The abuse crisis in the Catholic Church is reaching a new (even if we abstain from using the term “unprecedented”, given that in the Church’s long history hardly anything is unprecedented) level, with a former nuncio to the US claiming that Pope Francis was fully aware of ex-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick’s homosexual misconduct at least since June 2013 (i.e. less than three months after his election), but not only failed to take action, but indeed lifted sanctions that had already been imposed against the cardinalatial sex-abuser and made him his adviser on the selection and appointment of future bishops. So far, the Pope has not admitted these damning charges to be true, but he has also not contradicted them. In other words, everyone is free to believe them.
This crisis has now been going on for many years, if not decades – and the international media have been consistent in framing it as a “child abuse crisis”. But now, thanks to the McCarrick scandal, it is becoming increasingly clear that this is a misperception. More than 80% of the alleged victims of sexual abuse are male, and most of them were young adults after the age of pubescence. The McCarrick case illustrates this well: although the former Cardinal’s final downfall and removal from office was triggered by a former altar-servant who claimed that he was 11 years old when the Cardinal abused him, there are scores of victims who at the time of the abuse were studying for the priesthood. Some of theme were apparently pressured into submission, whereas others, perhaps more willingly, seem to have traded sexual favours against some career advantages, or promotions, or whatever other grace the Cardinal could bestow on them. And then, of course, there are those who did not themselves engage in sexual depravities, but who knew and looked away – some of them, perhaps, out of indifference, others because they were afraid, and again others because they could obtain some reward for their silence, or because they could use their knowledge for the purpose of blackmailing, or because they were themselves blackmailed or bullied in order to keep them silent.
Thus, there is every reason to suspect that there is a kraken-like network active among the Catholic clergy, consisting of active homosexuals as well as their aiders and abetters. Which also explains some otherwise surprising developments, such as the manifold initiatives to streamline “gay-friendliness” into Catholic teaching and practice, reaching from so-called “pastoral outreach” to LGBT activist groups to brazen attempts to change the doctrine in order to turn sodomy into an alternative way of “expressing one’s sexuality”, which the Church could, or even must, accept. Is it really a surprise that many of those engaged in these “outreach” activities, such as the newly appointed Prefect of the Vatican Dicastery on the Family, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, or the sleazy Jesuit pro-LGBT propagandist Fr: James Martin, are closely associated with, or even owe their promotion to positions of influence, to ex-Cardinal McCarrick and his coterie?
This crisis has thus only to a very limited extent to do with pedophilia, or “child abuse”. Instead, it is the result of accepting homosexuals into the clergy. And the few cases of real child abuse that happened also were, in the overwhelming majority of cases, homosexual abuses. Not every active homosexual is a child abuser, but a huge proportion of child abusers are homosexual.
The current crisis inside the Catholic Church is thus a warning to every and any institution that allows itself to be infiltrated by sodomite networks. Are we to believe that secular education systems, or the military, or political parties, or the mass media (think of Jimmy Savile!) are free from this problem? Or should we not rather expect that, while the presence of such sexual perversion is particularly disgusting in the Catholic Church, the same problem also exists in all other quarters of society, and perhaps even at a much larger scale?
What the Church urgently needs to do now is to clean out this filth. To apply a principle of “zero tolerance” only against child abuse would be too little, too late. What is needed is zero tolerance against sodomy, including sodomy between consenting adults. What is needed is a renewed insight, that it is not “consensus” alone that is required to make a sexual act morally acceptable, but that sexuality is intrinsically ordered towards procreation. And perhaps such a zero-tolerance policy against sodomy would be of benefit also for other social institutions, if not for society at large.