What a tangled web we weave ...
By Diogenes (articles ) | December 18, 2003 11:36 AM
It seems that Phase Two of the crisis is in the forensic starting blocks. A suit filed against the Los Angeles Archdiocese points to networking and institutional acquiescence in sexual abuse:
"The presence of such a high number of high-ranking child molester priests in the [Los Angeles] archdiocese underscores the institutional and cultural acceptance and acquiescence in child molestation by priests," according to the 46-page complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Los Angeles archdiocese and others....
The suit also alleges that abusive priests were promoted into positions of prominence between 1966 and 2002, including key posts such as auxiliary bishops, vicar generals, recruiters of priests, school board members and judges in the archdiocesan court that passes judgment on priestly misconduct.
"The elevation of child molesters to these positions helps explain why so many child molesting priests were protected by the [Los Angeles] archdiocese, how so many child molesters became priests and how so many seminarians and priests became child molesters," according to the suit filed by attorneys Raymond P. Boucher of Beverly Hills and Laurence E. Drivon of Stockton.
Archdiocesan spokesman Tod Tamberg says the allegations are "over the top and without merit," and reminds us that "abuse of minors is often a crime that happens in darkness." Maybe so. But remember that he's talking about prosecutable felonies. If, repeat if, there existed a network of gay clergy who covered up their own misconduct with consenting adults, in the civil sphere there'd be no crime committed. And of course the word gay is nowhere mentioned in the article. It's significant though that the highest ranking churchman mentioned, Bishop G. Patrick Ziemann, was deposed for homosexual relations not with minors but with a fellow clergyman. Notionally at least he would be party to covering for fellow gays, not fellow child molesters. Would it not be ironic if the gay clerical hegemony were brought low because of their own performative blurring of the sacred bright-line distinction (between homosexuality and ephebophilia) they're constantly insisting we honor?
|
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus: Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you! |
Easter Campaign: Progress toward our Spring 2013 goal ($20,923 to go):
$80,000.00
$59,077.50
26%
74%
|
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
-
Posted by: shrink -
Dec. 18, 2003 4:54 PM ET USA
1. If I were a gay priest, I would be (anonymously) on the front lines to bring down the age of majority. The reason is in #2 below:
-
Posted by: shrink -
Dec. 18, 2003 4:53 PM ET USA
2. The 'sacred bright line' has been blurred in perpetuity, but the codification of the blur was declared by none other than the authoritative Encyclopedia of Homosexuality which observes in their entry for ephebophilia that the 17yo male has cult status within the gay community as the most virile of all males. Of course, as one goes fishing for such great catches, and hooks those who, shall we say, do not conform to the state minimum size, I mean age, well, how hard it is to release them.
