. I can’t honestly see that happening anytime soon. So if you caught your 16 year old baby sitter diddling your 8 year old son or daughter you’d still have the mercy of the courts when you cuffed the little twat in the side of the head.

    I do however believe that paedophilia is a mental disorder.
    I say this as someone who experienced abuse at the hands of a person who them self was being actively abused by a priest as well as experiencing abuse at the hands of the same priest. I hope that statement makes sense.
    The priest, I can’t say what his story was, I never had the opportunity to ask.

    I fully believe that paedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. Paedophilia as the name implies involves prepubescent and pubescent children. Children aren’t know for their ability to give informed consent, hence why we have ‘age of consent’ laws that start at 16.

    Myself, I believe that paedophilia is a lot more prevalent in our society than what we’d like to admit.
    As most of us who post on your blog can attest, coming forth with our stories of molestation is a very hard thing to do. So I can promise you that there are more people out there who take their ‘secrets’ to the grave with them than there are of us that choose to speak out.
    And paedophilia has always been with us. My great great grandmother was sent to Canada as a 10 year old orphan from Ireland. She was married and shortly there after had her first child at 11. Okay, so this was a ‘marriage’, but by today’s standards that was outright kiddie diddling. Her husband probably didn’t choose her because of her financial clout. I think a little bit a paedophilia was at play. After all, at that time, women were still not considered ‘people’ so it didn’t matter if she was 10 or 30, at either age she would have had the same legal standing and would be under the full control of her husband, so why not go for an older more mature woman?
    Times change. What once was legal is now seen are morally reprehensible.

    I’ve always been of the opinion that mankind, whether it be through evolution or through the guiding hand of a creator, has advanced so far beyond the origins of its primitive beginnings. For the most part we’ve been able to overcome our primitive beings. But we have yet so far to go. Our ability to torture, inflect abuse and tolerate abuse of children speaks volumes to that.

    My direct abuser would have been in his mid teens at the time. Did anyone stop to think that maybe he shouldn’t be having sex with an 8 year old? Did anyone get him any type of psychiatric help? Did he start showing his paedophilia tendencies at an even earlier age? If he wanted help, where could he have gone? Put yourself into his shoes. How do you get help?
    “Ah, gee dad, I kinda find that 7 year old girl kinda hot, this is normal, right?”
    If his tendencies has been detected at an earlier age would I have been abused? If at his age he was already attracted to prepubescent children has he been able to stop?

    So no, in short I do not believe that paedophilia should be ‘tolerated’. At the same time it must be treated as the mental issue that it is. Making an outright criminal offence of it will only ensure that young pedophiles will go into ‘hiding’ there by not only destroying their own lives but surely the lives of the children that the will later be attracted to.
    And it does speak volumes when you consider who is pushing for these changes to the DSM.

  2. Jack says:

    LADSON, S.C. – A South Carolina pastor has been charged with kidnapping and raping three women at gunpoint, including two who say they were assaulted in a trailer behind the church.

    So far, members of the Freedom Free Will Baptist Church have not condemned Dale Richardson, who had been the pastor there for about the past year.

    After he was first arrested last month, Richardson said in court that he has a spotless record and would mount a strong defence.

    Virginia Davis who has attended for about a year, says Richardson is a sweet person who has always taught God’s word.

    The Rev. Dean Mandrell, who has been preaching at some of the church’s three weekly services, says that the congregation has drawn closer and that nobody is condemning Richardson.

  3. Sylvia says:

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts on paedophilia Bobbie. Lots to think about.

    You mention the fact that you were sexually abused by a boy in his mid teens and refer to the boy’s paedophilic tendencies.

    Was that boy molested himself? I am betting that he probably was. My guess is that he was doing to you what was done to him.

    Does that mean we call him a paedophile? No. As far as I’m concerned a 15 or 16-year-old boy sexually abusing an 8-year-old boy is not at all the same as a grown man, say, a 40-year-old man, sexually abusing an 8- or 10- or 13-year-old boy.

    Is it sinful for a 15- or 16-year-old boy to sexually abuse an 8-year-old boy? Yes.

    Is it criminal for a 15- or 16-year-old boy to sexually abuse an 8-year-old boy? Yes.

    But, does this mean the abuser is a paedophile?

    Would he still warrant being labelled a paedophile by some if his victim was a 12-year-old boy? or a 12-year-old girl?

    What if his victim was a 14-year-old boy? or girl? Still a minor, but one or two years younger?

    What of the 12-year-old boy who sexually abuses a 10-year-old? Would these experts say that that 12-year-old is a paedophile?

    You are falling into the trap of accepting paedophilia as a normal and acceptable “sexual orientation” Bobbie. It is not. Don’t let yourself fall for it. As soon as you do the doors open wider to endow these molesters with legal rights and privileges which will ensure their eventual ‘right’ to sex with children and our inability to protect our children from them.

    • Bobbie Bees says:

      Um, nope, I’m not falling for accepting paedophilia as a normal sexual orientation. It is and always will be a mental disorder.
      I wish I could go into greater details with my case, I really do.
      I will try to explain without too much detail.
      I had two abusers. One was the guy who was in his mid teens. The other was the priest that was abusing the both of us.

      Paedophilia will never be the same as homosexuality. Not by a long shot. To even equate the two as being similar is an insult.
      Paedophilia needs to be detected at it’s earliest onset and it needs to be controlled. Whether through medication or other avoidance type therapies, it needs to be controlled. If it isn’t detected and controlled there will be more lives destroyed. It’s not enough to simply state that because the bible says that it’s immoral nothing else needs to be done. If it were that simple, then why would we need a website like this in the first place?

      I don’t know about you, but I would much rather have a pedophile detected, intercepted and medicated than to have that pedophile get his (or her) hands on innocent kids.
      So far as the age of my young abuser. It’s an accepted fact that pedophiles start to exhibit their tendencies at a young age. This has nothing to do with playing doctor or experimenting. I refer you to the case of James Bulger.
      Jon Venables, ten years old when he and Robert Thompson kidnapped, physically assaulted, sexually assaulted and murdered 5 year old James Bulger.
      Guess who was recently charged with possession and distribution of child pornography?
      Jon Venables.
      Mental illnesses such as paedophilia don’t just pop up out of nowhere.
      And don’t take me the wrong way.
      I am not advocating dealing with pedophiles with kid gloves.
      They need to be detected and treated and controlled BEFORE they do their damage.
      As I said Sylvia, and I mean no disrespect, but the rules laid out in the good book did nothing to protect me.
      And prison sentences AFTER the fact won’t make me whole ever again.
      The damage is DONE.
      Nothing will reverse it.
      It should never have happened in the first place.

  4. Sylvia says:

    If I somehow conveyed the impression that I think because the Bible said it that’s it I apologize Bobbie. That is not and never would be my intent: As you yourself say, why would I be operating this site if I for a single moment thought that was all that needs to be said and done? What the Bible does do is remind us, that, in the eyes of God, it is better for those who have harmed a child that a millstone be hung around their neck and they be drowned in the depth of the sea.

    How do we reflect that abhorrence? When it comes to the sex abuse of a child, do we, in fact reflect it?

    We’re not about to hang millstones around the neck of molesters and hurl them into the sea, but surely we can do better in displaying our abhorrence for both the crime (and it is a crime) and those who enact it?

    I think the only answer Bobbie is in working toward stiffer sentencing, sentences which reflect the abhorrence of the crime in such a manner that it becomes understood that the sex abuse of children will not be tolerated. In the Church it means that ‘the Church’ must reflect its abhorrence of the sin and crime by laicizing (defrocking) every priest who lays or has laid a wayward hand on a child.

    It is known that men who seduce young boys frequently do so by introducing them to pornography. In some instances it is adult porn, in others it is both adult and child porn. I know of one victim in Cornwall who was molested by ex priest Richard Hickerson. Hickerson introduced the boy to child porn – the boy grew into a man struggling with not only the pain and shame of his abuse, but also with what he descibes as an addiction to porn.

    Bottom line, I believe that every man who molests was himself molested. There may be rare exceptions, but, I do believe it is learned behaviour. I do not believe for a moment that every child who was molested becomes a molester. I have concerns that much of the talk these days conveys that erroneous impression – it is difficult enough for victims to come forward without being confronted by such a damning and erroneous stigma.

    Why do most male child sex abuse victims NOT become molesters? That perhaps is the question which should be addressed and analysed by the experts. Some do, most do not. What separates those molested who go on to molest – as children and/or adualts – from those who do not?

    I know I am rambling on here as I think this through….

    Do I feel sorry for those who molest? Actually, I do. But I also view them as criminals who are a danger to society, particularly the young and vulnerable. I believe our children must be protected, and I beleive it is our duty as adults to protect them. If that means molesters must be removed and put behind bars for life then, so be it. When it comes to molesters and the safety and well-being of children I don’t believe in taking chances. I believe we take far too many.

    I think Bobbie it virtually impossible to detect a molester before he inflicts his damage the first time. What do we do? How? Subject every adult male in the country to phallometric testing? And even those are far from infallible.

    The one for sure that can never be denied is that every molester who is behind bars is incapable at that time of harming a single child.

    Yes, sadly Bobbie, for you and for countless others, the damage is done. But you can perhaps alleviate the pain a bit by do what you’re doing right now to try to ensure that other children don’t suffer the same fate. We are all trying to find ways to bring it to an end, and ways to comfort and ease the suffering of those who fell prey to these men.

    There is much to be done, both in the Church and out of the Church. Let’s each and all keep searching for ways to protect those innocent children who have not been subjected to the unbridled wiles of a molester ….and give support to those have.

    You are thinking of others Bobbie. That is good and healthy. True, you can’t reverse the dame done to you, but you can work towards stopping it from happening to others. Meanwhile let’s keep our eyes and ears open. The move is well afoot to normalize paedophilia as another sexual orientation.

  5. Cory michael bourgeois says:

    I was an alter boy for this guy at the age of 13 or 14 im Busby Ab. I read ur articles for the 1st time about this man. Shocking! A lot of things make sense to me now

Leave a Reply