Ep. 67 - The Inconvenient Truth About The Catholic Church Sex Scandal
The Catholic Church started admitting a significant percentage of gay priests in the 60s and 70s. It was right at this time that the sexual abuse of altar boys became a huge problem. These two things are not unrelated. The one leads to the other. This is the glaringly obvious fact that any rational person can recognize, but few will say out loud. Christianity in the West is infested with cowards who will not even admit the truths that are right in front of them.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Before we get going here, into the topic at hand, I gotta tell you, I just stopped at the store a few minutes ago, and I was walking out to my car, and I see this all the time.
And anyone who's been following me for a while, you know that I've complained about this.
It's not a complaint. It's more of a campaign of awareness.
I have been... I've been in the midst of an awareness campaign for years now about this problem, but it was just, it was one of the worst I've seen, I think because it's been, it's rainy here, and people are, just so they get even lazier, and they just want to get back to their cars, but I'm walking back to my car, they're just shopping carts strewn everywhere in the parking lot.
All over. There was even one that was turned upside down.
Somebody had turned it upside down, you know, so that it wouldn't roll into somebody's car, which, thank you for that.
But there's also, there are these cart corrals positioned, okay, you know, the cart, the places where you can return your cart.
There's like seven of them positioned all throughout this parking lot so that no matter where you're parked, you could not possibly be more than like 20 or 30 feet from one of them.
Yet even the 20 or 30 feet I'll just leave my cart here.
I'll even turn it upside down, maybe.
But most people just leave it.
Like, I'll just leave it here because it's rainy and windy and I don't want to have to walk 20 or 30 feet.
Well, guess what? It's rainy and windy.
That means that the wind is going to come and blow your cart, which has wheels, and it's going to blow it probably into somebody else's parked vehicle.
And cause damage to their vehicle because you were too lazy to walk 20 or 30 feet.
Now you might say, well, what if I'm in a parking lot where they don't have cart corrals and I have to walk all the way back to the store and return it to the store?
Oh my goodness, what a tragedy that would be.
You might have to walk 40 feet then.
40 whole feet!
How could you possibly manage to do that?
Well, I'll tell you how you managed to do it.
I mean, whatever process you followed in order to get the cart to begin with, Just do that again.
Repeat that process.
And whatever you did, however you managed, whatever magic trick you had to pull in order to initially come in contact with that cart, do that again in reverse, and that's how you can put the cart away.
It's really not that difficult.
There is no greater evidence of the disintegration of human society Than shopping carts that people just leave all over a parking lot.
Anyway, I wrote a piece on Friday, published Friday night, and I was making a point about the scandals in the Catholic Church.
And I want to try to elaborate on this argument, if you didn't read the piece, or even if you did.
The point that I was trying to make is that the sex abuse scandal in the church is not a pedophilia scandal.
Okay, the problem isn't pedophilia.
Unlike... What we're told and what you hear in the media about all the so-called pedophile priests and so on.
The problem is not pedophilia.
The problem is gay priests in the church.
And the statistics bear this out.
This is not a theory that I'm positing.
This is just a fact.
It's really indisputable.
This is what statistics show.
And most prominently, there was something called the John Jay Report that was, I think, the most extensive report published on the sex scandal in the church.
And it shows that the vast majority of victims, the vast majority of victims were male, and the vast majority were not prepubescent children.
And pedophilia, by definition, is the sexual assault of a prepubescent child.
So, by definition, most of this was not pedophilia.
And then, on top of that, of course, every single perpetrator was male, obviously.
So, what does that tell us?
That tells us that what happened in the church, and may still be happening to some extent, is an epidemic of gay men assaulting mostly teenage boys.
Now, it is true that that very same study that I mentioned, the John Jay Report, there are people who are looking to absolve the gay priests, and so they will point to that very same study because that study did also try to claim that homosexuality had nothing to do with the assaults.
Although it said statistically that in the majority of cases these were men assaulting teenage boys or post-pubescent boys, they said in the report, well, but it had nothing to do with homosexuality, it had nothing to do with orientation.
But this is an assumption, I think a ridiculous assumption, that is not borne out by the statistics.
What the researchers tried to say is that, well, Yes, this was all male-on-male stuff, but it wasn't because of orientation.
But how could that possibly be the case?
You mean a man who molests a 14-year-old boy doesn't have a homosexual orientation?
Then what does he have?
If that's not a homosexual orientation, then what is it?
And of course, this problem encompasses more than just the assault of minors.
Homosexuality is rampant in the priesthood.
There was an article in Slate a few years ago, and I cite this because it's far from a conservative publication, but an article in Slate adapted from a book called The Sex Effect, which details how homosexuality became so common in the priesthood, and now they... Now they say it's between 15% and 50% of priests are gay.
Now, that's a really wide margin, okay, between 15% and 50%.
And I think that 50% is probably overstating it considerably.
But the point is that homosexuals are significantly overrepresented in the priesthood in comparison to society at large.
And this is a process that really kicked into high gear, as it were, in the 60s and 70s.
So the priesthood started to become a haven for gay men in the 60s.
And then also in the 60s, the molestation of altar boys started to become a huge problem.
So in the 60s, you've got a bunch of homosexuals who start to join the priesthood, and the priesthood becomes A haven for homosexuality.
And then around that same time, you've got a bunch of teenage boys who are being molested and assaulted by priests.
Is it possible to see a connection between those two things?
Could we possibly connect them?
Maybe. Is it just a coincidence?
That gay priests exist in such large numbers, protected by gay cabals in the church, and at the same time, there happen to be a bunch of priests molesting pubescent boys.
Can we really claim that those two realities are completely distinct and separate, and that there is no bridge connecting them whatsoever?
Let's take into consideration the case of Cardinal McCarrick.
He's one of the most prominent cardinals in the United States, in the world, really.
And he's been, I think he's in his 70s, maybe older now, so he's been around for a long time.
He's been accused of preying upon young boys, including an 11-year-old boy.
So he has been accused of molesting boys.
So this is another example of minors being assaulted.
But When those accusations started coming out, and then all this other information about Cardinal McCarrick came out, most of the stories that have come out about him revolve around his sexual exploits with seminarians.
And seminarians are grown men in their 20s.
So it's probably true that he was grooming and molesting boys, but we know that he was also involved in a lot of sexual activity with grown men.
Yet, we're told that his homosexuality is irrelevant.
Or even, according to the media and according to apologists, they'll even say, well, he's not a homosexual because he's interested in children.
Well, but if he's not a homosexual, then why is he involved with all these grown men as well?
In fact, all of these priests who have assaulted boys, you're telling me you really think that they haven't also been involved with men as well?
I mean, How could that be?
If Cardinal McCarrick were not a homosexual, then isn't it true that he would not have molested boys?
How could we possibly dispute this?
And that's not to claim that all homosexuals molest boys, but that is to claim that among men, only homosexuals molest boys.
A non-homosexual, by definition, would not be attracted to males.
So even if a non-homosexual is a scumbag sex predator, there are plenty in that category, heterosexuals who are also scumbag sex predators, but they're not going to go after boys because they're not attracted to males because they're not homosexuals.
A lot of people, for some reason, have been angry at me for saying this, and they've claimed that, well, a man who assaults a minor can't be gay because sexual assault is about power.
It's not about sex. So these are men who want power and nothing more.
But this, of course, is absurd, and you hear this a lot about sexual assault.
Well, sexual assault is all about power.
It's not about sex. It's not about orientation.
Well, of course, it's about all of those things.
What do you mean it's just about power?
That's ridiculous. There are plenty of people out there who enjoy having power and lording it over others and manipulating and coercing.
There are a lot of bad people like that.
But there are many ways to achieve power and domination over another person without getting sex involved into it.
So if you do achieve that power through sex, then that tells me that there's something about the sex itself, which obviously you enjoy.
So it is also about the sex.
80% of the victims in the church have been males.
80%. So is it difficult to see How thousands of boys would have been spared this experience if there had not been so many homosexuals in the priesthood.
Is that difficult to understand?
Why do we have so much difficulty with this?
Am I saying that by getting rid of the homosexuals in the priesthood, we could all but solve the problem of sexual assault in the church?
Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.
80% of the victims are males.
100% of the perpetrators are males.
So if there were no homosexual priests, then those victims who were males would not have been victimized.
Obviously. Or are we going to pretend that even a heterosexual may decide to molest a 15-year-old boy?
Is that what we're gonna pretend now?
For the sake of absolving the gay priests and absolving homosexuals of everything, are we gonna actually pretend?
That? And if so, then honestly, I have no idea what the words heterosexual and homosexual even mean anymore, and I guess that's part of the point, is that we're not supposed to know what any words mean because they mean, you know, whatever essentially the left needs them to mean in the moment.
By the way, you can accuse me of homophobia all you want, but it's not as though I am one who ignores cases of heterosexual abuse.
No, in fact, I think I'm one of the only people in America who is not ignoring the epidemic of mostly heterosexual abuse in the school system.
I talk about that all the time.
Hardly anyone else talks about it.
There's basically no public interest in this epidemic, and I have not been able to drum up hardly any public interest.
I mean, I wrote an article all about the sexual assault epidemic And I had all the statistics, and they are startling, shocking, horrifying statistics of just how prevalent sexual assault is in the school system.
And I wrote about this, you know, a couple months ago, and I think the article got like 10,000 views.
I mean, nobody cared.
Nobody, nobody, just nobody's interested.
They just don't care. They don't want to hear about it.
But not for lack of trying on my part, sex abuse in the schools is many times more common than it is in the Catholic Church.
And this mostly consists of men assaulting girl students and women assaulting boy students.
And this is a big problem, too.
And what do I say about that?
I say, and I have said many times, that, look, it's probably not a good idea to have women in their 20s teaching teenage boys.
Just like it's probably not a good idea to have men in their 20s teaching teenage girls.
And it may be true that we don't have much of a choice in the public school system, and that probably is accurate, but there are serious problems inherent in this arrangement, and we are seeing those problems bear themselves out.
So ideally, you know, the ideal environment for education would be to segregate Boys and girls, and have them in completely different schools, and especially when you get into the older grades with the older boys and the older girls, in those grades, you would have men teaching the boys in almost every case, and for the girls, you would have women teaching the girls.
Now, I know that that is not, for public schools, that is not feasible, it's never going to happen, but I'm saying that that is the ideal scenario.
And when you start mixing, when you take heterosexual women in their 20s, And you have them teaching 16-year-old boys.
I'm not theorizing that maybe that could lead to problems.
I am observing that it has led to an enormous amount of problems.
Same when the genders are reversed.
In a similar way, and look, there's this really stupid thing people do where they They look at a reality, like the reality I'm talking about now, and they'll say, yeah, but, you know, it shouldn't be that way.
I mean, it shouldn't be that way.
We should be able to have 25-year-old women teaching 16- and 17-year-old boys, and we should be able to do that without any sexual activity happening.
We should be able to.
Yeah, we should be able to, but we are not able to, okay?
That should be the case, but it is not the case.
It's just not. Again, I'm not making this up.
This is just, this is what's happening.
So we can either acknowledge the reality and adjust accordingly, or we can just plunge ahead, you know, making no changes whatsoever, and then nothing gets better.
In a similar way, it is not a good idea to have homosexual men living together in seminaries and rectories and working closely with teenage boys.
It is not a good idea. This, again, is not a homophobic theory on my part.
This is just a fact.
And so if it's homophobic at all, it is a homophobic fact.
It is not a good idea.
It will lead to problems, and we have seen those problems in the Catholic Church bear themselves out for 50 years.
We have seen the problem manifest itself thousands and thousands and thousands of times for 50 years.
This is what happens when you take homosexual men, especially when they're supposed to be a religious environment of celibacy and chastity, and you put them all together in houses together, and then you have them working with teenage boys.
This is what happens. It is simply moral cowardice to hide from this.
It is moral cowardice.
And when I've been talking about this over the last few days, I have been scolded many times by supposed Christians.
And even, you know, I've gotten a few messages from priests.
I've also gotten messages in support of what I'm saying from priests and from lay people, but I've got plenty of messages on the other end of that spectrum saying, how dare you?
How dare you say this?
How dare you slander all of these gay priests?
How dare you implicate homosexuality in this scandal?
How dare you?
I am so upset at you!
It may make you feel better to wag your finger and, you know, take sides with the world and say, oh no, we must never say anything critical of homosexuals at all, ever.
I know that makes you feel better. And I know that it does.
But you're being a coward.
You're just being a ridiculous coward.
And you know it. Because you know that what I'm saying is true.
There is no argument against it.
It's just the reality.
And there are so many.
I mean, the church. When I say the church, I mean the Christian church.
I mean Christendom, Christianity itself, in the West, everybody.
It is infested with moral cowards who simply will not stand up and say even the most self-evident truths if those truths are politically incorrect.
One other point about this.
And I think it's important for us to realize this, because I've heard from some Protestants who say, oh, I'm so glad this doesn't happen in our church.
I mean, this is a Catholic problem.
This is what happens with Catholics.
I'm so glad this isn't a problem in our church.
Well, this is a problem in Protestant churches, too.
This is a problem. This is why I say this is a problem among Christians, in the West especially.
Let me read briefly from a New York Times article.
The three companies that ensure a majority of Protestant churches say they typically receive upward of 260 reports a year of children younger than 18 being sexually abused by members of the clergy, church staff members, volunteers, or congregants.
In Protestant churches, 260 a year, which actually averages out to more than have been victimized in the Catholic Church.
So this is a big problem in Protestant churches too.
Nobody talks about it.
Just like with the public schools, nobody talks about it.
No one discusses it. Nobody seems to care because we have focused all of our energy on the Catholic Church.
But the reality is this is a societal problem That has bled into all of the churches.
And so this goes back to Jesus saying, you know, don't look at the speck in your brother's eye, you got a log in your own.
Well, it just so happens that among Christian churches, they all have logs in their eyes.
And so we all got to look at the logs with, each church has to look at the logs within its own eyes.
You know, this is a problem in society.
We see all, you know, so we see it in the religious institutions.
Obviously, we've seen it in media and Hollywood.
We see it in the public school system.
It's a societal problem.
And although the Christian church should stand above these problems, And should be a shining light and example to all.
That is not what is happening.
Because also over the last 50, 60, 70 years, Christianity in the West has kind of allowed itself to sink down into the muck and the mud with secular culture.
And has become in so many ways an extension of secular culture.
Not something that transcends it or stands above it or leads it or guides it.
