By Stephen Green
The first bit of misinformation to nail in the ‘paedophile priests’ story is that all the abuse is actually ‘paedophile’, in that it is being perpetrated on little children. The majority of the perpetrators (reports vary from two-thirds to 90%) appear to have been sexually interested in teenage boys rather than primary-school children. And that 13-17 pubertal age-group happens to be the one which a good number of homosexual men will readily admit attracts them.
The second canard is the contention that sex scandals in the church are derived from celibacy and not from homosexuality. In other words, that it is the Roman Catholic Church’s rule that its priests must be celibate which turns them into rampaging abusers. The figures don’t bear this out.
Something between 4% and 6% of priests in the US Roman Catholic Church are reckoned to be abusers. (The New York Times, 12/01/2002, found 1.8% of priests involved, and four out of five victims were male.) Christian Voice is not upholding celibacy amongst priests; both Testaments assume those ministering in either
or Church are married. Furthermore, we read in the Bible that believers in general, not a subset, are ‘a kingdom of priests’. But to be fair, if celibacy were at fault, why do around 95% of Roman Catholic priests manage to avoid interfering with those in their charge?
On the other hand, homosexual men seem attracted like wasps around a jam jar to paid and voluntary positions involving proximity to teenage boys. The Paedophile Information Exchange which existed as a campaigning group in
in the 1970s and 1980s had men with a wide range of sexual preference, from small children up to teenagers. According to its last Chairman, two of the group’s executive were in voluntary work with children; one as a scoutmaster, the other as a Sunday-School teacher. (Smith S in ‘Betrayal of Youth’ pages 242-243)
The vicious campaign to force the US Scouts movement to allow homosexual men to serve as scout leaders was only partly for hurt feelings of being discriminated against (and even then it was because ‘the gays’ did not like the assumption that they weren’t safe around young boys). The real reason was to open up the recruiting pool.
Apart from the Scout Movement, teaching and the Church are other professions attractive to predatory homosexuals. (incidentally, although teaching has had more than its fair share of sexual predators, no-one is pointing fingers at the profession as a whole.) And in the Church, the one denomination which requires its men not to be married is an obvious choice.
Secularists are constantly telling the Church to move with the times, to be reconciled to modern evils like abortion and gay rights.
lesbian columnist Tammy Bruce writes this about the Roman Catholic Church: ‘The institution may not have adapted to the feminist and gay civil-rights movements, but the priesthood sure did. The result of all that reconciling is what we’re dealing with today predatory gay priests seducing adolescent boys.’ (Bruce T, The death of right and wrong, 2003 Three Rivers Press, New York p47)
The sexual abuse scandal seems to have been at its peak from the 1960s to the 1980s. These were decades, according to the Washington Post, when more than half of the priests surveyed by the Council of the National Federation of Priests identified a ‘homosexual subculture’ in their diocese or seminary. (Hanna Rosin, Priest Survey: Gay Cliques Exist,
Post, 16/08/2002) In his book Goodbye Good Men, investigative reporter Michael Rose documented the homosexual infiltration of the American Catholic hierarchy. Some orthodox men told him they left the seminary after suffering sexual harassment by homosexual faculty members and students, while others were drummed out as ‘too rigid’ after they admitted to being opposed to homosexuality. (Bruce T, op cit, pp225-226)
And still those secularist journalists berate the church in general and the Church of Rome in particular to be less dogmatic about sexual mores and subjects like abortion and homosexuality. Christian Voice is not an apologist for Roman Catholicism, but it rather seems on the subject of the evils of sodomy in its seminaries, and faced with the problem of sexually-compulsive gay men swamping them, that successive popes have not been nearly dogmatic enough.
Tammy Bruce asks: ‘Why have these damaged gay men joined the priesthood, only to betray their vows to God and to society? How have they dared to destroy the lives of children in their selfish effort to obtain sexual satisfaction? The answer lies partly with them and partly with our society, since these malignant narcissists have been brought up and developed by our rotting culture. … The abuse of children by Catholic priests, I contend, is the most perfectly clear microcosm of the conscious and subconscious agenda of the left to make society all of it look like them. In this instance, it is gay men, and the Gay Establishment, using the church for their gratification while simultaneously blaming the church for what certain gay men have inflicted.’ (Bruce T, op cit, p224)