Quantcast

«

»

Jan 25 2013

LA Archbishop Covered Up Pedophile Priests

New documents released in a lawsuit in Los Angeles show that the archbishop of that diocese, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, covered up for pedophile priests for decades and made sure they didn’t get prosecuted, something that bishops in other places did as well.

Rather than defrocking priests and contacting the police, the archdiocese sent priests who had molested children to out-of-state treatment facilities, in large part because therapists in California were legally obligated to report any evidence of child abuse to the police, the files make clear.

In 1986, Cardinal Mahony wrote to a New Mexico treatment center where one abusive priest, Msgr. Peter Garcia, had been sent.

“I believe that if Monsignor Garcia were to reappear here within the archdiocese we might very well have some type of legal action filed in both the criminal and civil sectors,” Cardinal Mahony wrote.

Monsignor Garcia admitted to abusing more than a dozen young boys, most of them from families of illegal immigrants, since he was ordained in 1966, and in at least one case he threatened to have a boy he had molested deported if he talked about it, according to documents filed in court.

Mahoney should be in prison, along with Cardinal Law and many others.

59 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    glodson

    How anyone can defend this church is astounding. Time and time again, it is has been shown that it was a systematic attempt to protect the integrity of the church by protecting the child raping priests.

    We can stomp our feet and scream as much as we want, but it won’t really change until catholics stop going to mass. When the church losses money, they’ll start actually trying to fix it.

  2. 2
    Marcus Ranum

    It really was all just about fucking the little boys all along, like Louis CK says.

  3. 3
    slc1

    Mahoney should be in prison, along with Cardinal Law and many others.

    Unfortunately, the statute of limitations has probably run out on most of these crimes.

  4. 4
    David C Brayton

    And they should be prosecuted under the RICO statute. While I’m concerned about the scope of RICO, its use is clearly justified in this matter.

  5. 5
    TGAP Dad

    “LA Archbishop Covered Up Pedophile Priests!”
    In other news, water is wet and puppies are cute.

    Not since a 60s-era headline screamed “Mob Ties Alleged In Jersey Politics!” And the 80s “Federal Workers Found Loafing On The Job!” have I encountered an utterly unsurprising headline so breathlessly presented. In the case of the catholic hierarchy, the fact that it is unsurprising is the real tragedy.

  6. 6
    d.c.wilson

    RICO was intended to organized crime families. The RCC has proved itself to be a criminal enterprise time and again. The use of RICO in this case is entirely appropriate.

  7. 7
    anubisprime

    In 1986, Cardinal Mahony wrote to a New Mexico treatment center where one abusive priest, Msgr. Peter Garcia, had been sent.

    Okay the nonce was sent to Mexico…

    Monsignor Garcia admitted to abusing more than a dozen young boys, most of them from families of illegal immigrants, since he was ordained in 1966, and in at least one case he threatened to have a boy he had molested deported if he talked about it, according to documents filed in court

    I might be wrong but surely the illegal immigrant quote must refer to Mexicans nipping across the border…

    Seems the logical assumption.

    So the nonce abused Mexican can kids in LA…or there about’s…and his boss sends him to Mexico to avoid the law and to chill….To fucking Mexico where his victims came from in the first place.

    They really are the most evil ignorant vicious cowardly bullying perverts are they not?

  8. 8
    grumpyoldfart

    Mahony will never be prosecuted. He just runs away to the Vatican when trouble arises and doesn’t return until the bribes have been paid and the case dismissed:

    It’s a coincidence, no doubt, that the Stockton diocese settled a sex-abuse case just before Cardinal Roger Mahony, the former Bishop of Stockton, was scheduled to testify.

    Actually Cardinal Mahony wasn’t ready to take questions. He had left for Rome, ignoring his date with the court, and the plaintiff’s lawyer was threatening to have the cardinal held in contempt. That threat went by the boards when the case was settled.

    Stockton’s Bishop Stephen Blaire says that it was “in the best interest of everybody” to reach the mutually agreeable deal, in which the diocese paid $3.75 million to a single plaintiff. The bishop hopes that no one will think the settlement is an indication that the diocese admits culpability. And certainly we can all understand that sometimes it’s better to avoid a protracted legal dispute. But $3.75 million—payable to one alleged victim—is an awfully steep price to pay for avoiding the aggravation of a trial, especially when you consider that the trial was already underway.

    http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=274

  9. 9
    tbp1

    “LA Archbishop Covered Up Pedophile Priests”

    Sadly, one of the least surprising headlines in recent years.

  10. 10
    scienceavenger

    Fuck the mother fuckers

  11. 11
    Moggie

    Buy some “CRIME SCENE – DO NOT CROSS” tape.
    Stick it across the door of your local Catholic church.
    Repeat every Sunday.

  12. 12
    JimB

    anubisprime
    New Mexico is a state. Kinda sits on the Arizona Texas border.

    Mexico is a country. It’s south of New Mexico.

  13. 13
    frog

    glodson@1: The RCC has been shedding members and money for decades. They make up some of it by increasing tuition rates in K-12 schools where they can, usually in not-so-great neighborhoods where the local schools are bad and private school is the only alternative for parents who place importance on education.

    (Meanwhile, in places with good public schools, the Catholic schools are closing down because a Catholic education is no longer so desirable in its own right, so why spend the money on tuition?)

    But pope Ratzi seems to be doubling down on scaring money out of the remaining members. “We are losing money! We are forced to close schools! We need to keep fighting the encroachment of secularism that will require you to get gay-married and then have abortions!”

    I can only trust that time is not on their side. The remaining members skew toward the older side (including my mother; sigh).

  14. 14
    Modusoperandi

    Sure, but what about all the non-evil things they do?

  15. 15
    elpayaso

    To fucking Mexico where his victims came from in the first place

    as Jim noted, different place. it’s actually in a quite lovely area up in the Jemez, with trout streams and hot springs* all over the area…..you or i would pay a pretty penny for a “retreat” there. pobrecitos……..

    *oh, and lots of rural, unsophisticated, often semiliterate, and obediently-catholic kids…

  16. 16
    democommie

    Cardinal Roger Mahoney, Defender of the Filth.

    Does anyone besides me think that defending some piece-of-shit child rapist isn’t a little beyond the pale unless one IS a piece-of-shit child rapist? Hey, I ain’t makin’ no accusations, I’m just asking a question!

  17. 17
    Stacy

    There’s a new Mexico?

    (sorry.)

  18. 18
    Matt G

    Q: What’s the difference between the mafia and the Catholic Church? A: The mafia knows it’s a criminal organization

  19. 19
    anubisprime

    @ 12 & 15

    Point taken….

  20. 20
    jonathangray

    “As the new Millennium dawned, the Los Angeles Archdiocese was known as one of the most homosexual-friendly in the United States. As early as 1991, Jim Johnson, caregiver to AIDS patients, openly stated that Roger Mahony was “surrounded by homosexual priests” and alluded to several “gay bishops”.

    In 1993, the Cardinal helped to fund and produce the video A Journey for Understanding Gays and Lesbians in the Church. The video affirmed that there was nothing wrong with any “gay” or lesbian person whatsoever, that “being gay was a blessing and a gift,” and had “something prophetic toward remodeling the Church” In 1996, the L.A. Archdiocese celebrated a Mass for its “lesbian and gay Catholics” during “Gay and Lesbian Pride Week” in West Hollywood, and sponsored a booth at its “Pride Festival.” In 1997, Cardinal Mahony himself said the Mass and delivered the homily for The National Association of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministries at its annual convention in Long Beach.

    Mahony also founded a diocesan office of “ministry to lesbian and gay Catholics” as early as 1986. He headed it up with an openly homosexual priest, Fr. Peter Liuzzi, who had nothing but praise for the Cardinal for never “rebuking those gays and lesbians who are not celibate.” The Archdiocese also sought out an openly pro-homosexual Jesuit psychologist for its priests, Fr. Curtis Bryant.

    The same open tolerance for homosexuality prevailed at St. John’s Seminary in Camarillo, where seminarians spend the first four of their seven years of priestly training. A Newsweek article (May 20, 2002) reported 30-70 percent of the seminarians at St. John’s were “gay and bisexual.” Seminarians forced to leave for being “too rigid” have described across-the-board tolerance of homosexuality and no teaching on the Church’s proscription of it.”

    Moral: Never trust a liberal.

  21. 21
    Modusoperandi

    jonathangray, homosexuality ≠ pedophilia*.

    Do you have any idea what a good faith argument looks like?
     
    * Even the RC’s own internal investigation couldn’t make that stick.

  22. 22
    jonathangray

    Modusoperandi:

    homosexuality ≠ pedophilia

    Never implied it was. The point is that Mahony’s stance with regard to homosexuality reveals him to be a liberal. Ditto for all the pervy clerics … Weakland, Bernadin, Gumbleton, Wuerl, Untener, Daneels — uber-liberals to a man.

    That said, am I wrong in thinking that the vast majority of clerical sex abuse cases involved adolescent boys rather prepubescent children of either sex? Ephebophilia ≠ pedophilia. Male/male ephebophilia = a type of homosexuality.

  23. 23
    Michael Heath

    jonathangray writes:

    Moral: Never trust a liberal.

    How about a citation empirically and independently validating that liberals are untrustworthy relative to conservatives or that both are similarly untrustworthy.

    Which of the two major parties do you think has run more honest campaigns in the past thirteen years? Which of the two parties do you think relies more on talking points consistent with ideology than the other party? Do you perceive a difference in the volume each party relies on sufficiently-framed factual premises that leverage expert prescriptions when both advocating public policy and creating platforms for elected office?

  24. 24
    paulg

    @jonathangray

    fuck, if there is a moral to be pulled from your “taunt quotes”-filled comment (tmi: reading it made me want to bitchslap you) it would be to never trust a priest even if they’re liberal.

    For the record I know there are healthy priests/pastors out there, but probably in the minority when sexual repression is mandated.

  25. 25
    slc1

    Mr. gray makes the same mistake that the lame stream media makes,namely that the pedophile priests were all homosexuals. The fact is that the reason that boys were almost exclusively abused is because there are no alter girls, meaning that only boys were available. The Raping Children Church is a male dominated institution and females are second class citizens. If there were alter girls in the same numbers as alter boys, there would have been numerous cases of abuse of the former.

    Mr. Gray makes the false assumption that the cases of abuse in Los Angeles were due to Cardinal Mahoney being soft on homosexuality. Therefore, Cardinal Law and Cardinal Egan must also have been soft on homosexuality, in addition to the then Cardinal Joe the rat, his brother in Germany, and the various higher ups in Ireland, Italy, etc. Not even an asshole like Bill Donahue would have the balls to make such an accusation.

  26. 26
    jonathangray

    Michael Heath:

    Which of the two major parties do you think has run more honest campaigns in the past thirteen years? Which of the two parties do you think relies more on talking points consistent with ideology than the other party? Do you perceive a difference in the volume each party relies on sufficiently-framed factual premises that leverage expert prescriptions when both advocating public policy and creating platforms for elected office?

    Assuming you’re referring to the USA, I don’t follow the political situation there closely, although I would describe both Democrats and Republicans as essentially liberal. The USA was a a political vehicle for anti-Christian revolutionary liberalism from the beginning. “Liberty enlightening the world” indeed!

    In general liberals strike me as more ideologically driven and removed from reality than authentic rightists — their mental life seems to revolve around a gallery of emotionally-charged images and their discourse to consist largely of sloganeering. Admittedly rightists are indeed sceptical of “sufficiently-framed factual premises that leverage expert prescriptions when both advocating public policy” because in practice that just means technocracy.

    paulg:

    if there is a moral to be pulled from your “taunt quotes”-filled comment … it would be to never trust a priest even if they’re liberal.

    For the record I know there are healthy priests/pastors out there, but probably in the minority when sexual repression is mandated.

    You mean clerical celibacy turns good liberals into perverts? I don’t buy it. Priestly pederasty is the poisoned fruit of the liberal “anything goes” attitude of the post-Vatican II establishment, which turned the seminaries from institutions run according to a quasi-military discipline into talking shops where therapeutic psychobabble was the order of the day. And blaming celibacy fails to account for the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of priestly ephebophilia.

    One might also ask why similar scandals have rocked secular institutions like the BBC, the UK’s social services and state schools in the US. If only TV entertainers/care workers/schoolteachers were allowed to marry! If only they weren’t cruelly forced to repress their natural sexual impulses!

    sic1:

    Mr. gray makes the same mistake that the lame stream media makes,namely that the pedophile priests were all homosexuals. The fact is that the reason that boys were almost exclusively abused is because there are no alter girls, meaning that only boys were available. The Raping Children Church is a male dominated institution and females are second class citizens. If there were alter girls in the same numbers as alter boys, there would have been numerous cases of abuse of the former.

    You’re a bit behind the times — altar girls have been common in liberal Catholic parishes for some decades now. If loads of cases of clerical abuse of young girls subsequently come to light, I’ll accept homosexuality is irrelevant to the scandal.

    Mr. Gray makes the false assumption that the cases of abuse in Los Angeles were due to Cardinal Mahoney being soft on homosexuality. Therefore, Cardinal Law and Cardinal Egan must also have been soft on homosexuality, in addition to the then Cardinal Joe the rat, his brother in Germany, and the various higher ups in Ireland, Italy, etc. Not even an asshole like Bill Donahue would have the balls to make such an accusation.

    If they protect homosexual ephebophiles, then of course they’re soft on homosexuality, hypocritical public statements about ‘family values’ notwithstanding. Egan himself is alleged to be homosexual.

  27. 27
    slc1

    You’re a bit behind the times — altar girls have been common in liberal Catholic parishes for some decades now. If loads of cases of clerical abuse of young girls subsequently come to light, I’ll accept homosexuality is irrelevant to the scandal.

    Citation?

    Assuming you’re referring to the USA, I don’t follow the political situation there closely, although I would describe both Democrats and Republicans as essentially liberal. The USA was a a political vehicle for anti-Christian revolutionary liberalism from the beginning. “Liberty enlightening the world” indeed!

    Mr. Gray’s definition of liberal is anyone to the left of Rick Santorum.

    If they protect homosexual ephebophiles, then of course they’re soft on homosexuality, hypocritical public statements about ‘family values’ notwithstanding. Egan himself is alleged to be homosexual.

    Total crap. They covered up for pedophile priests because they were ordered to do so by Joe the rat when he was a cardinal. They did so to protect the church from bad publicity. By the way, it is also rumored that Pope Joe the rat is also gay, based on a relationship with a good looking priest 1/2 his age, who is one of his closest aides. Just like J. Edgar Himmler and Clyde Tolson.

  28. 28
    democommie

    Re: Jonathon Gray’s nonsense.

    Lying fuckbag troll will be lying fuckbag troll.

    “Assuming you’re referring to the USA, I don’t follow the political situation there closely, although I would describe both Democrats and Republicans as essentially liberal.”

    That explains your astonishingly arrogant indignorance but not your pathalogical desire to spew about that which you are completely uninformed.

    “The USA was a a political vehicle for anti-Christian revolutionary liberalism from the beginning.”

    You’re not just stupid, you’re completely oblviious of the caliber of intellect of those to whom you lecture, here*.

    To be totally honest, asswipe, when I read one of your comments a few days ago, I thought, “Well, there’s a guy who’s just a LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETLE bit out of touch with reality. I see with your latest comments that you’re just another garden variety homophobic piece-of-shit. What the world needs, desperately, is for KKKonservative KKKlown asshats like yourself to go to some fucking authoritarian paradise where you can be happy and leave decent people the fuck alone.

    * Just so we’re clear, you fascist fuck, I’m not one of those folks. I just like twisting the tails of pompous twits–that would be you and others who hold similar moronic ideas in their microchephalic squashes.

  29. 29
    Michael Heath

    jonathangray:

    Assuming you’re referring to the USA, I don’t follow the political situation there closely, although I would describe both Democrats and Republicans as essentially liberal.

    What country are you writing from? What political compass are you using that describes our Republicans as liberals?

  30. 30
    paulg

    @jonathangray You know what group doesn’t molest little boys? Sexually healthy out gay men. But given your use of quotation marks around the word “gay”, I’m sure you don’t think that group exists. And if that’s the case, you’re not even worth talking to and I’ll stop feeding you after this.

    My comment, the hyperbole of which I meant to tamp down by acknowledging the existence of good priests, was meant to encompass 1) craven closeted gays that are drawn to the cloth because of the cover of “institutionalized celibacy”, 2) perverts, for the same reason plus the ability to abuse those who trust them, and 3) those “good liberals”, as you put it, who would do anything to save the reputation of their church and authority. Celibacy exacerbates the problems of the first two, the third is using evil means to accomplish what they consider a greater good. And should be destroyed.

    You casually mention secular scandals as a counter to celibacy, but you’re mistaken. If married men are molesting boys, it’s obviously because they aren’t sexually satisfied with their partners. So if they were allowed to marry other men, and didn’t feel the societal need to hide, there would be fewer of these scandals (can’t say there’d be none, because there are genuine pedophiles out there who may never be able to have their needs met by anyone else. In that case repression is the only possibility and we need to find good ways of dealing with it honestly…therapy, harsh penalties, etc.)

    I get the feeling that any political party not endorsing death/incarceration for homosexuality is “liberal”. Am I wrong?

  31. 31
    jonathangray

    sic1:

    Citation?

    La Wik:

    Around the time of the Second Vatican Council, some dioceses disobeyed and allowed girls in the lay ministry of altar servers. For example, this practice started as early as 1965 in Germany. The Vatican sought to put an end to such experimentation with the 1970 instruction Liturgicae instaurationes, and affirmed that only males could serve the priest at the altar. However, the practice nonetheless continued in some places, and the Vatican reaffirmed the prohibition against female altar servers in the 1980 instruction Inaestimabile donum.
    With the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, some argued that this reservation to males no longer held, based on the inclusion of both males and females in canon 230 §2: “Lay persons can fulfil the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law.” In some dioceses, females were allowed to act as altar servers under the “new canon law”, without any explicit clarification on the matter from the Holy See.
    The clarification came in the form of a circular letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to presidents of episcopal conferences on 15 March 1994, which announced a 30 June 1992 authentic interpretation (confirmed on 11 July 1992 by Blessed Pope John Paul II) from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. This authentic interpretation said that canon 230 §2 states that service at the altar is one of the liturgical functions that can be performed by both lay men and women. …
    Pope Benedict XVI has had female altar servers in Papal masses in London (2010), Berlin and Freiburg (2011). Today only one Roman Catholic diocese in America, the diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska does not permit female altar servers

    Mr. Gray’s definition of liberal is anyone to the left of Rick Santorum General Franco.

    Fixed.

    democommie:

    What the world needs, desperately, is for KKKonservative KKKlown asshats like yourself to go to some fucking authoritarian paradise where you can be happy and leave decent people the fuck alone.

    If at first you don’t secede …

    Michael Heath:

    What country are you writing from?

    UK.

    What political compass are you using that describes our Republicans as liberals?

    Counterrevolutionary.

    paulg:

    You know what group doesn’t molest little boys? Sexually healthy out gay men.

    What do you mean by “little”? Do you accept there’s a significant difference between paedophilia and ephebophilia — between molesting small children and lusting after adolescents?

    Is it unjust to categorize pederasty as a form of homosexuality? Certainly it would be grotesque to suggest that all male homosexuals are pederasts, let alone that all adults who lust after teenagers are male homosexuals. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the fact that a number of high-profile gay men have defended or spoken favourably of pederasty — for example, Edmund White, Michel Foucault, Joe Orton, Stephen Fry and Peter Tatchell. Or the fact that pederastic themes are prominent in the work of gay novelist William Burroughs and gay illustrator Oliver Frey. Or the fact that NAMBLA emerged from the gay subculture and was supported by the gay subculture until it became too hot to handle.

    Here’s a 1997 letter to the Guardian newspaper penned by Tatchell, a leading UK gay rights activist:

    Ros Coward (Why Dares to Speak says nothing useful, June 23) thinks it is “shocking” that Gay Men’s Press has published a book, Dares To Speak, which challenges the assumption that all sex involving children and adults is abusive. I think it is courageous.
    The distinguished psychologists and anthropologists cited in this book deserve to be heard. Offering a rational, informed perspective on sexual relations between younger and older people, they document examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal, beneficial and enjoyable by old and young alike.
    Prof Gilbert Herdt points to the Sambia tribe of Papua New Guinea, where all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood. Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says the boys grow up to be happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers.
    The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
    While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.

    Note that Who Dares to Speak was published by the Gay Men’s Press, not the Paedophile Press.

    I repeat: I’m NOT suggesting that all homosexual men are pederasts, just that it is not unreasonable to regard pederasty as a subset of homosexuality with a definite niche in homosexual culture. And this might not be entirely irrelevant to a consideration of clerical sex abuse.

    You casually mention secular scandals as a counter to celibacy, but you’re mistaken. If married men are molesting boys, it’s obviously because they aren’t sexually satisfied with their partners. So if they were allowed to marry other men, and didn’t feel the societal need to hide, there would be fewer of these scandals

    You can’t just assume that they’re going after boys faute de mieux.

    I get the feeling that any political party not endorsing death/incarceration for homosexuality is “liberal”. Am I wrong?

    Yes. I don’t advocate persecution and don’t believe the state has any business policing what goes on in people’s bedrooms. I do believe it has an interest in disallowing the public normalisation and promotion of homosexuality.

  32. 32
    dingojack

    Jonathan – there are very few studies that have been done on homosexuality and paedophilia, of the few that have been conducted (with self-reporting, small sample sizes and imprecise definitions) have overwhelmingly suggested that paedophiles are very, very rarely gay men. This would imply that sex per se is not the primary motive – it’s power that is the most likely driver.
    Dingo
    ——–
    I think you meant to emphasise ‘boys’ when you where responding to paulg. The victims’ dimensions relative to the norm are hardly the issue I would have thought, rather the issue is their age.

  33. 33
    dingojack

    “I do believe it has an interest in disallowing the public normalisation and promotion of homosexuality”

    Really? How surprising.
    And what, pray tell, would the states’ compelling interest be?*
    Dingo
    ——-
    * remembering that: “.[I] don’t believe the state has any business policing what goes on in people’s bedrooms”.

  34. 34
    slc1

    Re Jonathan Gray @ #31

    Mr. Gray’s statement that anyone to the left of the late and unlamented fascist dictator of Spain, Francisco Franco, is a liberal tells us all we wish to know about him. He’s a fascist goat fucker. It is to be noted that the Phalangist regime in Spain didn’t survive long after Franco’s demise.

    Mr. Gray’s quoted article on altar girls neglects to inform us that the presence of altar girls is a rather recent development and, for the most part, has occurred after many, if not most of the scandals with alter boys came to light. Since then, the Raping Children Church, at least in the US, has tightened up its surveillance of its priests in response to the scandal, legal ramifications of which have nearly bankrupted several parishes, so that opportunities for child abuse have become much less common.

    By the way, the occurrences of child abuse scandals is hardly confined to the Raping Children Church. A number of fundamentalist Protestant churches and Hasidim Jewish synagogs in the US have also been shown to be involved in such activities.

  35. 35
    slc1

    Re dingojack @ #32

    I would note the recent scandal that occurred at Penn State Un., involving the abuse of underage boys by Jerry Sandusky. There is not a jot or a tittle of evidence that Mr. Sandusky is gay. I would argue that, if he had had the same access to underage girls instead of underage boys, he would have happily abused them, although, I suspect that he wouldn’t have got away with it for the same length of time and that Mr. Paterno & Co. would have been rather less blase’ then they were when it was boys.

  36. 36
    dingojack

    SLC – or maybe not. I bet the line would have been either ‘they were asking for it”, ‘they tempted the coach into it’ or ‘they’re trying to get the coach in to trouble’.
    The kid’s parents would have had the school’s lawyer give them the ol’: ‘so Mr and Mrs X your daughter is either a slut, temptress or liar, you sure you wanna goto court over this? Here’s $50,000 just sign this waiver here, here and here Let’s deal with this internally with the minimum of fuss and publicity.’.
    :/ Dingo

  37. 37
    jonathangray

    dingojack:

    there are very few studies that have been done on homosexuality and paedophilia, of the few that have been conducted (with self-reporting, small sample sizes and imprecise definitions) have overwhelmingly suggested that paedophiles are very, very rarely gay men. This would imply that sex per se is not the primary motive – it’s power that is the most likely driver.

    I have no quarrel with any of that. Like I keep saying, my argument is not that homosexuality has any affinity with paedophilia. My argument is that same-sex ephebophilia (aka pederasty when it’s male/male) is a type of homosexuality.

    Now it might seem unfair to specifically classify pederasts as homosexuals, given that one doesn’t ordinarily refer to men who sexually lust after teenage girls as “heterosexuals”. On the other hand, given that the overwhelming majority of the clerical sex abuse cases do seem — again, correct me if I’m wrong — to involve men abusing teenage boys, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to point out this homosexual “over-representation”.

    I think you meant to emphasise ‘boys’ when you where responding to paulg. The victims’ dimensions relative to the norm are hardly the issue I would have thought, rather the issue is their age.

    Yes, I meant “little” to signify age (ie prepubescent) rather than size, since male adolescents are still called boys.

    And what, pray tell, would the states’ compelling interest be?

    The desire to avoid the promotion of lifestyles that have a socially corrosive effect.

    slc1:

    Mr. Gray’s statement that anyone to the left of the late and unlamented fascist dictator of Spain, Francisco Franco, is a liberal tells us all we wish to know about him. He’s a fascist goat fucker. It is to be noted that the Phalangist regime in Spain didn’t survive long after Franco’s demise.

    There was no such thing as a “Phalangist (sic) regime in Spain”. The Falange (which could at a stretch be called “fascist”) was just one of the elements that made up Franco’s coalition. Me, I much prefer the Carlists.

    Mr. Gray’s quoted article on altar girls neglects to inform us that the presence of altar girls is a rather recent development and, for the most part, has occurred after many, if not most of the scandals with alter boys came to light.

    No, the article says altar girls began to make an appearance in the 1960s & 70s and became established in the 80s.

    By the way, the occurrences of child abuse scandals is hardly confined to the Raping Children Church. A number of fundamentalist Protestant churches and Hasidim Jewish synagogs in the US have also been shown to be involved in such activities.

    Not to mention secular liberal institutions like the BBC, UK social services and state schools in the US …

    I would note the recent scandal that occurred at Penn State Un., involving the abuse of underage boys by Jerry Sandusky. There is not a jot or a tittle of evidence that Mr. Sandusky is gay.

    Indeed. Because (as far I can gather) his victims were pre-adolescent, making him a true paedophile.

  38. 38
    paulg

    ” I do believe it has an interest in disallowing the public normalisation and promotion of homosexuality.”

    Be more specific. The only way it could do that without punishment would be through demonization and non-equal treatment. That’s still in an area where peaceful coexistence is not possible. Healthy homosexuality is no more corrosive than healthy heterosexuality. Demonization of natural sexual impulses kills kids.

    I do of course accept that there’s a difference between lusting after children and lusting after teens. Reaching puberty used to mean a hell of a lot more historically than it does now. Nothing magical happens at the age of 18, and there can be debates where we set the line, but we have the line because of mountains of historical evidence of exploitation. (I suppose it’s the same reason I’m against legalizing polygamy…it’s possible to have healthy polygamous relationships, but they aren’t the norm.)

    The only one in your list of kid-fucking proponents I’ve heard of is Peter Tatchell, and he’s barely ever on my radar (probably because I’m not a Brit). Ask 99% of modern gay leaders today, and ask your average gay guy, and you’ll find they have the attitude I do. I don’t accept your appeal to historical authority. As to Tatchell’s argument, while it may be logically possible to have unharmful sexual contact with children (his anecdotes confirm it), most accounts we hear are of forceful, warping experiences. I’d debate him on that issue whole-heartedly.

    The bottom line is that homosexuality and pedophilia are two different issues to be handled in completely separate ways. You simply seek to demonize one by using the other.

  39. 39
    slc1

    Re Johnathan gray @ #37

    There was no such thing as a “Phalangist (sic) regime in Spain”. The Falange (which could at a stretch be called “fascist”) was just one of the elements that made up Franco’s coalition. Me, I much prefer the Carlists.

    Ah gee, fuckface Gray makes an issue out of Phalange and Falange. As far as I am concerned , they are two different spellings of the same word. And Franco’s regime is considered fascist by most historians. The only reason he didn’t enter the war on the side of Nazi Germany (which was responsible for putting him in power in the first place) was that he was convinced by Abwher head, Admiral Canaris, that Germany was going to lose the war and that he best remain neutral if he expected to remain in power after the war was over. That whole scenario was rather interesting as Frankenberger had sent Canaris to Madrid to convince Franco to allow elements of the Wehrmacht to cross Spanish territory to attack Gibralter and close the Mediterranean to British and American warships. Franco was inclined to go along with Germany until Canaris talked him out of it. Canaris subsequently returned to Germany and lied to Frankenberger that he gave it his best shot but Franco could not be moved. Eventually, Frankenberger got wise that Canaris was not his best friend and had him hung with piano wire.

  40. 40
    slc1

    Incidentally, I wonder what Mr. Gray thinks about the pending British Government recognition of same sex marriage?

  41. 41
    dingojack

    ” My argument is that same-sex ephebophilia (aka pederasty when it’s male/male) is a type of homosexuality”.

    The evidence, thin though it is, does not support this. Unless you have evidence to contrary?

    Dingo.

  42. 42
    jonathangray

    dingojack:

    The evidence, thin though it is, does not support this. Unless you have evidence to contrary?

    What I said above: … one cannot ignore the fact that a number of high-profile gay men have defended or spoken favourably of pederasty — for example, Edmund White, Michel Foucault, Joe Orton, Stephen Fry and Peter Tatchell. Or the fact that pederastic themes are prominent in the work of gay novelist William Burroughs and gay illustrator Oliver Frey. Or the fact that NAMBLA emerged from the gay subculture and was supported by the gay subculture until it became too hot to handle….

    slc1:

    I wonder what Mr. Gray thinks about the pending British Government recognition of same sex marriage?

    I think it’ll be fun to watch when the liberal project of normalising homosex collides with the liberal project of allowing large & assertive Muslim communities to take root in the UK. There have already been some signs of how it’ll play out:

    Two primary schools have withdrawn storybooks about same-sex relationships after objections from Muslim parents. Up to 90 gathered at the schools to complain about the books which are aimed at pupils as young as five.
    One story, titled King & King, is a fairytale about a prince who turns down three princesses before marrying one of their brothers. Another named And Tango Makes Three features two male penguins who fall in love at a New York zoo.
    Bristol City Council said the two schools had been using the books to ensure they complied with gay rights laws which came into force last April. They were intended to help prevent homophobic bullying, it said.
    But the council has since removed the books from Easton Primary School and Bannerman Road Community School, both in Bristol. A book and DVD titled That’s a Family!, which teaches children about different family set-ups including gay or lesbian parents, has also been withdrawn.
    The decision was made to enable the schools to “operate safely” after parents voiced their concerns at meetings.
    Around 40 are said to have gathered at Easton to speak to staff and another 50 at Bannerman Road.
    Members of the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society said parents were upset at the lack of consultation over the use of the materials. …
    A spokesman for Bristol City Council said: “All Bristol schools have a legal duty to report and deal with homophobic harassment as part of the curriculum since April 2007.”
    She said the council had “temporarily withdrawn” the use of the materials in question and was liaising with various groups to “ensure that the topic can be addressed in an inclusive manner in the curriculum”.
    Ben Summerskills of gay rights group Stonewall said: “The small number of parents who make a fuss will cause children to think there is something wrong.”

    Police have issued an appeal after a man was subjected to a stream of homophobic abuse in the street by a Muslim patrol for contravening strict Sharia law.
    Scotland Yard is investigating a video clip uploaded to YouTube in which a man calls a fellow pedestrian “a fag” and is asked to leave the area. During the clip which was filmed by the attacker at night, the passer-by, who is carrying a shoulder bag, is seemingly targeted because of the shoes he is wearing.
    “Don’t you know this is a Muslim area?” the victim is asked by the Muslim patrol. He is then asked three times “what’s wrong with your face. Why are you dressed like that?”
    The Muslim patrol then tells the man he has to leave. “Get out of here, you’re walking through a Muslim area dressed like a fag mate. You need to get out of here. Look at your shoes, you’re dirty. You bloody fag. Don’t stay here no more. Look at you, you mug.”
    During the exchange, an accomplice’s voice can be heard repeating “homosexual.”
    Muslim patrols on London streets have made headlines around the world, after a slew of shocking videos emerged of young men harassing pedestrians in the east of the city by claiming Sharia law was in force.
    Radical preacher Anjem Choudary has defended members of a patrol in Whitechapel, who triggered online outrage after being arrested for assault and grievous bodily harm. Choudary told IBTimes UK: “There is a clash between Islam and liberal democracy in hotspots areas of London.”

    Last autumn, mysterious posters began to appear all over the East End of London announcing it is now a “Gay-Free Zone.” They warned: “And Fear Allah: Verily Allah is Severe in Punishment.” One of them was plastered outside the apartment block I lived in for nearly ten years, next to adverts for club nights and classes at the local library, as if it was natural and normal. I’d like to say I’m shocked – but anybody who lives there knows this has been a long time coming.
    Here’s a few portents from the East End that we have chosen to ignore. In May 2008, a 15 year old Muslim girl tells her teacher she thinks she might be gay, and the Muslim teacher in a state-funded comprehensive tells her “there are no gays round here” and she will “burn in hell” if she ever acts on it. (I know because she emailed me, suicidal and begging for help). In September 2008, a young gay man called Oliver Hemsley, is walking home from the gay pub the George and Dragon when a gang of young Muslims stabs him eight times, in the back, in the lungs, and in his spinal column. In January 2010, when the thug who did it is convicted, a gang of thirty Muslims storms the George and Dragon in revenge and violently attacks everybody there. All through, it was normal to see young men handing out leaflets outside the Whitechapel Ideas Store saying gays are “evil.” Most people accept them politely.
    These are not isolated incidents. East London has seen the highest increase in homophobic attacks anywhere in Britain, and some of the worst in Europe. Everybody knows why, and nobody wants to say it. It is because East London has the highest Muslim population in Britain, and we have allowed a fanatically intolerant attitude towards gay people to incubate there, in the name of “tolerance”. The most detailed opinion survey of British Muslims was carried out by Gallup, who correctly predicted the result of the last general election. In their extensive polling, they found literally no British Muslims who would say homosexuality is “morally acceptable.” Every one of the Muslims they polled objected to it. Even more worryingly, younger Muslims had more stridently anti-gay views than older Muslims.

    The joys of diversity, eh?

  43. 43
    Raging Bee

    Here’s a few portents from the East End that we have chosen to ignore…

    Who is this “we” who have allegedly “chosen” to ignore such incidents? The article is not very specific about this — just as gray isn’t all that specific about where the article came from.

    Oh, and homosexuality is an orientation, not a “lifestyle.” If you can’t understand the difference, then you’re not intelligent enough to talk about such subjects, and your credibility is approximately zero.

  44. 44
    dingojack

    Jonny – Could you at least have the decency to cry ‘Hi Ho Silver, awaaaaay!!’ at the beginning of your Gish Gallop?
    Dingo

  45. 45
    Raging Bee

    I don’t follow the political situation there closely, although I would describe both Democrats and Republicans as essentially liberal…

    In other words, gray has no fucking clue what he’s talking about, and is too lazy to do even the most basic research before spouting his tired-ass bigotry over and over.

  46. 46
    Raging Bee

    The only reason he didn’t enter the war on the side of Nazi Germany (which was responsible for putting him in power in the first place) was that he was convinced by Abwher head, Admiral Canaris, that Germany was going to lose the war and that he best remain neutral if he expected to remain in power after the war was over.

    First, I find it hard to believe, either that a German official would have said such a thing to a foreign head of state, or that said head of state would take it as credible advice. And second, the story I heard was that Franco kept Spain neutral simply because protecting Spain was his first priority, and it probably didn’t make sense to get into a foreign war when he was still dealing with a civil war. Franco was more sensible than Mussolini, and didn’t seem to have any idiotic dreams of imperial glory. (Besides, he would have needed a whole new OCEAN-SPANNING NAVY to restore his country’s empire, and I don’t think Spain had the budget for that.)

    It is to be noted that the Phalangist regime in Spain didn’t survive long after Franco’s demise.

    It didn’t survive AT ALL after Franco died — his successors almost immediately got to work restoring power to an elected civilian regime. And, in fairness to Franco, I believe that was Franco’s stated intent from day one.

  47. 47
    Raging Bee

    One more thing, gray: have you ever heard of a country called “Ireland?” Can you tell us what continent it’s considered a part of? Here’s a few hints: unlike the USA, it was a virtual Catholic theocracy until very recently, and was nowhere near as tolerant of gays as the US — and yet they too had a huge scandal of child-raping priests and official coverups, with no “liberals normalizing homosex” to blame for it.

    And in fact, gray, if you really cared enough to read even a few good newspapers, you’d know damn well that the sexual abuse of kids by elders in authority is WORSE, not better, in places where there is virtually zero tolerance of homosexuality.

    Your “gay = pedophile” rhetoric is as uninformed as it is lame and recycled.

  48. 48
    slc1

    Re Raging Bee @ #45

    Mr. Bee forgets that fuckface Gray considers anyone to the left of Franco to be a liberal.

    Re Raging Bee @ #46

    The case of Admiral Canaris is rather interesting. He played a very subtle double game, appearing to be a loyal Frankenberger supporter while head of the Abwehr while at the same time undermining him when he found an opportunity. I have read that, at one time, he came to suspect that the German Enigma Machine had been compromised but failed to inform Frankenberger of his suspicions, thus allowing the allies to continue gathering intelligence, particularly on German Uboat concentrations and positions. This was invaluable intelligence during the Battle of the Atlantic. It is my understanding that there were a number of other occasions on which he deliberately fed Frankenberger with inaccurate intelligence information, particularly before and during to Operation Overlord (he apparently reinforced Frankenberger’s notion that the Normandy invasion was a feint and the the real invasion would occur at Pas de Calais; this was responsible for Frankenberger holding several Panzer divisions at Pas de Calais instead or releasing them to reinforce the defenses at Normandy). Of course, eventually, his activities were uncovered and he was arrested and hanged with piano wire shortly before the end of the war in 1945. I don’t recall where I rad about the Canaris visit to Franco, which occurred early in 1943 but I think that it is generally accepted as accurate. By the way, after Canaris returned and informed Frankenberger of Franco’s position, Frankenberger bitterly complained about the ingratitude of Franco, who he had strongly supported during the Spanish Civil War. Sans German support for Franco, the Republicans would have won the Spanish War.

    And, in fairness to Franco, I believe that was Franco’s stated intent from day one.

    That’s not my understanding. It is my information that Franco deliberately bypassed the current king’s father in favor of the son because he felt that the father was too liberal. He had honed the son with a carefully designed brainwashing procedure, which, fortunately, didn’t take. Juan Carlos turned out to be every bit as liberal as his father.

  49. 49
    Raging Bee

    I don’t recall where I rad about the Canaris visit to Franco, which occurred early in 1943 but I think that it is generally accepted as accurate…

    That would not explain why Franco kept Spain out of WW-II BEFORE that visit. I think a more sensible explanation would be that Franco himself decided that Spain simply had too litle to gain by joining the Axis. If the Axis lost, Spain would be screwed. But if the Axis won, Spain would get…what? Mexico? A piece of France? England? Revenge over that whole Armada thing? What Franco needed most was to defeat the Republicans and restore order in Spain — nothing else could have been as important to him as that. Once he had done that, he could tell Hitler to fuck off, he wouldn’t let the Allies use Spain to attack Germany, what more did Hitler expect?

  50. 50
    slc1

    Re Raging Bee @ #49

    The issue wasn’t so much about Spain actually contributing Spanish military assets, which didn’t amount to much in any case, to the German war effort but, instead, allowing the transit of German Wehrmacht units to attack Gibraltar from the rear. and thus close off the Mediterranean to allied warships. Frankenberger was putting extreme pressure on Franco to allow said transit and there was certainly a possibility that he would do it whether or not Franco approved. Fortunately for Franco, the German armed forces were too heavily engaged in the former Soviet Union and North Africa to spare the required troops for the effort.

  51. 51
    Raging Bee

    …but, instead, allowing the transit of German Wehrmacht units to attack Gibraltar from the rear.

    I don’t doubt that; but the question remains, what could Franco have expected to get for Spain in return?

  52. 52
    slc1

    Re Raging Bee @ #51

    A good question. I suspect that he would have expected to have Gibraltar returned to Spain after the German victory in the war. Even a we sit here today, Gibraltar is still under British control.

  53. 53
    dingojack

    Anyway – reiterating mine #33:

    [jonathangrey said;]
    “I do believe it has an interest in disallowing the public normalisation and promotion of homosexuality”

    [To which I replied:]
    Really? How surprising.
    And what, pray tell, would the states’ compelling interest be?* [emphasis mine]
    Dingo
    ——-
    * remembering that: “.[I] don’t believe the state has any business policing what goes on in people’s bedrooms”.

  54. 54
    paulg

    @53 not only that, I’m still interested in the specifics. I want to know exactly how he wants his goals of a gay-demonizing, gay teen killing society accomplished. He likes to mask his hate and contempt behind carefully crafted words. Let’s get specific.

  55. 55
    Raging Bee

    slc1: Hitler had already broken one alliance with the USSR, back in 1941. So why should Franco have trusted him to keep any promises he might have made to a much smaller and weaker country like Spain? Once any part of Spanish soil was under German boots (either Gibraltar or any part of the land enroute), how would Franco have got it back from their control?

    Do you have any literature describing how Franco felt about Hitler as a statesman/potential bargaining partner?

  56. 56
    Raging Bee

    He likes to mask his hate and contempt behind carefully crafted words. Let’s get specific.

    That IS his specific policy. Disguise the hate, and the hate will do the rest.

  57. 57
    slc1

    Re Raging Bee @ #55

    Oh, but the former Soviet Union was the work of the devil and his disciple, Joe Stalin. The Ribbentrop/Molotov pact was strictly a marriage of convenience. Frankenberger was operating under the assumption that Stalin would eventually throw the agreement under the bus and attack Germany so he was merely anticipating the eventual showdown. Frankenberger kept the promises he made to his good buddy Mussolini, and Franco, like Mussolini, was a fellow fascist who, he, had effectively place in power in Spain.

    Frankenberger was quite wrong as Stalin had not a thought in his head of attacking Germany and even rejected British intelligence, obtained via Enigma intercepts, that Germany was about to launch operation Barbarossa.

  58. 58
    slc1

    Re Raging Bee @ #57

    By the way, there was the precedent of Sweden, which allowed German units to pass through that country as part of its offensive against Norway. Germany did not occupy Sweden and withdrew all forces from that country after the successful conquest of Norway.

  59. 59
    John Morales

    slc1:

    Unfortunately, the statute of limitations has probably run out on most of these crimes.

    Not here in Oz: 83yo priest charged with child sex offences:

    Officers say the priest sexually abused two teenage boys at a Newcastle school more than 50 years ago.

    The priest was arrested at Penrith in Sydney’s west and charged with eight counts of indecent assault with a child under 16 years.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site