'All for ourselves and nothing for other people' seems in every age of the world to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind. -Adam Smith "All the 'truth' in the world adds up to one big lie." Bob Dylan "Idealism precedes experience, cynicism follows it." Anon

Showing posts with label sexual abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexual abuse. Show all posts

August 31, 2011

From Sex Fiends to Family Values: the LDS and The Family International




Chain The Dogma August 31, 2011

From Sex Fiends to Family Values: the LDS and The Family International

Religious doctrines abandoned for political or legal reasons, like Zombies, never die

by Perry Bulwer



A recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune discusses the doctrine of polygamy in the mainstream Mormon church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).

If polygamy became legal in this country, would the LDS Church, which abandoned it in 1890, embrace it again?

After all, some say, it remains part of Mormon doctrine, enshrined in LDS scripture, and many Latter-day Saints believe it will exist in the afterlife. Even the late Mormon apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote that the “holy practice” would resume after Jesus Christ’s Second Coming.

Of course, Mormon leaders abandoned polygamy strictly for political reasons in 1890. If the U.S. government had not criminalized plural marriages and aggressively fought for over 40 years to end the practice, the LDS would likely still practice polygamy as a divine dogma today. As much as they have tried to reinterpret history and claim there were theological reasons for ending polygamy, the reality is that the political and legal consequences of continuing it jeopardized their church. It was self-preservation, not spiritual awakening.

David Berg, the deceased founder and self-proclaimed end-time prophet of the Children of God, now known as The Family International, greatly admired Joseph Smith. There are numerous references and discussions of Mormon history in his writings, and Berg often compared his cult to Joseph Smith's. It's true, there are many similarities between the two evangelical Christian sects, particularly in the way the two founding leaders created sexual doctrines to justify their own licentiousness.  And just like Mormon leaders did, Family International leaders were willing to abandon a core doctrine for mere political and legal expediency in order to save their 'new religious movement'. However, doctrines abandoned for those reasons often do not die, especially when they are written into so-called holy texts. They either get reinterpreted or remain dormant until it is safe to revive them, or they continue being practised by individuals and splinter groups, such as the fundamentalist Mormons that still consider polygamy a religious imperative today.

The Family International does not have a specific 'holy book' like the Book of Mormon, but they do consider Berg's writings to be divinely inspired and as important as the Bible (both groups use the King James Bible). Berg even wrote that if it came down to a choice between one or the other, his followers should read his writings before the Bible.  One of The Family International's foundational doctrines is the Law of Love, deviously devised by Berg to justify his own acts of incest and adultery. Essentially, the doctrine purported to provide divine approval for all sexual activity between anyone of any age, whether related or not. As Berg wrote to his followers in 1980:

 As far as God’s concerned, there are no more sexual prohibitions hardly of any kind … there’s nothing in the world at all wrong with sex as long as it’s practiced in love, whatever it is, whoever it’s with, no matter who or what age or what relative or what manner! … There are no relationship restrictions or age limitations in His law of love....

The only activity Berg clearly condemned was male homosexuality, which he considered worse than rape.  However, as reports of child abuse began to emerge in the 1980s, political and legal reactions resulted in raids of the group's communes in several countries. This forced the group's leaders to reinterpret the doctrine so that sex between adults and minors is prohibited. At least that's what they claim, that all adult-child sexual conduct was finally prohibited in1989, that they renounced certain sexual doctrines and that they have left their past far behind. However, such a claim coming from a group that has absolutely no oversight from or accountability to any external authority for its activities, and has an official policy of deceiving and lying to outsiders, including law enforcement and government officials, simply cannot be trusted when they say they have changed. In the years that followed, Family International leaders developed a new doctrine that continued the sexualization of children, even while they were insisting in a court of law that children were now protected from the sexual doctrines.

After Berg's death in 1994, the current leaders of the cult, Karen Zerby, aka Maria Fontaine, and Steven Kelly,  aka Peter Amsterdam, carried on his sexual extremism. Even while they were trying to convince a judge in a British custody case that they had now safe-guarded children from the sexual doctrines, Zerby and Kelly were secretly devising a new sexual doctrine they called Loving Jesus,  which among other things, encourages members, including children, to imagine having sex with Jesus while masturbating or during sexual intercourse. Zerby, like Berg, does not believe adult sexual molestation of children is wrong, stating that  “... a little fondling & sweet affection is not wrong in the eyes of God, & if they have experienced the same in the past they weren’t 'abused'”. She also wrote, as cited by the judge:  “This is the very thing the system would like to use against us—sex with minors which they always term child abuse although in our loving Family there would be very little possibility of genuine abuse…”. In order for men to practice the Loving Jesus doctrine they are required to imagine themselves as 'females in the spirit' because male homosexuality is one of the few sexual practices the group considers sinful.

First introduced to members in 1995, the development of this new sexual doctrine was directly related to the central role of the Law of Love in The Family International. Zerby was determined that members become even more sexually active by obeying and living the Law of Love more fully. To that end, in 1998, she published an 11-part series entitled Living the Lord’s Law of Love in an internal publication. There are censored versions of all 11 parts of that series at the following archive,  numbered 3199 to 3212. These letters were required reading and came with special instructions that the series had to be read by each home as a group, not individually, thus increasing the peer pressure to conform. The group's leaders did manage to convince that British judge, Justice Ward referenced above, that the child at the center of the child custody case was no longer in danger from the practice of the Law of Love. However, he did express some apprehension at the possibility of abandoned or denounced doctrines resurfacing in the future. It now seems that Justice Ward was quite prescient when he referred to the possible “resurrection of the freedoms given by the Law of Love”. He certainly would have been concerned about the effect of the new Loving Jesus doctrine on children, and if he had known it was in development even while the custody case was ongoing he surely would have ruled against returning the child to his cult mother. But he did not know because Family International members who testified in the case lied to him on the witness stand and in affidavits, as I have previously pointed out:

Near the beginning of the 295-page judgment in that case, in a section titled “The Family’s Attitude to Lies and Deception,” Justice Ward speaks to the issue of the veracity of Family witnesses by specific reference to the deceivers-yet-true doctrine, stating, “I regret to find that in many instances there has been a lack of frankness and a failure to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” He then gives six specific examples of how The Family’s witnesses were less than honest in the proceedings and goes on to say, “These are worrying examples and they are not the only ones of the ingrained habit of lying if they have to and of telling half the truth if they can get away with it.” Throughout the judgment, Ward provides further examples of Family witnesses “dissembling the truth—deceiving yet true” and withholding incriminating documentary evidence from the court.


Another controversial Berg doctrine The Family International supposedly abandoned, but could be resurrected at any time, was the practice of religious prostitution known as Flirty Fishing.  Based on Jesus' command to his disciples to become fishers of men, and expanding on the Law of Love doctrine, it became a way to not only 'win souls' but to gain protection and financial support. In the early days of the Children of God sex between unmarried regular members was forbidden, but the Law of Love changed that, and then Flirty Fishing opened the door to sex with outsiders. A scandal on the Canary Island of Tenerife in the 1970s exposed Flirty Fishing to the world (I have an explosive post in the works on that) and then as child abuse began to be exposed and the AIDS epidemic was taking hold around the world, Family leaders decided it was no longer in their best interest to continue the practice. Here's an official statement from the group on why they stopped it:

 In 1987 the Family discontinued FFing to emphasize other means of ministering the Word of God to others, as well as to take advantage of opportunities to reach more people than the very personalized ministry of FFing allowed. At that time as well, the plague of AIDS had begun its rampage through the world—another indication that it was time to reconsider Family policy of allowing sexual interaction outside our communities.

Although we no longer practice FFing, we believe the scriptural principles behind the ministry remain sound.  

However, Berg predicted in 1978 that Flirty Fishing through escort services  would be one of the group's main sources of support during the Great Tribulation, which he taught would occur during the 3 1/2 years prior to Jesus' return in 1993. That obviously never happened, but for many years after that failed date leaders continued to manipulate their followers into believing those events were just around the corner. But like all prognosticators do who make specific predictions of Biblical end time events, The Family International leaders recently changed their predictions once again.  They have now given their members 50 more years before Jesus returns, even though Berg and Zerby both prophesied that Zerby would be living when Jesus returned. Karen Zerby and Peter Kelly will be conveniently dead in 50 years, however, so they conveniently won't have to face more accusations of manipulating members with false prophecies. Meanwhile, the Zombie doctrine of Flirty Fishing could easily be resurrected at any time, just like Mormon polygamy.

The Family International's explanation for why they abandoned Flirty Fishing sounds a lot like what some Mormons say about polygamy, that they no longer practice it, though they still believe it is scripturally sound. The Family International has been trying for many years now to rewrite their corporate history, white-wash their past abuses, and remake their image as a sex-obsessed cult  that destroyed individuals and families into that of a respectable family-values missionary movement. Part of that public relations effort included contacting academic apologists to write favourable reports on them. James Chancellor's book, Life in The Family: an Oral History of the Children of God,  is one result of those efforts. William Sims Bainbridge, who wrote another inaccurate book about that group, wrote the forward to Chancellor's book. That short foreword contains several uninformed assertions and factual errors concerning The Family International that not only further undermine Bainbridge’s reliability on the subject, but also reflect badly on Chancellor’s effort to convey a realistic portrait of the group.

Bainbridge declares that The Family International “institutionalized nuclear family.” Certainly, the opposite is true. One of the most fundamental tenets of The Family’s theology is their One Wife doctrine based on a publication of that name, which remains required reading for new members:

But God’s in the business of breaking up little selfish private worldly families to make of their yielded broken pieces a larger unit—one Family! He’s in the business of destroying the relationships of many wives in order to make them One Wife—God’s Wife—The Bride of Christ. God is not averse to breaking up selfish little families for His glory, to make of the pieces a much larger unselfish unit—the Whole Family—the entire Bride—the One Wife instead of many wives!

One Wife is one of The Family’s foundational doctrines, out of which grew even more bizarre and controversial sexual doctrines, such as the Law of Love, Flirty Fishing, and Loving Jesus discussed above. Far from institutionalizing the nuclear family, The Family’s leadership has never hesitated to separate husbands from wives, and children from parents, or otherwise manipulate the parent-child relationship. If The Family International places any importance at all in the nuclear family, it is only within the following context, described by Wendell W. Watters, M.D.:

…[S]o powerful is the family in human society that many revolutionary political movements have, in their initial stages, attempted to destroy its power to maintain the status quo, by appealing directly to children over the heads of their parents. 
The present-day religious cults are noted for creating rifts between parents and their adolescent children. However, once a movement achieves its revolutionary goals, as in the case of Christianity and communism, it reverses this position and attempts once more to use the family as an ally in maintaining and extending its power. 
Wendell Watters, M.D., Deadly Doctrine: Health, Illness and Christian God-Talk (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1992), 47-49.

That is exactly what David Berg's cult did. They started out as the Children of God (who needs parents when you have God?), destroying the institutions of monogamous marriage and nuclear families, and then remade themselves as The Family International, supposedly upholding family values. Berg likened himself to a modern day Pied Piper. He claimed to have many spiritual helpers  (many of them fictional characters such as Don Quixote and the Abominable Snowman), which were revealed to him in séances with current leader, Karen Zerby, known as Maria to members. There are references to the Pied Piper throughout Berg's writings. Here are a few excerpts to highlight just how deliberately this cult set out to manipulate young people and destroy their familial relationships (MO is David Berg, emphasis in the original):

8. MARIA: DOES PETER THE HERMIT COUNSEL DAVID? MO smiles as he observes the Heavenly counselors, and answers slowly ... NO, BUT THE PIED PIPER DOES! MO chuckles as he continues to see the Pied Piper: He has big ears and a funny tall hat, and long blond hair. He plays the flute, and all the children like to dance and sing--'cause he likes children. My children dance! http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0102.shtml

18. THE LORD HAS SPOKEN THROUGH ME FOR A PURPOSE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAUSING YOUTH TO BELIEVE & YOUTH TO FOLLOW! If God has made me the Pied Piper, so to speak, to jump & dance & play His tune to lead His children, why not? http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b5/ml1410.shtml

10. THANK YOU FOR THE PIED PIPER, LORD! Bless him, in Jesus name! Help him to charm the children by the Spirit. Help him to make the kids leave their parents to drown in the river like rats! ... (Surprised, MO continues:) I didn't know that, but all the parents who tried to chase their children fell in the river and drowned like rats! The Lord lets all the parents who chase us drown like rats! http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b4/ml0111.shtml


The Family International's history sounds an awful lot like the history of the LDS, as this quotation from a Boston Globe article indicates: "... as so-called “family values’’ came to dominate US political rhetoric, the Mormons who were once hounded as sex fiends were reborn as the American family ideal."  The early Mormon church under Joseph Smith's leadership started out destroying the institutions of monogamous marriage and nuclear families. Under political and legal pressure the church then reversed their position and began "to use the family as an ally in maintaining and extending its power." As the article goes on to explain:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has adapted to survive. Has it done so at the expense of core, if unpopular, convictions? ...  Mormonism has a mechanism for change that is unique among religions, with church leaders empowered to receive fresh revelations that can overturn doctrine on a dime. It happened most famously in 1890 on polygamy, and again in 1978 when the church admitted blacks to the LDS priesthood (a revelation, Romney says, that made him weep with relief). When other religions change, it is often with the pretense that the new dogma is not really new.

Given David Berg's fascination with Joseph Smith and Mormonism, the current leaders of The Family International no doubt place great hope in the fact that the LDS church, once hounded as sex fiends for their doctrine of polygamy, have been reborn as the American family ideal with two members in the race for U.S. president, one (Romney) whose near relatives were devout polygamists. If abandoning core doctrines worked for the Mormons, perhaps it will work for them. Just like the LDS, The Family International also uses "fresh revelations that can overturn doctrine on a dime." They have been doing that for years as a means of manipulating and controlling their members. And just as fundamentalist Mormons have revived the practice of polygamy (or never ended it), leading to horrendous abuses of children and women, the demented doctrines of David Berg can easily be resurrected at any time by leaders of The Family International, or by individuals or splinter groups that still believe in and practice abandoned doctrines.

August 17, 2011

Are Priests Their Brother's Keeper? A Catholic Morality Tale

Chain The Dogma     August 17, 2011

Are Priests Their Brother's Keeper? A Catholic Morality Tale 

by Perry Bulwer



I really do not understand how the Catholic hierarchy can carry on business as usual in the face of a decades long global scandal of horrific crimes against children and the cover-ups of those crimes by church leaders. Their failure to protect the most vulnerable members of their congregations, and their continual refusal to do the right things to protect children and support the survivors, reveals a moral malignancy at the heart of their institution.

I have closely followed this crime story for several years now and read many of the excuses and justifications made by church authorities and apologists  attempting to explain those crimes against children. My disgust grows with each new report of a priest or bishop downplaying the culpability of the church for failing to protect children or for claiming no one in the church knew that raping children was not appropriate behaviour. That is not hyperbole. Recently, a Catholic bishop in Australia publicly opposed a parliamentary inquiry into what the police suspect are 26 suicides by victims of convicted pedophile Brother Robert Best. Here is what Bishop of Ballarat Peter Connors told AAP:

But Bishop Connors on Tuesday said not even revelations from Detective Sergeant Kevin Carson that 26 young men had killed themselves after being abused by priests and brothers in Ballarat convinced him that more would be learnt from an inquiry.

"I think we've learnt a lot of things about what is appropriate behaviour and what's not appropriate behaviour," Bishop Connors said.

"I think people are very well informed nowadays as to what's inappropriate approaches from a male."

While conceding the abuse of children was wrong, he said that in the past it had not always been clear to everyone what was appropriate and inappropriate behaviour.

"In the past a lot of ignorance was there on the part of lots of people. Parents didn't understand, sometimes bishops didn't understand. We have no excuse now."

As to whether there was an excuse when Ridsdale and Best were abusing boys, Bishop Connors said he did not know.

Among the charges laid against Best in Victoria's County Court last month were details of him raping a nine-year-old boy in his office.

The court heard that after Best raped him, the boy thought he was going to die and blacked out.
Bishop Connors said in the past 14 years he had spoken to more than 30 victims of Ridsdale and other priests in the Ballarat diocese.

But he said none had told him they were also abused by Best.

"I can't remember them saying they were victims of Brother Best as well," he said.

The bishop said he had no reason to meet Best's victims "because he being a Christian Brother, I'm not responsible for him."

Yet he conceded that some of Ridsdale's victims he had met could also have been abused by Best, because they were both there at the same time.

The bishop's comments are incredibly insensitive, offensive and immoral. The reporter got it right by pointing out the implication of the bishop's statement, "we have no excuse now", as if there was an excuse for raping little boys before. Either Bishop Connors does not know his Bible very well, or he ignores it when it suits him, as most Christians do. The recommended punishment for harming children is something worse than being tossed into the sea with a heavy weight around the perpetrator's neck, which is already a horrific form of capital punishment (Matthew 18:6). Various translations describe that harm as scandalizing them or causing them to sin or stumble, meaning to turn away from God. That is exactly what clergy crimes against children do, harm them by creating great spiritual and psychological turmoil  and causing many survivors to lose their faith. Yet for decades, the response to those crimes by the Catholic hierarchy has not been a Biblical one, and certainly not a secular one, but an institutional one designed to protect the church more than children.

Bishop Connors also shows a callous indifference for the survivors, claiming he has no responsibility to meet Robert Best's victims because he is not a priest, merely a Christian Brother (some of the worst Catholic child abusers).  In that claim I hear an echo of Cain's denial of responsibility even though guilty: "am I my brother's keeper?" Here is what Pope John Paul II  had to say about that in his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life):

At the root of every act of violence against one's neighbour there is a concession to the "thinking" of the evil one, the one who "was a murderer from the beginning" (Jn 8:44). As the Apostle John reminds us: "For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, and not be like Cain who was of the evil one and murdered his brother" (1 Jn 3:11-12). Cain's killing of his brother at the very dawn of history is thus a sad witness of how evil spreads with amazing speed: man's revolt against God in the earthly paradise is followed by the deadly combat of man against man.

After the crime, God intervenes to avenge the one killed. Before God, who asks him about the fate of Abel, Cain, instead of showing remorse and apologizing, arrogantly eludes the question: "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" (Gen 4:9). "I do not know": Cain tries to cover up his crime with a lie. This was and still is the case, when all kinds of ideologies try to justify and disguise the most atrocious crimes against human beings. "Am I my brother's keeper?": Cain does not wish to think about his brother and refuses to accept the responsibility which every person has towards others. We cannot but think of today's tendency for people to refuse to accept responsibility for their brothers and sisters. Symptoms of this trend include the lack of solidarity towards society's weakest members-such as the elderly, the infirm, immigrants, children- and the indifference frequently found in relations between the world's peoples even when basic values such as survival, freedom and peace are involved.

I am also disgusted by the indifference shown by priests who could speak out publicly about child crimes committed by their colleagues, but do not, continuing on as usual as if the moral failings at the heart of their institution do not undermine everything they say and do. A few days before I read that Australian report, an op-ed by Canadian columnist Father Raymond de Souza prompted me to post a critical comment to the morality tale he was telling because the moral issue he was discussing had nothing to do with clergy crimes.

Raymond J. de Souza is a Canadian parish priest and university instructor who also writes a column for the National Post newspaper,  always including in his byline his religious title, Father, no matter what the topic. For Catholics the term 'Father' is more than just a perfunctory honorific. It indicates that the man with that title has some authority as a spiritual teacher.

I could understand de Souza using his religious title if he were writing in a Catholic publication, but perhaps I should not be surprised that he also uses it in his National Post column. After all, that paper was founded by former media baron, Conrad Black, as a conservative response to what he considered a liberal bias in Canadian newspapers. Black, who is also a columnist for the Post, is a Catholic apologist who converted as an adult. One of de Souza's recent columns wrote in defence of Black,claiming he was being persecuted by prosecutors for the crimes he committed. Christians really like to claim persecution because they consider it a sign of their righteousness.

If de Souza wrote his personal opinions under just his name, without any reference to his supposed spiritual authority except perhaps in a short biographical note at the end of the article, I probably would not be taking issue with him. I realize that sounds like a trivial difference, but I do not think it is. He is not using his title in the bylines as a mere honorific, he is indicating to the reader that what follows comes from an authoritative spiritual teacher. One way he expresses that authority in his columns is to write about morality. And that is what I am really taking issue with, his apparently broken moral compass, not his religious title.

The column by de Souza  that prompted me to comment online and then expand that comment into this article was on the subject of professional baseball. It is essentially a morality tale in which de Souza complains that Roger Maris is not in the Hall of Fame, but deserves to be. Maris was a Catholic, although de Souza does not inform his readers of that fact, merely describing him as "a decent man who brought honour to the game". If anyone but a Catholic priest had written the column I likely would have ignored it, but it wasn't and I didn't. Here is the comment I posted on the National Post site where I read the column:

Is this little morality tale focused on a mere game an attempt by de Souza to deflect attention away from the real injustices a Catholic priest should be focusing on today? It says a lot about the state of the Catholic church that in the face of a continuing, world-wide scandal of clergy child rapists enabled and protected by the church hierarchy all the way up to the Pope, that a priest, any priest, would choose to write about so-called injustices done to rich, professional athletes playing a game instead of actual, evil injustices done to innocent little children, whose lives are forever altered by the abuses they suffered at the hands of those claiming to have a superior morality. Apparently, de Souza is more concerned about a perceived injustice to one baseball player than he is about the crimes and injustices committed against countless children by those within his own organization. Exposing and correcting that immorality and injustice is what de Souza should be focused on, and should be the topic of every single column he writes until the church becomes totally transparent and completely accountable to civic authorities for all crimes committed by church leaders. That would be the moral thing to do.

I admit, maybe it is too much to expect him to devote every column to the child protection crisis within the Catholic church, but I expect that a regular column by a priest would at least occasionally address the moral implications of the scandal. After all, he frequently writes about morality in the political  and social realms.  For example, he does not hesitate to point out the immoralities of Italy's Prime Minister, accusing him of "promiscuity of the most obscene kind" that taints all of Italy.  However, it seems to me that the promiscuity practised by many Catholic priests -- like molesting children in the confessional booth; sexually abusing 200 deaf boys;  secretly fathering children and then sexually abusing them; treating captive children in residential and boarding schools as sex slaves; a priest arranging a botched abortion for the teen he impregnated; etc., etc. -- is far more obscene than anything practised by a secular politician or a Hollywood celebrity who do not pretend to be celibate or have spiritual authority over their supporters. Moreover, the cover-ups by Bishops and Cardinals of priestly promiscuity and perversion taint the entire Catholic Church. It seems to me that de Souza's moral judgements are an illustration of Matthew 7: 2-4.

2 You’ll receive the same judgment you give. Whatever you deal out will be dealt out to you. 3 Why do you see the splinter that’s in your brother’s or sister’s eye, but don’t notice the log in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother or sister, ‘Let me take the splinter out of your eye,’ when there’s a log in your eye?
While he is able to see immorality in those he judges, he seems wilfully blind to the immoralities of his peers and superiors, which itself is immoral.

Certainly, there seems to be no end in sight to disturbing news concerning child abuse in the Catholic church that de Souza could address on a regular basis in his column. From June 2007 to June 2011 I archived over 3000 news articles  related to religion and child abuse. Around 400 or so of those articles concern child abuse in the Catholic Church. The only article by Raymond de Souza on clergy abuse I could find in this list of his columns  is dated April 29, 2010, but it is nothing more than an attack on a church critic, Christopher Hitchens. It is merely a rebuttal to some of Hitchens' arguments, and provides some factual corrections, but does not address in any way the moral failings and culpability of church leaders. From April 2010 to June 11, 2011, when I closed the archive, there were 94 articles specifically on Catholic clergy crimes posted there, yet during that same period Raymond de Souza wrote exactly one column related to Catholic clergy abuse. Perhaps de Souza thinks the crisis is now over.  It is not. Or maybe he is just waiting for more scandals to erupt in Canada before writing on this topic.

At the end of his column on Roger Maris, de Souza writes: "Fifty years after the real thing, it is time to do the right thing. Maris belongs in Cooperstown." I agree, after decades of clergy abuse  around the world it is time for the Catholic church to do the right thing. One way de Souza could help with that is to end his silence on clergy crimes against children and turn his moralizing towards his peers and superiors. I am sure the public would be bettered served reading a discussion of the moral issues involved when priests abuse children and their superiors cover it up than they are reading about a professional athlete being snubbed. Following are a few recent cases de Souza could start with.

Despite all the claims by Catholic leaders that new child protection policies  and programs are effectively safe-guarding children now, evidence from IrelandPhiladelphiaMissouri, and Italy,  shows that Bishops and Cardinals have hindered and undermined those protections. Perhaps de Souza does not write about that issue because that evidence does not implicate the Canadian church and he thinks, like the Bishop of Calgary, that the new practices really will protect Canadian children.  That remains to be seen, of course, but the fact that Bishops and Cardinals in other countries have undermined child protection policies taints all Catholic programs purporting to protect children.

Perhaps another reason de Souza does not write about the clergy abuse scandal is because he thinks, like many apologists claim, that the child abuse is all in the past. That is a lie, of course, new cases are cropping up all the time. The Missouri case  referred to above is an example of that. It involves a priest, Shawn Ratigan, who secretly took lewd photos of the genitalia of five girls aged 2 to 12. The role of  Bishop Robert Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph in this scandal is just as obscene, as his deliberate neglect endangered more children.

Maybe de Souza does not want to write about that pornographer priest because his crimes do not involve a Canadian, but that cannot possibly be the reason because he has also chosen not to write about the Canadian Bishop who has been convicted of importing child pornography.  This too is a recent case. Bishop Lahey was highly praised for his role in an historic clergy abuse settlement in Nova Scotia. Historic because it was "... the first time the Roman Catholic Church has apologized and set up a compensation package for people who claimed they were sexually abused by priests without fighting the charges in court."  Lahey apologized to the victims, knowing full well that some of them were as young as eight when they were abused, but events that unfolded just a few months later completely destroyed the credibility of his apology.

Less than two months after that historic settlement, Bishop Lahey resigned his position without announcing why. Less than a week later he turned himself into the police to face charges of possessing and importing child pornography.  In hindsight, it is obvious that Lahey's guilty conscience for his own immoral behaviour was behind his willingness to settle the civil case, to turn himself in after his computer was confiscated by border guards, to plead guilty, and to ask the court to jail him immediately  before a sentencing hearing. After all, authorities had evidence that he had travelled extensively to countries that are sources of child pornography.  Even while he was negotiating with and apologizing to survivors of vile child sex crimes, and gaining high praise for that from all quarters, he was consuming pornography that included depictions of rape and torture of little boys.  Moreover, witnesses reported to police over 20 years ago that they saw child pornography in Lahey's home.  This was a corrupt man, appointed by the supposedly infallible Pope, who seemed not to mind that little boys were being raped and tortured, as long as they were not Catholic children. After all God loves Catholic children more, at least according to this page from an old Irish Catholic schoolbook.





[image found at: http://lockerz.com/s/112545422 and http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/06/20/isnt-this-just-the-cutest-thin/ ]

I wonder if de Souza would care to comment in his column on the morality of that particular dogma, or any of the other cases I have mentioned here? And if those don't interest him, there are many, many others. He would do well to remember, that when he points the finger at others, such as politicians, celebrities and church critics, there are three others pointing back at him and his church.

August 7, 2011

Mormon pedophile polygamist, Warren Jeffs, guilty of raping girls for God

Chain the Dogma    August 7, 2011

Mormon pedophile polygamist, Warren Jeffs, guilty of raping girls for God

He argued that religious freedom gave him the right to rape girls

by Perry Bulwer



It is no surprise that Warren Jeffs was found guilty  by a Texas jury for child sexual assault, given the overwhelming evidence  against him. Eleven other men in his FLDS cult were also charged with similar crimes and all seven of those who have been prosecuted so far were also found guilty  and given lengthy prison sentences. In fact, nothing about this case surprises me.

I am not surprised by Jeffs antics in the courtroom in his latest trial. Once captured and presented with solid evidence against him, he knew he had almost no chance to escape punishment through the legal system. Forced to face reality for the first time in his life, he momentarily awoke from his religious delusion and admitted to being an immoral, spiritual fraud. That jailhouse confession  in phone calls to his family members reveals a broken man who, realizing how wicked he has been, not only renounces his claim to being a prophet, but even attempts suicide.

Jeffs would later recant that confession and retake control of his cult from prison, but for that brief moment the curtain was drawn back and the world, though not most of his followers, saw the true nature of that evil man. Apologists (see jailhouse confession link above) have tried to downplay Jeffs' admission of immoralities with a sister and a daughter by saying that the FLDS standard of immorality is different than society's, insinuating that it was not incest he was admitting to. However, at Jeffs' sentencing hearing  his niece

... described an incident that allegedly occurred between her and Jeffs when she was 7 years old. "He made me sit on his lap," she testified, and did "inappropriate things to me." She was crying so hard at one point that the prosecutor stopped questioning. Neither side pressed her for details. CNN is withholding the niece's name because she is the alleged victim of a sexual assault.  

It is fairly safe to assume, as CNN has done by withholding her name, that she was describing sexual molestation, if not rape. At the same hearing, Warren Jeffs nephew, Brent Jeffs, testified that his uncle raped him when he was five years old. Brent had previously revealed that in his book, Lost Boy, as well as in public interviews, in a lawsuit against his uncle, and in an affidavit  submitted to the Canadian court considering the constitutionality of the anti-polygamy law. Jeffs was well aware of all the evidence the state had against him because he attempted many times to have that evidence rejected. So, knowing he had no defence other than his ridiculous claim that religious freedom gave him the right to rape little girls, Jeffs simply used the legal process and the courtroom as a pulpit, further consolidating control over his followers.




I am not surprised that Jeffs claimed religious persecution and tried to use the religious freedom defence after firing all of his lawyers. Most people are mistaken about the concept of religious freedom, thinking it gives them the right to not only believe anything they want, but to act on those beliefs. However, it is not an absolute right that allows all religious behaviour. As the U.S. Supreme Court famously said:

Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.

Religious freedom necessarily includes the right to be free from religion otherwise it is an empty right, and it is also a right that children have. Jeffs' claim that religious freedom gives him the right to rape girls is one of the more extreme versions of the argument. Faith healing parents who claim religious freedom to let their children die  from treatable conditions without any medical care is another example of religious extremism that denies religious freedom to children. But mainstream and moderate religious leaders and believers, not just fundamentalists, fringe sects and cults, also frequently appeal to their right to religious freedom while denying the same right to their children, so they should not feel smug in their criticisms of Jeffs and the FLDS.

Perhaps the most common example of denying religious freedom to children is the indoctrination of young people (kids are people too!) before they have a chance to form their own opinions. For religious freedom to have any meaning for adults, it must be protected for children. If a child becomes so indoctrinated by a particular dogma that it becomes almost impossible for her to break out of that indoctrination as an adult, then her freedom to choose her own religion has been violated and denied. In order for adults to have the freedom to exercise their religious autonomy, they must as children have the right to an open future. God experts know this all to well, which is why they specifically target little children for proselytizing, to ensure they have future congregations they can exploit. As a Jesuit famously said, "Give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man", which is a paraphrasing of Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it." At least that's what they hope.

Adult believers value religious freedom for themselves and would reject any attempt to force dogma on them, yet they do not hesitate to do that to their children. This is the great hypocrisy surrounding religious freedom, parents supposedly having a greater right to that freedom than their children, which may be the main reason why the United States, one of the most religious countries in the world, is also the only one (Somalia is a failed state) not to have signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child. But I think the opposite is true. I think that all conflicts between parental and children's religious rights should be decided in favour of children. They are the more vulnerable party and their right to an open future can be completely denied them by zealous parents, preachers, teachers and priests who think it is perfectly acceptable to manipulate immature minds. In my opinion, proselytizing and indoctrinating little children with religious dogma is a sign of a weak, irrational ideology that only uninformed, gullible adults and naive, innocent children can be convinced to believe. It is a form of entrapment that captures and enslaves the mind of a child before they gain the maturity and critical thinking skills to resist such psychological manipulation.

Finally, I am not surprised that several Mormon fundamentalist groups that practice polygamy only denounced Jeffs after he was convicted.  Statements by those groups, quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune, indicate that they only became alarmed, shocked, horrified after hearing the new evidence that has surfaced in this latest trial.

The Principle Rights Coalition (PRC) — representing five polygamous churches, along with others who practice polygamy but are unaffiliated with any church — called the sexual abuse of children "reprehensible."

"As new evidence has surfaced in Texas ... we are alarmed that such depravity could have been perpetrated by anyone," according to the statement.

"While we understand that horrific abuse can occur in any part of society, it is especially devastating to discover that sexual assault of young children may have occurred behind the false pretense of a religious ideology," the statement says.
...
An accompanying statement by the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB) said they were "shocked and horrified" by what has been revealed during Jeffs’ trial.

What took them so long? And even with the conviction, it sounds as if they still are not sure child sex crimes happened: "...sexual assault of young children may have occurred...". Jeffs was arrested in 2006. Even before his capture while on he run from law enforcement, the allegations of child sex crimes were well known. Since 2007 there has been steady stream of publications in both the U.S. and Canada detailing the crimes by Jeffs and other FLDS leaders: newspaper  and magazine articles, books  and documentaries  by survivors, affidavits and court videos and transcripts, and more. Furthermore, this was not Jeffs first trial. Much of the evidence in this one was already public knowledge, having been submitted in previous trials and hearings. It seems to me that the Mormon polygamists now condemning Jeffs were engaged in wilful blindness to the crimes and abuses committed by one of their own. If they were really concerned for the children in Jeffs sect they could have denounced him long ago, but they didn't so their public relations statements now appear disingenuous, designed to protect the practice of polygamy from state interference rather than protect children from religious interference. I am not surprised.


RELATED ARTICLES



Mormon polygamist who pleaded no contest to child bride sex assault appeals conviction based on search warrant





July 25, 2011

Vatican more upset by Catholic Prime Minister's criticisms than clergy sex crimes against children

Chain The Dogma - July 25, 2011


Vatican more upset by Catholic Prime Minister's criticisms than clergy sex crimes against children

by Perry Bulwer



Almost two weeks after the Irish government ordered report on cover-ups in the County Cork diocese of Cloyne between 1996 and 2009,  the Vatican has finally responded by recalling its envoy to Ireland. The Vatican statement said the envoy was recalled not just to consult on the report, but "in particular due to the reactions to it." An anonymous Vatican official reiterated that the Vatican was "slightly surprised and disappointed at some of the excessive reactions" to the report.

Every investigative report on Catholic clergy crimes and the cover-ups of those crimes has elicited condemning reactions from a wide range of interested parties, many of which could be considered by the Vatican to be "excessive reactions", such as the calls for criminal charges against the Pope and other church leaders. How could Vatican officials be even "slightly surprised" that similar reactions would follow the publication of the Cloyne report? And how could they be disappointed in those reactions when they know that most usually come from very vocal advocates, activists and critics? It seems to me that the Vatican's surprise and disappointment is mostly directed at the Irish Prime Minister's speech on the Cloyne report.

The Irish PM, Enda Kenny, is not only the longest-serving parliamentarian in a country that until 1973 gave the church a "special position" in its constitution, but he is a devout Catholic. His harsh, but accurate, criticisms of the Vatican's role in covering up clergy sex crimes against children surely must be the source of the Vatican's surprise and disappointment. More than surprise and disappointment, the Vatican hierarchy seems to be running scared, retreating into its enclave to consider a politically correct response to Kenny's charges, rather than simply doing the right thing.

I think it was Prime Minister Kenny who was genuinely surprised at the reactions he has received from thousands of people around the world, including from many priests. "The numbers of members of the clergy who have been in touch in the last few days, to say it is about time somebody spoke out about these matters in a situation like you are, has astounded me."  That's what really scares the Vatican. More and more priests are gaining the moral courage to publicly criticize the Vatican or publicly protest against certain doctrines, and Kenny's speech will hopefully encourage many more to do so.

Blogger Michael Nugent has compiled 35 examples in the Cloyne Report of diocese officials covering up clergy child sex crimes. They are the sorts of things Prime Minister Kenny refers to in his speech. You can read Kenny's full speech here.  I'll just provide a few excerpts from that speech after an excerpt from Nugent's blog. Remember, the Vatican has so far expressed surprise and disappointment in Kenny's reactions, but has said nothing about the sex crimes and cover-ups by priests and bishops.


Bishop Magee lied and deliberately misled, says Cloyne Report by Michael Nugent (excerpt):


Putting aside the content of the sexual abuse allegations, which are of course shockingly serious, the Cloyne Report reveals that various permutations of the Cloyne Diocese, Bishop John Magee and Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan “positively lied” [21.79], “positively misled” [21.79], “deliberately misled” [21.91], deliberately created two different accounts of the same meeting, a true one for the Vatican and a false one for the local diocesan files [1.48], gave false assurances to the Government Minister for Children and the Health Service Executive [1.77], “tried to bury the matter” of the requirement to report “evidence of a vicious sexual assault” [16.19], advised that statements to the gardai should be “minimal” [9.84-85], failed to give its own advisory committees full information [1.36], “put out an erroneous view” about a report [1.40], produced crucial documents that were wrongly dated [12.29], held three different versions of one meeting in diocesan files [21.27], and misled people in at least 35 ways which I detail below. [click on the link above to read the entire list of examples]

Excerpts from Prime Minister Kenny's speech:

... for the first time in Ireland, a report into child sexual-abuse exposes an attempt by the Holy See, to frustrate an Inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic...as little as three years ago, not three decades ago.

And in doing so, the Cloyne Report excavates the dysfunction, disconnection, elitism...the narcissism...that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day.

The rape and torture of children were downplayed or 'managed' to uphold instead, the primacy of the institution, its power, standing and 'reputation'.

Far from listening to evidence of humiliation and betrayal with St Benedict's "ear of the heart"......the Vatican's reaction was to parse and analyse it with the gimlet eye of a canon lawyer.
This calculated, withering position being the polar opposite of the radicalism, humility and compassion upon which the Roman Church was founded.
...
I believe that the Irish people, including the very many faithful Catholics who - like me - have been shocked and dismayed by the repeated failings of Church authorities to face up to what is required, deserve and require confirmation from the Vatican that they do accept, endorse and require compliance by all Church authorities here with, the obligations to report all cases of suspected abuse, whether current or historical, to the State's authorities in line with the Children First National Guidance which will have the force of law.
...

Clericalism has rendered some of Ireland's brightest, most privileged and powerful men, either unwilling or unable to address the horrors cited in the Ryan and Murphy Reports.
...

This is the 'Republic' of Ireland 2011. A Republic of laws...of rights and responsibilities...of proper civic order...where the delinquency and arrogance of a particular version...of a particular kind of 'morality'...will no longer be tolerated or ignored.
...

Where the law - their law - as citizens of this country, will always supercede canon laws that have neither legitimacy nor place in the affairs of this country.
...

This report tells us a tale of a frankly brazen disregard for protecting children. If we do not respond swiftly and appropriately as a State, we will have to prepare ourselves for more reports like this.

I agree with Archbishop Martin that the Church needs to publish any other and all other reports like this as soon as possible.
...

Cardinal Josef Ratzinger said, "Standards of conduct appropriate to civil society or the workings of a democracy cannot be purely and simply applied to the Church."

As the Holy See prepares its considered response to the Cloyne Report, as Taoiseach, I am making it absolutely clear, that when it comes to the protection of the children of this State, the standards of conduct which the Church deems appropriate to itself, cannot and will not, be applied to the workings of democracy and civil society in this republic.

Not purely, or simply or otherwise.

CHILDREN.... FIRST.

July 19, 2011

Philadelphia archbishop resigns due to old age, not for failing to protect children

Chain The Dogma    July 19, 2011

Philadelphia archbishop resigns due to old age, not for failing to protect children


by Perry Bulwer



Pope Benedict XVI formally accepted the resignation of Philadelphia archbishop Cardinal Justin Rigali today. When I read the headline I assumed Rigali resigned because of his role in endangering children by protecting dozens of priests credibly accused of child sex crimes, as alleged by two separate grand juries. The archdiocese is facing criminal charges for transferring known pedophile priests without warning their new parishes, which is a common practice in the Catholic church. Even the archdiocese's own lay review panel  on clergy abuse accused the archbishop of failing to be open and transparent with regard to clergy crimes against children. Cardinal Rigali, like so many other cardinals and bishops, put the protection of the church before the protection of children,  and thereby lost all credibility as a moral authority. So has the Pope.

Instead of demanding Rigali's resignation when it became clear that he had mishandled clergy crimes, endangering children and bringing the Philadelphia archdiocese and the entire church into disrepute in the process, the Pope not only kept him in his position, but ignored for more than a year church law that required Rigali to resign when he reached the age of 75. Rigali turned 75 in April 2010, 15 months before the Benedict accepted his resignation. The Pope, who has almost instantly excommunicated some priests  for disobeying church law, simply ignored those same internal laws by allowing Rigali to remain in office long past his due date.

Apparently, the Pope thinks priests who attempt to marry or ordain women  deserve no place in the church, while priests who cover-up sex crimes against children and enable other priests to continue sexually assaulting children get special treatment. The Bible prescribes in Matthew 18:6 the special treatment such offenders ought to be subjected to. Something about being tossed into the sea with a rock tied around their neck. But the Pope ignored that imperative too. I suppose the three decades Rigali spent as a Vatican diplomat and administrator payed off and made him many powerful friends, as Benedict chose to reward rather than punish him for his criminal activity.

The Pope had a chance to show some real moral courage and leadership by cleaning house in Philadelphia and appointing a replacement that would put the protection of children before the church. Instead, the Pope's pick to replace Rigali, Denver archbishop Charles Chaput, is just more of the same. The Denver archdiocese had its own child sex crimes scandal to deal with, which should have put Chaput out of the running for the Philadelphia position. After the Denver diocese settled with 43 clergy crimes survivors Chaput stated that “he could not judge actions of the bishops who handled White's case, since they have all died.”  But the cover-ups by those bishops was clearly evident, otherwise the diocese would never have settled the lawsuits, so why couldn't Chaput judge those dead bishops' actions? Would he have judged their actions if they were still living? I think not, since it is extremely rare for bishops and cardinals to criticize each other.

Will Chaput's attitude better serve to protect the children in his new archdiocese or the bishops and priests under his command? Perhaps it remains to be seen, but we already know that archbishop Charles Chaput is one of the most conservative bishops in the U.S., which is probably why the Pope picked him, has a history of politicizing issues, and discriminates against children because of their parents' background.  None of that is good news for the children of Philadelphia who have the misfortune of being raised Catholic.

July 14, 2011

Catholic child protection policies are merely public relations ploys

Chain The Dogma      July 14, 2011


Catholic child protection policies are merely public relations ploys

Undermined by Popes and bishops, they fail to protect children

by Perry Bulwer



The latest report on Catholic clergy abuse in Ireland  reveals, not for the first time but with new details, how the Vatican undermined efforts by Irish bishops to implement new child protection measures starting in 1996, which included a duty to report suspected cases of child abuse to police. Those efforts were not voluntarily initiated by the bishops, but forced on them by abuse survivors who began publicizing their lawsuits, which blew open the doors to this hidden scandal.

A year later, those bishops received a confidential 1997 letter from the Vatican  warning them that their child protection policies were invalid under canon law. As a result of that interference by the Vatican more Irish children were endangered and harmed by priests. Pope John Paul II was directly responsible for crimes against children that could have been prevented but for his pastoral neglect and his preference for protecting a corrupt institution over the lives of innocent children.

According to this latest government investigation, which focuses on clergy abuse in the diocese of Cloyne, Bishop John Magee and his senior staff did not report child abuse cases to the police from 1996 to 2009. But his crimes went beyond neglect and endangerment. Encouraged by the 1997 Vatican letter, Magee did more than just fail to enact protection policies, he actively set out to cover-up clergy abuse. He suppressed information on 19 priests suspected of child abuse. He set up a fake committee, ostensibly to review abuse cases, that never met once after 1995. He produced two different written reports on a priest who admitted abusing children, omitting that admission from the report to diocesan officials. The Vatican got the full report. I assume that the police got no report.

The Vatican's culpability for crimes against children doesn't stop with John Paul II. In a 2010 pastoral letter to Ireland's Catholics, Pope Benedict continued his predecessor's pressure on the bishops, blaming them for failing to follow canon law. He wrote that there had been “serious mistakes” in the way bishops responded to abuse allegations. But apparently the bishops did try to respond appropriately by drafting child protection policies. It was Pope John Paul II who told them they could not protect children. So, one Pope tells the bishops that they cannot report child-abusing priests to the police because that would violate canon law, and the next Pope blames them for not responding properly to clergy abuse. And neither Pope has admitted any responsibility for the Vatican's role in protecting child-abusing priests, not just in Ireland, but around the world.  

This latest Irish investigation shows the sham and shame of Catholic leaders making empty promises and phony policies to protect children. For example, Irish bishops withheld over 200 abuse cases  from its own child protection board and impeded a national audit of clergy crimes. The same thing happened in Philadelphia where cardinal and bishops hid problem priests  from their own clergy abuse review board, and put church law before civil law. The credibility of all Catholic child protection policies   is now seriously undermined by the continuing cover-ups.

If the abuses and cover-ups reported in this investigation of the Coyne diocese occurred after child protection policies were supposedly put in place, then how safe are the children in the twenty-three Irish dioceses that have not yet been investigated and what abuses are yet to be exposed? We may never know as so far the government has resisted calls  by survivors to investigate all of them. And likewise in the United States, where loopholes in clergy abuse guidelines continue to endanger children. The Catholic hierarchy just doesn't get it. As recently as May 2011, the Vatican announced new guidelines stating that the responsibility for dealing with child abuse cases within the church "belongs in the first place to bishops".

It is hard not to conclude that the Catholic hierarchy consists entirely of “... aging men who have no life experience with children and show not the slightest regard or empathy for them. They claim it their duty to protect the 'unborn child' but offer no protection to the children in their schools and parishes.”



April 27, 2011

Best city in the world honours man who protected notorious Catholic child abuser

Chain The Dogma    April 27, 2011

Why is the best city in the world honouring a man who protected one of the most notorious child abusers in the Catholic Church?

by Perry Bulwer



The fast-tracked beatification of Pope John Paul II takes place May 1, 2011 and at the request of the Archbishop of Vancouver the City of Vancouver proclaimed that day “Blessed John Paul II Day in Vancouver”. The four reasons given for that proclamation are: 1) that is the day the Catholic Church will beatify him; 2) he played an unprecedented role in promoting peace and justice around the world; 3) he visited Vancouver once in 1984 and spoke to hundreds of thousands of people; 4) Catholics in Vancouver revere him.

Regarding the fast-tracking of that beatification, which will place John Paul II one step from sainthood, Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for Saints' Causes, stated at a conference in Rome: "Clearly his cause was put on the fast track, but the process was done carefully and meticulously, following the rules Pope John Paul himself issued in 1983". How convenient. Beatified according to his own rules. But that is not the only ethical lapse in this process. Pope Benedict, who revered John Paul II, will be the first Pope in many centuries to bestow that honour on his immediate predecessor. It is also the fastest trip towards sainthood a Pope has ever taken.

Retired Bishop Geoffrey Robinson of Sydney, Australia has a different take on that fast-track. He headed an Australian bishops’ commission on clerical sexual abuse from 1994-2003 and is the author of the book “Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church.” In June 2008 at the University of California at San Diego he stated: “If sainthood for John Paul II is placed on the fast track, those in charge should take note of the cases of priestly sexual abuse he ignored, especially that of Father Marcial Maciel Degollado.”

Cardinal Amato explained that “Pope John Paul II is being beatified not because of his impact on history [so much for point 2 in Vancouver's proclamation] or on the Catholic Church [there go points 3 and 4], but because of the way he lived the Christian virtues of faith, hope and love....” He added, candidates must have “... lived the Christian virtues in a truly extraordinary way and ... must be perceived 'as an image of Christ'.” And Joaquin Navarro-Valls, who served as Vatican spokesman under Pope John Paul, explained further that “beatification is not a judgment on a pontificate, but on the personal holiness of the candidate”.

According to those criteria, Pope John Paul II was a virtuous, holy, image of Christ to be imitated by others. But was he? His friendship with and protection of one of the most notorious sexual abusers and pedophiles in the Catholic Church, Marcial Maciel Degollado, founder of the influential Legionnaires of Christ, suggests otherwise. Bishop Robinson

... described Pope John Paul II’s non-response in the matter of Father Maciel Degollado, head of the traditionalist Legionnaires of Christ, as “a failure of moral leadership on a massive scale.” The late pontiff had access to extensive documentation that Maciel Degollado had sexually abused 30 seminarians from the 1940’s to the 1970s, mostly in Spain and Italy. Some believe the true figure to be much higher.

But John Paul II, a close friend of Maciel Degollado, remained silent. The latter stood at the pope’s right hand during three papal visits to Mexico. Later, John Paul referred to him as “an efficacious guide to youth” and he heaped praise on Maciel Degollado on the 60th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood in 2004.

In her New York Times column, Maureen Dowd recently wrote:

Santo non subito! How can you be a saint if you fail to protect innocent children?

For years after the Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legion of Christ, was formally accused of pedophilia in a Vatican proceeding, he remained John Paul’s pet. The ultra-orthodox Legion of Christ and Opus Dei were the shock troops in John Paul’s war on Jesuits and other progressive theologians.
There was another reason, according to Jason Berry, who has written two books on the abuse crisis and is the author of the forthcoming “Render Unto Rome: The Secret Life of Money in the Catholic Church.”
“For John Paul,” Berry told me just after returning from Good Friday services, “the priesthood had a romantic, chivalrous cast, and he could not bring himself to do a fearless investigation of the clerical culture itself.
“He was duped by Maciel, but he let himself be duped. When nine people accuse the guy of abusing them as kids, the least you can do is investigate.
“Cardinals and bishops had told him about the larger abuse crisis for years. And he was passive to an absolute fault. He failed in mountainous terms.”

Marcial Maciel did not just sexually abuse seminarians. He is alleged to have fathered at least six illegitimate children and sexually molested at least two of them. Legion of Christ officials, after decades of denial, recently acknowledged their founder had abused seminarians and had sired at least one child. So far, however, the Vatican under Benedict's lead is only interested in reforming the Legion, not shutting down that corrupt order that John Paul II promoted and protected.

If Pope John Paul II was so holy why did he protect a monster like Marcial Maciel, but failed to protect the thousands of children abused by predator priests while he was the head of the church? And as Maureen Dowd asked, “How can you be a saint if you fail to protect innocent children?” That would have been a good question for the bureaucrats at Vancouver City Hall to ask before acquiescing to the archbishop of Vancouver's request for a special day to honour a man who failed to protect innocent children. Perhaps it should have been the survivors and exposers of Catholic clergy abuse who got the special day of honour instead.



Related Articles:



How can Pope John Paul II be a saint when thousands of children were raped or molested by priests under his leadership?



Vatican refuses to shut down corrupt Legionaries order for fear of imposing ideas on others, yet indoctrinating kids ok


Vatican names Spanish archbishop to investigate cult of consecrated women associated with disgraced Order

October 25, 2010

The Catholic Church and The Family International: popes and prophets who protect pedophiles

Chain The Dogma   April 13, 2010

by Perry Bulwer

There was an Easter sermon this year that was full of the usual pious platitudes, but the preacher who hid behind that facade of spiritual superiority is the epitome of evil, which Philip Zimbardo defines as “... intentionally behaving -- or causing others to act – in ways that demean, dehumanize, harm, destroy, or kill innocent people.” No, I'm not talking about Pope Benedict and his Easter message, though he fits the description.

I'm talking about Karen Zerby, the leader of The Family International, also known as the Children of God, who likes to think of herself as a Queen, and believes she was one of Jesus' favourite lovers in heaven before she was sent to earth to be the Endtime Prophetess. She also believes that she is one of the “two witnesses” spoken of in chapter 11 of the book of Revelation. Her son, Ricky Rodriguez, was supposed to be the other endtime witness, but since he killed himself in 2005, after murdering one of his mother's long time assistants, she may have to come up with a new 'interpretation' of those scriptures.

And speaking of Revelation, the final two chapters of that book describe in detail, including measurements, a holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from heaven. This new heaven supposedly contains the throne of God, from which he will rule the people of a new earth. Cult members call this new heaven Space City, and Zerby believes that it is a literal one that is contained inside a glass-walled pyramid and, unbelievably, the entire structure is inside the moon! Yes, you read that right. According to Zerby, the new heaven is either already inside the moon or on its way there from outer space! And you thought the pope was deluded!

Almost no one outside her small circle of sycophants heard or read Zerby's Easter message. We could almost write off her small cult as inconsequential, especially next to the huge Catholic cult, so why am I drawing attention to it? To warn others away from this destructive religious group with a long history of dividing families and damaging individuals, and to show the other face of Karen Zerby. Zerby, who took control of the cult after its founder, David Berg, died in 1994, is directly responsible for the physical, sexual, spiritual, psychological, and intellectual abuse of countless children. In fact, Berg credited her with starting all the cult insanity in the late 1960s by uttering 'prophecies' in tongues, which Berg then 'interpreted'.

That diabolical duo is responsible for unleashing unholy doctrines such as the Law of Love, which justifies pedophilia and incest, indeed almost every sexual act except male homosexuality, and Flirty Fishing, which is essentially religious prostitution. After Berg's death, Zerby and her new co-leader, Stephen Kelly, came up with the obscene Loving Jesus Revolution, which continued Berg's tradition of creating new sexual doctrines to justify his own sexual perversions and excesses. Zerby has avoided taking either personal or institutional responsibility for any of the abuses enabled by those doctrines by blaming the deceased Berg and “a few rotten apples”, and by staying on the run and in hiding, even from her own followers, for decades.

Lately, however, Zerby and her co-leader, Stephen Kelly, have been attempting a public relations image make-over, both for themselves and their cult. Last year she made her first ever public presentation outside of the cult, at a conference in Utah for the study of “new religious movements”, or cults, as I prefer to call most of them. Their involvement in that conference, put on by the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), was shrouded in secrecy. The official agenda for the conference does not even mention that Zerby and Kelly were presenting, and the cult's press release announcing their involvement was not made until after the conference was over.

The paper Zerby presented, entitled: "The Future of the Family International: Establishing a Culture of Innovation and Progress," outlines organizational changes and evangelistic goals, but it is not available online unless you request it directly from the cult. [see: http://www.thewinepress.org/articles/wpnews-cesnur-presentations ] Moreover, some of the academic attendees have written positive accounts of The Family International cult and its leaders, choosing to ignore or downplay their salacious sexual doctrines, and accepting uncritically self-proclamations of positive change. It is not surprising, therefore, that Zerby chose that friendly forum for her 'coming out party'. Then, last December, as part of their new PR image, Zerby and Kelly posted a video with their Christmas message, and now this latest spin with her Easter message.

The photo that accompanies Zerby's Easter message shows her wearing what appears to be a business suit. That's not so strange in itself, until you understand that in her role as Maria, queen of the cult, she was rarely photographed, and never in a business suit. Until very recently, most members had only seen old photos of her, never anything current, because as long as the fugitive Berg was alive she had to live incognito with him, hidden from everyone but their inner circle. On this web page, for example, you can see a couple photos from the 1970s and some from 2000 on, but nothing in between. If she was photographed or depicted in drawings, she was usually shown dressed in sexy garbs more in keeping with her role as spiritual seductress and sex cult queen. Zerby's Easter photo may be the new image of leadership the cult now wants to promote, as it is beginning to appear on associated sites, but it's a two-faced one.

Zerby seems to have shed the shackles of anonymity with her recent appearances and photos, but yet she still feels the need to use aliases. For example, the group publishes a magazine called Activated Magazine. They like to pretend that Activated Ministries is a separate entity from The Family International, so perhaps that's why articles written by Zerby that appear in the magazine, including the latest 2010 issue, use the byline, Maria Fontaine, and refer to her husband, Stephen Kelly, as Peter Amsterdam, another cult alias. Why would she use one name on the group's official website, but a different name on an associated website, if she were not intentionally trying to confuse, disguise, deceive and manipulate? A leopard can't change its spots, but it can try to hide in the weeds, which is why she has legally changed her name at least once, has used a forged passport, and used numerous aliases.

These comments on Zerby's photos are an aside here, a warning to beware of the deception. What I most want to point out about Zerby's Easter message, which is merely trite religious regurgitations, is her reference to Pope John Paul II in the very first paragraph. She obviously has no sense of irony, or morality, otherwise this leader of a notorious sex cult that believes God approves of pedophelia would have avoided making any connection whatsoever to a notorious church guilty of enabling and covering up sex crimes against children. But she did make the connection, and when you begin to compare the cult leaders and the church leaders, you see many not-so-surprising similarities between these protectors of pedophiles that might explain Zerby's willingness to quote a Pope. That was the same Pope, by the way, who failed to recognize that one of his closest friends in the church hierarchy, Rev. Maciel, was one of the most vile abusers in the church. Put simply, leaders of both institutions were more interested in church protection than child protection, and now leaders and apologists of both attempt to gloss over their roles in crimes against children by perpetuating the intellectual fraud that they stand on the moral high ground of Christianity.

Secrecy and Lies

Secrecy and lies are tools of the trade for those more interested in protecting institutions than children. Newly appointed Catholic bishops must make a profession of faith, as well as swear an oath of office before another bishop, a cardinal or a pope. That oath is secret, or at least not easy to find, which lends credence to some claims that it requires them to do everything necessary to protect the church from scandal. Most often that means silencing dissenters and accusers. A secret church document that came to light because of a court case shows just how far the church will go to keep its secrets. The document is titled Instruction on the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation, The Decree - Crimen Sollicitationis [Crime of Inticement] and it is dated March 16, 1962 by the Vatican Press. Those instructions require anyone involved in a sex abuse investigation, including the accuser and the accused “.... to be restrained by a perpetual silence ... in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication.” Pope Benedict reinforced those instructions in 2001 when, as Cardinal and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the office responsible for the infamous inquisitions, issued further instructions to keep cases secret.

One effective way to keep scandals secret is by lying. Catholics have a doctrine called “mental reservation”, while The Family International has a similar doctrine called “deceivers yet true”. The Irish Times, reporting on the Murphy Report on clergy abuse in Ireland, cited that report's conclusion regarding “mental reservation”:

Church authorities used the concept of “mental reservation”, which allows senior clergy to mislead people without being guilty, in the church’s eyes, of lying.

Of course, the Irish bishops denied that the doctrine of “mental reservation” was used to cover up evil, but how could anyone trust what they say since their denial could very well be just one more “mental reservation” lie? After all, they swore an oath to protect the church, not children (if anyone can prove otherwise please let me know). And that's the problem with liars, especially those who rely on theological doctrines to equivocate and dissemble, you never know if you can trust their word again.

Certainly, that's what a British judge found regarding the court testimony of members of The Family International. In a 1995 child custody case that exposed widespread crimes against children in that cult, Lord Justice Ward referred to their doctrine of “deceivers yet true”. Near the beginning of the 295-page judgment, in a section titled “The Family’s Attitude to Lies and Deception,” Ward speaks to the issue of the veracity of Family witnesses, stating, “I regret to find that in many instances there has been a lack of frankness and a failure to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” He then gives six specific examples of how The Family’s witnesses were less than honest in the proceedings and goes on to say, “These are worrying examples and they are not the only ones of the ingrained habit of lying if they have to and of telling half the truth if they can get away with it.” Throughout the judgment, Ward provides further examples of Family witnesses dissembling the truth and withholding incriminating documentary evidence from the court. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Blaming the victims

There are many other similarities, too numerous to detail here, between this small cult and its biggest cousin, such as the Catholic conceit that the Vatican is a state, with diplomatic immunity for the pope, and the cult conceit that The Family International is also a nation state, with Karen Zerby as its Queen. However, I will expose just one more similarity between the way leaders of both institutions have reacted to exposure of sex crimes against minors. Blame the victim. First, here is an excerpt from a letter written by Karen Zerby to her followers, entitled Flirty Little Teens Beware:

TEENS‚ YOU ARE ACCOUNTABLE!—DON'T EVEN START IT!

22. I know that sometimes the men sort of invite it, but I would say that some of you little hot patootie teens are often the main culprits. While in some ways you may not be as responsible or accountable as the adults, in other ways you're also very guilty. If you tempt some adult when you shouldn't, & that adult winds up getting excommunicated because of it, certainly the Lord will hold you responsible too!

23. So we want to jerk you up & tell you plainly that you're not just little innocent bystanders, but the Lord is going to hold you accountable. While you may not have to pay the greatest penalty in punishment & have to actually be put out of the Family, the Lord is still going to hold you responsible.—Especially if you know what you're doing!

24. And we're telling you now what the results of such actions will be, so you will know what not to do! So God is definitely going to hold you responsible! If you didn't fully realise it before, you should certainly realise it after hearing this. You're not just little innocent things who are going to get off the hook scot–free, at least not with the Lord! The Lord will definitely not bless it.

25. This is the very thing the System would like to use against us.—Sex with minors, which they always term "child abuse," although in our loving Family there would be very little possibility of genuine abuse. And if there has been any, hopefully we've now gotten rid of that problem completely. ... [Teens who have left the group] don't know the horrors of genuine sex abuse that are committed in the World.

So, Karen Zerby, inspired by David Berg's perverted doctrines, promoted pedophilia and incest, and sexualized an entire generation of children, then blamed some of those same children for inviting and consenting to sexual assaults. Note also that she thinks there is no genuine child abuse in her cult. She also thinks that the only thing that classifies as child sex abuse is actual intercourse:

“Of course, having actual intercourse with a child wouldn’t be okay as it wouldn’t be loving, but a little fondling & sweet affection is not wrong in the eyes of God, & if they have experienced the same in the past they weren’t 'abused'. … This is about the only subject we’re really going along with the system, we’re playing along with them, we’re acting like we believe what we did was wrong, because we have changed and stopped doing it.… [But] how can you put a boundary on it, or an age limit? If you can have sex with someone of 21, what’s wrong with having sex with somebody of 18, or 16 or 15? Those are manmade rulings & limitations & boundaries.… If the Law of Love is right, then it applies clear across the board no matter what age it is.” [see paragraphs 129 to 142 at the link above]
Zerby's own words condemn her, and so do the words of the Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo Álvarez. Responding defensively to the ongoing exposure of sex crimes against children in the Catholic church he said that some of those crimes happened because the children consented to it. “There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you”, he said.

To summarize, kids in the sex cult, who lived in highly sexualized environments, get called “little hot patootie teens” and accused of being the main culprits who asked to be sexually assaulted, while kids in the anti-sex cult, who are told masturbation and sex outside of church-sanctioned marriage is sin, get accused of wanting and provoking their own rape by priests. These religious leaders want you to believe, through self-righteous sermons that ignore their personal culpability for crimes against children, that their bible-based morality is the highest morality there is. Don't believe it for a second. To paraphrase Penn and Teller on their TV show in an episode on the Vatican, if your morality is governed by anything ethical, humanitarian, or rational, then bible-based morality, the Vatican, and The Family International are all Bullshit!

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Psychology of Power and Evil

Some Catholic leaders use Easter sermons to address child abuse cover-ups, while pope stays silent on scandal

Kings and Queens of Cults

Lustful Prophet: A Psychosexual Historical Study of the Children of God's Leader, David Berg

Family International a.k.a. Children of God: Once dismissed as 'sex cult,' tiny church launches image makeover

Catholic Legionaries founder praised by Pope John Paul II sexually abused seminarians and raped his own children

If the Pope is infallibly moral why did he enable and cover-up the systematic rape of children across the globe?

Catholic doctrine of "mental reservation" allowed senior clergy to lie and cover-up abuse without being guilty in the church's eyes

Irish Bishops apologize to abuse victims, but deny doctrine of 'Mental Reservation' used to cover up evil

Bishop of Tenerife blames child abuse on the children