Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Sacerdotes. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Sacerdotes. Mostrar todas as mensagens

segunda-feira, 12 de agosto de 2013

El padre de un cura provida murió en una fosa séptica por rescatar a su hijo, con síndrome de Down

In RL 

Un caso reciente que ha retratado a los abortistas es el que ha permitido la salvación de un niño con síndrome de Down a quien sus padres habían decidido matar antes del nacimiento. (Como sucede en el noventa por ciento de los casos, un auténtico genocidio eugenésico a nivel mundial que en España podría cambiar si el ministro de Justicia, Alberto Ruiz-Gallardon, cumple lo que anunció en el tramo inicial de la legislatura.)

Pero Thomas Vander Woude Jr., sacerdote en la parroquia de la Santísima Trinidad de Gainesville (Virginia, Estados Unidos), promovió una campaña para encontrar una pareja adoptante a ese ser humano que iba a morir. El caso había tenido trascendencia nacional porque se trataba de un embarazo de seis meses. Y había prisa, al acercarse el plazo legal que permite el aborto -en ese estadio, prácticamente un infanticidio- en esos casos.

Según relata LifeNews, el padre Vander Woude visitó a los padres y les pidió un poco de tiempo para encontrar el hogar adecuado. Y así fue. Recibió más de novecientas llamadas, inclusive de fuera de Estados Unidos, y finalmente fueron seleccionadas tres familias para el niño, que contactaron con los progenitores biológicos a través de una agencia de adopción.

Como es propio de quien milita en la "cultura de la muerte", los abortistas, en vez de celebrar el éxito de la operación, emprendieron una campaña contra el padre Vander Woude, acusándole de preocuparse más de los fetos que de los niños reales.

La historia de Thomas Vander Woude, Sr.

Pero ignoraban la historia de este sacerdote, quien había vivido en casa el respeto y el amor a quienes padecen esa u otra discapacidad. Y hasta un extremo poco común. Su padre, también llamado Thomas, de 66 años, murió en 2008 para salvar la vida de un hijo suyo, Joseph, que padece... síndrome de Down. El joven, de 20 años, es el hermano pequeño de los Vander Woude, y había caído en una fosa séptica. Thomas padre no dudó en lanzarse a ese pozo de infección y consiguió mantener a flote al chico por encima de su cabeza hasta que pudieron rescatarle. Él, sin embargo, no logró sobrevivir.

El mismo Thomas hijo celebró el funeral por su padre, quien hoy estará orgulloso de que, con esa campaña, haya logrado rescatar a otra persona cuya vida las leyes consideran de menor valor.

"Hace tres años y medio", contó en mayo de 2012 el padre Vander Woude, "me llamaron a urgencias para consolar a una familia que había perdido a su padre. También para consolar al hijo cuyo padre había muerto por salvarle. A los sacerdotes nos llaman con frecuencia a los hospitales, pero esta vez fue diferente. El padre era mi padre, y el hijo era mi hermano".

"La acción heroica de mi padre", añadía, "fue el cumplimiento de su vocación, porque todo marido y padre está llamado al sacrificio de su vida por su mujer y sus hijos. Su plenitud como hombre y la alegría de su vocación dependen de ello".

El padre Vander Woude utilizaba precisamente el ejemplo de su padre para recordar a los hombres esas obligaciones familiares: "Mucho más importante que las palabras de un padre a sus hijos es su ejemplo de entrega a su familia y a Dios. Cuando un padre habla de sacrificio por medio de sus acciones, el niño aprende la esencia de la humanidad".

Ejemplo de vida
Y fue el caso de su padre, quien, como explica, renunció a su carrera militar, por su continua movilidad, para instalarse cerca de donde hubiera buenas escuelas católicas donde formar a sus siete hijos. "Me influyó mucho en mi vocación y me enseñó a amar a Dios y al prójimo. Le vi rezar diariamente en misa y guiar el rosario familiar".

Y a la luz de la notoriedad pública que adqurió el gesto de su padre, el sacerdote concluye que, "incluso en nuestra cultura escéptica y egoísta, algo nos sacude en la historia de un padre que da la vida por su hijo: respalda que todo lo que sabemos ser cierto y es un reflejo del sacrificio de Jesucristo por nosotros".
 
 


domingo, 23 de junho de 2013

Preso en el campo nazi de Dachau, Dios le envió «un ángel» y fue feliz en medio del infierno - por Javier Lozano

In RL  

La historia de Bernard Py es la de una conversión, la de un encuentro con Jesucristo en el lugar más insospechado, en un sitio en el que muchos creían que Dios no había aparecido.

Sin embargo, es en la oscuridad donde se manifiesta con mayor fuerza la luz. Y así lo atestigua el ahora médico jubilado francés de 87 años, cuya vida da para un libro, y de hecho lo ha dado.
 
Durante la II Guerra Mundial fue internado junto con su hermano, su padre y su padrino en el campo de concentración nazi de Dachau. Allí vio la maldad y la muerte en primera persona, tanto que ni su padre ni su padrino salieron vivos de aquel fatídico lugar. Pero en medio de este sufrimiento inmenso y de las condiciones infrahumanas este francés “encontró la felicidad”.
 
Detenido por los nazis junto a su familia
¿Cómo ser feliz en medio de tanta muerte? Allí encontró a Dios y asegura que recibió un segundo bautismo. De la muerte pasó a la vida. De la desesperación, de no sentirse persona, de vivir sin esperanza se transformó para poder vivir el día a día bajo la providencia y como un don de Dios. Y todo ello en uno de los sitios más oscuros creados por el hombre en los últimos tiempos, el campo de Dachau.
 
Esta historia de Bernard Py comienza en verano de 1944. Tenía 19 años y era estudiante de Medicina. En sus vacaciones se trasladó junto con su hermano mayor a la residencia familiar.


Allí colaboraron con la resistencia pero la Gestapo localizó  de dónde provenía la ayuda.  Los nazis arrestaron a cientos de personas del pueblo de Py y de los que estaban alrededor, todos los que tuvieran entre 16 y 60 años.
 
Enviado a un campo de concentración
Junto con sus familiares y vecinos fue interrogado brutalmente para que delatara a los líderes de la resistencia. Fue sometido a la tortura de la bañera durante sus interrogatorios e incluso fue víctima de latigazos. De su Francia natal fue trasladado con parte de su familia al campo de Dachau, del que muchos ya no volvieron.
 
Allí les encomendaron tareas sobrehumanas en condiciones lamentables. La esperanza de vida en el campo era de seis meses. Trabajaba la tierra en un horario que iba de las cinco de la madrugada a las ocho de la tarde.


Apenas iban vestidos pese al frío del invierno alemán. Además, estaba aquejado de desnutrición. El deterioro de Py era permanente: perdía peso de manera alarmante y comenzaba a ver afectado su sistema nervioso y cerebral. Y todo ello sin higiene alguna.


Su deterioro físico y espiritual
Sin embargo, el ámbito físico no era su único problema. Había otro de igual o mayor importancia: el personal y espiritual. Su autoestima estaba por los suelos. Se odiaba y se sentía inferior. Comenzaba también en él una muerte óntica, del interior de su ser. Ya no temía la muerte pues era parte de la rutina del día a día mientras las burlas, el maltrato y las palizas hacían en él más mella psicológica que física.
 
El ángel enviado del cielo
Pero justo en el momento más oscuro de su vida, justo cuando tocaba fondo apareció un ángel, un enviado de Dios que le cambió la vida, incluso interno en un campo de concentración nazi.
 
Este ángel no era otro que un joven y valiente fraile dominico, el padre Álex Morelli. Arriesgando su propia vida hizo de manera clandestina de capellán en el campo de concentración


El había seguido el llamamiento del arzobispo de París, el cardenal Suhard, para ser capellán clandestino de todos los franceses. Este apostolado le llevó a Dachau y allí siguió desarrollándolo a rajatabla.
 
Y así llegó el encuentro entre este fraile y un joven Bernard sin esperanza, sin vida. Durante semanas y en encuentros breves comienza a hablarle de Dios. “Tardé muchas horas días en absorber lo que me decía durante estos encuentros furtivos puesto que mi alma estaba reseca y sedienta”.
 
“Dios es amor”
Su interior, sin embargo, iba experimentando un cambio. Comenzaba en él a fluir la esperanza aunque en el campo todo externamente fuera a peor.  Y empieza a interiorizar el gran cambio en su vida.  “El padre me hacía entender que Dios es amor” y que se preocupaba por él, sufría por él. Llega a la certeza de que no está sólo.
 
“Este dominico me enseña que tengo dos ayudas esenciales, siempre que las quiera y las pida: la Providencia y la Gracia”, recuerda ahora Bernard casi 60 años después. Confirma que la providencia va apareciendo “misteriosamente y en silencio” en pequeños detalles así como la Gracia, pues a pesar de todo siente la “dignidad de ser hijo de Dios”.
 
El joven Bernard va recuperando su persona. Ni las duras horas de trabajo ni el tifus que asolaba el campo, ni la muerte ni la privación de libertad. Había algo en él que superaba todo esto. Lo que le producía la muerte ahora ya no podía con él.
 
El gran encuentro con Cristo
Pero el encuentro más grande con el Señor estaba aún por llegar. El broche a un encuentro profundo. Un tarde helada de invierno, Bernard recibió del padre Morelli la comunión a escondidas. La sagrada forma estaba envuelta en un trozo de papel que dejó en su bolsillo de la camisa.
 
Mientras trabaja, completamente helado, sintió un calentamiento enorme. Era una explosión de auténtica felicidad en todos los planos: “físico, psicológico y espiritual”. La fuente de calor estaba situada en el pecho y era “Jesús en la Eucaristía”. “Fue un signo personal y único, que permanece en mí inolvidable: la felicidad gustada infinitamente. Posteriormente lo relacioné con una consagración al Sagrado Corazón que habíamos hecho al principio de nuestro internamiento”.
 
Ya no temía a nada. Ni a la muerte, pues estaba convencido de que Dios le daría la gracia de morir cristianamente, ni al trabajo. Era feliz. Feliz en medio de la muerte. “Había recibido una perla inigualable en el infierno”.
 
Su lucha contra el holocausto del siglo XXI
Finalmente, él y su hermano fueron liberados mientras su padre y padrino fallecieron en aquel lugar. Bernard siguió con sus estudios de medicina. Ejerció como tal y tuvo una familia numerosa.
 
Al final de sus años dedicó su vida a ayudar a mujeres embarazadas en dificultades A través de un teléfono las escucha, asesora y anima. Pues es consciente y ha vivido en primera persona otro holocausto similar al del aborto. “Toda vida es frágil y sagrada”, reconoce ahora a sus 87 años, edad que no le impide seguir acompañando a estas mujeres.


Además, ha convertido su casa en un hogar para peregrinos que están de paso. La gratuidad de la vida y del amor le ha hecho dar lo mismo que él mismo recibió hace casi 60 años. 

 




quarta-feira, 5 de junho de 2013

Homosexuality and the Church Crisis - By Brian W. Clowes, Ph.D., director of research for Human Life International

In RenewAmerica 

Abstract: Due to clergy sex abuse scandals centered primarily in the Northern hemisphere, the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church has been subjected to an opportunistic siege by prominent individuals and organizations who see the chance to advance their goals, including the ordination of women and the suspension of the requirement for priestly celibacy.

There is also a strongly defensive element to this strategy. Opponents of the Church know that there is a well-documented and strong correlation between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse, but claim that there is no evidence supporting this connection.

And, of course, those who are currently attacking the Church hope that they can undermine its moral authority to preach on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and weaken its opposition to ersatz homosexual "marriage."

This paper demonstrates that there is indeed a very strong link between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse. It also shows that there is a similar rate of child sexual abuse among other very large groups of adult males (e.g., Protestant clergy, who are usually married), thus proving that celibacy is not the root of the problem — homosexuality is.


Introduction

A very small number of Catholic priests and other leaders have taken advantage of their positions of authority and influence in order to gain sexual favors or to take advantage of the helpless. The problem of clerical child sexual molestation, particularly in the United States and Europe, has been widely exposed and publicized over the past decade.

During the crisis currently being discussed, homophile activists within and outside the Catholic Church have done everything they can to divert attention away from even the possibility that there may be a higher percentage of homosexuals among the priesthood than in the general public, and that this may be the root cause of the problem of child sexual molestation within the Church. These activists particularly seek to deny the link between homosexuality and child sexual molestation.

For example, the dissenting organization "Dignity USA" kicked off its "Stop Blaming Gay Priests" campaign in 2002. The group said "DigntyUSA [sic] is calling on the U.S. Catholic bishops to stop blaming gay priests for the clergy sexual abuse scandal. All credible evidence discounts any link between the molestation of children and homosexuality."[1]

More recently, Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, the Holy See's Secretary of State, suggested that there is a link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse. "Gay" groups all over the world reacted with horror and fury, and echoed what Dignity USA had said years before. As one example, Rolando Jiminéz, president of Chile's Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation, said that "No reputable study exists to support the cardinal's claims."[2]

The situation has become so charged that anyone who even suggests that there may be a connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse is instantly and reflexively labeled a "homophobe" and a "gay basher." The powerful homosexual lobby reacts instinctively to negative publicity and information by "ritually defaming" those who dare raise their voices. Organized homosexual groups and their supporters first attempt to ignore the evidence, or, if it simply cannot be disregarded, aggressively smear and discredit those who produced it.[3]

Such wholesale dismissal of documented facts, and the accompanying refusal to even discuss the possibility of a link between an active homosexual lifestyle and child sexual abuse, is a grave disservice not only to the victims, but to society at large. Obviously, a proven link between homosexual orientation and child sexual molestation would badly damage the carefully crafted public relations image of the "gay rights" movement. Therefore, instead of calmly and rationally discussing the issues, homosexual rights leaders subscribe to the axiom "the best defense is a good [and loud] offense." They remain in a permanent attack mode.

In general, the media and liberal groups seem almost pathologically careful to avoid stereotyping an entire group of people because of the actions of just a few. For example, we are told repeatedly that we must not perceive jihadists as representing Islam. Yet, when dealing with the Catholic Church, the media and others cast even the vestiges of decency and restraint to the wind. As one example, a writer described the Vatican as "an international criminal conspiracy to protect child rapists."[4] Naturally, the Pope is singled out for the most vicious and ridiculous abuse. According to The Irish Times, "Pope Benedict has made worse just about everything that is wrong with the Roman Catholic Church and is directly responsible for engineering the global cover-up of child rape perpetrated by priests."[5]

The only way to get at the root of the problem of priestly child molestation is to ignore this smear campaign and proceed methodically. We must first objectively study all facts relating to the situation, and then muster the courage to respond by taking the appropriate steps. If this is not done, any effort to address the problem, no matter how well intentioned or vigorously pursued, will be utterly squandered.

Certainly we owe it to the victims — and to the Catholic Church itself — to determine the truth behind this volatile topic.

Studies on the Frequency of Homosexual Child Molestation

Dignity USA and other homosexual groups strenuously deny any connection whatever between a homosexual orientation and child sexual molestation. They repeatedly claim that "All credible evidence discounts any link between the molestation of children and homosexuality."[6]

Yet these groups seem curiously reluctant to cite this "credible evidence."

In fact, a number of studies performed over a period spanning more than half a century — many of which were performed by homosexuals or their sympathizers — have shown that an extremely large percentage of sexually active homosexuals also participate in child sexual molestation.

This is not "homophobia" or "hatred." This is mere scientific fact.

For example:

  • Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the USA's preeminent sexual researcher, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. [7]

  • A recent study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2 - 4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25 - 40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles." [8]

  • Another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "... all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories." These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old. [9]

  • A third study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality ... Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30 - 40%." [10]

  • A study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that "... the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ... the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality." [11]

  • A study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual." [12]

  • A study by The Institute for Sex Research, which was founded by Alfred Kinsey, determined that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger. [13]

There are occasional desultory attempts to deny or obscure the fact that a disproportionately high percentage of active homosexuals sexually molest children. These studies are invariably afflicted with one or more fatal flaws.

A typical example, oft quoted by "gay rights" activists, is the July 1994 Pediatrics article by Jenny, Roesler and Poyer that says "Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community." [14]

The fatal flaw of this study is that it examined sexually abused children with a mean age of just 6.1 years. Children this young are usually targets of true pedophiles, those persons with no sexual attraction to adults of either sex. By contrast, homosexual pedophiles are usually classified as "ephebophiles," persons sexually attracted to pubescent or post pubescent children.

Definitions and Calculations

The John Jay study on the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States defines "pedophiles" as people who "exhibit recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, urges or behaviors related to sexual contact with a prepubescent child over a period of at least six months duration." [15]

When people speak of the current crisis being a problem involving "pedophile priests," they are addressing only a small portion of the situation. According to the John Jay study, most of the sexually offending priests are not true pedophiles. They are in fact "ephebophiles," who "exhibit these same fantasies, urges or behaviors towards post pubescent youths." [16] Generally, the John Jay study recognized that pedophilia can be defined as the sexual molestation of children aged ten and younger. The National Review Board study defines "ephebophilia" as "homosexual attraction to adolescent males," a definition that certainly is validated by the quotes of "gay rights" activists later in this article. [17]

Table 3.5.4 of the John Jay Study is reproduced below. It clearly demonstrates that, as the age of the victims rises, the percentage of victims decisively shifts from primarily female to overwhelmingly male.


The results shown in Table 3.5.4 stand in stark contrast to United States Department of Health and Human Services statistics, which show that male on male child sexual abuse in the USA comprises only 14.4% of all sexual abuse committed by males. In other words, in the general population of males who sexually abuse minors, only one in seven molest boys. In the population of priests who sexually abuse minors, six in seven molest boys. [18]

Figure 1 graphically depicts Table 3.5.4, and shows the numbers of alleged victims of sexual abuse incidents grouped by gender and age. One can clearly see that the percentage of victims is overwhelmingly male.


Many experts have claimed that there is a much higher percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood than there is in the general population. Let us assume for a moment that the concentration of male homosexuals in the priesthood is four times greater than it is in the general population — about ten percent. [19]

If we assume that this number is correct, using the figures given in Table 3.5.4, we find that a homosexual priest is

(85.3%/10.0%)/(14.7%/90.0%) = 52

times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual priest.

If we use the more reasonable assumption that five percent of all priests are homosexual (still about twice the average in the general population), we see that a homosexual priest is

(85.3%/5.0%)/(14.7%/95.0%) = 110

times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual priest.

It is logical that homosexuals who sexually desire young children deliberately seek employment that will bring them into proximity with the greatest number of children possible. The most "promising" jobs of this nature include clergymen working in youth ministries, Boy Scout leaders and schoolteachers.

This is primarily why homosexual teachers have been involved in a hugely disproportionate number of all recorded cases of teacher/pupil sex. A nationwide survey of school principals showed that they received 13 times as many complaints about homosexuals sexually molesting students than they did about heterosexuals molesting students. [20]

Other studies have shown that homosexual teachers are from 90 to 100 times more likely to molest students than heterosexual teachers. [21]

Supporting Quotes by Homosexual Activists

As further evidence of the strong connection between active homosexuality and child molestation, many homosexual leaders have openly admitted that there is a natural link between a homosexual orientation and child sexual abuse.

Many "gay" organizations and leaders not only admit to, but support, the sexual abuse of children by homosexuals.

An editorial in the San Francisco Sentinel, a member of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalist's Association, claimed that

    The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy love is not homosexual love is ridiculous. We must not be seduced into believing misinformation from the press and the government. Child molesting does occur, but there are also positive sexual relations. And we need to support the men and the boys in those relationships. [22]
The notorious North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), one of several major organized pederast groups, always has a drawing or a photo of a pre teen boy on the cover of its NAMBLA Bulletin, as well as many other such depictions within each issue.

Pedophile Philip Hutchinson's poem entitled "Choirboy" is entirely typical of the fare found in the Bulletin;

    You look like a cherub, but you're worldly wise.
    You'd love to have me think you're newly born,
    but I can spot the twinkle in your eyes;
    you know damned well how much you turn me on.
    Between us, you're the satyr — I'm the saint,
    so shed your sacred robe and bare your skin,
    surrender to my touch without restraint,
    and later, put your halo on again. [23]
One of NAMBLA's flyers says that:

    There is no age at which a person becomes capable of consenting to sex. The age of sexual consent is just one of many ways in which adults impose their system of control on children ... Amazing as it may seem in this child hating and homophobic society, boy lovers find boys attractive and like their spontaneity and openness. [24]
Pederast and NAMBLA member David Thorstad has said that "I think that pederasty should be given the stamp of approval. I think it's true that boy lovers are much better for children than the parents are ..." [25]

NAMBLA is by no means on the fringe of the "gay rights" movement. For years, it was a member in good standing of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), and was only jettisoned by ILGA when the parent organization applied for United Nations consultative status in 1993. Years earlier, the ILGA itself had resolved that "Young people have the right to sexual and social self determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect." [26] Homosexual defenders of NAMBLA declared that "man/boy love is by definition homosexual," that "man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture," part of "the Western homosexual tradition from Socrates to Wilde to Gide," and part of "many non Western homo sexualities from New Guinea and Persia to the Zulu and the Japanese." [27]

In fact, one of NAMBLA's "gay" defenders got right to the point when he said that "Homosexuals denying that it is 'not gay' to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it's 'not heterosexual' to be attracted to adolescent girls." [28]

"Gay" leaders and researchers have recognized and publicized the natural relationship between homosexuality and pederasty [adult male sexual molestation of boys] for decades. NAMBLA and similar groups may be in the forefront of promoting "gay" sex with young boys, but many other prominent homosexuals have transmitted the same message;

  • Larry Kramer, founder of the homosexual group AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP), said that "In those cases where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it, either because of a natural curiosity, or because he or she is homosexual and innately knows it. ... And unlike girls or women forced into rape or traumatized, most gay men have warm memories of their earliest and early sexual encounters; when we share these stories with each other, they are invariably positive ones." [29]

  • Pat Califia, lesbian author and activist, wrote in the "mainstream" homosexual publication The Advocate that "Boy lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers are the only people offering a hand to help young women and men cross the difficult terrain between straight society and the gay community. They are not child molesters. The child abusers are priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their stale morality onto the young people in their custody. Instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be supporting them." [30]

  • Steve Hanson wrote in the homosexual magazine Bay Area Reporter "Shame on us if our lesbian/gay voices remain silent while our NAMBLA brothers are persecuted once again, and shame on those lesbians and gay men who will raise their voices to condemn NAMBLA, insisting that boy lovers (and presumably the boys they love and who love them) are not part of this thing called the lesbian/gay community." [31]

  • One of the authors of The Big Gay Book said that "Sex between youths and adults is one of the most difficult issues in the gay movement. When does a youngster have the right and the power to make his own sexual decisions? How are laws against intergenerational sex used specifically to target gay men? What are the issues that make the romantic image of the Greek teacher and his student in times of antiquity turn into something ugly and forbidden in the modern age?" [32]

  • Lesbian Gayle Rubin wrote that "The recent career of boy love in the public mind should serve as an alert that the self interests of the feminist and gay movements are linked to simple justice for stigmatized sexual minorities. ... We must not reject all sexual contact between adults and young people as inherently oppressive." [33]

Like the "ten percent" myth, the modern-day concept that adults can legitimately have sex with children originated with the Alfred Kinsey team. Sex educator and Kinsey collaborator Wardell Pomeroy said that "People seem to think that any [sexual] contact between children and adults has a bad effect on the child. I say that this can be a loving and thoughtful, responsible sexual activity." [34]

Interestingly, while the mainstream press and liberal groups systematically pillory the Catholic Church, they entirely ignore the well organized and determined efforts by professional associations to decriminalize and normalize child sexual abuse.

For example, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently sponsored a symposium in which participants discussed the removal of pedophilia from an upcoming edition of the group's psychiatric manual of mental disorders. At about the same time, the Archives of Sexual Behavior published a special edition in December 2002 discussing whether pedophilia should remain classified as a mental disorder. [35]

As early as 1988, a leading American psychological journal, Behavior Today, claimed that "Pedophilia may be a sexual orientation rather than a sexual deviation. This raises the question as to whether pedophiles may have rights." [36]

Information Provided by a Diocesan Administrator

It is clear, even without reference to the numerous reports throughout the recent years, that homosexuals have infiltrated the ranks of the clergy to an astonishing degree. In some corners of the Church, such behavior has long been seen as acceptable.

To cite just one recent example, Msgr. Richard Sniezyk, appointed to head the Diocese of Springfield in Massachusetts after its bishop resigned amid sexual abuse allegations, said in an interview that the recent scandal in the Catholic Church stems from a belief among some priests during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s that sex with young men was "acceptable;"

    Monsignor Richard S. Sniezyk, 66, the leader of the Springfield Diocese until the Vatican names a bishop to replace Thomas L. Dupre, said that as a seminarian and then a young priest ... he heard of priests who had sex with young men, but "no one thought much about it" because priests didn't recognize how mentally and emotionally damaging their behavior was ... "It was that era of the '60s — most of it took place from the mid '60s to the early' 80s — and the whole atmosphere out there was, it was OK, it was OK to do." [37]
This is not a statement by an anti Catholic or homosexual activist, but rather an admission from none other than the duly appointed shepherd of souls in this Massachusetts diocese.

It is easy to look back on the crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States and place blame on the Vatican, on the bishops, on the seminaries, or even on our society's permissive attitude toward sexuality in general. But much terrible damage has already been done — to the victims, to the Church, and to the souls of many whose faith has been shaken or even destroyed by the scandal.

Our primary responsibilities at this point are not blame and condemnation, but reparation and prevention. We must compensate the victims, and we must reassure them by making certain that there are no more future cases of child sexual molestation by clergy or other Church workers.

Does Pederast Equal "Gay"?

Some researchers assert that just because an activity is homosexual in nature does not mean that the person committing the act is a homosexual. For example, criminologist Margaret Smith said that "The majority of the [clergy] abusive acts were homosexual in nature. That participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man." [38]

This is like saying that someone who steals is not a thief, or that someone who races his car down a crowded city street at 200 kilometers per hour is not a reckless driver.

Men who sexually molest boys may claim not to be homosexual, but this assertion is disingenuous at best and deliberately deceptive at worst.

Many of the studies quoted above show that homosexual men are attracted to young boys. An Archives of Sexual Behavior study compared the sexual age preferences of people who described themselves as heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that "all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories," which included males as young as age fifteen. [39]

Sometimes homophile groups allege that men who sexually molest boys are generally not sexually attracted to adult males, and therefore should not be considered homosexuals.

Once again, research does not support such a claim. A study of sex offenders against male children in Behavior Research and Therapy found that male pederasts are sexually attracted to "males of all ages." Compared to non offenders, the offenders showed "greater arousal" when viewing slides of nude males as old as twenty four: "As a group, the child molesters responded with moderate sexual arousal ... to the nude males of all ages." [40]

In fact, a large percentage of pedophiles consider themselves to be homosexual. A study of 229 convicted child molesters in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "eighty six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual." [41]

Is Celibacy the Problem?

Many opportunists claim that, if the Catholic Church would simply relax its rules on celibacy, the sexual abuse crisis would be greatly ameliorated.

This assertion simply makes no sense.

Those priests who sexually molest boys have just as much access to adult women as other men. In fact, since priests are admired and respected professionals, we might reasonably say that they have more ready access to women than do other men.

The most certain proof that there is no correlation between celibacy and child molestation comes from the fact that married men commit child sexual abuse at about the same rate as Catholic priests.

There are about 260 reports each year of children under 18 being sexually abused by Protestant clergy, church staff, volunteers or congregation members. By comparison, 4,392 priests (out of 109,000) were accused of sexual abuse during the time period 1950 to 2002, an average of 84 per year. [42]

These numbers are backed up by a comprehensive study by Professor Philip Jenkins of Penn State, which found that between 0.2 percent and 1.7 percent of priests are pedophiles, and 2 to 3 percent of Protestant clergy are pedophiles, a somewhat higher rate. [43]

Since Protestant clergy are free to marry, it is obvious that allowing priests to marry will not solve the problem.

"Born that Way?" So What?

We often hear from the homosexual rights movement that "gays" are "born that way." This may or may not be true, depending on which of the hundreds of conflicting studies we choose to believe. Some experts believe that, in many cases, homosexuality is an acquired condition due to the lack of an effective male role model.

In the most fundamental sense, this point is irrelevant. We are all born with weaknesses, a direct result of our fallen natures.

We can deal with these weaknesses in one of two ways. We can accept them as crosses given to us by God, and we can glorify His Name by struggling to overcome them with the aid of His grace. Or we can simply give in and use the "born that way" excuse, the weak and cowardly road that is a vote of no confidence in God's grace and its ability to save us.

A person can have a genetic predisposition towards alcoholism. Yet our spouses do not accept the "born that way" excuse if we arrive home drunk every night. Kleptomania may indeed also be genetic, yet no court in the world has ever accepted the "born that way" excuse as a defense against shoplifting charges.

Alcoholics and those tempted to steal can be good and holy priests — just so long as they recognize their weaknesses, avoid near occasions of sin, and fight to overcome them on a daily basis with the help of God's grace. Men who are sexually attracted to women or to other men can also become saintly priests — but only if they do not give in to temptation and act out their desires.

A man who is living an active homosexual lifestyle, or who even experiences homosexual tendencies, should never be ordained a priest. [44] The danger to souls and to lives is just too great, as the sexual abuse crisis in the Church has amply demonstrated.

Conclusions

Ephebophilia, or the sexual desire for adolescent boys, has always been a hallmark of homosexuality, as shown by numerous scientific studies, and as admitted by "gay" leaders themselves on many occasions.

Homophile groups are exploiting the current crisis in the Church in order to achieve their goals, a classic strategy of infiltration and subversion. Many of these groups vocally supported "man-boy love" in the 1960s and 1970s. Now the same groups are attacking the Church because pedophile priests followed their advice and became "boy-lovers!"

The primary goal of those attacking the Church is to publicly destroy its moral authority so that people will not heed its teachings that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that homosexual "marriage" is a fraud.

A secondary goal of these groups is to eliminate the requirement for celibacy among priests. However, married Protestant clergy have a larger rate of child sexual molestation as Catholic priests, proving that celibacy has nothing at all to do with pederasty.

In summary, there are many attacking on the Pope specifically and the Roman Catholic Church generally because of the sex abuse crisis. However, these individuals and organizations are not motivated by a desire to enlighten mankind or protect the innocent, since the crisis has already largely subsided, and stringent means have been enacted to prevent the abuse from reoccurring. Rather, the motivation appears to be more one of bigotry and a desire to muzzle and sideline the Church's moral opposition to the "gay rights" movement.

The Author

Brian W. Clowes, Ph.D., is a 1974 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point. In 1995 he became the Director of Research and Training for Human Life International. He has written and edited eleven books and over one hundred articles in several fields of discipline. Dr. Clowes, his wife Kathy, and their seven children live in Front Royal, Virginia.


APPENDIX

PAGE IMAGES FROM SELECTED MEDICAL
PUBLICATIONS CITED IN THE TEXT




























NOTES:

[1]  Dignity USA Web site, February 6, 2004. This campaign was begun during the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops annual meeting in Washington, D.C., November 10 13, 2002. We should point out that the very existence of a group that supports sexually active "gay priests" is a great source of scandal.

[2]  Rory Carroll. "Vatican Attacked over Cardinal's Claim of Homosexuality and Paedophilia Link." The Guardian, April 13, 2010.

[3]  Laird Wilcox. "The Practice of Ritual Defamation." Editorial Research Service Web site at http://www.lairdwilcox.com. Homophiles will inevitably use these tactics in attempts to discredit this report. Defenders of the Catholic Church must ignore these attacks and emphasize the quotes, statistics and conclusions contained in this work.

[4]  Perhaps the best general article on the bigotry of the "Pope-hunters" is by atheist Brendan O'Neill. "The Pope-Hunters' Pathological Campaign." The Australian, April 15, 2010.

[5]  Hans Küng. "Church in Worst Credibility Crisis since Reformation, Theologian Tells Bishops." The Irish Times, April 16, 2010.

[6]  Dignity USA Web site, February 6, 2004.

[7]  Alfred Kinsey data described in P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979. Table 443, "Homosexual Sample: Age at First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact," and Table 444, "Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact." Even though much of Kinsey's research has been thoroughly discredited, his enduring primacy in the field of 'sexology' means that sex educators and others involved in human sexuality study his material intensively, and have therefore been aware of the strong link between homosexuality and pedophilia for more than six decades.

[8]  Ray Blanchard, et al. "Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles." Archives of Sexual Behavior, October 2000 [Volume 29, Number 5], pages 463-478, p. 464.

[9]  A. Zebulon, Z.A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey. "Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women." Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2000 [Volume 29, Number 1], pages 67-76, p. 73.

[10]  Ray Blanchard, et. al. "Pedophiles: Mental Retardation, Maternal Age, and Sexual Orientation." Archives of Sexual Behavior, April 1999 [Volume 28, Number 2], pages 111-127, p. 112.

[11]  Kurt Freund, Robin Watson and Douglas Rienzo. "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference." Journal of Sex Research, February 1989 [Volume 26, Number 1], pages 107-117, p. 115.

[12]  W.D. Erickson, et al. "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters." Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 1988 [Volume 17, Number 1], pages 77-86, p. 83.

[13]  Alan P. Bell, et. al., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [New York City: Simon and Schuster], 1978. Appendix C, Table 7, "Sexual Partnerships," page 311.

[14]  C. Jenny, T.A. Roesler, and K.L. Poyer. "Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?" Pediatrics, July 1994 [Volume 94, Number 1], pages 41-44.

[15]  John Jay College of Criminal Justice. The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States. April 2004, Section 3.1, "Introduction to the Problem of Child Sexual Abuse by Adult Men."

[16]  Ibid.

[17]  National Review Board. A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States. February 27, 2004, page 27, footnote 15.

[18]  United States Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. Child Maltreatment [annual reports, 1995 to 2008].

[19]  One of the "articles of faith" of the "gay rights" movement is that ten percent of any population is homosexual. In fact, the numbers are much smaller. There have been a number of major studies gauging the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. The aggregated results of these studies surveyed more than 218,000 men in several countries and show that 2.6 percent of the male population has ever had a homosexual experience in their lives [for a list of these studies, see Brian W. Clowes and David L. Sonnier. "Child Molestation by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals." Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2005, pages 44-54].

[20]  J. Dressler. "Gay Teachers: A Disesteemed Minority in an Overly Esteemed Profession." Rutgers/Camden Law Journal, 1978, 9(3), pages 399-445.

[21]  Ibid.

[22]  Point of View. "No Place for Homo Homophobia." San Francisco Sentinel, March 26, 1992.

[23]  Pedophile Philip Hutchinson's poem entitled "Choirboy." NAMBLA Bulletin, January February 1984, page 14.

[24]  NAMBLA flyer, quoted in Shirley J. O'Brien. "The Child Molester: Porn Plays a Major Role in Life." National Federation for Decency Journal, May/June 1987, pages 9-11.

[25]  David Thorstad, quoted in Joseph Sobran. "The Moderate Radical." Human Life Review, Summer 1983, pages 59-60. "Pederasty" is generally defined as the sexual molestation of a boy by an adult male not in his immediate family.

[26]  Wikipedia entry on NAMBLA, April 14, 2010.

[27]  Joshua Gamson. "Messages of Exclusion: Gender, Movements, and Symbolic Boundaries." Gender and Society April 1997 [Volume 11, Number 2], pages 178 199.

[28]  Ibid.

[29]  Larry Kramer, in Reports from the Holocaust [New York City: St. Martin's Press], 1991.

[30]  Pat Califia, in The Advocate, October 1980.

[31]  Steve Hanson. "Shame on Us." B.A.R. (Bay Area Reporter), January 23, 1992.

[32]  John Preston, quoted in The Big Gay Book: A Man's Survival Guide for the '90s [New York City: Plume], 1991.

[33]  Gayle Rubin, quoted in Leaping Lesbian, February, 1978. This article originally appeared in an article entitled "Sexual Politics, the New Right, and the Sexual Fringe" in The Age Taboo [Alyson Press], 1981, pages 108-115.

[34]  Wardell Pomeroy, quoted in Michael Ebert. "Pedophilia Steps Into the Daylight." Focus on the Family Citizen, November 16, 1992, pages 6-8.

[35]  Lawrence Morahan. "Psychiatric Association Debates Lifting Pedophilia Taboo." CNSNews.com, June 11, 2003; Archives of Sexual Behavior article discussed in Linda Ames Nicolosi. "International Academy of Sex Research Joins the Debate: Is Pedophilia a Mental Disorder?" NARTH, June 26, 2003.

[36]  Behavior Today, December 5, 1988, page 5.

[37]  John M. McElhenny, "Monsignor Says Harm of Abuse Wasn't Recognized." Boston Globe, February 23, 2004.

[38]  Jeremy Schulman. "Expert: Donohue's Claim that Most Abusive Priests are Gay is "Unwarranted." Media Matters for America Web site, April 2, 2010.

[39]  Zebulon, Z.A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey. "Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women." Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2000 [Volume 29, Number 1], pages 67-76.

[40]  W.L. Marshall, H.E. Barbaree, and Jennifer Butt. "Sexual Offenders Against Male Children: Sexual Preferences." Behavior Research and Therapy, 26 (1988): 383.

[41]  W.D. Erickson, et al. "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters." Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 1986 [Volume 17, Number 1], pages 77-86, p. 83.

[42]  Rose French. "260 Reports of Abuse Yearly in Protestant Churches." Chicago Sun-Times, June 15, 2007. Also see the John Jay study for statistics on accused Catholic priests.

[43]  Philip Jenkins. Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis [New York City: Oxford University Press], 1996, pages 50 and 81.

[44]  Congregation for Catholic Education. Instruction "Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in the View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders," November 4, 2005.

sexta-feira, 5 de abril de 2013

Mea Maxima Culpa: an exposé of an exposé - by Sean Murphy

In MercatorNet 

The scandal of an abusive priest in Wisconsin was ghastly enough. But a powerful documentary misrepresents how the Catholic Church dealt with it.


In the recent film, Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God, Oscar winning director Alex Gibney promises to show his audience "an exposé of abuse of power in the Catholic Church, and coverups that lead to the highest office of the Vatican."  It is a powerful film that has evoked spasms of outrage from both critics and defenders of the Catholic Church, too often superficial "I told you so's" on the one hand, or "Just the usual bunch of Church bashers" on the other.  Neither attitude does justice to the film, which makes serious charges and thus demands serious engagement.

Since the story of Father Lawrence Murphy runs through Mea Maxima Culpa from the beginning to the end and forms, as it were, the backbone of the production, it is appropriate to follow that story and begin where the film begins: in St. Francis, Wisconsin.

Father Lawrence Murphy was assigned to St. John School for the Deaf in St. Francis immediately after ordination in 1950, and left the school in September, 1974.  Decades later, people would learn that he had been removed because of complaints that he had been sexually abusing deaf boys at the school.  It was later estimated that he had sexually assaulted 100 to 200 boys during his tenure.

Mea Maxima Culpa is at its best in presenting Murphy's excruciating violation of the childhood innocence of his victims and its long-term impact on them.  However, most of the film deals with the victims' attempts to expose Murphy and bring him to justice, beginning in 1973 and 1974, with special emphasis on the response of the Catholic Church.

Consistent with the marketing description of the film, Mea Maxima Culpa attempts to convince the audience that "the Vatican" knew about Murphy's predatory activities for over twenty years and did nothing to stop him.  Even more, resurrecting the 2010 accusations of the New York Times, Alex Gibney claims that "the Vatican" refused to "defrock Murphy" even though American bishops were "pleading" to have him laicized.  One of the principal witnesses called by Mr. Gibney to give evidence against "the Vatican" is Rembert Weakland, former Archbishop of Milwaukee.

A review of publicly available documents fails to disclose evidence to support the accusations made by Mea Maxima Culpa with respect to the Murphy case.  On the contrary:  the words ofNew York Times reporter Laurie Goodstein rebound on her.  The story she and Mr. Gibney's tell about "the Vatican" and Fr. Murphy is turned on its head by the evidence they produce and the evidence they neglect.

The coverup of Murphy's crimes was the work of Milwaukee Archbishop William Cousins.  Weakland, his successor, continued to conceal them for some time and let him function as a priest until almost a year after his retirement with virtually no restrictions.  Weakland imposed some restrictions only after his own responsibility for concealing and protecting sex offenders became public in late 1993.  He took no further action until late 1995, after he had begun to feel more pressure from victims and their lawyers and, it seems, some of the Archdiocesan curia.  He did not begin a judicial process for laicization until the fall of 1996.

Murphy wrote to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in January, 1998, asking him to intervene to stop the process because the canonical limitation of action period had long since expired, and because he was old and ill.  The reply from Archbishop Bertone, Secretary of Cardinal Ratzinger's Congregation, confirmed that there was no time limitation on prosecution.  Archbishop Bertone also directed the attention of the American bishops to a point in canon law, which they then addressed.  Thus, the reply from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith cleared the way for the laicization process to continue.

However, in May, 1998, during their ad limina visit to Rome, Archbishop Weakland and Bishop Sklba of Milwaukee and Bishop Fliss of Superior met with Archbishop Bertone and curial officials to ask advice about the Murphy case.  The advice given was based on Weakland's  anaemic presentation;  Archbishop Bertone pointed out some of the evidentiary difficulties in proceeding and suggested an alternative method of dealing with the problem, as it had been described by Weakland.  Cardinal Ratzinger was not involved in the case, and the American bishops were not directed to stop the judicial process.

Weakland himself decided to halt the process of laicization in late July.  Murphy died two days after Weakland committed his decision to writing on 19 August, 1998.  Since that time, Weakland has attempted to make it appear that "the Vatican" was responsible for hindering and then halting the laicization Murphy, and Mr. Gibney was either taken in by Weakland's dissembling or found that it served his purposes in making Mea Maxima Culpa.

This is not a critique of the film as a whole, but is confined to its misrepresentations of the Murphy story, which Mr. Gibney could have told with much greater effect had he paid attention to the evidence, and allowed the evidence to guide his film-making.  The evidence is presented here, in five parts.*

Fr. Lawrence Murphy is assigned to St. John School for the Deaf near Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1950, becomes director in 1963, and is removed from the school in 1974 for sexually assaulting students.  Archbishop William Cousins conceals the reason for his removal and sends him 300 miles away to Boulder Junction, Wisconsin, in the Diocese of Superior.  During a civil suit in 1975, Cousins commits perjury to continue the coverup.  The lawsuit is settled out of court.  Go here

Rembert Weakland succeeds Cousins as Archbishop of Milwaukee in 1977.  He learns of the allegations against Murphy and forbids him to say mass in Milwaukee in order to avoid friction with the deaf community.  He places no other restriction on him, and continues to conceal the reason for his departure from Milwaukee from the Bishop of Superior until at least 1980.  Murphy functions as a priest without restrictions for 16 years, until his retirement in January, 1993.  Go here

In November and December, 1992, revelations of clerical sexual abuse rock the Archdiocese of Milwaukee.  Fr. William Effinger is charged for sexual assault in January, 1993 and civil suits are filed against the Archdiocese.  Apparently emboldened by the news reports and public response to these developments, Murphy's victims begin to come forward.  Apparently as a result, in the early fall of 1993, restrictions are placed on Murphy's ministry in Milwaukee, and he is later forbidden to have unsupervised contact with minors.

In November, 1993, the Archdiocese settles nine civil suits filed by Effinger's victims.  News reports reveal Weakland knew of Effinger's offences and concealed them.  Immediately following the settlements, more restrictions on ministry are imposed on Murphy, in writing.  Weakland has him evaluated by a psychotherapist, who advises Weakland that he has admitted to sexually assaulting 19 students, though the likely number of suspects could be 200.  She also reports on his abuse of the confessional.  Weakland affirms restrictions on Murphy at the end of December, but takes no further action.  His failure to pursue laicization of Murphy is consistent with his public statements on the subject.  Go here

One of Murphy's victims writes to Weakland in November, 1994, making allegations against Murphy.  In early 1995 he writes to Murphy to accuse him directly, and sends copies to Weakland and Angelo Cardinal Sodano.  Sodano ignores the letter, and a subsequent request for the courtesy of a reply, thus demonstrating callous disregard for the victim.  However, he is not obliged to take other action because he knows that Weakland had been provided with the same information, and that it is Weakland's responsibility to respond.

Lawyers representing Murphy's victims begin writing to Weakland in 1995.  In September, a victim reports historical sexual assault and the abuse of the confessional.  Weakland authorizes an investigation in December prior to a six month sabbatical.  On his return in July, 1996, after consulting with the investigators, he writes to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger for direction.  He authorizes a judicial process for laicization to begin in December, 1996.

In January, 1998, Murphy writes to Cardinal Ratzinger to ask that the case against him be stopped because the canonical limitation of action had passed, and because he is old and ill.  The reply from the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clears the way for the proceedings to continue.  Go here

During their ad limina visit to Rome at the end of May, Archbishop Weakland and Bishop Sklba of Milwaukee and Bishop Fliss of Superior meet with Archbishop Bertone from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Weakland makes an anaemic presentation of the Murphy case.  Based what he has been told by Weakland, Bertone discusses some of the evidentiary problems associated with the proceeding and suggests a possible alternative way to deal with the case.  He gives no direction as to how the case should be resolved.

Weakland returns to Milwaukee.  On 22 July he decides to halt the laicization process and adopt a "pastoral" resolution.  In a letter to Archbishop Bertone dated 19 August he explains his decision.  Murphy dies two days later.

When confronted publicly about the handling of the Murphy file, Weakland blames "the Vatican."  However, he privately explains that his efforts in Rome and subsequent handling of the case were intended to preserve Murphy's good name and keep everything "as quiet as possible."  Go here

*Author's Note
What is offered here is a response to specific accusations made in Mea Maxima Culpa concerning Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  It is not an exhaustive account of the Murphy story, though the story had to be told again in some detail to provide an adequate context for the response.

Missing records, or, at least, the limited number of publicly available records makes it difficult to reconstruct events.  The lawyers cooperating with Mr. Gibney in making Mea Maxima Culpahave not released all of the documents used in the film, notably the deposition of Archbishop William Cousins and the document signed by Gary Smith in 1975.

In preparing this review I consulted all documents I was able to find on-line relevant to the Murphy case. When possible, I have tried to fill in details and chronological blanks from other sources, including contemporaneous newspaper articles drawn principally from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and its predecessor publications.

I have provided over 300 notes, most of which link to on-line sources, and, when attempting to reconcile conflicting or varying accounts or explain other points, I have tried to make my reasoning clear.  Readers who disagree, in whole or in part, should have no difficulty in articulating the extent and reasons for their disagreement.

Sean Murphy is a Catholic layman. He retired from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 2009 after almost 35 years' police service. While not a specialist in sexual assault, during the course of his service he was responsible for the investigation of current and historical sex crimes against children and adults (including false allegations), leading, in one case, to the conviction of a Catholic priest.  Over the years he was described by superiors as "tenacious," "conscientious" and "meticulously thorough."  This article should not be understood to represent the views of the RCMP or its members. Sean Murphy is not related to Lawrence Murphy.

sábado, 23 de março de 2013

"Mea maxima culpa", la menzogna sbarca al cinema - di Massimo Introvigne

In NBQ 

Con grande fanfara arriva in Italia il film americano del 2012 «Mea Maxima Culpa – Silenzio nella casa di Dio» del regista statunitense Alex Gibney. 

Premetto di avere visto la versione originale in lingua inglese: non escludo che – com’è accaduto altre volte – il doppiaggio italiano aggiunga altre imprecisioni. Ma anche l’originale di questa nuova macchina da guerra contro la Chiesa contiene un numero impressionante di bugie. Si resta davvero sconcertati quando si vede la protervia con cui menzogne smentite decine di volte sono riproposte tranquillamente, ignorando documenti e fatti. 

Come altre produzioni in materia di preti pedofili – dal film «Deliver Us from Evil» (2006) della regista Amy Berg al documentario «Sex Crimes and the Vatican» (2006) dell’attivista omosessuale ed ex-parlamentare irlandese Colm O’Gorman, a suo tempo proposto da Santoro in «Annozero» – il film propone uno schema in tre passaggi. 

Nel primo si mostrano, con immagini e testimonianze sconvolgenti che non possono che provocare l’ira e il disgusto dello spettatore, le nefandezze dei sacerdoti pedofili. Nel secondo si «dirottano» il disgusto e l’ira dal prete pedofilo di turno ai vescovi che l’avrebbero protetto. Nel terzo passaggio l’ira, così canalizzata, è indirizzata verso il destinatario ultimo: la Santa Sede e i Papi beato Giovanni Paolo II (1920-2005) e Benedetto XVI.

I tre passaggi non sono evidentemente sullo stesso piano. Il primo in «Mea Maxima Culpa» ha sequenze tecnicamente ben fatte, e ci mette di fronte anzitutto a un caso vero e tragico, che fa da filo conduttore a tutto il film. Si tratta della vicenda di don Lawrence Murphy (1925-1998), accusato di abusi particolarmente disgustosi, durati per vent’anni, in un collegio per minorenni sordi, la St. John School a Saint Francis, nel Wisconsin. 

Non dobbiamo avere paura di riconoscerlo, ed è stato un insegnamento sistematico di Benedetto XVI: i preti pedofili esistono. Se anche ce ne fosse stato uno solo nella Chiesa, sarebbe stato uno di troppo. Ma sono stati molti di più: non migliaia, come vorrebbe la propaganda anti-cattolica, ma centinaia. I loro crimini sono una gravissima vergogna, uno scandalo, un’offesa inaudita. Molte volte a nome della Chiesa l’attuale Pontefice emerito ha chiesto perdono alle vittime. Ha anche messo in opera misure severissime, che hanno fatto sì che i casi siano molto diminuiti. Ma accettiamo anche da avversari della Chiesa il servizio che ci rendono, impedendoci di dimenticare che casi come quelli di don Murphy si sono purtroppo davvero verificati.

Sul secondo passaggio il film comincia a svelare la sua agenda. Ci dice che la sua diocesi, quella di Milwaukee, ha coperto per anni don Murphy. Chi lo afferma? Qui sfilano i soliti sospetti, la compagnia di giro dei professionisti dell’anti-pedofilia, molti dei quali sono già noti ai nostri lettori. 

Si va da esponenti dello SNAP, l’associazione di sostegno alle vittime degli abusi di cui «La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana» ha svelato il 9 marzo qualche segreto non proprio encomiabile, all’avvocato miliardario Jeff Anderson, che si è arricchito dedicandosi praticamente a tempo pieno alle cause dove chiede risarcimenti strabilianti – che finiscono in buona parte nelle sue tasche – alla Chiesa.

Il film riporta compiaciuto che oltre cinquecento cause hanno portato nelle casse di Anderson e di pochi altri come lui due miliardi di dollari. Ritroviamo il sacerdote domenicano ultra-progressista Tom Doyle, attivissimo nel testimoniare a pagamento per Anderson e che il film presenta come un paladino dei veri interessi della Chiesa mentre ha pubblicamente dichiarato nel 2012 che ormai «non ha più niente a che fare con la Chiesa» e che le sue credenze «sono più o meno quanto di più lontano dal Vaticano potete immaginare».

Non mancano la giornalista del «New York Times» Laurie Goodstein, che ha trasformato il quotidiano americano in un megafono di Anderson e dello SNAP, e l’ex-benedettino, ora sposato, Richard Sipe, che spiega sapientemente come gli insegnamenti della Chiesa su eucarestia e confessione siano «eresie». 

Si aggiungono, per un tocco internazionale, il già citato Colm O’Gorman, l’ex-parlamentare radicale italiano Maurizio Turco – noto per avere chiesto l’incriminazione di Papa Benedetto XVI per crimini contro l’umanità – e il vaticanista de «Il Fatto Quotidiano», Marco Politi, che porta anche una nota di colore al film attaccando la Chiesa con una curiosissima pronuncia inglese all’amatriciana. In questo inglese improbabile, ci spiega che il problema dei preti pedofili è antichissimo e che già «un concilio spagnolo del IV secolo» lo aveva rilevato. Politi allude ai canoni 12 e 71 del Concilio di Elvira, che però trattano di rapporti sessuali con minori – purtroppo comuni nell’antichità romana – senza fare riferimento ai preti, di cui è invece sanzionata l’immoralità sessuale, senza allusioni alla pedofilia. Utilizzare il Concilio di Elvira per sostenere che la Chiesa ha a che fare con i preti pedofili e li copre «da 1.700 anni» è semplicemente ridicolo.

Per sfortuna dei professionisti dell’anti-pedofilia, il caso Murphy è stato studiato a fondo e da anni, e i documenti raccontano una storia diversa dalla loro. Le denunzie precedenti al 1973 erano così vaghe da non giustificare nessuna azione. Nel 1973 alcune vittime iniziano a rompere davvero il silenzio. Nel 1974 incontrano l’allora arcivescovo di Milwaukee mons. William Edward Cousins (1902-1988).

Il film ci racconta che Cousins, dopo questo incontro, «non fece nulla». È una bugia. L’incontro con le vittime si svolse il 4 maggio 1974. Già il successivo 18 maggio il giornale diocesano riportava che don Murphy era stato sollevato da ogni incarico pastorale e d’insegnamento agli studenti della scuola St. John’s. A settembre, lasciò la scuola – certo, come mostra il film con immagini dell’epoca, calorosamente ringraziato da una parte degli studenti che nulla sapevano degli abusi. Da allora, per venticinque anni visse a casa sua a Boulder Junction, nel Wisconsin, a oltre trecento chilometri dalla St. John’s, e non ricevette fino alla morte alcun ulteriore incarico pastorale.

Il film afferma che fu «assegnato» alla parrocchia di Boulder Junction. Altra bugia: è vero che nei primi anni alcuni parroci della zona lo chiamarono a celebrare Messa, ma lo fecero ignorando che era stato autorizzato dalla sua arcidiocesi, Milwaukee, a celebrare solo privatamente. 

Il film ammette che la polizia, cui una vittima si era rivolta, rimase inattiva, e che la magistratura locale – dopo un’inchiesta sommaria e una visita alla scuola – archiviò il caso. Afferma che lo fece perché era scattata la prescrizione – il che è molto dubbio – e perché «i magistrati erano cattolici», un’accusa curiosa dal momento che magistrati cattolici hanno incriminato preti pedofili in tutti gli Stati Uniti.

Soprattutto, il film si dimentica di dire che la stessa arcidiocesi si rivolse alla magistratura: e la dimenticanza deriva dal fatto che – fra tanti testimoni – il regista Gibney si è «dimenticato» di consultare padre Thomas Brundage, pure citato nel film, che seguì tutto il caso come responsabile del tribunale ecclesiastico di Milwaukee e la cui testimonianza cruciale è stata completamente ignorata.

Certamente la Chiesa nel 1974 era meno consapevole di oggi della gravità dello scandalo dei preti pedofili. Tuttavia, non è vero che l’arcivescovo Cousins «non fece nulla»: al contrario, si mosse rapidamente per mettere don Murphy in condizione di non nuocere. Quanto alle responsabilità penali del sacerdote, non fu la Chiesa a proteggerlo dalla magistratura ma fu la magistratura – sbagliando, ma non per colpa dell’arcivescovo – ad archiviare le denunce senza approfondirle.

Veniamo al terzo passaggio. Il film racconta come negli anni dal 1996 al 1998 don Murphy sia stato protetto nientemeno che dal cardinale Ratzinger e dall’allora cardinale Bertone che, in qualità rispettivamente di prefetto e segretario della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, non diedero seguito a denunce arrivate a Roma da Milwaukee. 

Intervista l’impresentabile ex-arcivescovo di Milwaukee Rembert George Weakland O.S.B., caduto in disgrazia dopo che è emerso il suo uso di 450.000 dollari tratti dalle casse dell’arcidiocesi per pagare un amante omosessuale che lo stava ricattando.

Weakland non solo è tradito dalla sua memoria quando afferma che i tempi di prescrizione del crimine di abusi sono più brevi nel diritto canonico rispetto al diritto civile – è il contrario – ma afferma, «pro domo sua», che portò il caso a Roma e che il cardinale Ratzinger e l’allora mons. Bertone si mossero con grande lentezza permettendo a Murphy di morire nel 1998 senza essere stato adeguatamente punito. Mons. Weakland e il film ripetono menzogne che sono state già smascherate nel 2010, quando la bufala fu lanciata dalla Goodstein sul «New York Times» per attaccare Benedetto XVI, da un’esemplare inchiesta dell’attuale direttore de «La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana» Riccardo Cascioli, il quale ricostruì il comportamento della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede nel caso Murphy nei più minuti particolari, tutti sostenuti da documenti.

Dall’inchiesta di Cascioli emergeva che il caso di don Murphy era di competenza di Milwaukee, non di Roma, ma che Roma – in persona dell’allora monsignor Bertone – non si disinteressò affatto della vicenda né incitò a insabbiarla, fornendo precisazioni quanto alla procedura che permettesse di sanzionare in modo conforme al diritto canonico un sacerdote, che era peraltro moribondo, in relazione a fatti che risalivano a oltre vent’anni prima.

Ma è evidente che i dettagli precisi non interessano ai professionisti dell’anti-pedofilia. Lo scopo è attaccare Benedetto XVI, già prefetto della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede di cui si spiega che «era un tempo chiamata Inquisizione», mostrando al riguardo la solita litografia illuminista settecentesca dove si vede una donna, nuda e con gli obbligatori seni ben esposti, torturata dall’Inquisizione con le sue macchine diaboliche. Certo, il film cerca di presentarsi come obiettivo riconoscendo gli sforzi di Benedetto XVI per arginare la piaga dei preti pedofili. Ma si afferma – contro l’evidenza dei fatti – che non hanno avuto alcun successo.

Se il caso Murphy offre l’impalcatura su cui si costruisce tutto il film, si menzionano anche altri episodi. Colpisce che non si tratti mai di casi recenti, a riprova del fatto che davvero le misure di Benedetto XVI hanno ridotto in modo molto significativo il fenomeno, precisamente quello che il film cerca di negare. 

Il primo caso evocato è quello dell’Irlanda, dove in relazione agli abusi di don Tony Walsh si evoca come «il documento misterioso» la lettera del 1997 in cui l’allora nunzio apostolico in Irlanda mons. Luciano Storero (1926-2000) comunicava ai vescovi irlandesi le «serie riserve» della Congregazione del Clero su un documento preparato da una commissione di esperti nel 1995 in cui tra l’altro si stabiliva l’obbligo per i vescovi di denunciare immediatamente alle autorità civili ogni notizia o voce di abusi di cui fossero venuti a conoscenza.

La pubblicazione della lettera provocò nel 2011 una crisi diplomatica fra Irlanda e Santa Sede, di cui ci occupammo su «La Bussola Quotidiana», dando conto della dettagliata risposta della Segreteria di Stato. 

Nel 1997 l’obbligo di denuncia immediata di possibili abusi – non solo per i vescovi ma anche per i medici, i dirigenti scolastici e altri – non esisteva nel diritto dell’Irlanda, che sarebbe cambiato sul punto solo nel 1999. Se i vescovi, prima di qualunque indagine e sulla base magari di una semplice accusa malevola o isolata, avessero denunciato immediatamente i propri preti alla polizia non solo avrebbero agito in modo moralmente discutibile ma avrebbero violato la legge dello Stato irlandese dell’epoca, esponendosi ad azioni penali per calunnia e civili per il risarcimento del danno agli accusati che poi fossero risultati innocenti. Nulla di tutto questo emerge nel film: la lettera Storero è presentata come la «pistola fumante», la prova della volontà della Chiesa di proteggere i pedofili a tutti i costi.

Viene poi il caso di padre Marcial Maciel (1920-2008), il fondatore dei Legionari di Cristo di cui si ricostruiscono la doppia vita, i figli illegittimi e gli abusi omosessuali ed eterosessuali. Il riferimento nel film offre l’occasione di una precisazione. 

Senz’altro qualche difensore di «Mea Maxima Culpa», che dà voce ancora una volta al giornalista ostilissimo alla Santa Sede Jason Berry, mi ricorderà che a suo tempo scrissi una recensione molto critica del libro di Berry, in cui mostravo di credere alle proteste d’innocenza di Maciel, convinzione che confermai in una successiva breve nota all’inizio dell’indagine vaticana, auspicando che tutto potesse essere chiarito.

Non ho nessuna difficoltà a confessare di essermi sbagliato. Come molti altri, vedevo i buoni frutti della congregazione dei Legionari di Cristo e avevo difficoltà a convincermi che potessero venire da una radice perversa. Sapevo anche che il beato Giovanni Paolo II – come il film non manca di ricordare – credeva all’innocenza di padre Maciel. Avevo torto io, e aveva ragione il cardinale Ratzinger che invece fin dall’inizio riteneva colpevole il fondatore dei Legionari di Cristo. 

Mi è già capitato di fare ammenda – in pubblico, con una lettera letta al congresso dell’International Cultic Studies Association tenuto a Montreal nel 2012 – per una posizione sbagliata che può avere arrecato dolore ad autentiche vittime dei crimini di padre Maciel.

L’occasione è però favorevole per precisare che il fatto che Maciel fosse colpevole non rende vere le affermazioni del libro di Berry che attaccano la Chiesa in genere, per esempio con autentiche castronerie su come procedono i tribunali ecclesiastici nei casi di annullamento di matrimoni. Maciel è colpevole, ma le castronerie restano tali. E ha torto anche Politi quando afferma nel film che quello di Maciel è «un caso di scuola» in materia di preti pedofili. No, non lo è. È un «mistero», come ebbe a dire Benedetto XVI. Non ci sono altri casi di fondatori di ordini religiosi, con frutti splendidi, colpevoli di comportamenti non solo immorali, ma criminali.

Politi sostiene anche che in Italia ci sono «migliaia di casi di abusi sessuali nascosti dalla Chiesa». Ma deve avere qualche problema con i numeri, perché i casi segnalati ai tribunali italiani sono al massimo un’ottantina. Certo, ci sono episodi reali come quello dell’Istituto Provolo per sordi a Verona. Ma – affidandosi ad anti-clericali fanatici come Maurizio Turco – il film ci mostra sequenze a effetto senza dire che la Chiesa italiana si è mossa affidando un’esemplare inchiesta indipendente a un magistrato, il dottor Mario Sannite, che ha portato a sanzioni della Santa Sede contro un sacerdote e a ulteriori indagini su altri tre. L’indagine ha però anche giudicato fantastiche e infondate le accuse di Gianni Bisoli, che afferma di essere stato fra gli abusati, contro ben ventinove religiosi e contro l’allora vescovo di Verona, il servo di Dio mons. Giuseppe Carraro (1899-1980), di cui dopo il rapporto Sannite è ripreso il processo di beatificazione.

Ripetiamolo ancora una volta: quella dei preti pedofili è una tragedia tremenda e ingiustificabile. Ci sono stati preti criminali, e vescovi gravemente negligenti. Benedetto XVI ci ha mostrato come affrontare questa piaga, senza alcun negazionismo. Ma il film «Mea Maxima Culpa» non è un reportage obiettivo dalla parte delle vittime. Mira al bersaglio grosso, alla Chiesa. Si apre con l’ex-benedettino Sipe che afferma che metà dei preti è infedele al celibato – sarebbe interessante sapere da dove trae questi dati – e che il sistema del celibato «produce e protegge i pedofili». 

Un’affermazione cui potrei replicare ricordando che ci sono più pedofili fra i maestri di scuola americani e fra alcuni gruppi di pastori protestanti, che non hanno il celibato, che tra i preti. Ma mi piace rispondere con parole del cardinale Bergoglio, oggi Papa Francesco, nel suo libro-intervista «Il gesuita»: «Se c’è un prete pedofilo è perché porta in sé la perversione prima di essere ordinato. E sopprimere il celibato non  curerebbe tale perversione. O la si ha o non la si ha». 

E il film si conclude con la saga dell’avvocato Anderson, una figura davvero sgradevole quando assapora i «fiumi di denaro» che la Chiesa ancora nasconde e che spera evidentemente di veder confluire nelle sue capaci tasche, il quale ha cercato di coinvolgere nelle cause statunitensi Benedetto XVI e la Santa Sede, facendosi peraltro dare torto dai tribunali americani. Ma questo è avvenuto – spiega Geoffrey Robertson, presentato semplicemente come «avvocato specializzato in diritti umani», senza precisare che è anche un infaticabile propagandista dell’ateismo – perché il Papa è protetto dall’essere il capo di uno Stato, il Vaticano. 

La Chiesa acquistò uno Stato, spiega Robertson, a causa di un patto fra Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) – il film commenta con  la musica di «Giovinezza» e facendo vedere un’immagine del Duce insieme ad Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), che non c’entra nulla ma evoca sempre emozioni forti – e Pio XI (1857-1939). Quest’ultimo era un sostenitore acritico del fascismo, spiega Robertson – che non deve avere mai sentito parlare dell’enciclica del 1931 «Non abbiamo bisogno» –: «la Chiesa sostenne il fascismo e in cambio fu creato un suo Stato, il Vaticano».  

Qualcuno spieghi a Robertson un po’ di storia: lo Stato della Chiesa si forma fra il VI e il IX secolo, un po’ prima di Mussolini. Ma Robertson, da bravo inglese, ha trovato la prova definitiva che il Vaticano non è un vero Stato: «non c’è una squadra di calcio». Non è vero neanche questo: esistono per i dipendenti dei dicasteri vaticani un campionato vaticano di calcio, una coppa e perfino una supercoppa tra chi ha vinto rispettivamente la coppa e il campionato – tornei da non confondersi con la «Clericus Cup», cui partecipano seminaristi dei collegi romani che non sono però cittadini vaticani. Forse la prossima finale della supercoppa vaticana potrebbe essere arbitrata da Robertson. Come altri che si esibiscono nel film «Mea Maxima Culpa», si ha infatti l’impressione che capisca più di sport che di religione.