Aborto de Derechas - por Juan Manuel de Prada

In RL

Decía Balmes que los partidos «de instinto moderado y sistema conservador» se convertían a la postre en conservadores «de los intereses creados de una revolución consumada y reconocida»; y que, a la postre, resultaban más útiles a la Revolución que los propios partidos revolucionarios.

Así ocurre en la cuestión del aborto, donde vemos cómo el partido conservador se convierte, mientras gobierna, en conservador de los «avances» del partido socialista, para que luego el partido socialista pueda seguir «avanzando» tan ricamente, en la seguridad de que el partido conservador conservará las cosas en el exacto punto en el que él las dejó. Ocurrió durante los dos mandatos de Aznar, en los que se «conservó» fielmente la legislación despenalizadora del aborto impulsada por González, para que luego Zapatero pudiera seguir «avanzando»; y vuelve a ocurrir ahora, pese a todos los jeribeques y pamemas que el nuevo gobierno conservador ha probado ante la galería. Año y medio después de que accediera al poder con mayoría absoluta, la legislación sobre el aborto sigue siendo la que Zapatero dejó.

De este modo, tal como señalaba Balmes, los partidos conservadores vuelven a mostrarse a la Revolución más útiles que los propios partidos revolucionarios. Las legislaciones abortistas siempre las impulsa el partido socialista; pero, ¿quién ha permitido que la mentalidad abortista arraigue y se consolide cada vez más entre la sociedad española? Sin duda, el partido conservador, dejando que tales legislaciones se asienten. Y aun me atrevería a señalar un aspecto más trágico: mientras gobiernan los socialistas, sus legislaciones abortistas se tropiezan con una resistencia contumaz por parte de sectores de la sociedad española que son naturalmente antiabortistas; pero que, cuando gobiernan los conservadores, se relajan en su celo y abandonan las posiciones de resistencia que habían mantenido antes. De esta actitud dimisionaria ha tomado buena nota el partido conservador, que así puede actuar de modo perfectamente hipócrita: combatiendo, mientras se halla en la oposición, leyes que ni siquiera se planteó derogar mientas gobernó, a sabiendas de que cuando vuelva a gobernar tampoco las derogará; pero sirviéndose, entretanto, de la gente bienintencionada que piensa –o quiere pensar: wishful-thinking– que las derogará.

La ofuscación ideológica interviene luego; y el defensor de la vida puede, incluso, llegar a la conclusión racionalmente absurda de que, en la cuestión del aborto, el partido conservador representa «el mal menor»; y que, por lo tanto, entre el «aborto de izquierdas» y el «aborto de derechas» debe optarse por el segundo. Pero el principio de que es lícito elegir un mal menor vale en determinados casos; no así en caso de error moral, donde no es posible elegir el «menor error». El error mezclado con medias verdades, o con morigeraciones hipócritas, es infinitamente más perverso que el error craso, pues el segundo provoca en la conciencia un repudio inmediato, mientras que el primero la ayuda a «contemporizar». Dos y dos son cuatro, no cinco ni veintisiete; si quien sabe que son cuatro se pone de parte de quienes afirman que son cinco, por no dar la razón a quienes afirman que son veintisiete, hace mucho más daño, pues el «error menor» puede llegar a ser asimilado mucho más fácilmente por las conciencias que el error craso; y la aceptación del «error menor» es condición indispensable para que, a la larga, el error craso se imponga y triunfe. Por eso el «aborto de derechas» es más útil al abortismo que el propio «aborto de izquierdas». La caracterización balmesiana vuelve a demostrarse infalible.

© Abc

O inocente - por João César das Neves

In DN

Portugal passa por um momento terrível, mas isso não o deve impedir de admirar esteticamente uma obra de arte excepcional. Ora o regresso de José Sócrates é um espantoso feito de técnica política, do mais alto nível mundial.

A personagem é notável. Verve, atitude, táctica são excelentes. Para lá das qualidades como tribuno e estratega, aquilo que o distingue dos demais e o coloca acima da sua geração é a total ausência de escrúpulos. Não existe a menor contemplação pela realidade dos factos, interesse nacional, simples decoro pessoal. Existe apenas um projecto de poder, e tudo lhe é sacrificado. Há muitas décadas que não tínhamos um político assim, e já nos esquecemos do estilo. Por isso tanto nos admira a quase inacreditável capacidade de imaginação e manipulação com que consegue sair de uma posição que seria desesperada para qualquer outro. Além disso é terrivelmente eficaz e convence mesmo. Digno de antologia!

Apresenta-se como totalmente inocente dos males que afligem o País. Foi primeiro-ministro durante mais de seis anos mas é inimputável pelo desastre que deflagrou nos últimos meses do seu mandato. A culpa vem de uma "crise das dívidas soberanas", que lhe é naturalmente alheia. E claro também de um terrível bando de malfeitores, onde se inclui o actual Governo, bancos, União Europeia e FMI, que pretendem, por razões não esclarecidas, destruir Portugal. Ele, pelo contrário, sempre esteve do lado do progresso e alegria, que infelizmente não se concretizaram.

Não é claro se mente descaradamente ou acredita mesmo na fábula, sofrendo de delírio. Em qualquer caso, todos os dados apontam para o facto de José Sócrates ser, não imoral, mas completamente amoral. Não se lhe parecem colocar quaisquer remorsos de consciência. Por isso é tão convincente. A nossa actual democracia nunca teve, em posições cimeiras, pessoas deste calibre. Assim Sócrates destaca-se flagrantemente.

É preciso dizer que ele ainda não atingiu os níveis do contemporâneo mestre absoluto da técnica, Silvio Berlusconi. Nem sequer é evidente que o português alguma vez consiga os feitos do italiano. No entanto, cabe-lhe um honroso segundo lugar. Esta atribuição não é forçada porque a relação entre ambos é evidente. Tirando eles, todos os líderes que estavam no poder quando bateu a crise, alguns deles de reconhecidas qualidades, caíram fragorosamente: Geir Haarde na Islândia, Kostas Karamanlis e George Papandreou na Grécia, José Luis Zapatero em Espanha, Brian Cowen na Irlanda, Yves Leterme na Bélgica, Nicolas Sarkozy em França, Gordon Brown no Reino Unido, George Bush nos EUA, etc. Todos forçados a sair de cena sem remissão. Deles, apenas Berlusconi e Sócrates mantêm esperanças de regresso, estando bastante avançados no processo. O estilo de ambos, apesar das diferenças, tem paralelos evidentes. Mas temos de admitir que o magnata transalpino, que saiu depois e regressou mais cedo do que o nosso engenheiro, tem evidente primazia.

Admirando o engenho e a arte, não podemos esquecer o muito que eles devem aos tempos que vivemos. É preciso recuar às primeiras décadas do século passado para encontrar casos semelhantes, porque nessa altura o mundo enfrentava dilemas e conflitos próximos dos actuais. O rancor das acusações, o ressurgimento da retórica antidemocrática, os contínuos apelos à Grande Depressão aproximam as duas épocas. Talvez tenhamos aprendido a evitar o pior dessa evolução, mas não admira o ressurjimento do mesmo tipo de animais políticos.

A única coisa que pode fazer a diferença é a capacidade dos eleitorados em resistir ao engano. O caso italiano assusta muito, porque repete traços da antiga trajectória, embora com diferenças significativas e ainda sem Mussolinis no horizonte. Portugal começou agora o seu processo. Veremos até que ponto a raiva pelos sacrifícios, junto com o ilusionismo, conseguirão fazer que o grande beneficiário da crise venha a ser aquele que indiscutivelmente foi o seu principal responsável. Isso seria uma obra de arte incomparável.

If Knot Now, When? The Impact of Delayed Marriage Among Twenty-somethings - by Meg McDonnell

In The Public Discourse

Michelle was 22 when she found herself pregnant. She was in a committed relationship with all signs pointing to marriage, she says, but since she had just completed college, with ambitious career plans for her future, children weren’t on the horizon yet.

“Although I did want a baby with my now-husband (even at the young age of 22), I was devastated because I felt like my life was ruined,” she writes in a blog post. “Everything I wanted to accomplish—everything I wanted to be—was now gone. And I didn’t get this from my own head—I got it from friends, family, TV, movies, and complete strangers.”

Most young adults are putting off starting a family in their twenties, she notes, and the cultural expectations surrounding delayed marriage aided in the initial devastation that surrounded Michelle’s pregnancy.

“My body felt ready, but my brain didn’t,” she elaborates. And though she went on to marry the father of her child and raise their now four-year-old son, her decision was not made without a lot of anxiety and despair.

"I do wish that someone would have told me that my life wouldn’t be ruined. That I could go on to have a successful career, a happy marriage, and a fulfilling life,” she lamented. “I wish someone had told me that choosing earlier-than-expected pregnancy isn’t a tragedy, but just a different lifestyle decision. I wish someone would have told me that a 22-year-old mother can be the best kind of mother.”

Michelle’s story of her unplanned and unmarried twenty-something pregnancy is not that uncommon, though her success in achieving a happy balance between marriage, family, and career may be.

A new report, co-authored by Kay Hymowitz, Jason Carroll, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Kelleen Kaye, and co-sponsored by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, The Relate Institute, and the National Marriage Project, shows us the new face of unmarried motherhood: twenty-something women.

According to the report, titled “Knot Yet: The Benefits and Costs of Delayed Marriage in America,” unmarried twenty-something mothers are more common than teen mothers. “By age 25, 44 percent of women have had a baby, while only 38 percent have married,” the report details. “By the time they turn 30, about two-thirds of American women have had a baby, typically out of wedlock. Overall, 48 percent of first births are to unmarried women, most of them in their twenties.”

Among women with college degrees, 12 percent of first births are to unmarried women. However, for those with less than college degrees, the percentages are much higher.

Among those women with high school degrees and perhaps some college education, 58 percent of first births are to unmarried women. Among high school dropouts, 83 percent of firstborn children are born to unmarried women. For these women, an economic recession and a struggling job market have already hindered upward mobility, but out-of-wedlock childrearing only further reduces chances of prosperity and flourishing.

But much like Michelle, many of these young adults are torn by the tension of their desire to have a child with the seemingly bad timing or situation of their pregnancy. In fact, according to the Knot Yet report, “roughly half of unmarried young adults . . . said they would like to have a baby now if things were different (53 percent of men and 47 percent of women), and even among those who said it was important to avoid pregnancy right now, over a third went on to say they would be happy if they got pregnant.”

“Not surprisingly,” the report continues, “this ambivalence rises as education levels, marriage prospects, and job opportunities fall.”

The Harms of Delayed Marriage for Children

In an age of ever-changing beliefs and public acceptance of different family structures, many may not consider twenty-something unmarried parenting to be that bad. Yet sociological data indicate, the report notes, that children born to a single parent or cohabiting couples on average suffer emotionally, academically, and financially in comparison to their peers in homes where the mother and father are married to each other.

A footnote in the Knot Yet report points to research by Adam Thomas and Isabel Sawhill that suggests “that recent increases in single parenthood have played an important role in driving up child poverty in the United States.”

A recent federal study, as explained by Knot Yet co-author Brad Wilcox, shows that children living with their mother and her boyfriend, as opposed to their married biological mother and father, are eleven times more likely to experience sexual, physical, or emotional abuse, and six times more likely to experience physical, emotional, and educational neglect.

Children living with their biological parents who are cohabiting but not married experience all the same struggles, only to a slightly lesser degree, when compared to their peers living with their married mother and father. Children being raised by their unmarried but cohabiting parents are four times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused, and three times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than their peers living with their married biological parents.

“The science tells us,” Wilcox explains, “that children are not only more likely to thrive but are also more likely to simply survive when they are raised in an intact home headed by their married parents, rather than in a home headed by a cohabiting couple.”

These young unmarried mothers and fathers are struggling, too. Parents between the ages of 24 and 29 who are not married are more likely to report struggles with depression and drunkenness, as well as lower levels of life satisfaction than their peers who are married parents, according to data surveyed in the Knot Yet report.

For those currently aged 18-29, being a good parent is important, more important than having a successful marriage. According to Pew Social Trends, 52 percent of today’s 18-29-year-olds say being a good parent is “one of the most important things in their life,” whereas only 30 percent say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things.

Marriage remains a life goal for most young adults, as Hymowitz, Carroll, Wilcox, and Kaye point out, with about 80 percent of all young adults reporting that marriage is an important part of their life plans. Marriage also continues to bring emotional and financial benefits for adults and children alike. So, why are young adults delaying marriage but not parenthood?

A host of reasons contribute, including economic factors related to the recession. But the report suggests that many young adults are unintentionally putting the “baby carriage in front of marriage” due to today’s relationship culture, which “offers virtually no signposts for young adults seeking to navigate romance, sex, and relationships in ways that will be fruitful for their current lives and their future families.”

Still, they conclude that “we can and should bring marriage and childbearing back into sync,” for the sake of today’s twenty-somethings and their children. They admit this will be difficult; “there are no panaceas for strengthening family formation among contemporary young adults.” But many young adults and their children are struggling in the current relationship culture, and as a result, America is seeing a demographic shift in family formation that is not promising emotional, physical, or fiscal flourishing for most of the individuals involved.

The National Campaign’s Wrong Approach to Sex

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy is in a prime position to partner in efforts to relink marriage and children. With reported success in helping to lower the national teen-pregnancy rate, the National Campaign has the ears of government leaders and significant amounts of money (from both donors and the government); they consult for various television programs and movies; and they have an extensive staff of researchers and talented social activists.

They’ve already started working to curb twenty-something unplanned pregnancy. But a review of their efforts, especially in conjunction with the Knot Yet report findings, indicates that their work may not be a sweeping success.

Their three-year multimedia public-service campaign, called Bedsider, is co-sponsored with the Ad Council. Its goal is to promote consistent and effective use of birth control among twenty-something women by way of making birth control use “sexy.”

With a mix of humor, sleek imaging, and practical data on the basics and logistics of artificial contraception, Bedsider is “an online support network for women ages 18-29” with one main focus—a sex life that is fun and baby-free.

Blog posts at Bedsider are too X-rated to sum up here, but some recent headline posts here, here, and here are samples enough to see that sex is depicted as essentially recreational, at least in the eyes of the National Campaign staff working on this project.

Bedsider’s tag line is “You didn’t give up on sex, don’t give up on birth control.” Its “About Us” section touts a woman’s right to “a happy, healthy sex life without worrying about an unplanned pregnancy.” And it offers members a “Booty Log” app that encourages anonymous sharing of one’s sexcapades in an online database.

Indeed, Bedsider has stuck to its goal of making birth control “sexy,” making the site almost all about sex and much less about properly aligning relationships with future goals for marriage and family.

The National Campaign didn’t set out to create a site promoting contraception, Bill Albert, its Chief Program Operator (who is given editorial acknowledgment in the Knot Yet report), told me in an interview about a year ago. Their research showed them, he said, that young adults were having sex frequently but were uninformed about contraception and didn’t trust it.

Their research, conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, also showed that nearly nine out of ten young adults between ages 18-29 have had sex, and 78 percent of these have had sex within the past year. The overwhelming majority of these unmarried young adults—94 percent of men and 86 percent of women—believe pregnancy should be planned. Despite the fact that 82 percent of these unmarried adults have used contraception at some point in their sexual activity, nearly one in five are currently not using any contraception.

The National Campaign’s data indicate that 30 percent of 18-29-year-olds say “they know little or nothing about condoms.” Sixty-three percent say “they know little or nothing about birth control pills.” And 56 percent say “they have not heard of the birth control implant.”

“Young people don’t know as much as they think they know [about contraception],” Albert told me. Citing yet another statistic from the National Campaign’s research, he pointed out that 40 percent of young adults agreed with the statement, “It doesn’t matter if you use birth control or not, when it’s your time to get pregnant, it will happen.” “[This] is simply an anti-science perspective,” Albert said, and one that the National Campaign is working to correct.

But notably missing from the conversation at Bedsider, and many other places in the culture, is a frequent reminder of the scientific fact that sex makes babies. Instead our culture, and Bedsider as well, would have us believe that “unprotected sex makes babies.”

Yet since the 1960s, when contraception became legal and more available, the percentage of nonmarital births has risen from 5 percent in 1960 to 41 percent in 2010. Further, researchers have noted that the presence of contraception has led to more “risk compensation,” the concept that the more “protected” one feels, the more risks one will take.

Indeed, Guttmacher Institute data shows that 48 percent of women facing unintended pregnancies were using contraception during the month they got pregnant. Perhaps this is due to human error or perhaps method failure, but the point remains—a pregnancy can occur, even when a woman thinks she is “protected.” And it would be good to reinforce this point with young adults as they choose partners and consider engaging in sex.

One searches Bedsider in vain for any encouragement that getting married and having children in your twenties is not only okay, but also biologically appropriate and potentially immensely fulfilling.

Their own data in Knot Yet tells them that adults and children do better when a mother and father are married as they welcome and raise children. So, the recommendation for women to “Knock Yourself Up” (the title of the book linked in a Bedsider post) raises an eyebrow. There are always exceptions to the welfare of children raised in single-parent versus married-parent homes, of course; but they are exceptions, not data-backed suggestions for a new normal.

Moreover, their suggestion to “shack up without the formality of a marriage certificate” fails to acknowledge that unintended births to cohabitating couples have risen from 14 percent of all births in 2002 to 23 percent of all births in 2010, according to the CDC.

Twenty-somethings are having sex and searching for meaning and purpose in their adult life, including in parenthood—even if they’re not married. Becoming a parent, especially a mom, often gives poor and disadvantaged young adults a sense of purpose and meaning in their often chaotic lives, according to sociologists Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas, authors of the book Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage.

“[U]nderlying unintended pregnancy is a great deal of ambivalence—competing desires to have everything in place first versus having a baby now,” the Knot Yet report explains.

Young adults often choose to engage in sex because it feels right at the time, and they often want children; they just aren’t sure when. But many discover that unintended childbearing makes achieving their goals of a stable marriage, family, and work balance harder to obtain. And this is where those clear “signposts” for relationships are incredibly important.

The National Campaign Should Expand Its Mission

I asked Albert why they didn’t use an effort like Bedsider to try to curb unplanned pregnancy by way of encouraging young adults to enter marriage and family life sooner. He responded that the idea of marriage is “beyond mission for us.” The National Campaign’s mission is to curb “teen and unplanned pregnancy,” and “we’re not the National Campaign to promote marriage,” he said.

He admitted that the outcomes for children are frequently considered at the National Campaign, and marriage is discussed too, but promoting marriage is simply “beyond mission.”

But now that the National Campaign knows some of the causes and costs of “unplanned” pregnancy, as well as young adult desires to marry and have children, why couldn’t helping them achieve these important life goals at least play a part in their mission to curb “unplanned” twenty-something pregnancy?

Recent Bedsider content doesn’t indicate that their mission will expand. Yet one can almost be certain that young parents like Michelle, and the other 80 percent of twenty-somethings who express a desire to get married, would find a breath of fresh air in content that approaches “unplanned” pregnancy with a case for young marriage and family life.

Un tribunal holandés avala la existencia de una asociación de pedófilos

In RL 

En un controvertido fallo, un tribunal de apelaciones en Holanda validó la existencia de una asociación de pedófilos, que en primera instancia había sido disuelta el año pasado, por considerar que no constituye "una amenaza a la desintegración de la sociedad".
 

Según informa el diario ABC, la asociación Martijn, que defiende las relaciones sexuales consentidas entre niños y adultos, podrá seguir en funciones después de que el tribunal de apelaciones de Arnhem, Leewarden, señalara que "el trabajo de la asociación es contrario al orden público, pero no existe una amenaza de la desintegración de la sociedad".

Apelando a la "libertad de expresión", el presidente de la asociación Martijn Uittenbogaard, apeló a la decisión de un tribunal en Assen que en junio de 2012 ordenó la disolución del grupo pedófilo.
 

Fundada en 1982, la asociación Martijn, cuya sede estaba en el distrito judicial de Arnhem, Leeuwarden, señala que está a favor de la aceptación de las relaciones sexuales consentidas entre adultos y niños, aunque indica que están en contra de cualquier tipo de abuso sexual.

El Tribunal de Apelaciones sostuvo que los antecedentes penales de algunos miembros de abuso sexual podrían estar relacionadas con la asociación, pero que nunca habían cometido un crimen.
 

"El texto y las imágenes publicadas en el sitio web de Martijn son legales y nunca han dado consejos a tener relaciones sexuales con los niños", añade la corte que dio a conocer el polémico fallo.
 

La corte precisó que la asociación sí es contraria a algunos principios de la ley de Holanda porque "trivializa los peligros del contacto sexual con niños pequeños, habla bien de estos contactos". El presidente de la asociación, a través de su cuenta de Twitter, escribió que "todavía hay jueces sabios, por suerte".
 

El 21 de noviembre de 2011, el Tribunal Penal de Leeuwarden rechazó abrir caso a la asociación. Sin embargo, el expresidente de la misma, Ad van den Berg, fue condenado el 18 de octubre de 2011 en Haarlem a tres años de prisión, seis meses suspendida, por posesión de fotografías, películas y revistas de pornografía infantil.

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.*

Part 1: 1950 to 1975

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. 

Part 2: 1975 to 1993

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. 

Part 3: 1993

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. 

Part 4: 1994 to 1998

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. 

Part 5: 1998- The End of the Road

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.

The Vampire School - by Anthony Esolen

In CWR 

“Schools, I hear it argued, would make better sense and be better value as nine-to-five operations or even nine-to-nine ones, working year-round.  We’re not a farming community anymore, I hear, that we need to give kids time off to tend the crops.  This new-world-order schooling would serve dinner, provide evening recreation, offer therapy, medical attention, and a whole range of other services, which would convert the institution into a true synthetic family for children, better than the original one for many poor kids, it is said—and this would level the playing field for the sons and daughters of weak families. 

“Yet it appears to me as a schoolteacher that schools are already a major cause of weak families and weak communities.  They separate parents and children from vital interaction with each other and from true curiosity about each other’s lives.  Schools stifle family originality by appropriating the critical time needed for any sound idea of family to develop—then they blame the family for its failure to be a family.”  (John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling) 

One day it struck John Taylor Gatto, Teacher of the Year for New York State in 1991 (and therefore, inevitably, disliked by his administrators), that our schools were not failing.  Rather, they were succeeding fabulously at what they were constructed to do: to produce dull and compliant workers in a technocratic economy.  School, he argued, instills in us a perpetual childish neediness.  We need to toady for grades, because we need to get into the “best” schools, because we need to have a prestigious and well-remunerated job, because we need to buy a lot of stuff to pretend to fill the emptiness of our lives.  Among that stuff will be the odd child or two, who will also need to toady for grades, to get into the “best” schools, and so on, world without end, Amen. 

The Vampire State naturally requires a Vampire School.  Recall the two things everybody needs to know about vampires.  Vampires need blood—a lot of it; and vampires endow their victims with a shadow-life, a kind of immortal death, always dependent upon the vampire.  The Vampire School uses words like “community” and “family” the same way a vampire talks about life, as from a vast distance, with only a vague and twisted memory of the reality of such a thing, long ago. 

Is that too harsh a verdict? 

Someone knocks at your door.  “Hello,” says the fellow, flashing his card.  “My name is John Smith.  I hear you have a twelve-year-old boy here.” 

“Yes, my son Bobby.  Has he gotten into any trouble?”

“Oh no, sir, not yet.  I am simply here to talk to him about sex.”

“I see.”

“Yes, I am licensed by the state and the school district,” he says, flashing another card, “to talk to Bobby about sex.  He is here, perhaps?”  The man elbows his way into the living room, glancing at the titles of the books in your bookcase.

“As a matter of fact, he isn’t.  He’s down by the pond fishing with his little brother.”

“A pond, fishing,” says the man, writing on a notepad.  “Unsupervised fishing at a pond.  Very well.  When may I see him?  My appointments are rapidly filling up.”

“Shouldn’t I first know something about you?” you ask, naively.  “Suppose you don’t believe the same things I believe.”

“My dear sir,” says the man, arching an eyebrow, and smiling ever so slightly, “it is not your place to know anything about me.  If there’s any knowing going on, it will be I who must find things out about you.  But really,” he continues, assuming an academic air, “the subject of sex is as scientific and precise as physics or mathematics, so that what you happen to believe about it is of no more import than what you believe about the composition of the moon, or the area of a circle.  It is a part of my work”—here he lowers his voice to something between a purr and a growl—“to disabuse young people of the prejudices their parents bring to sex.  Now then, when will your son be available?”

You hesitate.  More writing on the notepad.

“Will tomorrow at noon be all right?”

“Tomorrow at three, fine.”

You begin to close the door.  “Not so fast,” says Mr. Smith.  

“There’s the little matter of the fee.”

“You mean you are going to charge me money for this?”

“My dear sir,” he beams, “recall, I am an expert.  You wouldn’t want to do your own plumbing, would you?  No, of course not.  Or prepare your own meals, except under duress?  Or provide your own entertainment?  Play your own musical instruments?  Invent your own sports?  Get together with your own neighbors to play cards?  Build your own garage?  Farm your own land?  Read your own old and musty books, and think about them by yourself?  Make love to your own wife without the aid of expert tips from magazines and pornographic videos?  Worship God with your fellow believers?”

“What’s wrong with that?” you stammer, but he snaps the notebook shut.  “I haven’t all day.  Here is my bill.  I make $50 an hour.  Sixty hours with Bobby should about do it.  If he fails, my colleague Ms. Jones will be available for remedial lessons.  Good day.”

And you give in.

Or perhaps not.  There are some people—homeschoolers most notable among them—who have tried to elude the Vampire altogether, with greater and lesser degrees of success.  But there are others, whose number is Legion, who have been bitten too deeply, and who have come to depend upon the Vampire School.

They secretly look forward to the nine-to-five or nine-to-nine school whose prospect fills Gatto with horror.  They do not want more time with their children.  They hardly know what to do with the time they do have.  They pay, handsomely, for time-consuming activities that relieve them of the responsibility of a real life.  They have been trained to consider all things done with simple independence as beneath an intelligent person’s notice.  “Slavery is freedom,” says Big Brother, who is now also Big Sister.  So a woman will pay to rid herself of her children for certain hours during the day, so that she may work, let us say, as a cook in a local restaurant, to pay for the Vampire and its minions, and for prepared meals from the Vampire Market.

In Free at Last: The Sudbury Valley School, Daniel Greenberg reveals to us not only that the Vampire is a Vampire, but that he is a naked Vampire to boot.  For the Vampire, lending his victims the simulacrum of life, delivers the simulacrum of education, but paradoxically must be seen to “fail” frequently, so as to justify the transfusion of greater and greater quantities of blood.  He can do so only by persuading people that learning how to read and cipher and so forth is so tremendously difficult and unnatural that many children, especially those from poor homes—here he dabs a dry eye with his handkerchief—will never manage it, unless they submit to ever more (and more intrusive) ministrations from the Vampire, who alone knows how to teach, being the expert and all that. 

But Greenberg laughs the Vampire’s pretenses away.  When children are ready to learn a subject, they will learn it.  He tells of a group of his school’s nine-year-olds and twelve-year-olds, who suddenly announced that they wanted to learn arithmetic—all of it.  So he dug up a textbook from 1898, full of examples and exercises, and gave it to them.  Addition took two classes, he says, and subtraction another two.  The children memorized the multiplication tables, then tackled the exercises.  “They were high, all of them,” he says, “sailing along, mastering all the techniques and algorithms.”  Then they went on to long division, fractions, decimals, percentages, and square roots.  “In twenty weeks, after twenty contact hours, they had covered it all,” writes Greenberg, “six years’ worth.” 

And then there is reading.  Consider that a little child learns the most complex thing that most people will ever learn—human language.  He learns it naturally, because he has a hunger to learn it, and he learns it without training by experts, and at no expense at all.  When speaking has been mastered, reading is not all so hard, if the child has things to read.  These days, it is almost impossible to avoid things to read.  Most of it is junk, but then, so is most of what is assigned as reading in school.  So what are we paying all that money for?  To ensure, perhaps, that children associate reading with drudgery?

 

Can a vampire be reformed?  In a manner of speaking, yes: with a stake.

Educazione sessuale? Dietro c'è la lobby dei pedofili - di Josip Horvaticek

In NBQ 

I programmi di educazione sessuale per i bambini recentemente imposti in Croazia, ma già attuati in molti paesi secondo il metodo Kinsey, sono stati redatti da pedofili. E’ quanto sostiene la studiosa americana Judith Reisman che, invitata recentemente in Croazia per una serie di incontri e conferenze legate alla recente introduzione di (sconvolgenti) corsi di educazione sessuale, ha anche dimostrato i legami di questa lobby con la Fondazione Soros.

Judith Reisman, in passato consulente dell’FBI nonché del Parlamento e di diversi ministeri statunitensi, è uno dei maggiori esperti mondiali sul malfamato Kinsey Institute e il suo fondatore, Alfred Kinsey. La dottoressa Reisman ha dolorosamente vissuto in prima persona gli effetti della diffusione delle teorie di Kinsey: una figlia di dieci anni è stata stuprata da un violentatore seriale tredicenne, accanito lettore di Playboy. Dopo avere constatato come molte persone giustificassero questo atto affermando che forse la figlia era stata consenziente poiché i bambini sarebbero esseri sessuali, cioè desidererebbero il sesso, fin dalla nascita - una delle teorie di Kinsey -, la Reisman ha iniziato a studiare gli effetti di queste teorie, constatando come esse abbiano provocato nel secondo dopoguerra una diffusione esponenziale della pornografia e della pedofilia.

Considerate queste premesse, non sorprende che, una volta appreso dell’arrivo di Judith Reisman, i media croati di sinistra e laicisti, che appoggiano il governo nel suo programma di educazione sessuale, abbiano allestito una vera e propria propaganda di guerra nei confronti della scienziata americana, fatta di menzogne, insulti personali e diffamazioni, tra le quali quella di essere una «negatrice dell’Olocausto», il che, detto di un’ebrea americana che ha perso la maggior parte del ramo europeo della sua famiglia nei campi di concentramento nazisti, ha rappresentato un segno di inciviltà e arretratezza culturale veramente deprecabili.

I toni non sono scesi neppure durante la sua permanenza in Croazia. Al termine della lezione tenuta presso la Facoltà di Scienze Politiche, la dottoressa Reisman è stata aggredita verbalmente dal preside della medesima Facoltà, Nenad Zakošek. Alcune forze politiche di governo hanno cercato di impedire una conferenza della studiosa americana nel Parlamento croato, mentre il previsto dibattito alla Facoltà di Filosofia tra la dottoressa Reisman e il prof. Aleksandar Štulhofer, discepolo di Kinsey e ideatore del programma di educazione sessuale adottato dal Ministero croato per l'istruzione, è stato sospeso per ‘motivi di ordine pubblico’ a causa della ressa, creata ad arte dai gruppi appartenenti alla galassia omosessuale, che si è creata nell'aula dove il dibattito si sarebbe dovuto tenere.

Un improvviso ‘problema tecnico’ ha interrotto subito dopo l’inizio la proiezione del documentario su Kinsey del giornalista britannico Timothy Tate, collaboratore della dottoressa Reisman, in uno dei più grandi e moderni cinema di Zagabria alla presenza dell’autore e di circa 800 persone (tale problema non si era presentato nella proiezione di prova del DVD né a un successivo tentativo a porte chiuse compiuto in un altro locale).  Un altro guasto, questa volta al sistema di amplificazione, ha poi impedito alla dottoressa Reisman e a Tate di tenere un’improvvisata conferenza dal palco del cinema che sostituisse la proiezione del film.

Questi avvenimenti hanno peraltro provocato la durissima reazione della sezione croata del Comitato di Helsinki.
 

In ogni caso la Reisman ha avuto modo di stupire i suoi ascoltatori non solo illuminando la figura di Alfred Kinsey (in Parlamento, davanti agli attoniti parlamenmtari del centro-destra che l’avevano invitata, lo ha definito il «pedofilo che ha cambiato il mondo» e uno «psicopatico sessuale che ha contaminato le nostre famiglie, la nostra cultura, le nostre leggi»), ma soprattutto ricostruendo l’origine dei programmi di educazione sessuale imposti alla Croazia. La studiosa americana ha rivelato come il professor Štulhofer abbia scritto un libro con lo studioso olandese pedofilo Theo Sandford, attualmente professore presso la Columbia University. Va notato che Sandford non è un esimio professore universitario con inconfessabili vizi privati, bensì un pedofilo dichiarato, co-fondatore e redattore della rivista olandese in lingua inglese di pedofili dichiarati Paidika, nonché autore di uno studio che si può trovare anche in rete dal titolo Boys on their contacts with men: a study of sexually expressed friendships (I ragazzi maschi nei contatti con gli uomini adulti: uno studio di amicizie espresse sessualmente), che non si limita a compiere un’indagine sulla pedofilia, ma esprime sulla stessa una chiara valutazione positiva.

In una successiva conferenza stampa, il giornalista inglese Timothy Tate ha poi affermato come Štulhofer abbia avuto non solamente uno, bensì tre collaboratori pedofili dichiarati e propagandisti della liceità della pedofilia, e cioè - oltre a Sandford - il sessuologo americano Vern Bullough, scomparso nel 2006,  e il sessuologo tedesco Erwin J. Haeberle.

Bullough è stato, come Sandford, cofondatore e redattore di Paidika. Nella dichiarazione di intenti relativa a questa pubblicazione, egli afferma: «Il punto di partenza di Paidika è necessariamente la coscienza del nostro essere pedofili. Consideriamo la pedofilia come un rapporto sessuale consenziente tra persone di generazioni diverse».

In un’intervista concessa nel 1978 alla rivista pornografica americana Hustler, Haeberle ha invece affermato che è del tutto normale avere rapporti sessuali con bambini, i quali dovrebbero avere libero accesso ai libri per adulti – cioè pornografici – ed essere liberi di scegliere i propri partner sessuali, ivi inclusi gli adulti. Questo pedofilo dichiarato è stato membro dal 1977 al 1988 dell'Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, che ha redatto la maggior parte dei programmi di educazione sessuale nel mondo, corredato di fotografie pornografiche anche di bambini in seguito vendute a Hustler.

Una prova della stretta collaborazione tra Štulhofer e questi colleghi sessuologi pedofili è l’avere fatto parte tutti e quattro del comitato organizzatore di un convegno internazionale di sessuologi tenutosi a Dubrovnik, in Croazia, nel 2001 e finanziato dalla fondazione Soros.

Della stessa tendenza è un altro collaboratore di Štulhofer, il sessuologo tedesco Gunther Schmidt, il quale ha scritto la prefazione al libro di Sandford Male Intergenerational Intimacy (trad.: Intimità intergenerazionale tra maschi), affermando tra l’altro: «La minaccia che tutti gli atti di pedofilia vengano puniti dalla legge molto difficilmente potrebbe essere considerata un’azione degna di una società civile … Ciò rappresenta una discriminazione e la persecuzione di una minoranza, e quindi tali disposizioni di legge andrebbero abrogate».

Judith Reisman ha quindi provato che il programma di educazione sessuale imposto in Croazia, preparato secondo il metodo Kinsey dal prof. Štulhofer, è simile, quanto ai suoi tre scopi principali, a quasi tutti i programmi di educazione sessuale adottati a livello mondiale. Si tratta cioè del tentativo di sessualizzare i bambini e fornire 'carne fresca' per le voglie malsane di adulti perversi, di sdoganare l’omosessualità e altri gravi disordini della personalità come normali manifestazioni della sessualità umana, nonché di rendere i giovani dipendenti dal sesso a tutto vantaggio dell’industria della pornografia e dei preservativi, e ciò con il pretesto della lotta alle malattie trasmissibili sessualmente.

La presenza della dottoressa Reisman in Croazia ha provocato un terremoto che ha fatto vacillare i palazzi della politica, e ha indotto il governo a muoversi anche per vie diplomatiche. Secondo quanto rivelano fonti della Curia romana, l’ambasciatore croato presso la Santa Sede, Filip Vucak, avrebbe avuto un incontro con il segretario per i rapporti con gli Stati, mons. Dominique Mamberti, allo scopo di ammorbidire la posizione della Chiesa sulla questione, ricevendo un netto rifiuto da parte del suo interlocutore vaticano.

In un Paese democratico, la presentazione delle prove inconfutabili degli stretti legami di collaborazione tra l'ideatore di questo programma e i circoli pedofili, oltre a conseguenze di natura penale per l’interessato, avrebbe portato alle immediate dimissioni di Štulhofer e di tutti i funzionari del Ministero dell’Istruzione coinvolti nell'elaborazione del programma, ivi incluso lo stesso ministro. Non così nella Croazia di oggi che si appresta a entrare nell’Unione Europea. Anzi, passato il “terremoto” Reisman, i media di regime hanno fatto calare il silenzio sulla vicenda, e Štulhofer viene spesso chiamato in televisione a pontificare su questioni di sessualità, specialmente infantile (!) e giovanile, mentre nelle scuole elementari vengono proposti ai bambini di dieci anni temi di ‘lingua croata’ in cui si rappresentano situazioni esplicitamente sessuali.