THE GREATEST FRAMEUP IN HISTORY (Revised version) THE GREATEST FRAMEUP IN HISTORY That’s what I call it. It? What? Well, the misuse of the Roman collar by hundreds of priests to impose themselves on young boys for the purpose of deviant sex. How’s that a frameup? They did it, didn’t they? You’re not denying it happened, are you? To the second and third questions the answers are (a) Yes and (b) No. To the frameup question the answer is let me explain. You see, I know these men were priests, but I don’t consider them such. The first time I mentioned this my interlocutor thought I was suggesting the church might use this to absolve itself from responsibility for their behavior, claiming that they had taken their vows under false pretenses without any intent to live up to them, and so were not priests in any true sense of the word. This is all true of course, but technically they were priests, and there is no use trying to get around that fact. The word "frameup" applies more to what they did to the bishops than to any other aspect of the case. They put the bishops on the spot and forced them to become their accessories after the fact. The bishops did a coverup. Presidents have been known to do this. So have beggars. So has the whole human race. No one in his right mind advertises his mistakes. The bishops weren’t about to advertise theirs, not with prosecutors and negligence lawyers ready to seize on any admissions and set the church on the road to bankruptcy. So the bishops gambled, and lost. It all came out and not only bankrupted the church but ruined the bishops’ reputations. Not to say that disclosure would have helped their reputations. The priests were the story and anything the bishops did or didn’t do was peripheral to that. So the church is stuck and is paying through the nose and there’s nothing to be done about it. What can be done about it? How do you determine in advance that a man is a child molester? How would you handle the case Detective Joe Coffey wrote about in his book, The Coffey Files? (1991, St. Martin's Press, New York). Joe went to Maryland to visit his brother, a seminarian (this was long before the scandals. Note the year of publication). After half a day he cut his visit short and went home. The place was so obviously homosexual he didn’t care to stay. Can there be any doubt that some of these seminarians made headlines after they got started on their, ah, pastoral activities? The Catholic Church was a setup for these people. Unlike the Protestants, who had always differentiated themselves from the church by insisting on a married clergy, the Catholics wanted men who would give up marriage and family for the sake of religion. To the gays this meant there’d be no wives to be outwitted while pursuing their real interests. To the church this meant a source of manpower at a time when there was a lack of recruits. If some of them walked a little funny, with God’s help it would all be all right in the end. But it wasn’t. Maybe tests can be devised to weed out the high-risk people, and maybe the Boy Scouts know something about that that the church doesn’t know, but there will be plenty of opposition to doing anything. In the middle of an historic child abuse scandal the united media is insisting on the rights of "gays" to adopt children, to "marry" so they can do it more easily, to lead Boy Scouts, to teach in schools and, yes, to be priests as long as they cross their hearts and hope to die if they ever lay hands on another altar boy. This tolerance is based on the premise that there is no real connection between gays and child abuse. For years people have thought otherwise, but they were mistaken, you see. What they didn't understand is that contrary to their belief, there aren't just three sexual types, "straights", "gays", and "lesbians", but there is a fourth one, "abusers". Cynical people might object that these last are actually gays and sometimes lesbians who have been caught in the act with kids, but the gay lobby won't have it so. No sir, the gay community rejects such "stereotyping" and takes a stand for the impeccable moral stature of its members. It may seem that the "abusers" display all the characteristics of the rank-and-file gay, e.g., they're not averse to sex with adult males, they actually go cruising in search of them, they frequent the same places of resort, they get the same diseases, etc., etc., but all that doesn't count. If they get caught, they're "abusers", if they don't, they're gays of the highest standard, practically straights in fact. This is a convenient lie, which enables the media to crusade for gay rights without a blush of shame, but it has its drawbacks. To perpetuate it, the District Attorney of Nassau County, New York, must be ignored when he says all the priests he's prosecuted for child abuse were homosexuals. Questioned on this, he said simply "They didn't bother any girls, did they?" There's also the existence of the Man-Boy Love Association, which marches in all the gay parades. There are the homosexual books, which are never complete without heartfelt tributes to the beauty of Arab boys. There's the career of the gay icon, Oscar Wilde, who roamed the world in search of boys, finally being prosecuted for pederasty in the country where he started, Britain. And in the end there's common sense, which tells us homosexuality is a perversion to begin with, and practicing it with children is a lot less serious to the practitioner than it is for a normal person with a normal sex drive focused on adults. When you've broken one law of nature, the rest comes easy. I haven't been trying to suggest here that gays are people under a curse, deserving of persecution. They've always been with us, and that won't change. I want them to stop hitting on children of course, but there are already laws to take care of that. Wht I have said is that all the "emancipation" steps now proposed for them should be rejected. Gay marriage and gay adoptions are outrageous ideas. It won't be long before we'll be hearing about what actually happened to the children adopted by gay "parents". It won't be pretty. If some judges are only defrocked as a result, they will be able to congratulate themselves on getting off easy. Some people may say I'm sending the gays back to the closet. I say I'm restoring toleration and live and let live. I'm rejecting special privileges. That's pretty good of me, I think, after what's been done to the church I was born into. I'm now abandoning the subject of gays sine die. They weren't the subject anyway, the church was. All the same, I'm retreating to my bomb shelter and taking cover from the expected missiles. The first one will be labeled "To the Homophobe". That word grates on me. It's not a real word, it's a hash of Latin and Greek, meaning the opposite of what it intends. It means, if anything, that one's a hater of men, but the real haters are the ones that use it. They're the people who don't like being men and want instead to be women. I'm one of the squares who doesn't mind being a man, in fact I like it, and I'm a "homophobe"? Go back to school, you dropouts, and come up with something better. Well, it begins with "homophobe" and ends with "reactionary", making all the stops in between, but what I really object to is the idea that I have gays on my mind and am conducting a vendetta against them. I've never wasted my time thinking about them at all, until they invaded the church and did their best to ruin it in the interest of satisfying their eccentric impulses. Having made my protest against this, I propose to retire from the field and go back to ignoring their existence while concentrating on enjoying my own.
Designed and Hosted by Online Ontime Ltd.