30 June 2008

Rhymes With

It seems necessary to point out some inconvenient issues concerning the organization known as SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). They really, really want to rain on Archbishop Burke's parade, and issued a recent press statement about the curial appointment, the language of which has seeped into the Post-Dispatch editorial of Sunday and into some of the comments on this and other sites.

The first thing to note about SNAP is its absolute desperation for media coverage. Their press release notes that SNAP's leader, David Clohessy, would be outside the Rigali center just hoping for an interview. It goes without saying that he got one.

Also, what makes SNAP an expert on Church matters? Their name? I notice that SNAP doesn't require conviction in a court of law to label a priest an abuser. I don't know what its internal investigative criteria are, but is seems like every alleged victim's story is conclusively presumed to true.

The thing that most irritates me about this group is that they don't make the connection between the abuse scandal and the sexual orientation (for lack of a better term) of the vast majority of those priests credibly accused. It is as plain a point as the summer sun, to paraphrase Will Shakespeare.

Does SNAP issue press releases calling for adherence to traditional Catholic sexual morality?

Does SNAP issue press releases calling for an end to the ordination of actively homosexual priests?

Does SNAP issue press releases calling for a maintenance of the Latin Rite's discipline of priestly celibacy?

To ask these questions is to answer them.

Because when Bozek, or the "womenpriests", or the latest incident regarding Sr. Lears proves that Archbishop Burke stands for the one approach that will end the abuse scandal-- upholding the truth about human sexuality, the nature of marriage and the nature of the Catholic priesthood, he is opposed by SNAP.

SNAP issued a statement faulting Burke for excommunicating Bozek (scroll down), an advocate of ordination for those who defy the truths of the faith in this area, because he has not excommunicated certain priests convicted for abuse. Yet all of these priests are suspended, or are being defrocked. Laicized. Just like Bozek. Does SNAP really want every adulterer, sodomite, and fornicator excommunicated, just for consistency's sake? Or is it more likely that it wishes to undermine the effort to uphold Catholic teaching?

SNAP will continue to have influence as long as the media covers its antics. They are to legitimate Catholic news what the Tamm Avenue overpass is to snow storms-- every news station's crutch for a quick quote devoid of relevance.

As for their unsupported accusations about the Archbishop "importing" pedophile priests, let's see some evidence. Real evidence. Do they even have real evidence of this? Because, you see, without it, their statement doesn't carry any weight. Just one more dissident organization whose goal is the weakening of the Church.


Anonymous said...

I wonder if you could expand on one area of this article for me. You state that homosexual persons are predisposed to sexual abuse of children. Do you have any peer reviewed scientific studies (i.e. from a recognised scientific journal) to back this up - I have seen studies that state that the rates of abuse are similar between heterosexual and homosexual individuals. Thanks!

thetimman said...

I said no such thing. The abuse crisis mainly covered abuse of minor boys who had reached the age puberty, and not pedophilia, strictly speaking. This doesn't make it right; I am just clarifying the point.

So, as a result, the vast majority of abuse cases covered homosexual acts between male priests and male, post-pubescent (sp?) minors.

Homosexual persons would be more likely to commit homosexual acts-- this is not a controversial point. That in no way states or even insinuates that homosexuals are more likely to commit acts of pedophilia.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure if you received my comment/question. Here it is again:

How do you reconcile these two statements that you just posted:

"The thing that most irritates me about this group is that they don't make the connection between the abuse scandal and the sexual orientation (for lack of a better term) of the vast majority of those priests credibly accused. It is as plain a point as the summer sun, to paraphrase Will Shakespeare."


"That in no way states or even insinuates that homosexuals are more likely to commit acts of pedophilia."

Please clarify the "connection" you speak of.

thetimman said...

My response above is quite clear, yet you misstate my initial post and subsequent clarification. Please re-read them.

Anonymous said...

Let me deviate from the main topic here for a moment and tell you how much I love the Tamm overpass analogy.

Anonymous said...

Ok. I don't think I misstated anything, as I copy and pasted from your posts. But maybe I missed the point. Please help me out here. What is the "connection" that you speak of? The "connection between the abuse scandal and the sexual orientation...of the vast majority of those priests credibly accused"? you say it's "as plain a point as the summer sun," but I'm not getting it.

Athelstane said...

Hello Tim,

I saw the Post editorial's SNAP cheap shot - no support offered whatsoever - and had the same reaction.

But you phrased it better. I'd love to see a letter to the editor or guest column in the Post making the same point - if they'd print it.

thetimman said...

Ok, sorry if I misinterpreted your second. Here goes:

Pedophilia is the sexual abuse of children--those who have not reached physical maturity.

The greater number of abuse cases in the church crisis involved post-puberty minor males. Thus, most cases did not involve pedophilia, but rather homosexual acts between two males who both have reached puberty. Because there has been some misunderstanding, let me restate that I certainly think this type of act is reprehensible-- it just isn't pedophilia.

When I made a connection between the sexual orientation of the vast majority of priests credibly accused and the "abuse scandal", I am not referring to pedophilia but to the greater number of non-pedophilia cases that occurred.

I make no claim of a connection (because I don't have info one way or the other) between homosexual orientation and pedophilia.

Anonymous said...

thanks for the clarification.

thetimman said...

No problem, and I really am sorry about the confusion-- I was expecting some heat from this post and reacted a little strongly.

To the other anon-- I love the Tamm Avenue reports. Very funny. When Highway 40 closes East, I don't know what I'll do.

Anonymous said...

Homosexual versus pedophile????
Doesn't pederasty describe what has taken place between priests "grown" men and boys, who though physically able to perform sexually are nevertheless emotionally immature?

Anonymous said...

I believe that if you rounded up all the so-called "pedophile priests" and hung them from the top of the Gateway Arch by their genitals, the SNAP folks would still be unhappy.

Mr. Clohessy is a skilled PR person, and has made lots of connections with trial lawyers who specialize in suing the Church. Where does SNAP get most of its revenue? My educated guess is from these same lawyers.

David's crusade with SNAP started after his own lawsuit against the Diocese of Jefferson City was dismissed. As the Timman pointed out, David conveniently throws around "facts" without any substantiation, and makes no distinction between a priest proven guilty of abuse, and one who is "credibly" (by whose standards?) accused. To him and other "SNAPPERS", an imprudent pat on the behind is the same as forcible rape.

Perhaps when all of the Catholic Dioceses and religious orders in the U.S. have gone bankrupt from being forced to pay legal settlements, SNAP will be satisfied.


Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:20
Yes, the difference lies in precisely the type of victim the predator is targeting. They are attracted not to children but to sexually mature same-sex bodies, regardless of the emotional maturity of the victim.

Latinmassgirl said...

Even though the media avoided reporting this, the majority of cases, I believe the number was 85% were homosexual acts with pubescent boys by homosexual priests!

I mention this because these homosexual priests should NEVER have been allowed to be priests in the first place! This was a common practice in corrupt seminaries in the past, and still some now, as researched in eye-opening book, "Good-Bye, Good Men, by Michael, S. Rose."

In our politically correct society, the media, and SNAP have buried the truth, and this only hurts people whom think their boys are safe with homosexuals, because, after all, they do not engage in "pedophilia" any more than heterosexuals. This may be true, but I sure don't want my preteen or teenage boys being abused either!

It is time for the church to let the truth be known and stop covering up for the disordered homosexual priests!

Anonymous said...

How does the fact that the abusers were homosexual excuse the Bishops' actions? They were still facilitating the abusing of minors. So,unfortunately, the rest of the Church has to pay.

thetimman said...

As I stated in the post, the type of sexual conduct does not mean it is not morally reprehensible. It is just that SNAP makes inaccurate accusations that cast serious doubts on their credibility overall.

Archbishop Burke is not the enabler they have claimed, and they owe him an apology.

Of course, any Bishop who knowingly put children at risk should have serious consequences to face-- and does, at least in the spiritual realm. My point is that there is not credible evidence that Abp. Burke was one of them.

In fact, it goes against everything else we know about his character.

doughboy said...

Take it from me: Abp. Burke is the LAST Bishop who would enable active homosexual priests. Abp. Burke is one of the staunchest supporters of the *Courage* Apostolate, and lends credence to the works of Nicolosi (who identifies SSA as a gender identity disorder that can possibly be grown out of / healed).

Anonymous said...

I really don't see what the connection is between supporting Courage and protecting abusers.