Goebbels and the pedophile priests operation

In 1937 the Nazi propaganda minister organized a campaign to discredit the Catholic Church in response to the encyclical ‘Mit brennender Sorge.’ The head of the German military’s counter-espionage unit, Wilhelm Canaris, passed the documents to Pius XII.

By Massimo Introvigne

NCR translation

“There are cases of sexual abuse that come to light every day against a large number of members of the Catholic clergy. Unfortunately it’s not a matter of individual cases, but a collective moral crisis that perhaps the cultural history of humanity has never before known with such a frightening and disconcerting dimension. Numerous priests and religious have confessed. There’s no doubt that the thousands of cases which have come to the attention of the justice system represent only a small fraction of the true total, given that many molesters have been covered and hidden by the hierarchy.”

An editorial from a great secular newspaper in 2010? No: It’s a speech of May 28, 1937, by Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), Minister of Propaganda for the Third Reich. This speech, which had a large international echo, was the apex of a campaign launched by the Nazi regime to discredit the Catholic Church by involving it in a scandal of pedophile priests.

Two hundred and seventy-six religious and forty-nine diocesan priests were arrested in 1937. The arrests took place in all the German dioceses, in order to keep the scandals on the front pages of the newspapers.

On March 10, 1937, with the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI (1857-1939) condemned the Nazi ideology. At the end of the same month, the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda headed by Goebbels launched a campaign against the sexual abuses of priests. The design and administration of this campaign are known to historians thanks to documents which tell a story worthy of the best spy novels.

In 1937, the head of the counter-espionage service of the German military was Admiral Wilhelm Canaris (1887-1945). He became gradually anti-Nazi, and at the time was maturing the convictions which led him to organize the failed assassination attempt against Hitler in 1944, following which he was hanged in 1945. Canaris disapproved of Goebbels’ maneuver against the Church, and instructed a Catholic lawyer named Josef Müller (1878-1979) to carry to Rome a series of highly secret documents on the subject.

In different phases, Müller – before he was arrested and sent to the Dachau extermination camp, where he survived, and later became the post-war Minister of Justice in Bavaria – carried the secret documents to Pius XII (1876-1958), who asked the Society of Jesus to study them.

With the approval of the Secretary of State, the study of the Nazi plot against the Church was entrusted to the German Jesuit Walter Mariaux (1894-1963), who had inspired an anti-Nazi organization in Germany called “Pauluskreis.” He was later prudently sent as a missionary in Brazil and in Argentina. There, as leader of the Marian Congregation, he exercised his influence over an entire generation of lay Catholics, among whom was the noted Brazilian Catholic thinker Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira (1908-1995), who attended his group in São Paulo. In 1940, in London in English and in Argentina in Spanish, Mariaux published two volumes on anti-Catholic persecution by the Third Reich under the pseudonym “Testis Fidelis.” They contained over seven hundred pages of documents with comments, which aroused great emotion in the entire world.

The expression “moral panic” was only coined by sociologists in the 1970s to identify a social alarm created as a kind of art, accomplished by amplifying real facts and exaggerating their numbers through statistical folklore, as well as “discovering” and presenting as “new” events which in reality are already known and which date to the past. There are real events at the base of the panic, but their number is systematically distorted.

Even without the benefit of modern sociology, Goebbels responded to the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge in 1937 with a textbook case of the creation of a moral panic.

As always in moral panics, the facts are not totally invented. Prior to the encyclical there were some cases in Germany of abuse of minors. Mariaux himself considered a religious in the school of Bad Reichenall guilty, as well as a lay teacher, a gardener and a janitor, who were condemned in 1936, although he believed that the sanction imposed by the Ministry of Public Instruction in Bavaria – revoking the authorization to run scholastic institutes of four religious orders – to be entirely disproportionate, and he linked it to the desire of the regime to undercut Catholic schools. Also in the case of the Franciscans of Waldbreitbach, in Rhineland, Mariaux was open to the hypothesis that the accused were guilty, although later historians have not excluded the possibility that they were framed by the Nazis.

The cases, which were few, but real, produced a very strong reaction from the episcopate. On June 2, 1936, the Bishop of Münster – Blessed Clemens August von Galen (1878-1946), who was the soul of Catholic resistance to Nazism, and who was beatified in 2005 by Benedict XVI – had a declaration read at all the Sunday Masses in which he expressed “pain and sadness” for these “abominable crimes” that “cover our Holy Church with ignominy.” On August 20, 1936, after the events at Waldbreitbach, the German episcopate published a joint pastoral letter in which they “several condemned” those responsible and underlined the cooperation of the Church with the tribunals of the state.

By the end of 1936, the severe measures taken by the German bishops in reaction to these very few cases, some of which were doubtful, seemed to have resolved the real problems. Submissively, the bishops also pointed out that among teachers in the state schools and in the very youth organization of the regime, the Hitler Youth, the cases of condemnations for sexual abuses were much more numerous than among the Catholic clergy.

It was the anti-Nazi encyclical of Pius XI that led to the great campaign of 1937. Mariaux proved it publishing highly detailed instructions sent by Goebbels to the Gestapo, the political police of the Third Reich, and above all to journalists, just a few days after the publication of Mit brennender Sorge, inviting them to “reopen” the cases from 1936 and also older cases, constantly recalling them to public opinion. Goebbels also ordered the Gestapo to find witnesses willing to accuse a certain number of priests, threatening them with immediate arrest if they didn’t collaborate, even if they were children.

The proverbial phrase “there’s a judge in Berlin,” which in German tradition indicates trust in the independence of the court system from the political power of the moment, applied – within certain limits – even in the Third Reich. Of the 325 priests and religious arrested after the encyclical, only 21 were condemned, and it’s all but certain that among them some were falsely accused. Virtually all of them ended up in extermination camps, where many died.

The effort to discredit the Catholic Church on an international scale through accusations of immorality and pedophilia among priests, however, did not succeed.

Thanks to the courage of Canaris and his friends, and to the persistence of the Jesuit detective Mariaux, the truth was already out during the war. The perfidy of the campaign of Goebbels aroused more indignation than the eventual guilt of some religious. The father of all moral panics in the area of pedophile priests blew up in the hands of the Nazi propagandists who had tried to organize it.

Statistics from Brazil itself indicate a level of maternal mortality for girls ages 10-14 that is much lower than that of the general population

192,445 girls from 10 to 14 years old gave birth between 2000 and 2006 in Brazil

Although pro-abortion organizations and doctors often claim that pregnancies at an early age threaten the life of the mother, statistics from Brazil itself indicate a level of maternal mortality for girls ages 10-14 that is much lower than that of the general population.

Investigative report By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman, Latin America Correspondent
See Part I at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032018.html

RECIFE, BRAZIL, March 24, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - After learning that hospital staff at the Institute of Children's Medicine of Pernambuco (IMIP) were seeking to manipulate the parents of a pregnant nine year old to approve an abortion for their child, Fr. Edson Rodrigues says that officials at the IMIP sought to deny all access to the parents and child by the tutelary counselors (representatives of the local child protective services) and to Fr. Rodrigues himself.

However, following the father's exit from the facility, Fr. Rodrigues says that he and the two tutelary counselors were able to talk to him. The father, Erivaldo Francisco, said that he had been convinced of the necessity of an abortion by a social assistant named Karolina Rodrigues, a woman with no medical expertise. Despite headlines in the local newspaper claiming that he and the girl's mother were being guided by a team of medical experts at the hospital, he acknowledged that he had not spoken to a single doctor.

But what Francisco had been told was false. In fact, as the IMIP would later admit publicly, his daughter was in no danger at the time the abortion took place. Moreover, Brazil's own statistics reveal that pregnancies for girls 14 and under have a lower mortality rate than women as a whole.

According to statistics provided by the pro-abortion Grupo Curumim and derived from the Brazilian government's DATASUS/MS service, 192,445 girls from 10 to 14 years old gave birth between 2000 and 2006 in Brazil, while 105 died during pregnancy, birth, or having an abortion, that is, 55 out of 100,000 (http://grupocurumim.blogspot.com/2009/03/coletiva-sobre-caso-da-menina-de.html). Even if one were to assume that none of the deaths were caused by induced abortions, an unlikely assumption, this mortality rate is lower than the average maternal mortality rate for all ages in Brazil, which is 75 out of 100,000 (see http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/idb2007/c03.htm).

The rate may be lower because such cases, being relatively uncommon, receive special attention in Brazil. Hospitals monitor such pregnancies closely, and a cesarean section can be done to protect the child from the rigors of giving birth.

Dr. Elizabeth Kipman Cerqueira, a Brazilian obstetrician, said in a public statement on the case that "I don't know anyone who died because of the young age at which she was impregnated, if she received adequate accompaniment," and that she personally knows of cases of 10 year olds who gave birth and are in good health. She added that the abortion is likely to do serious damage to the girl psychologically, and noted that early labor could have been induced at some point after 22 weeks, rather than an abortion. The twins were already at over 20 week's gestation when they were killed.

Ironically, at the same time that the IMIP staff was seeking an abortion for their young Brazilian patient, a nine year old girl in Peru was giving birth successfully, becoming the youngest mother in Peru. She had been sexually abused by a relative, and would be receiving counseling and financial assistance from the Peruvian government, the AP reported (see article in Portuguese at http://noticias.uol.com.br/ultnot/afp/2006/12/02/ult34u169397.jhtm).

However, despite the lack of danger to the mother, pro-abortion physicians at the highest levels of the hospital were conspiring to bring about the death of her unborn twins. Vilma Guimares, the coordinator of IMIP's Center for Attention for Women, was publicly advocating an abortion as early as February 27, even though she admitted that she had never examined the girl. "In situations of pregnancies that carry risks for the mother it is better to interrupt the pregnancy," she told the Diario de Pernambuco newspaper. Based on such a standard, abortions could be justified in all pregnancies, because pregnancy always carries some degree of risk.

Fr. Rodigues notes that Vilma Guimares was one of only two people who had access to the mother and her daughter at IMIP, the other being the hospital's director, Antonio Figueiras. It is unknown if Guimares induced the child's mother to give consent to the abortion.

Following the events at the IMIP, Rodrigues and the tutelary counselors contacted Bishop Francisco Biasin of Pesqueira, the diocese in which the child resided, and explained the situation. Biasin in turn contacted Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife, where the IMIP was located. The two began to confer with attorneys and doctors to determine what they could do to save the unborn twins living inside the girl. During the period in which the controversy raged Archbishop Cardoso says he was working 15 hours a day on the case.

Cardoso held a meeting on the morning of March 3rd in the episcopal residence, attended by the director of the IMIP, Antonio Figueiras. After being informed of the manipulative behavior of hospital staff, Figueiras agreed to cancel plans to carry out an abortion on the twins at his facility.

In addition, the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife began legal proceedings to stop the abortion. On the afternoon of March 3, Figueiras and Erivaldo both appeared before the Tribunal of Justice of the State of Pernambuco, and the presiding judge reportedly expressed his desire to prevent the abortions from occurring. Erivaldo Francisco became convinced that he had made a mistake in consenting to the abortion, and signed a statement withdrawing permission for the procedure, which he delivered to the hospital. The hospital publicly acknowledged to the O Globo newspaper that permission to carry out the procedure had been withdrawn by Francisco.

However, in the interim, Archbishop Cardoso had received a call from Figueiras, Rodrigues reports. Members of a pro-abortion feminist organization, Grupo Curumim, had entered the hospital with two technicians from the Secretary of Health of the State of Pernambuco, and had convinced the mother to sign her daughter out of the hospital. Rodrigues says he was told that she then left, accompanied by the pro-abortion Vilma Guimares. The hospital would claim that it did not know where they had gone, and had no means of contacting Guimares.

Grupo Curumim, which agitates for the legalization of abortion in Brazil, is an organization funded by the international pro-abortion lobby, notes Alberto Monteiro, a prominent Brazilian pro-life activist.

"Grupo Curumim affirms that it is an organization whose work is financed by the IWHC, or International Woman's Health Coalition...the IWHC is a feminist entity and one of the biggest international promoters of clandestine abortions," writes Monteiro in an open email on the case. "The entity was practically funded by Adrianne German, a sociologist who before having founded the IWHC had worked for the Population Council of New York, one of the Rockefeller organizations that developed, in the 1950s, all of the work on population control and the promotion of abortion which we see today at the international level without knowing where these things come from. "

When asked by the newspaper O Globo about releasing the girl from the hospital, the newspaper reports that "the hospital argues that it was obligated to let her go, given that the child did not run the risk of death and that is the right of the child's guardian," thus admitting publicly that the child was not, in fact, in danger of death (see original article in Portuguese at http://oglobo.globo.com/pais/cidades/mat/2009/03/04/igreja-catolica-tenta-impedi...).

Arriving at the hospital with Francisco and a physician and psychologist sent by the Archdiocese, Rodrigues reports that after being made to wait, they were told that the child had been removed by her mother, and no one knew where they had gone. Rodrigues held a press conference denouncing the transfer.

The next day, March 4, the press revealed that the child had been taken to the Amaury de Medeiros Integral Health Center (Centro Integrado de Saúde Amaury de Medeiros, or CISAM) of the University of Pernambuco. There, the openly pro-abortion medical staff had aborted the twins.

Dr. Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque, who performed the abortions, stated openly that the case "showed that the question of abortion is a matter of public health in Brazil, and must be considered case-by-case. Restrictive laws do not improve public health, particularly women's health," in an interview with the BBC.

He also claimed in the same interview that "the religious laws were written by the clerics, and do not translate God's words exactly. That gave us peace of mind, and we recognized that the Catholic Church has made, and continues to make, mistakes, and especially with regard to women's rights in Brazil and the rest of the world. The Church is meddling inappropriately into these rights, which are internationally recognized human rights."

See Part III at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09032514.html

P. Lombardi: Carta de ex autoridad vaticana da razón a decisiones de 2001

VATICANO, 16 Abr. 10 / 10:31 am (ACI)

El Director de la Sala de Prensa de la Santa Sede, P. Federico Lombardi, declaró ayer por la tarde que la carta del entonces Prefecto para la Congregación para el Clero, Cardenal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, al Obispo de Bayeux-Lisieux (Francia), Mons. Pierre Pican, fechada el 8 de septiembre de 2001, constituye una de las razones que llevaron a modificar el trato que debía darse en la Iglesia a los casos de abuso sexual cometidos por miembros del clero.

Hasta antes de 2001, este tipo de casos no los trataba la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, sino la Congregación para el Clero, que presidía el Cardenal Castrillón. Además, no existía un criterio unificado entre los cardenales sobre cómo manejarlos, pues no había consenso en si se debía entregar a los sacerdotes a la justicia o si debían ser sometidos solo a tratamiento psiquiátrico.

En 2001 el entonces Cardenal Ratzinger unifica el criterio y exige a los obispos que presenten a los sacerdotes a las autoridades civiles.

Sobre la carta del Cardenal Castrillón al Obispo francés, el Director de la Sala de Prensa de la Santa Sede señaló ayer que: "este documento es una prueba más de cuanto fuera oportuna la unificación del tratamiento de los casos de abusos sexuales de menores por parte de miembros del clero bajo la competencia de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, para garantizar una actuación rigurosa y coherente, como efectivamente sucedió con los documentos aprobados por el Papa en 2001".

En la mencionada carta, el Cardenal Castrillón respaldó la decisión del Obispo de Bayeux-Lisieux de poner en tratamiento psiquiátrico al sacerdote en vez de ponerlo a disposición de las autoridades.

Actualmente el sacerdote cumple una condena de 18 años en prisión. Fue condenado en octubre del año 2000.

Entre las medidas tomadas en 2001 por el entonces Cardenal Ratzinger, ahora Papa Benedicto XVI, está el procedimiento para lidiar con los casos de abuso sexual que fue publicado por la Santa Sede el lunes 12 de abril. Para leerlo ingrese a: http://www.aciprensa.com/noticia.php?n=29133

Goebbels e l’operazione preti pedofili

di Massimo Introvigne

(Avvenire, 16 aprile 2010)

“Ci sono casi di abusi sessuali che vengono alla luce ogni giorno contro un gran numero di membri del clero cattolico. Purtroppo non si può più parlare di casi individuali ma di una crisi morale collettiva che forse la storia culturale dell’umanità non ha mai conosciuto in una dimensione così spaventosa e sconcertante. Numerosi sacerdoti e religiosi sono rei confessi. Non c’è dubbio che le migliaia di casi venuti a conoscenza della giustizia rappresentino solo una piccola frazione dell’ammontare autentico, dal momento che molti molestatori sono stati coperti e nascosti dalla gerarchia”. Un editoriale del New York Times del 2010? No: un discorso del 28 maggio 1937 di Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), ministro della propaganda del Terzo Reich. Questo discorso, di grande risonanza internazionale, si situa al culmine di una campagna lanciata dal regime nazista per screditare la Chiesa Cattolica coinvolgendola in uno scandalo di preti pedofili. 276 religiosi e 49 sacerdoti secolari sono arrestati nel 1937. Gli arresti si susseguono in tutte le diocesi tedesche, in modo da tenere gli scandali sempre sulla prima pagina dei giornali.

Il 10 marzo 1937 con l’enciclica Mit brennender Sorge papa Pio XI (1857-1939) condanna l’ideologia nazista. Alla fine dello stesso mese il Ministero della Propaganda guidato da Goebbels lancia la campagna contro gli abusi sessuali dei sacerdoti. La programmazione e la gestione di questa campagna è nota grazie a documenti la cui storia è all’altezza dei migliori romanzi di spionaggio. Nel 1937 il capo del servizio di controspionaggio militare tedesco è l’ammiraglio Wilhelm Canaris (1887-1945). È diventato gradualmente antinazista e sta maturando le convinzioni che lo porteranno a organizzare il fallito attentato a Hitler del 1944, in seguito al quale sarà impiccato nel 1945. Canaris disapprova le manovre di Goebbels contro la Chiesa e incarica l’avvocato cattolico Josef Müller (1878-1979) di portare a Roma una serie di documenti segretissimi sul tema. A diverse riprese Müller – prima di essere arrestato e internato nel campo di sterminio di Dachau, cui sopravvivrà diventando nel dopoguerra ministro della giustizia della Baviera – porta i documenti segreti a Pio XII (1876-1958), che chiede alla Compagnia di Gesù di studiarli.

Con l’approvazione della segreteria di Stato le indagini sul complotto nazista contro la Chiesa sono affidate al gesuita tedesco Walter Mariaux (1894-1963), che dopo avere animato in Germania l’organizzazione antinazista Pauluskreis è stato prudentemente inviato come missionario in Brasile e in Argentina. Qui come dirigente della Congregazione Mariana esercita la sua influenza su tutta una generazione di laici cattolici, tra cui il noto pensatore cattolico brasiliano Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira (1908-1995), che frequenta un suo gruppo a San Paolo. Mariaux pubblica nel 1940 a Londra in inglese e nel 1941 a Buenos Aires in spagnolo, con lo pseudonimo di “Testis Fidelis”, due volumi sulla persecuzione anti-cattolica nel Terzo Reich: oltre settecento pagine di documenti commentati, che suscitano una grande emozione in tutto il mondo.

L’espressione “panico morale” è stata coniata dai sociologi solo negli anni 1970 per identificare un allarme sociale creato ad arte amplificando fatti reali ed esagerandone il numero attraverso statistiche folkloriche, nonché “scoprendo” e presentando come “nuovi” avvenimenti in realtà già noti e risalenti nel tempo. Alla base ci sono eventi reali, ma è il loro numero che è sistematicamente distorto. Anche senza avere a disposizione la sociologia moderna, Goebbels risponde all’enciclica Mit brennender Sorge nel 1937 con un’operazione da manuale di creazione di un panico morale.

Come sempre nei panici morali, i fatti non sono totalmente inventati. Prima dell’enciclica vi erano stati in Germania alcuni casi di abusi su minori. Lo stesso Mariaux considera colpevoli un religioso di una scuola di Bad Reichenall, un professore laico, un giardiniere e un bidello condannati nel 1936, rilevando però che la sanzione decisa dal Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione della Baviera – la revoca dell’autorizzazione a gestire istituti scolastici a quattro ordini religiosi – è del tutto sproporzionata e si collega alla volontà del regime di stroncare le scuole cattoliche. Anche sul caso di alcuni francescani di Waldbreitbach, in Renania, Mariaux rimane aperto all’ipotesi di una colpevolezza degli accusati, benché storici successivi non abbiano escluso una montatura nazista.

I casi – pochissimi ma reali – avevano determinato una fermissima reazione dell’episcopato. Il 2 giugno 1936 il vescovo di Münster, il beato Clemens August von Galen (1878-1946) – l’anima della resistenza cattolica al nazismo, beatificato nel 2005 da Benedetto XVI – fa leggere nelle Messe domenicali una dichiarazione dove esprime “il dolore e la tristezza” per gli “abominevoli delitti” che “coprono d’ignominia la nostra Santa Chiesa”. Il 20 agosto 1936 dopo i fatti di Waldbreitbach l’episcopato tedesco pubblica una lettera pastorale collettiva nella quale “condanna severamente” i responsabili e sottolinea la collaborazione della Chiesa con i tribunali dello Stato. Alla fine del 1936 le severe misure prese – a fronte di pochissimi casi, alcuni dei quali dubbi – dai vescovi tedeschi sembrano avere risolto i problemi reali. Sommessamente, i vescovi fanno anche rilevare che fra i maestri delle scuole di Stato e nella stessa organizzazione giovanile del regime, la Hitlerjugend, i casi di condanne per abusi sessuali sono molto più numerosi che nel clero cattolico.

È l’enciclica contro il nazismo di Pio XI che determina la grande campagna del 1937. Mariaux lo prova pubblicando istruzioni dettagliatissime inviate da Goebbels pochi giorni dopo la pubblicazione della Mit brennender Sorge alla GESTAPO, la polizia politica del Terzo Reich, e soprattutto ai giornalisti, invitati a “riscoprire” i casi giudicati nel 1936, e anche episodi più antichi, riproponendoli costantemente all’opinione pubblica. Alla GESTAPO Goebbels ordina di trovare comunque testimoni che accusino un certo numero di sacerdoti, minacciandoli di arresto immediato se non collaborano, anche quando si tratta di bambini. La frase proverbiale “c’è un giudice a Berlino”, che nella tradizione tedesca indica una fiducia nell’indipendenza della magistratura dai potenti di turno, vale però – entro certi limiti – perfino nel Terzo Reich. Dei 325 sacerdoti e religiosi arrestati dopo l’enciclica solo 21 sono condannati. È pressoché certo che fra questi ci siano degli innocenti calunniati. Quasi tutti finiranno nei campi di sterminio, dove molti moriranno.

Il tentativo di squalificare la Chiesa Cattolica su scala internazionale tramite le accuse di immoralità e pedofilia ai sacerdoti, invece, non riuscirà. Grazie al coraggio di Canaris e dei suoi amici e alla persistenza del gesuita detective Mariaux la verità verrà fuori già durante la guerra. La perfidia della campagna di Goebbels susciterà più indignazione dell’eventuale colpevolezza di alcuni religiosi. Il padre di tutti i panici morali in materia di preti pedofili scoppierà in mano agli stessi propagandisti del nazismo che avevano cercato di organizzarlo.

Nothing to Do with Homosexuality?

By Brad Miner

Monday, 29 March 2010

In The Catholic Thing

America’s Catholic bishops commissioned John Jay College of Criminal Justice to study the sex-abuse crisis in the American Church. Last November, the bishops received a briefing on some conclusions researchers have derived from their report, “The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States.”

They say the crisis has nothing to do with homosexuality.

Margaret Smith, a data analyst, said researchers believe “the idea of sexual identity [should] be separated from the problem of sexual abuse.” She insists that no connection has been found “between homosexual identity and an increased likelihood of sexual abuse.” This was seconded by the study’s principal investigator, Karen Terry: “Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature, but not have a homosexual identity.”

Some greeted these statements with skepticism; not least because the data Smith, Terry, et al. have gathered indicate that more than 80 percent of all clerical abuse cases involve male homosexual activity. Dr. Terry’s point is that abuse may be more about opportunity than preference. Since during the period covered by the inquiry (1950 to 2002), priests had more frequent interaction with boys than with girls, overwhelmingly male-male nature of the abuse doesn’t prove the abusers themselves were homosexual.

Ms. Smith emphasized this point by analogizing the behavior of the abusing priests with the sexual practices of men in prison.

But here are some data not in the report: The Centers for Disease Control puts the homosexual population in America at very precisely 2.3 percent (and no credible study claims a number higher than 3 percent). To be sure, opportunity plays a role in many crimes, but given that 90-plus percent of American men are heterosexual it seems out of proportion that 80-plus percent of clerical abuse cases (more than 4000 are included in the John Jay study) should involve men and boys. This is especially so since, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, girls are more than four times likelier to be the victims of sexual abuse than are boys in the population at large.

Whether these cases were pedophilia or hebephilia (those who prefer pubescent kids) or ephebophilia (attraction to older adolescents) is not at issue here, although it’s surely significant that half of those abused by priests were between the ages of 11 and 14. All the cases analyzed involved kids under 18, and none of the data or analysis addresses the violence done to the faith and psyches of the victims, to the vows of celibacy taken by the priests, or to the Body of Christ as a whole. That wasn’t the researchers’ job.

But there is also no acknowledgment of another key datum of all sex-abuse crimes: 60 percent of assaults go unreported. Boys are especially reluctant to speak up. One study (by the Commonwealth Fund) found that among “sexually abused children in grades five through twelve, 48 percent of the boys and 29 percent of the girls . . . told no one about the abuse.” So the data we have may hardly begin to describe the breadth and depth of the problem. More than $2 billion has been paid to victims and their attorneys.

Consider this: According to one scholarly journal, Archives of Sexual Behavior, the tendency towards homosexuality among pedophiles is fifteen- to twenty-times higher than in the population at large. The Journal of Sex Research has noted that the proportion of homosexual pedophiliac offenses “is substantially larger than the proportion of sex [offenses] against female children among heterosexual men . . .” And in a superb essay in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Brian W. Clowes and David L. Sonnier make an important connection that in “the general population of males who sexually abuse minors, only one in seven molest boys. In the population of [sex-abusing] priests . . . six in seven molest boys.”

Most homosexual men aren’t pedophiles, of course, yet it seems likely that when in any population there’s a disproportionate spike in sexual-abuse statistics affecting boys, homosexuality belongs on the list of causes. Are the John Jay researchers unaware that 80 percent of sex abuse suffered by boys in public schools is at the hands of homosexual teachers, coaches, and administrators? Or do they also consider public schools analogous to prisons?

The data gathered by John Jay do not address the prevalence of homosexuality in the priesthood overall, but if homosexual men really do “hit on” kids more often than straight men seduce girls, don’t the data imply that a fairly significant cadre of non-abusing homosexuals is (or was) in the priesthood?

Why did these men take Holy Orders? Perhaps because emerging cultural tolerance of (and tentative self-acceptance by) homosexuals in the Forties and Fifties led to an expectation of fraternal refuge in the priesthood that was later made moot by “gay” advocacy in the Sixties and Seventies. Why hide in a hostile profession when you can now be “out” in most others? This could explain the bell curve in abuse statistics, which peaked in about 1980 and, thank God, have rapidly declined ever since. Perhaps the private crisis was ending even as it was becoming a public scandal.

The Church will no longer be a refuge for homosexuals. The Congregation for Catholic Education has published its “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders,” another long-titled document with a different conclusion than John Jay’s:

[It is] necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called “gay culture.”

Another Long Lent (sexual abuses) by George Weigel

Apr 12, 2010

In On the Square (First Things)

On March 25, the New York Times published a now thoroughly discredited front-page story suggesting that Joseph Ratzinger, while prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had willfully impeded sanctions against a clerical sexual abuser in Milwaukee who had preyed on the deaf children in his care.

Taking that date, and that calumny against Benedict XVI, as an arbitrary American ground zero in the latest round of assaults depicting the Catholic Church as a Rome-based global criminal conspiracy of perverts and their enablers, where do things stand, two and a half weeks into what at first seemed poised to become a scandal as devastating as the Catholic Church in America’s Long Lent of eight years ago?

It’s not 2002. During the Long Lent, the press played an important role in dragging into the light of day awful things the Church had failed to confront, or had confronted ineptly. The shame of that period still stings, as do the wounds suffered by victims. Yet 2010 is not 2002, and that is in large measure due to 2002.

Despite the ignorance and tendentiousness displayed by too many journalists and commentators in recent weeks (including Catholic commentators seeking another opportunity to revive the Revolution That Never Was—or, in the case of Patrick J. Buchanan, to revive the Golden Age That Never Was), the facts are slowly getting out, thanks in part to the unprecedented studies and audits authorized by the bishops of the United States in the wake of the Long Lent.

Reasonable people whose perceptions are not warped by the toxin of anti-Catholicism or who are not pursuing other (often financially-driven) agendas now recognize that the Church in the U.S. and Canada has bent enormous efforts towards cleaning up what Cardinal Ratzinger called in 2005 its “filth,” to the point where the Catholic Church today can be empirically shown to be the safest environment for young people and children in North America. The paralyzing drumbeat of one ghastly new story after another that went on all during 2002 has not been repeated. What we now have is, largely, the recycling of old material, usually provided to the press by contingent-fee attorneys whose strategic goal is to build a public “narrative” of conspiracy that will shape American courts’ decisions as to whether the Vatican and its resources can be brought within range of U.S. liability law.

The realization among serious Catholics that this is not 2002 and that things have changed dramatically since 2002, has led to a far more confident effort to fight back against misrepresentations such as those the Times perpetrated on March 25. There is a danger here: to recognize that this is not 2002 cannot blind us to the fact that there are wounds that remain to be healed, reforms of priestly formation that remain to be completed, bishops whose failures remain to be recognized and dealt with, new norms for the selection of bishops to be implemented, and accounts rendered as to why the Vatican, prior to Ratzinger’s taking control of the issue of clerical sexual abuse in the late 1990s, was sometimes sluggish in its response to scandalous behavior by priests and deficient leadership by bishops.

Assuming, however, that Benedict XVI has set in motion processes that will lead to all those lingering issues being forcefully addressed, a serious question can now be credibly posed: Are those most vigorously agitating these abuse/misgovernance issues today genuinely interested in the safety of young people and children, or are they using the failures of the past to cripple the moral credibility of the Catholic Church in the present and future? That question would have rightly struck many people as a dodge in 2002. It cannot be credibly regarded as a dodge today, because of what the Church has done since 2002 (and, indeed, since the 1990s, when the plague of abuse within the Church began to recede).

The Vatican response. During the first months of the Long Lent of 2002, John Paul II was not well-served by his Washington nunciature or by the Vatican Congregation for the Clergy. The nunciature was not providing the papal apartment with detailed, real-time information (in April 2002, when Cardinal Bernard Law first offered his resignation, the pope and his closest associates were at least three months behind the information-curve, and were just experiencing in April what Americans had lived through in January); the prefect of Clergy, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, made matters worse by blowing off reporters’ questions about the scandals when presenting John Paul’s 2002 Holy Thursday letter to priests, explaining that the pope had more important things to worry about, like Middle East peace.

Things have changed for the better since those dark days. The Holy See Press Office, not previously known for prompt or effective crisis-management in this pontificate, has quickly brought serious, credible information and commentary to bear in recent weeks as different charges have been laid against Benedict XVI. The pope’s own March letter to the Church in Ireland—far too quickly consigned to media oblivion—demonstrated to those with the eyes to read such documents accurately that Benedict had wrestled the Curia into understanding that a pastoral outreach to victims, the public condemnation of abusive clergy and religious, sharp criticism of malfeasant bishops, and dramatic reform actions were necessary in this and similar situations.

There are still things that the Holy See doesn’t get quite right. During Holy Week, it was hoped that the pope would speak in his own voice, largely through the Church’s sacramental encounter with the central drama of salvation history. Yet the two most memorable moments of Holy Week 2010 were created by secondary figures. During the solemn Good Friday liturgy at St. Peter’s, the preacher to the papal household, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, inserted into his homily a commentary on the current situation in which he seemed to agree with a (Jewish) friend that what the recent assault on the Church was analogous to the horrors of historic anti-Semitism.

Two days later, at the beginning of the papal Easter Sunday Mass, the dean of the college of cardinals, Angelo Sodano, chose the unfortunate phrase “petty gossip” to describe what was in fact a determined attack on the Church’s credibility. Despite these missteps, however, the truth seems to have gotten out, if slowly and incompletely: the single most influential figure in reshaping the Roman Curia’s attitude toward these scandals and the Church’s legal practice in dealing with them, was Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI.

The plaintiff’s bar cannot concede this, for to do so would be to destroy the narrative it has been selling to the world media; Ratzinger’s enemies cannot concede this, for they have never been able to find good in him; and European secularists cannot concede this, for in their minds the Church is, in principle, irreformably corrupt—Voltaire’s L’infame. But those willing to look at facts and evidence have begun to understand just how crucial a role Ratzinger played in ensuring that 2010 did not automatically become 2002 redivivus.

Nailing down that counter-narrative would be considerably aided if, in the coming weeks, a comprehensive and documented narrative of the case of a predatory Munich priest which was mishandled during Ratzinger’s tenure as archbishop there—the revelation of which was the European ground zero for the latest set of explosions—would be published. It would also be helpful if the Holy See would provide a user-friendly explanation of how abusive priests are laicized, and how this process has been streamlined and accelerated, again under Ratzinger’s leadership. There is no harm in acknowledging that, like just about everyone else, Joseph Ratzinger was on a learning curve in dealing with abusive clergy and malfeasant bishops; the point to be stressed, however, is that he learned faster, and acted more decisively on what he had learned, than just about anyone else.

Mud Sticking. The 2010 edition of Scandal Time is by no means finished. Attorneys and others will continue to release documents implying that Ratzinger “stalled” laicizations decades ago (when in fact what he was doing was following the canonical norms of the time—norms he was later instrumental in changing).

The papal pilgrimage to Great Britain in September, which will include the beatification of John Henry Newman, is in trouble, with the clerical head of the Church of England, Dr. Rowan Williams, getting ecumenical payback by asserting that the Catholic Church has lost its credibility and the loopier elements of the British press and commentariat suggesting that the pope ought to be served with an arrest warrant on his arrival in the U.K.; the BBC has been particularly egregious in its skewed coverage and discussion of Munich, Milwaukee, and other cases. In the face of all this, the bishops of Britain must recognize that scandal-mongering has now metastasized into a full-scale assault on Catholicism itself, and ought to devote the next four months to the most vigorous defense of the truth of Catholic faith. It would also be helpful if Benedict XVI would meet with British and Irish abuse victims during his time in the U.K., as he did in the United States and Australia.

As for the future of the Church in Ireland, the gravity of the situation there would seem to provide an opportunity for Rome to take dramatic action. While the retirement of one Irish bishop, John Magee of Cloyne, was accepted in the wake of the papal letter of March 2010, it was not clear that this measure was in response to serious problems in handling abuse cases in Cloyne that had become public knowledge. Yet if 2010 is not to become 2002 redivivus, the Holy See must make unmistakably clear that it is serious about dealing with malfeasant bishops: that, in addition to swift action against abusive priests, the Church is prepared to take swift and decisive action against episcopal misgovernance.

This is not a matter of appeasing the media pack and its baying for blood; it is a matter of self-respect and the integrity of the Church’s institutional life. Over the past century and a half, the Holy See has gained the freedom to choose bishops freely throughout the world Church; that has been one of the signal accomplishments of Vatican diplomacy. To claim the right to choose bishops freely, however, carries with it the responsibility to address episcopal failure, even by the ultimate remedy of deposition in extreme cases. Procedures for accelerating the laicization of abusive clergy have been put in place in Rome; parallel procedures for determining when a bishop has lost the capacity to govern because of a thorough and irremediable collapse of his credibility as a leader and shepherd ought to be devised and implemented. It is widely expected that the upcoming apostolic visitation to certain Irish dioceses will result in sweeping change in Catholic leadership in Ireland. That change ought to be effected sooner rather than later, and explicitly linked to the reforms for which Benedict called in his letter to the Irish Church.

Cynicism and irony are powerful corrosives in ecclesiastical life. Yet they cannot withstand the power of radical conversion, joyful discipleship, and courageous evangelism. In North America, in Great Britain and Ireland, in Germany and Austria and the Netherlands, indeed all over the world Church, these are the most effective counters to the current wave of Church-bashing and Catholic-baiting.

And here, at least, there is one appropriate parallel to be drawn between 2010 and 2002: The only answer to what is at bottom a crisis of fidelity is deeper, more radical fidelity to the truth borne by the earthen vessel of the Church.

Estadísticas muestran que abusos en la Iglesia están más relacionados a homosexualidad, dice P. Lombardi

VATICANO, 14 Abr. 10 / 10:34 am (ACI)

El Director de la Sala de Prensa de la Santa Sede, P. Federico Lombardi, respondiendo a las preguntas de los periodistas sobre la afirmación del Secretario de Estado Vaticano ayer en Santiago de Chile indicando que la pedofilia no está ligada al celibato sino a la homosexualidad, explicó que esto se constata en los pocos casos cometidos "por parte de sacerdotes y no en la población en general".

En una declaración dada a conocer hoy el P. Lombardi indicó que "las autoridades eclesiásticas no consideran como su competencia hacer afirmaciones generales de carácter específicamente psicológico o médico, por lo cual revisan naturalmente estudios de especialistas e investigaciones sobre el asunto en cuestión".

El sacerdote se refirió así a lo indicado ayer por el Secretario de Estado quien al contestar la última pregunta de la conferencia de prensa señaló: "muchos psicólogos y muchos psiquiatras han demostrado que no hay relación entre celibato y pedofilia, pero muchos otros han demostrado que sí hay relación entre homosexualidad y pedofilia. Existen muchos documentos de psicólogos en ese sentido".

El P. Lombardi indica también en su declaración que "en cuanto a la competencia de las autoridades eclesiásticas, en el campo de las causas de abusos a menores de parte de sacerdotes afrontadas en los años recientes por la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, resulta simplemente el dato estadístico referido en la entrevista de Mons. Charles Scicluna (Promotor de justicia de este dicasterio), en el que se hablaba de un 10 por ciento de pedofilia en el sentido estricto y de un 90 por ciento de casos definidos mejor como efebofilia (es decir en relación a adolescentes), de los cuales cerca del 60 por ciento está relacionado a individuos del mismo sexo y el 30 por ciento es de carácter heterosexual".

"Aquí se refiere evidentemente a la problemática de abusos por parte de sacerdotes y no en la población en general", concluye.

Bishops' Expert on Prevention of Clergy Abuse of Minors Offers Ten Points for Protecting Children

Sexual molestation is about the victim

Child sexual abuse can be prevented

Warning signs of abuse can be spotted

WASHINGTON—The Catholic bishops’ expert on preventing clergy abuse of minors, Teresa Kettelkamp, offered ten tips for child safely to mark Child Abuse Prevention Month.

During April, child protection staff in dioceses nationwide reexamine and publicize efforts for child protection. This has been a key effort of the church since 2002, when the U.S. bishops adopted the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, in response to clergy sexual abuse of children.

Kettelkamp, executive director of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Secretariat for Children and Young People, developed the list after reviewing what the Catholic Church has learned in facing the clergy sexual abuse problem. The ten points follow.

Read more

Outro disparate da imprensa sobre Padres pedófilos – A carta de 1985 do Cardeal Ratzinger

Por Massimo Introvigne (Avvenire, 10 de Abril de 2010)

In http://www.cesnur.org/2010/mi_kiesle.html

Tradução de É o Carteiro

Durou vinte e quatro horas o novo disparate lançado pela Associated Press contra o Papa. Até os media mais hostis, acossados pelos especialistas em direito canonico, fizeram marcha atrás. Mas, de acordo com o preceito segundo o qual vale a pena caluniar que sempre fica qualquer coisa, na cabeça dos utentes mais distraidos terão ficado apenas os títulos, segundo os quais, em 1985, o actual Pontífice «protegeu um padre pedófilo».

Para se compreender o significado da carta escrita pelo Cardeal Ratzinger a Mons. John Stephen Cummins (e não «Cummings»), Bispo de Oakland (California), a 6 de Novembro de 1985, é preciso ter algumas noções, ainda que básicas, de direito canónico. A perda do estado clerical pode ocorrer (a) como pena imposta pelo direito canónico por delitos especialmente graves; ou (b) quando solicitada pelo próprio sacerdote. Assim, um sacerdote acusado ou condenado por pedofilia pode perder o estado clerical (a) como pena pelo delito cometido ou (b) a seu pedido, pedido esse que o padre pedófilo pode ter interesse em fazer por razões diversas, por exemplo, para escapar à vigilância da Igreja (a vigilância do Estado é mais branda, como fica demonstrado em diversos casos), ou porque pretende casar-se. No primeiro caso, está-se a castigar o padre pedófilo. No segundo caso, está-se a fazer-lhe um favor.

Até 2001, a pena pelo delito de pedófilia – o castigo – era imposta pelas dioceses; em 2001, essa competência passou para a Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé. Em contrapartida, a análise dos pedidos de dispensa do estado clerical – o favor – já em 1985 era da competência da Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé.

Em 1985, Stephen Miller Kiesle, sacerdote acusado de abusos de menores, foi objecto de dois processos distintos. O primeiro dizia respeito à averiguação canónica susceptível de levar à demissão do estado clerical deste sacerdote como pena pelos absusos praticados, averiguação que era da estrita competência da Diocese de Oakland, e em que a Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé de modo nenhum intervinha.

O segundo processo dizia respeito à solicitação, feita pelo mesmo Padre Kiesle, de dispensa do estado clerical, solicitação que chegou à secretária da Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé, a qual – por uma praxe que adquiriu valor de regulamento – não concede a referida dispensa a um sacerdote que não tenha completado os quarenta anos. Na altura, o Padre Kiesle tinha trinta e oito anos e o Bispo Cummins solicitou à Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé que abrisse uma excepção porque, acolhendo a solicitação de Kiesle, Roma libertaria a diocese de Oakland do embaraço de prosseguir a averiguação penal pelos abusos (indagação essa que, em 1985 – antes das alterações processuais introduzidas em 2001 – era, recorde-se, da estrita competência da diocese, e na qual a Congregação dirigida pelo Cardeal Ratzinger não podia intervir).

Se a Congregação tivesse acolhido o pedido de Kiesle, não teria «castigado» o sacerdote; pelo contrário, ter-lhe-ia feito um favor. Na verdade, Kiesle pretendia abandonar o sacerdócio porque tinha a intenção de se casar.

É muito importante distinguir o acolhimento de um pedido de dispensa do estado clerical, que constitui um benefício concedido ao sacerdote e que é da competência da Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé, da demissão do estado clerical como punição, que era, até 2001, da competência das dioceses, e não de Roma.

Enquanto Prefeito da Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé, o Cardeal Ratzinger responde exprimindo a sua compreensão pela delicada posição em que o bispo se encontra – ou seja, agora em termos menos curiais, diz-lhe que compreende que o bispo preferisse que fosse Roma a tirar as castanhas do lume –, mas salienta que, para bem da Igreja, se devem respeitar rigorosamente as praxes, e que a idade do solicitante não permite dar-lhe a dispensa do estado clerical. «Considerando o bem universal da Igreja» – o que não significa, evidentemente, «para evitar escândalos» (aliás, o caso dos abusos sexuais atribuídos a Kiesle já tinha sido amplamente comentado na Califórnia, e o escândalo já se tinha verificado), mas sim «para não criar um precedente que abriria a porta a muitas outras solicitações de dispensa de sacerdotes com menos de quarenta anos» –, o Cardeal Ratzinger explica ao bispo que será necessário ter a prudência de esperar, como sempre acontece em casos de pedidos de sacerdotes que ainda não fizeram quarenta anos.

Entretanto, a Diocese de Oakland poderá, naturalmente, dar andamento à outra averiguação penal, susceptível de conduzir à demissão de Kiesle do estado clerical, não a seu pedido, mas como pena pelos abusos cometidos. Em 1987, enquanto a Diocese de Oakland prossegue as suas averiguações sobre Kiesle – depois de o ter proibido de exercer a actividade ministerial –, o sacerdote faz quarenta anos. Nesta altura, e como é da praxe, a Congregação acolhe o seu pedido de redução ao estado clerical. Kiesle abandona o exercício do ministério sacerdotal e casa-se, continuando a ser conhecido pela polícia como personalidade perturbada e suspeito de abuso de menores.

Os actos cometidos por Kiesle depois de 1987 não são, evidentemente, da responsabilidade da Igreja, mas apenas dos tribunais civis e da polícia. Se praticou outros abusos, a culpa não é da Igreja – que Kiesle abandonou e que deixou de ter quaisquer razões para o vigiar –, mas das autoridades civis.

Como é que ter recusado um pedido que um padre suspeito de pedofilia – que tencionava casar-se – apresentava como pedido de um favor, no seu próprio interesse, equivale a «proteger um padre pedófilo» é coisa que terá de ser a Associated Press a explicar.

O grande lorpa

O presidente Cavaco Silva que promulgou a liberalização do aborto, a experimentação letal em pessoas na sua etapa embrionária e a sua clonagem, a “lei” do divórcio e, provavelmente, promulgará a do pseudocasamento de pessoas do mesmo sexo, proclamou-se, aquando da sua visita à Santa Sé, católico praticante. Agora prepara-se, como o seu antecessor Mário Soares, para acompanhar o Papa continuamente nesta visita pastoral que sua Santidade fará a Portugal. A proximidade das eleições presidenciais, como é claro para todos, nada tem a ver com isso. O presidente, como se verifica pelo exercício do seu cargo, é um genuíno católico que contribuiu exemplarmente para o extermínio de várias dezenas de milhares de pessoas nascituras.

O médico Miguel Oliveira e Silva, como bom católico praticante, não se limitou a cooperar formalmente como o homicídio/aborto. Sendo ainda mais praticante de que o presidente ele próprio afirmou orgulhosamente na televisão que fazia abortamentos. Esta gloriosa obra de misericórdia valeu-lhe o reconhecimento de um Bispo que se prestou a apresentar um livro em que o cirurgião arremetia ferozmente contra a doutrina anquilosada e decrépita que foi confiada à Igreja.

Maria de Belém, com o seu sorriso mavioso contribuiu com uma determinação verdadeiramente evangélica para todos os bondosos crimes e esplêndidas perversidades que o catolicíssimo presidente promulgou. O mesmo se passa com o católico militante e muito empenhado na nova evangelização Pedro Silva Pereira

Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, embora ainda não tenha superado a influência magisterial de que Mário Soares goza junto de grande parte do Episcopado, é reconhecidamente, pelos seus méritos em apoiar o pseudocasamento de pessoas do mesmo sexo e advogar a contracepção, inclusive a abortiva, e o homicídio/aborto cirúrgico, nas circunstâncias previstas na “lei” 6/84, o mais indicado pregador para seminaristas, Sacerdotes e talvez mesmo para Bispos.

Estes são alguns dos mais eminentes católicos praticantes venerados e incensados pela clerezia e prelazia em Portugal e, por arrasto, da multidão dos fiéis.

Ontem, porém, ficámos a saber, pela revista do jornal Público, que existem outros grupos igualmente praticantes muito acarinhados por alguns Sacerdotes. Este admirável conjunto de fiéis não vê nenhuma incompatibilidade entre as suas práticas sodomitas “estáveis” (para usar o termo deles; dantes dizia-se obstinadas) e a Comunhão Eucarística. Afinal foi Deus que os fez e quis assim. Somente a intolerância maquiavélica dessa megera milenária que é a Igreja, que, ao longo de dois mil anos, a única coisa que fez foi perverter os desígnios de Jesus Cristo é que lhes exige mudança de vida e arrependimento para poderem Comungar com o Seu Senhor.

Felizmente que há Padres compreensivos que os acolhem incondicionalmente, com o conhecimento, segundo a reportagem, do Senhor Cardeal Patriarca. Esperemos que o acolhimento Eucarístico incondicional seja para todos: ladrões profissionais, chulos convictos, proxenetas fervorosos, pederastas predadores, pedófilos obcecados, adúlteros contumazes, torturadores pertinazes, antropófagos gulosos, terroristas fanáticos, etc. Pois se Deus os fez e os quis assim, quem somos nós para contrariar a Sua vontade. Pecado só é aquilo para que não se é tentado. A tentação, o impulso, o desejo para determinada prática é um indicativo claríssimo de que ela é boa!, óptima!. Excelente!!!

Essas tretas de chamar ao arrependimento e à conversão, está completamente ultrapassado!, não tem pés nem cabeça!

O grande lorpa, está-se a ver, sou eu que, por mais que me esforce, não consigo alcançar a clarividência de muitos Pastores, que assistem a tudo isto com grande complacência.

Nuno Serras Pereira

12. 04. 2010

Papa inocente das novas acusções - Kiesle case is no smoking gun

This is a Murphy redux.

Despite how The New York Times and the Associated Press and others are interpreting the Kiesle case, the documentation they base their stories on actually show the local diocese to have fumbled this clerical sex abuse case, not the Vatican.
Read more