No statement is too extreme for Nick Kristof:
Maybe the Catholic Church should be turned upside down.
Jesus wasn’t known for pontificating from palaces, covering up scandals, or issuing Paleolithic edicts on social issues. Does anyone think he would have protected clergymen who raped children?
Nobody is protecting clergymen who raped children. Except for the New York Times, who has used the Milwaukee case to shift blame from their beloved liberal, gay bishop Weakland to the Pope. Weakland had one of the very worst records on child abuse, calling victims “squealers”, and saying that it was the victims fault, because those teenagers were awfully “aggressive” sexually. Oh, and when teachers tried to report abuse to him, he threatened them with lawsuits. Only 20 years after it happened did he alert the Vatican to the facts of Father Murphy’s case, and only then because the deaf community was pushing him to do it. He had almost 20 years to do something, and did nothing.
Yet the Times tells you none of this. Instead, they make Weakland the hero. And pretend the church was trying to “protect” an abusive priest because they decided that since he was dying, there was little chance a long defrocking trial could be completed before he died, they suggested other, quicker measures be taken to punish him.
That’s it; that’s the whole basis upon which Nick Kristof says that the church protects child abusers. Of course, he does not tell you that all of the cases he talks about took place in the 1970’s; that would lessen the impact. Of course, he does not tell you that there were only six credible cases of abuse last year in the American church; that would blow their cover. They want you to think that this is still a huge problem. All of the actions they criticize took place about 15 years ago, at least, probably more.
But wait; who really protects child abusers? Look at who was championing Roman Polanski. You will find his protectors are the very ones most upset about the Catholic church, which tells you they are not upset about the abuse, they are attempting to go after the church.
But they have to attack the church. Otherwise, you would find out that all of the homosexual attacks on children are just that – caused by a Catholic priesthood that was allowed to become 30-50% homosexual, at least according to Donald Cozzens. His book claimed that this new homosexual culture was driving all the heterosexual priests out of the priesthood. And take a look at Michael Rose’s book Good Bye Good Men.
And the John Jay College study found:
The incidence of sexual molestation of a minor under eleven years of age did not vary as greatly throughout the period as did the molestation of older children. In addition, the incidence of abuse of females did not change as dramatically as did the incidence of the abuse of males. There was, however, a more than six-fold increase in the number of reported acts of abuse of males aged eleven to seventeen between the 1950s and the 1970s.
So, what is one to think? An increase in the homosexual nature of the priesthood, and then suddenly there is an increase in the number of attacks on teenage boys. Suddenly, a lavendar mafia is formed within the church that acts to protect abusers.
Richard Berke, then a reporter at the Times, said in 2000 that 3 of the 4 people who decided what went on the front page of the Times were gay. Berke is now the National Editor at the Times. Their main political reporter, Adam Nagourney, is gay. Their White House correspondent, Jeff Zeleny, is gay. Of course, there are many more, both openly gay and not.
Which is fine with me. More power to them. But when the Times suddenly omits to mention the sordid records of gay archbishops, and then tries to paint them as heroes in the war against child abuse, what is one to think?
Which paper basically praises gay archbishop Weakland, and omits all his most odious acts from their review of his book? Why, it is the New York Times.
Which paper tries to blame the Pope for all of Weakland’s problems? Why, it is the New York Times.
This is not to say the Vatican has been perfect, or has acted appropriately in all these cases. They made lots of mistakes, and should have understood the nature of the scandals. But the nature of their actions has been one of confusion and misunderstanding, rather than actively protecting child abusers, as Kristof sickly says. If anyone was protecting the abusers, it was the New York Times’ favorite gay and liberal bishops. No need to make strained and weird interpretations of Vatican documents. The real protectors are right there in front of them. Somehow, they do not see them.
A series of scandals breaks out in Europe, threatening to expose the highly homosexual nature of the priesthood there. What is to be done? Well, how about if the papers shift to attacking the Pope, who everyone agrees has done more to get rid of the abusers than anyone else? Ah, That’s the ticket. That’ll burn up the news cycle, and by the time we’re done with him, they’ll be ready to run him out of town.
Meanwhile, the real abusers can sneak away, relatively free of public scrutiny.
And there are other aspects to this little war on the Pope as well. For example, the Vatican has taken strong measures to remove “gay cabals” in certain dioceses; this type of action is probably going on all over the country, and if you were a New York Times person, I suppose you would think it was high time to slime the Pope:
…the sudden retirement [of Bishop Favarol in Miami] is almost certainly the consequence of a document that his group submitted to the Vatican in 2006. That document was “an exhaustive report (hundreds of pages of text, documentation, and eye witness accounts) detailing and documenting” what he calls a “culture of sodomy and theological heterodoxy” on the part of as many as a majority of priests of the Miami Archdiocese.
Guinta reports that Sharon Baroussa, an attorney and a member of Christifidelis, represented a priest, Rev. Andrew Dowgiert, in a lawsuit filed against the archdiocese in 2005. “Fr. Dowgiert, on loan from a Polish archdiocese and soon to be incardinated in Miami, alleged that he was ‘fired’ from active ministry in the Miami Archdiocese after whistle-blowing on homosexual activity by several pastors of the Archdiocese,” he says.
That lawsuit served as the launchpad for the investigations during which Christifidelis gathered the information that it included in its lengthy report submitted to the Vatican.
Guinta says that after the group submitted its report on the alleged corruption in the Miami archdiocese, Baroussa, “was contacted by a Vatican monsignor, who met with her in person and assured her that the Holy See would be investigating each and every one of the allegations presented in the report.” He adds that in the fall of 2006, “this monsignor contacted her again, informing her that our allegations had all been vindicated, and that Rome was going to act on the report.”
I suspect the same type of thing is happening in Los Angeles, where the Pope just replaced Mahony with the conservative Jose Gomez – something to make liberals hopping mad. So, suddenly, the Pope is painted as a child abuser in the pages of the New York times.
This Pope has also issued a letter that sharply restricts the acceptance of gay men in to the clergy.
So, I think we can see what is really going on here. The Pope is removing liberal, perhaps even gay bishops. All over the country, a profession that some thought was going to be completely in the hands of gays is now being inexorably returned to the hands of traditional Catholics. The New York Times is a pro-gay paper, to say the least. The Times has a longstanding record of hating the traditional positions of the Catholic church. The real world agrees that the Pope has done more than anyone to remove abusers from the church. Yet, in the pages of the Times, documents are misinterpreted, tortured, and facts left out to portray the Pope as a child abuse protector.
You figure it out.