|
Bishops' Response to Abuse:
Indict the Child
Before sex education and child abuse prevention programs, there was a sense of holiness upon entering our Church which evoked a quiet reverence to the Sacred Mystery and Awesome Presence of our Lord.
Today few Catholic Churches are like that. Instead too many resemble arenas for entertaining and socializing. It reminds one of theater, a big production on stage, but only on stage. The joyous lives actors portray on stage are often quite different off stage. So it is with many of the bishops’ diocesan “Churches” in America, just a big production on the sanctuary “stage” to fool the unwary faithful.
Behind the scenes, a darker side emerges. The bishops’ sordid sex programs, including the child abuse prevention programs, systematically sexualize the Catholic school students shredding childhood innocence and stripping children of their Faith. Some of these unsuspecting children will be “chosen” by cunning homosexual predators among bishops and clergy and then abused, molested, and sodomized. This tragedy has been repeated again and again by our once revered clergy. The bishops’ oppressive response is criminal, and like the homosexual predator’s act, cries to Heaven for vengeance. Oh, dear Lord, the children!
To help our readers to get the big picture of the dangers a child in Catholic school may be facing, Mothers’ Watch has put together the following scenario:
Junior is a good boy, a little on the quiet side, but happy to go to school. He enters St.--- Catholic school where his Dad went before him. His Dad loved the school and Junior is pleased to go there and eager to learn. Junior is happy with his Kindergarten teacher. She is a “nice” teacher so when she begins teaching the Growing in Love (GIL) program Junior is very attentive.
Junior begins learning all about “body” parts, about marital touches and that touching his genitals to feel good is no different than thumb sucking. Although he doesn’t care much for such content, he doesn’t think to question his parents. A five year old believes his parents know what he is learning.
Next to enter the classroom scene is the counselor, specially trained to present the bishops’ child abuse prevention program, a.k.a. “safe environment” program. The counselor makes sure the children know all about “body” parts again and about those feel good touches and bad touches. Junior also learns about choices, that it’s up to him to choose what is a feel-good touch. Little Junior is a bit embarrassed about all this, after all his parents always taught him to be modest. However, on the playground, the kids continue the discussion they had in class. They laugh and make jokes about what they have been learning (often to allay their own embarrassment). Hearing the other kids make light of the subject matter, Junior’s embarrassment starts to subside. Other kids move on to talk about things they see on TV and sex talk on TV begins to have meaning to them.
The child continues being bombarded with repeated sexology lessons, year upon year, discussions about touches and feelings. By the third grade mutual masturbation is introduced (e.g. the GIL program). The child abuse/safe environment program lessons in “body talk” and sexual pleasure continue, as well. Junior learns that “In our sexual activity, we are God’s partners” (Kenny, James, Sex Education for Toddlers to Young Adults, St. Anthony Messenger Press, p. 5, recommended resource for “Stranger Danger” segment of GIL beginning in Kindergarten). Through all this, it begins to appear to Junior that sexual activity is something that is natural, and commonplace, albeit not something he would do. But it sure has made him curious wondering about that “pleasure” that he keeps hearing mentioned.
All throughout Junior’s classroom lessons, he also learns that homosexuality is just another aspect of being sexual, and by grade five Junior is learning how homosexuals engage in sexual activity. Junior doesn’t mention this to his parents. He thinks they must know and approve of what he is learning, and if they don’t, he is not about to be the one to tell them.
Junior begins serving as an altar boy. Fr. Feelings begins to take an interest in Junior. They talk a lot and then Fr. Feelings begins to talk about what little Junior has learned in class. The priest reinforces the notion telling Junior that sexuality, sexual expression, and sexual feelings are God’s gifts. He slyly and convincingly tells Junior that because we are “sexual beings,” sex is only wrong when it is forced, or when those who engage in the act are not fond of one another. To Junior, a priest is next to God and how could a priest be wrong? Fr. Feelings reveals his fondness for Junior, and asks Junior if he feels the same way. Fr. Feelings introduces Junior to alcohol. Little by little the priest’s actions become sexual. Although Junior is confused, he trusts Fr. Feelings. Junior’s inhibitions, having been lowered by alcohol and combined with Junior’s piqued curiosity about sexual experiences, have led him into a situation that has become stronger than his ability to flee.
Junior makes the attempt to confront his abuser with “just say no,” but Fr. Feelings is also very aware of what is in the child abuse prevention programs and comes back with, “Are you going to tell your mommy?” “Do you think you should do that?” “Don’t you think your mommy will be upset with you?” Fr. Feelings has also taken pictures, and Junior fears what he might do with them. Junior does not want to hurt his mother, he feels trapped. Junior would be too embarrassed to tell anyone else, and he doesn’t want people to think badly of him, so he suffers in silence.
When Junior finally does confide in his parents about the abuse, the devastated parents immediately go see the pastor who then puts them in touch with those in the diocese that are handling just such cases. Fr. Feelings is sent safely off for evaluation and therapy at the Bishop-financed resort for perverts. At the therapeutic resort, Fr. Feelings will be evaluated and the pro-homosexual therapists will try to help him to redirect his sexual liaisons away from minors, to “age appropriate relationships.” But what is to become of Junior?
The diocesan attorney questions the child. The attorney is very manipulative and convinces Junior and his parents that Junior allowed the abuse to occur. The bishop’s attorney questions whether Junior is unsure of his gender preference. Because the child had also been through the school’s child abuse prevention program (which never cautioned Junior to be suspicious about priests), the bishop’s attorney sells the family on the idea that it was Junior’s “choice” to engage in sexual activity. Junior’s “cooperation” is then referred to as “mitigating” circumstances. Thus, the bishop’s attorney does not look at Fr. Feelings as a criminal, but as a participant in a “consensual relationship” with the boy. Furthermore, the bishop’s attorney can point out that the prophylactic child abuse safety program was in place to prevent children from falling victim to abuse; and it was not the failing of the program, but the “choice” of the child.
The deviously perverse safe environment programs and the “sex as religion” programs have had their tragic effect on Junior, but the diocese will be spared. By the time the diocesan, finagling, hot shot, insurance company representatives get done, Junior ends up being considered more guilty than the homosexual pedophile priest. As a result, the bishop, the diocese and Fr. Feelings are all off the hook. The new “alternative dispute resolution” will insure the “privacy of results without public exposure.”
As part of the diocesan “alternative dispute resolution” and to alleviate any bad feelings, Junior’s parents are offered a few thousand dollars “hush money” (or in reality, “blackmail”) to be divvied out in a “structured settlement” (like a lottery winner). The money is little compensation for the trauma the family has undergone, but to take the case any further would only traumatize the child. The parents do not want Junior to be harmed anymore, nor labeled as a homosexual and want the tragedy behind, so they settle.
The case will never go to criminal court and is sealed with secrecy. The diocese, the insurance company and the homosexual pedophile have won and the cost was only a few thousand dollars for the diocese, and one child’s soul. The homosexual priest will be free to molest again and again.
This particular story is not an actual case, but is far easier to read than an actual case would be. It does serve to illustrate exactly what will be happening with regard to any new child abuse cases after diocesan child abuse prevention programs are in place. These programs, like the sex programs already in schools will sexualize children at very young ages. A child who is sexualized is no longer innocent. Through sex education the child learned to make his own “choices,” thus he can be construed as a willing participant.
As far back as 1988 bishop Weakland was saying adolescents should be “morally responsible for the sexual acts they engage in” with priests and that the adolescents can be the aggressors. Bishop Weakland, an active destroyer of the Church, resigned after he was accused of paying a young male 450,000 dollars of Church funds for homosexual “services.”
Sex between a child and adult is well on its way to being considered “consensual.” This back door approach to a child’s “right” to be sexual is what the parent of the abused child will be faced with. The burden of guilt will be shifted to the child as much as the perpetrator. BUT, that is not all! Bishops will argue that because children had been exposed to their “Protecting God’s Children” programs that children would be properly prepared to know how to resist such advances. Having gone through the program will not only get the bishops off the hook, it will serve primarily to indict the child.
Bishops in the US have been in a spiritual downslide for four decades and their response to the homosexual pedophile priests sexual abuse of young boys is just more evidence of how shockingly corrupt bishops can get.
Today’s bishops act as if they were a law unto themselves, no more responding to the protection of children now than they were in the early 1980’s when priests sodomizing children began making the news. Their first priority then was to find safe-haven for the criminal priest and protect the finances of their diocese. Nothing has changed to protect the child. Things have only gotten worse, especially for the children.
Like the homosexual pedophiles, the bishops’ programs, with their “improved” sex and child safety, are just a pretense. Instead of helping children, they are luring unsuspecting children into accepting a perverted world. The bishops’ “lifelong learning” or “cradle to grave” sex instruction begins as soon as the innocent babes walk into the kindergarten classroom. Childhood innocence is being sullied with “knowledge” about sexual touching for pleasurable feelings. The sanctity of the child’s home is being thrust into confusion as the bishops’ programs target the family as abusers to take the pressure off the homosexuals. The classroom children are taught to be suspect of every touch and hug by parents and relatives.
Children are taught that they have “choices.” In reality, these simplistic and godless choices, combined with incantations of saying “No” or “Go tell,” will arm them. Not so, when it comes to the wily homosexual predators of today! The bishops have long ago thrown out God’s Commands for obedience to the teaching of purity and modesty of thought, word and deed to allow plenty of room in the curriculum for sexology. Bishops have disarmed children with their sex teachings. Instead of fleeing impure situations, thus reacting with wholesome fear of the unknown, the child victim becomes paralyzed.
Bishops have immersed Catholic children in sex instruction instead of Faith instruction. The child has knowledge of sex, but too little knowledge of our Lord’s teachings. The child’s age of innocence (latency) when all things sexual lie dormant has been interrupted by the grossest detail of sex acts. The child has no ability to think and act with maturity. He is very immature and with the interruption of the latency period, his emotions have been in an upheaval. No amount of these devious child abuse prevention programs can save a sexualized child. Too much knowledge about sex and too little knowledge of Faith have made the child an easy target. And no one knows this better than the homosexuals many of whom are bishops.
If these criminal bishops and priests were murdering boys instead of sodomizing them, there would be an enormous outcry from the public backed by the media demanding the arrest of the murderous priests. But sodomizers are not only protected by the bishops but by the media as well, so until recently there was little public outcry against the homosexual criminal predators.
If the bishops really wanted to root out the perverts, they would have to clean out their own stables first, actively demanding resignations among their own ranks. Bishops who have scandalized the Church by their homosexuality or their support of the homosexual “lifestyle,” need to go. Bishops who have caused immeasurable trauma in the lives of youth and their families by protecting themselves and homosexual predators, need to go. Homosexuals in the priesthood and lesbian nuns can no longer be tolerated.
If the bishops were concerned for the child victims, they would make sure the criminal homosexual predators went to jail (even if they have to build their own jails to house them all.) That would be the simple and best solution and the “safest” for the children.
Why Money and Not Jail?
While both the secular and Catholic media repeatedly have stories of clergy and even bishops abusing young boys, rarely do any of the bad guys go to jail. The victims get paid off and only the high profile perpetrators are punished. Most homosexual predators just get an expense paid stay at St. Luke’s fairy farm (Maryland) or other pervert resorts.
Most cases never reach the courts. They are settled in advance, or the bishops use stall tactics until the statute of limitations on their crimes expire, thus assuring there will be no criminal trial. Bishops pay off the victims and buy their silence. The result is to not only protect the perpetrator of the crime from being classified as a criminal, but it protects the bishops as well.
When these cases go to criminal court, they involve bishops. Bishops have knowledge of the priests’ crimes, concealed these crimes by moving perpetrators from parish to parish or out of the diocese (a common practice until recently), making these bishops guilty as a accessories. Bishops want to avoid court at all costs because bishops called upon to give testimony would be indicting themselves.
Why is it that sexual crimes among the moneyed in our society go unpunished? They are simply settled by payoffs or in other words legal bribery. Behind closed doors the bishops henchmen strong-arm the accusers, thus the child is abused twice – first by the homosexual clergy, and secondly by the pervert-protecting bishop. It is evident that the bishops’ concern is only for their own and they don’t want court cases setting a precedent for the future.
Lobbying for a Child’s “Right” to be Sexual
The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) were given consultative status by the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ESOSOC) in 1994. NAMBLA (Man/Boy Love Association) is a member of ILGA. They have been at the forefront demanding legal and social changes to guarantee gay rights. They have been working to do away with age of consent laws and argue for girls and boys “right” to be sexual beings (p. 7). Incredibly, the bishops’ sex guidelines and sex programs have been calling children “sexual beings” for decades. “ILGA has consistently maintained positions that are friendly to boy lovers, including a condemnation of imprisonment of men for making love to boys.” (p. 9). (The Homosexual Agenda: How the Gay Lobby is Targeting America’s Children, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, 1997 Christian Defense Fund.)
Selling Sex Programs Promises Big Dividends for Bishops
Bishops are taking the unconscionable tragedy of predatory bishop and priest homosexual abuse of children and turning it into a profit-making business for dioceses across the country with built-in protection for the homosexual pedophiles. Bishops are becoming “shareholders” in their own insurance initiative called The National Catholic Risk Retention Group that is producing it’s own child abuse prevention initiative, under the heading of VIRTUS, PROTECTING GOD’S CHILDREN Programs.
According to Michael Bemi, the President and CEO: “Our VIRTUS expenditures will ultimately produce financial rewards for The National Catholic Risk Retention Group in the form of reduced losses; enhanced marketing opportunities; and actual revenue from sales of VIRTUS products / services to Catholic non-shareholders and also other faith-based organizations.” (National Catholic Report—Summer, 2001).
There you have it folks…right from the horse’s mouth!!
Dioceses have been joining together to form their own “family” insurance company. This insurance company then produces and sells their experimental “safe environment programs” to the dioceses and anyone else who will buy. Thus, the bishops’ insurance company will be making a sizable profit from selling the programs to themselves — programs that are protecting bishops’ finances, and homosexual child abusers. Could anything be more self-serving, underhanded, or cruel?
The Bishops’ Insurance Business
Although Mothers’ Watch does not pretend to understand the workings of the insurance business, launched by the bishops (shareholders), we have learned enough that should make parents extremely concerned about their children and the child abuse prevention programs.
It appears to be, not only a bishop-invested insurance company takeover of the Church, but of the children. The VIRTUS program is to be the “risk control” part of this new “re-insurance” program that appears to be a means of protecting the Church assets and helping secure and protect the comfort level of the bishops.
An article on insurance in the National Catholic Report, a newsletter of The National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc. (Fall 2002, “Marketplace Conditions—Sanity Restored or Madness?,” p. 6) discussed what dioceses would have to do to “fight back” regarding losses. First, was to keep losses within a budget. Second, was “solid and consistent risk control program - preventing as many losses as possible - mitigating the severity of those you couldn’t prevent.” And the third, to “place your business with Catholic insurance programs keeping the earnings generated by profitable underwriting ‘within’ and controlled by ‘the family’ [i.e. bishops] — where they will be returned to you via dividends, increased limits, enhanced coverages, and improved services” (emphasis MW).
Let’s look at these three points: To help keep losses within a budget, lawsuits will become part of the diocesan budget. It is also being proposed that pay-offs be dealt out in “structured settlements” (so much a year like the local lotteries). Regarding pay-offs, the National Catholic Report article, “Expediting cost efficient resolution of claims,” by Anthony J. Mercorella, (Retired Justice of the New York State Supreme Court) talked about the fact that 97 percent of civil actions are settled before trial. The technique was referred to as ADR (alternative dispute resolution). ADR techniques help resolve disputes “without full-blown litigation” and where the parties involved “reach a mutually acceptable agreement.” Furthermore, “ADR procedures and the privacy of the results allow for a resolution… without public exposure. Finally, ADR will allow for “alternative settlement arrangements such as structured settlements.”
The risk control program is where the VIRTUS program and other so-called “safe environment” programs come in. It is purported, as mentioned above, to “help prevent loss” and “mitigate the severity of those you couldn’t prevent.” Of course, what parents are being told over and over is that child sex abuse programs will help children to be safe from predators. That sounds good on the surface, but when parents look into these programs they find that they are chock full how-to sexology, full of feel good sex talk beginning in kindergarten, not to mention the devastating anti-parent, anti-family rhetoric (instructing children to look first at their own parents and relatives as abusers).
So why would such program sexualize the children, and what does “mitigating severity” really mean? If the child can be indicated a “willing” participant in the sex act, then that would suffice as “mitigating circumstances.” The sex cult has been gravely influencing the laws in our country (i.e. abortion, sodomy, same sex marriage). These laws were well publicized. But very subtly and quietly, there is an ongoing effort to promote a ‘child’s right to be sexual.” Calling children ‘sexual beings” is part of this effort and this term is also used throughout all the bishop-blessed sex programs. “Sexual beings” has also been a familiar term in the bishops’ sex guidelines.
In their 1991 document, Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective to Education and Lifelong Learning, what the U. S. bishops meant by “lifelong” in their title is very clear. These guys are not just talking about the geriatric “viagra” set; they are including toddlers.
By degrees, parents and children alike are being constantly brainwashed to accept openness in discussing sexual matters. Parents are taught that they should not discourage children from touching their genital area for pleasure -- “just not in public, Junior!” The Bishop-approved sex program has Catholic children in kindergarten class taught they can experience pleasure by touching themselves. By grade three classroom information includes a lesson on fantasizing and mutual masturbation. Yes, grade three!!! These are the sick sex programs bishops across the country are foisting on children.
Parents, this is child sexual abuse of the worst kind carried out in a captive classroom where children can’t flee! Children are not only being desensitized about sex, but also subtly instructed in ways to act out sexually. It is that classroom where trusting parents have sent their children to learn, and God help us, what are they learning? (See “Bishops’ Programs Desensitize and Groom the Unsuspecting” further in this newsletter.)
Bishops have no defense for their actions regarding homosexual clergy sodomizing boys. They fight sex with sex, but unlike fighting fire with fire, their actions sexualize children in the most perverse way, desensitizing children to be nonjudgmental and accepting of all sorts of sinful sexual behavior. Such “knowledge,” contrary to saving children from abuse, does not arm children. It is, however, becoming a big business venture for the bishops at the further expense of children.
Mothers’Watch, P. O. Box 1029, Frederick, Maryland 21702-0029
|
