Back at last!
It turns out I needed a
couple more days' decompression from the marathon writing I knocked off last week. (Whew!) Sorry about
that. As mentioned earlier, the ~26 pages are slated most likely to become the
first chapter of what may in time be darned good piece of fiction; or play; or
film… or not. But it was quite the blast to write, and that's very nearly
enough. And with sincere pardon for anything resembling egotism, it really
does seem pretty darned good. Hence my not putting it up here, my friends.
Internet content is generally too free for the taking, and I'd rather not turn
my skull-sweat over to someone else to cram into their wallet.
All this is extremely off-topic
from what I've been focused on here outside the Empty Tomb. As our Eastern cousins say: "He
is risen." "Indeed, he's risen." Let's get back on track.
These is the ground we've
covered so far:
We were last digging into
these hateful words from the wounded, twisted John Wojnowski:
Easy proof and evidence: in 2002 then
cardinal Ratzinger, in one elaborate and authoritative sounding whopper, a
criminally ignorant or criminally mendacious statement, one brazen big lie
that would have made Joseph Goebbels proud, claimed that less than one
percent of Catholic priests sexually molest children!
Whoever cares enough to investigate can
easily find out the tragic truth. Despite the secrecy, the stonewalling and the
nature of the crime that prevents the great majority of the victims from coming
forward and telling, the figure of eleven percent is closer to
the number of priests who were caught. That is ONLY THE PRIESTS WHO WERE
EXPOSED!
Prior to 2002 the Vatican was actually
complaining that prison was too harsh a penalty for pedophiles!
And I'd gotten particularly
heated in trying to find any kind of substantiation for these apparent
statistics that he's trotted out. A quick read shows
he's provided no substantiation, and simply lays out… numbers. Anyone
can do that; it's the secret behind writing convincing papers in school, and
getting the pliant sheep and other lemmings to follow along merrily behind you.
It also – do you hear me,
John? – does not stand up to
investigation and cold light of day. I've shown already that the
most-likely anything I found coming out of the Church 2002 that might
correspond to what he's claimed of our Pope… simply shows nothing of the sort –
nor anything from the then-Cardinal.
So, sir: I for one do
care enough to investigate as you rightfully insist,
and at least thus far the truth I find is tragic only to your agenda. Are you counting on the
rest of the world to take your word for it based only on an understandable,
genuine sympathy for you and what you've suffered? Caveat dictor: We are not
all lemmings.
And listen: because you've
endured a horrible wrong, compounded by what likely was indeed stonewalling by
certain idiots (yes, I said that) in the Hierarchy… does not make
everything you choose to assert about the Church right. Follow me?
A tragic handful of low
people in high places in the Mystical Body of Christ, His Church… does not make
the true and pure teachings of the Church invalid and untrue, no more than do
the ravings and bloodied hands of Timothy McVeigh make all Americans
terrorists. Those people do soil us, though – contamination by association
– but we are all the flawed, woefully imperfect people, from pew to Pontiff,
who have made up the Church from there to Eternity.
We're each one of us
imperfect, and some of us are downright evil and unrepentant. Thus the
messengers are indeed dirtied. The Message itself – love, compassion,
mercy, peace, forgiveness – remains incorrupt. Do not lose sight of that, sir.
Thus far I've been unable to
find documentation in the online Vatican archives even remotely paralleling
what Wonjowski writes about the Church's supposed pre-2002 stance on pedophilia
(and which he fails utterly to document). No, I've not been completely thorough
and poked into every last corner. And if/when I find myself in Rome, spending
my time flipping through pages to refute this sad fellow will not be tops on my
list of things to do.
I've been finding some more
interesting articles, though. Here's a two-part 2002 Zenit interview with a Dr. Gladys Sweeney, an impressively
accredited Catholic psychologist: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZSCANDAL.HTM.
Read it.
And I wish I'd seen it
earlier on in my in-depth response to Mr. Wojnowski's vitriol. For instance,
some very good counter-statistics can be laid out against his… and with much
greater credibility – unless, of course, one buys into the dictatorial and oligarchian
demagogic stance that the person charged is not permitted to defend
him/herself. Seems to me that's what John's complaining about. Whaddaya
know.
Here are some statistics for
you, John; please respond, and you're welcome to my soapbox (but I'm the
editor):
"Father
Thomas Nelson, executive director of the Institute on Religious Life and professor of
philosophy at the Norbertine
seminary in Orange [sic; the website gives Silverado],
California, states that fewer than 2% of priests have been involved in
pedophilia, as compared to 4% of married people and 7% of the general lay
population. The statistics show that the problem of pedophilia is no greater
among priests than among the general population."
The source of this deeply
troubling scandal, Dr. Sweeney argues convincingly, is not in pedophilia, but
homosexual ephebophilia. (This is a new word
to me, too – but the concept's ancient. And I'll get back to this point before
I'm done with Wojnowski.) "Pedophilia", however, is understandably a
much more frightening word and condition than "homosexuality". Gay
priests? Ho-hum; heard it. And "ephebophilia" would leave all of us
scratching our heads. But shout anywhere: "the priests over there are
feeling up our little children!" – and we all lock our kids up and grab
our clubs and torches. (For our children's sake, we're likely to strike first
and ask questions later, of course. Or we'd be lousy parents. Right? Uh – )
Here's another:
"Many
of the earlier studies—Billings and Beckwith, 1993; Bailey and Pillard, 1995; LeVay, 1991—after being evaluated, revealed problematic
methodologies. There were confounding factors in the research and clear bias
even before the data was [sic]
collected."
Folks, I haven't the
scholastic/academic background – let alone time and ever-wearier
inclination – to plow much deeper in finding articles pro and con on this
issue, and further articles behind those, and at the very least skimming them
to get a clearer idea about what's being/been said. You can do this, too – I've
been providing plenty of links to these, not overlooking ones with which I
disagree. Lots more to be found.
Friend Wojnowski is seemingly
counting on our not being able or willing to do this simple bit of
reasonable, sensible deeper-looking… and most strongly suggests by his wording
and his data's lack of attributions that he functions much the same way
himself, if not worse.
Another reason I wish I'd
found the above article earlier, and will need to return to it, is seen in a
further quote, this from the second part of Dr. Sweeney's interview:
"To
suggest that the solution to the problem is to change the celibacy rules is not
a logical suggestion.
"If
there is infidelity in a marriage, the solution is not to rethink the principle
of fidelity. Celibacy is not the problem. It might in fact be the answer."
Again, I repeat myself:
removing celibacy will not turn the 2% of priests who are gay (let alone the
11% Wojnowski claims) into happily married men with smiling wives and not even
the tiniest inclination to look twice at the altarboy or parochial
junior/senior high-school student.
John, you were preyed on and
molested by a homosexual ephebophile, not a pedophile. However, making a
corrected identification does not abnegate the betrayal of the perpetrator's
vows, and of your trust in him. Nor your still-open, salted wounds. Nor does
this diminish the merit of your demand for redress, something in which, in
fact, I support you.
But you do your cause, and
the cause of the whole range of victims of such betrayals (whether by
ephebophiles or by genuine pedophiles), a terrible injustice by your methods
and wording. And so I feel sorry for you… but not the way you want me to.
You know, folks, I hate
to kick a cripple. But I simply lose much sympathy for a genuinely, obviously
handicapped person when s/he starts hurling abuse at someone I love, and shouts
untenable claims that defy common sense and all evidence.
You can stay on your corner
with your cardboard sign, sir. And I'll even give you my only good raincoat,
and a hot sandwich to keep you going. But I'm saving the five bucks I was going
to put in your cup, and I'll hand it off to the Salvation Army instead.
Have a nice day, John.
No comments:
Post a Comment