Search This Blog

Friday, August 24, 2018

Words, Words Words: Semantic Gymnastics and the Liars' Lexicon

Word, words, words! They can be used to tell the truth and they can be used to lie. How do you use
words? That's a good question for our bishops, don't you think?

Some make words mean whatever they say they mean - like Humpty Dumpty in Alice and Wonderland. So child rape and abuse become "horseplay," "boundary violations," and "inappropriate behavior." Their word manipulation reminds me of Screwtape advising his "nephew" Wormwood. I can just hear the bishop's conversation with the diocesan lawyer, safe-touch coordinator, and communications director.

Bishop: We need a strategy for shifting the conversation away from homosexuality.
Lawyer: Keep talking about all the procedures in place for protecting children and how successful they are. We have the volunteers signing agreements making them mandatory reporters. If there's an incident we can blame it on them.
Com. Director: I'll stress the problem of clericalism with the press and emphasize how heroic your response has been to the crisis.

Safe Touch Dir.: We're telling all the volunteers, staff, and teachers that child molesting isn't a homosexual problem. The VIRTUS materials do the same. In fact, I tell parents their children are safer with homosexuals than with heterosexuals. [N.B. A previous safe-touch director in Arlington, a young and foolish new mom, actually said that to me!]
Bishop: Good work! Avoid the word homosexual. Stress abuse in families. Maybe we can get Fr.
Steve Rosetti's quote about moms abusing their children under the pretext of cleaning them. You know -- emphasize how parents abuse their children. Use any rhetoric to take the spotlight off clerical homosexuality. I'll see what I can do about putting pressure on any bishops like that trouble-maker Morlino who are talking about a homosexual subculture.

Yup! Many Screwtapes and Wormwoods are wearing miters, episcopal rings, and pectoral crosses.

Cardinal Blase Cupich has shown himself to be an absolute master of jargon, perhaps the Humpty-Dumptyist of all the bishops. Cupich who is pro-gay and a big fan of Fr. James Martin and his gay propaganda recently said, "I really believe that the issue here is more about a culture of clericalism in which some who are ordained feel they are privileged and therefore protected so that they can do what they want....People, whether heterosexual or homosexual, need to live by the Gospel.... [I] would not want to reduce this simply to the fact that there are some priests who are homosexual. I think that is a diversion that gets away from the clericalism that’s much deeper as a part of this problem,”

Of course -- diversion. Now we certainly agree some of these bishops are experts in diversion. That's, in fact, exactly what some are doing with their words, words, words.

No! No! No!, you stupid idiots in the pew. It's not about homosexual priests despite the fact that 80% of the abuse described in the John Jay report in 2002 was adult men molesting adolescent boys and the majority of the cases in the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report are the same. No! No! No! It's about clericalism, do you hear, clericalism!


Hmm...Let's see, how can I divert 
the conversation away from homosexuality?
Pardon me, Cardinal Cupich. Why do you suppose gay priests felt they could "do what they want?" Was it really "clericalism" or was it the "homosexual subculture" described by Bishop Morlino in his diocesan letter about the crisis? Weren't homosexuals actively recruited to the seminaries while the "rigid," orthodox men were screened out by pro-homosexual gatekeepers? Haven't pro-homosexual speakers infiltrated our dioceses spreading the homosexual agenda and telling us not to judge despite the judgment of the Bible on the evil of sodomy? Your explanation is a smokescreen to divert eyes from the truth of a systemic problem -- that there is a lavender mafia in the Church that includes child abuse rings where priests got together and shared children. Is it still going on? It's certainly more difficult to get away with it thanks to the spotlight on the problem. But how many clerics, including bishops, have a private stash of porn including child porn? If they're gay and acting on it privately or with other consenting gay priests, they've got it!

But Cardinal Cupich's words are simply an echo of his boss's rhetoric. Pope Francis in his recent letter about the crisis managed to write over 2,000 words without ever using the words "homosexual" or "same-sex attraction" or "pederasty." What did he emphasize? CLERICALISM. Are they all working from the same talking points manual? Sounds like it to me which makes one even more suspicious of a gay cabal:
Clericalism, whether fostered by priests themselves or by lay persons, leads to an excision in the ecclesial body that supports and helps to perpetuate many of the evils that we are condemning today. [Exactly what evils, Your Holiness?] To say “no” to abuse is to say an emphatic “no” to all forms of clericalism [Huh?]....It is essential that we, as a Church, be able to acknowledge and condemn, with sorrow and shame, the atrocities [most of which were homosexual!]  by consecrated persons, clerics, and all those entrusted with the mission of watching over and caring for those most vulnerable. Let us beg forgiveness for our own sins and the sins of others. An awareness of sin helps us to acknowledge the errors, the crimes and the wounds caused in the past and allows us, in the present, to be more open and committed along a journey of renewed conversion. [Let's once again dilute the responsibility of the who actually committed the atrocities and crime and shift the blame to EVERYBODY.]
They are all using the sodomy
avoidance bishops' manual!
Anthony Esolen has a pithy article titled It Never Was About Anything Else  in which he identifies the
ruse used by McCarrick et al to hide reality:
McCarrick [one of the movers and shakers at the Land o' Lakes conference] was also one of the main movers in Dallas in 2002, when the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops twisted themselves into pretzels so as not to bring up the staggeringly plain facts of the clergy sex scandal. That is, more than four-fifths of the victims were boys, and most of those boys were big kids, not little kids—big enough to resist the advances of a grown man. They were seduced, not overcome by sheer physical force. That, as I’ve said elsewhere, does not make the deed less miserable. In a crucial way it makes it worse, because the boys were inveigled into cooperation with their own defilement, and so they could never say that they had no part in it. 
In an interview with USA Today, from June 2002, speaking about the upcoming conference in Dallas, McCarrick tries to parry the whole question of homosexuality. When the interviewer brings it up, ....[that homosexual men should be disqualified as candidates to the priesthood] McCarrick makes the standard move, balancing homosexuality with heterosexuality. 
That's it -- nothing to see here. Homosexuals are really no different from heterosexuals. They aren't more promiscuous. They're no threat to children. Their disordered view of the world doesn't impact their ability to be good priests. So they take videos of the little cherubs' genitals in the Roman cathedrals zooming in to get a good shot of their "privates." (Next best thing to real child porn.) And they take videos of dogs mating in the street. Doesn't everybody? [N.B. This really happened and I've seen the video and know the priests.] It's no crime. It's all just gay fun. None of them would be tempted to actually touch the genitals of the little cherubs in their parishes. Would they?

Which leads me to Fr. Haley's proverbial question. If he, as a man attracted to women, can't live in a convent full of nuns -- eating meals together, sharing recreation together, laughing and joking and possibly flirting -- WHY is it okay for men who are attracted to men to live in intimate situations with the sources of their attraction where they have ample opportunities to groom altar boys and young men?

Good question! And it's NEVER received an adequate answer. So the gay priests enjoy their hidden life of fancy dinners with their boyfriends, vacations at gay hotspots, "retreats" in Vegas, etc.

No, Pope Francis, Cardinal Wuerl, and Cardinal Cupich, it's NOT primarily or even secondarily about clericalism; it's about promoting and advancing the gay lifestyle. And it's time to put it to a stop! We're sick of your words. Show us your actions and show us now!

17 comments:

Sojourner said...

Since you believe that sexual abuse in the Church is the direct result of homosexuality and not clericalism, do you believe that heterosexuality is the root cause of men raping women? Or could it possibly have more to do with power, feelings of grandeur and superiority, a feeling of privilege snd entitlement, the same traits that drove the fallen angels? I don’t believe sexual assault by anyone is ever about sex. It is always about power. That is why I think Pope Francis is correct when he lays the blame at clericalism. Clericalism says I am special, I have privileges that the average person does not. I am not bound by the same rules as everyone else, You say you don’t accept Pope Francis as a valid pope, but you do accept Pope Benedict XVI. These are the words of Pope Benedict, and they are the definition of clericalism, the true underlying cause of he evil among our priests and bishops:

“How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to [Christ]! How much pride, how much self-complacency! Christ's betrayal by his disciples, their unworthy reception of his body and blood, is certainly the greatest suffering endured by the Redeemer; it pierces his heart.”

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Let's get one thing straight from the beginning. I haven't said Pope Francis is NOT the pope. I've said I don't know. We have two men in papal white with some very confusing statements. That puts me in the same place as Catholics throughout history when more than one man claimed the papal title. Joan of Arc was asked about it during her trial and basically said the same thing -- she didn't know. I pray every day for the pope...whoever he is.

As for clericalism, of course it exists and men like Wuerl and Cupich and Law and McCarrick are all great examples of the horror of it.

Now, here's a question for you. Do you really think lust has nothing to do with sex abuse -- that power is the only or the primary motivation? Couldn't one say that about every sin? Or go one step further, are they all about pride? There are seven deadly sins and many who engage in a habit of mortal sin are committing all or most of them.

But homosexuality was clearly the primary problem in the clerical sex abuse cases and trying to play a shell game by avoiding the word homosexual is deceitful on the part of the hierarchy. They filled the seminaries with homosexuals and have reaped the result, their own disgrace and destroyed lives of their victims including those who committed suicide.

It's a chicken and egg parable -- what came first -- pride and clericalism -- or lust?

Sojourner said...

Thank you for clarifying your position on Pope Francis. You compare now to a time when two men claimed to be pope at the same time. When Pope Benedict stepped down, he clearly said he was leaving the papacy to devote his life to prayer, and would give all his support to his successor. Only one man - Pope Francis - lays claim to that title in our time. We don’t have to agree with everything he says, but when it gets to a point where we are not sure he is valid, then we need to check ourselves, because if we do not accept Pope Francis when there is no other alternative, we are sedevacantist.

And yes, of course, the central question is, which came first - clericalism or abuse. I think you would agree that sex is a strong powerful drive in all men. All men struggle with lust to one extent or another. But the fact is, even though all men struggle with lust, only a small number become actual sexual predators. What is it that pushes some men over the line? First is the lack of respect for others. They see others primarily as a means to fulfill their desires. Secondly, entitlement. They feel, for whatever reason, they are entitled to have whatever they want. And over riding everything else, they lust for power even more than for sex. We have seen this over and over again in the Hollywood and political scandals. Powerful men preying upon weaker individuals. And certainly this is the central dynamic of the sexual abuse in the Church. The powerful preying upon the weak - the children and the laity who trust them so implicitly. It is the complete betrayal of that trust that is so evil, so abhorrent.

You say in your post: “So the gay priests enjoy their hidden life of fancy dinners with their boyfriends, vacations at gay hotspots, "retreats" in Vegas, etc”. Take out the references to being gay, and look at what you are really saying. Fancy dinners, vacations and Vegas are not about homosexuality. It is all about feeling entitled, part of a privileged upper class, separate from others. This is completely antithetical of a life of humility and service, the true calling of the priesthood.

By pointing to homosexuality as the cause of the crisis, you are pointing to the symptom and ignoring the disease. We talk about homosexual priests, but we have hundreds of cases of priests becoming sexually involved with grown women. There are priests who embezzle Church funds. There who priests who never read the Breviary, which is a mortal sin for a priest. In short, we have priests engaging in all kinds of sin that don’t always make the headlines because the world doesn’t care all that much. But they all stem from the same disease - clericalism - the belief that you are better than others and not subject to the same rules.

Thank you for allowing me to comment. I think this is an important subject, and that it is vital that we get to the very root of it if we are to make any changes at all.

Susan Matthiesen said...

Sojourner, you describe Islam perfectly! when you say, "Or could it possibly have more to do with power, feelings of grandeur and superiority, a feeling of privilege and entitlement (perfect description of Islam!)...It is always about power... I (Muslims) am (are) special, I (Muslims) have privileges that the average person (infidel/kuffar) does not. I (Muslims) am (are) not bound by the same rules as everyone else..."

Finally we agree on something!!

Stick to the issue, you say? OK then. How about (in the instance of homosexuality vs clericalism) lust for power over someone originates with sodomy, and lust for sex up someone's anus (sodomy) ends in power over them.

Like Mary Ann asks, which comes first?

The answer is that a sodomite will use his lust to gain power because in all cases of homosexuality the first and foremost thought in their minds is sex sex sex and their genitals and how to satiate their itch to sodomize another. Priestly power gives it to them.

The other problem is did they become a priest to use their clerical power to satisfy their genitals' lust for anal sex? That answer is a big fat yes.

Therefore homosexuality wins the debate. There never was a "vocation". They became priests, not to evangelize but to have access to young tender meat. Sex was the motivating issue to their becoming a priest. They were placed in seminaries by the homosexual network, like Ted McCarrick, to use their clerical power to satisfy their lust for anal sex with the innocent.

You act as if there was not a thought in their minds about sodomy until after they became a priest! How naive, and frankly, so leftist of you.

SEX is the first thought of a sodomite at all times. Always. Clerical power is secondary. Clerical power is a means to their ends...so to speak. No pun intended.

Sojourner said...

Susan,do you think the only problem in the priesthood is homosexuality? Are there priests who indulge in other sins as well? If we do manage to get rid of all homosexual priests, will that solve the problem of other wayward priests? Yes, of course, homosexual priests acting out is a gave problem and needs to be dealt with. In reality, the Church has made a good start in dealing with it. Out of the 301 people (not just priests) named in the PA report, there were only 2 who committed such vile acts after the year 2000. That is still two too many, but it shows that progress is being made.

But back to my point - does pointing to homosexuality as the main problem among priests somehow deal with all the myriad other priests dealing with other problems? Shouldn’t we look for a cause to all of this? It seems to me that the Enemy would want us to think there is only one sin among priests that is causing all the other problems instead of looking for the root cause of ALL wayward priests. That root cause is the failure of priests to live up to their vocation of service to the laity - clericalism.

TLM said...

Exactly correct.....SEX and the POWER to be able to attain it as they so desire is the name of the game....It's ALL about homosexuality and wearing cleric vestments gives them that RIGHT and POWER. I do believe it's the most diabolical evil there is. A SIN that cries out to Heaven for VENGEANCE! And I do believe we just may see that 'VENGEANCE' sooner than later.

Unknown said...

As usual, your take on the Pope's response was spot on. You could say the same thing about the Letter from our Bishop.

Aqua said...

What you are describing here is clerical abuse heaped upon abuse. Sexual abuse of our children. Moral and legal abuse of the victims' parents. Victim shaming, blaming. We are drawn in to share culpability in *their* crime. By redefining the crime as something we all do, we parents are suspects for crimes we have never committed.

I, therefor, have to now attend "safe-touch" and be educated, (*by the abusers themselves I might add*) in all of my potential sexual maladies and criminal tendencies which might cause discomfort in the children I am trying to mentor and parent.

Completely unacceptable. I have done nothing wrong. I will not attend "safe-touch". Cardinals, Bishops, Priests ... those of them not already on trial for abuse allegations, or in prison, must *all* attend "Safe-Touch* seminars. Not Laity. Just Clerics go. These seminars, created by parents, and orthodox sociology experts with reference to clerical sex crime victims, must be run by parents as a first step toward regaining our trust of them with our kids..

And then, we must root out all sodomites from Seminaries and the Priesthood. No exceptions. No more Priestly "homosexuals". That will take years. Clerical Safe Touch programs can start now.

Aqua said...

@ Sojourner.

It is a homo problem. All pederasts are homo or bisexual. 100%. Power disparity may be part of it, a big part no doubt (spiritual father acting in the role of Jesus Christ *personae Christi* to young vulnerable children ... perhaps mine one day), but the root is sodomite homosexuality accepted and now encouraged in our Church.

Priests are called to Jesus Christ. Those with sexual maladies or other severe psychological problems should not be admitted to the Holy Priesthood, unless they are cured. They need to be laicized and get help, so they can be treated spiritually, psychologically; forgiven and cured. That must be recognized first. There is too much minimizing and encouraging this grave deadly sin by our Clerics. No more. Pederasty is one of the predictable fruits of homo evil. No one is helped until that root evil is acknowledged.

elpine flower said...

We should also remember too when the Saintly Maid of Orleans was confronted with the fact that even her Catholic Bishops accused her ,she responded by saying they were not her Bishops.
I concur with her Faith filled words and say that these homosexual promoting Bishops are not my Bishops.

Susan Matthiesen said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Southernchild said...

Susan, have you read your comment? It is very vulgar. I am surprised Mary Ann allows you to write on her blog.

Susan Matthiesen said...

Homosexuality is worse than "very vulgar". "Very vulgar" does not even begin to describe homosexuality. People are too timid to think about the depth of evil but rather merely gloss along the top afraid to offend anyone.

If you are offended by words can you then begin to understand what homosexuality's evil is even more physically? Are you not offended by the evil of homosexuality itself rather than merely a few words describing the tip of the iceberg??

Your comment is a case of attacking the messenger who is answering a pro-homosexual person. They are pro-homosexual because they approve homosexuality in general but when it shows up in the priesthood they cry that homosexuality is not the problem but clericalism. They want to blame the homosexual crisis in the Church, not on homosexuality itself, but the priesthood in general by saying that the problem is clericalism. Have you even read all of the comments?

Southernchild said...

This is what Mary Ann has posted re comments:

“Comments are moderated. Please be respectful. Argument (in the classical sense) is welcome, however crude, or obscene remarks will not be posted. I am more lenient with ad hominem attacks directed at me (no name-calling) since so many people these days don't seem to know how to engage in a discussion without them. No anti-Catholic comments will be posted. If you are a bigot, go somewhere else.”

Your comment was extremely crude and bordering on obscene. Is that really the only way you can express yourself: “Anal penetration. Bareback. Humping like a buffalo. You can flick your wayward tongue in and out and lisp about "other sins" but lusting after bareback riding and other sexual positions is the main focus in the life of a homosexual anywhere in the world.“ Is that how you talk around people whom you respect? I am not even getting into the validity of what you are saying. By using such language, you lose all credibility.

MaryRN said...

I have a question for you ladies...a relative of mine who goes to a Catholic Church in Palm Bay in the Archdiocese of Orlando had a visiting priest by the name of Fr Thomas Shea...During his homily he spoke about how bad the Church was in not supporting women—that they should be allowed to be priests. He further discussed his promotion of illegal immigration—then offering his comments about all different types of families raising children..including people of the same sex. He insinuated that there was nothing wrong with it...She was so upset and asked me for advise on what she should do. Sadly the ignorant pew sitters around her were nodding their heads affirming his comments!I found his name in bishop accountability website and a few others. There is such scandal in Churches nationwide and know that you both are in a better position to assist her from others becoming scandalized or worse..May God bless you both!

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

Thank you for your blessing, Mary.

I would suggest your friend talk to the pastor and ask him never to invite that priest to the parish again. (I did a google search and there's a retired order priest of that name who worked in Orlando. That may be him although I found several other priests of the same name in other places.) Chances are talking to your pastor will go nowhere. Susan would know better since she is from that area. Since the pastor invited the priest, he probably is of the same mind. The orthodox priests I know are very careful about who fills in for them. At any rate, if the pastor is unhelpful, I would leave and find a parish where the truth is being preached.

As for the sheep in the pews nodding like bobble-head dolls, it is no surprise after several generations of bad catechesis and scandal. Pray and fast for poor Holy Mother Church.

I would also write to the bishop and point out all the things the priest said that violate the teaching of the Church and ask that he not be allowed faculties to preach in any parish in the diocese.

Susan Matthiesen said...

Fr Thomas Shea, Orlando

https://www.orlandodiocese.org/e-scroll/archive/golden-jubilarian-father-thomas-shea-c-s-c/

http://ourladyofgracechurch.com/priests/