Tag Archives: Royal Commission

Australian Royal Commission’s vortex Down Under

australia toilet bart simpson

Australia’s Royal Commission investigating abuse pretty much ignored all abuse except allegations in the Catholic Church. They’ve concluded with two conclusions which show that the Commission itself is again abusing those who were actually abused by hijacking real victims’ suffering for the Commission’s own political end, which is, for wanna-be Brits still in love with wife-killer Henry VIII, to control the Catholic Church. Period. Thus:

  1. The first recommendation is getting priests married so that they can have, you know, experiences, which the Commission says will pretty much eliminate abuse of minors. In other words, the Commission thinks that superstitiously throwing a sacrament (Matrimony) at someone, but with mere coitus on their minds, will resolve deep psychological problems. This is simply jungle witch doctor idiocy that will result in more incest, which is already present at any rate in a huge percentage of families. In this way, the Commission thinks that psychological perversion is just fine in both the priesthood and in families. That this is recommended by such a tribunal is, in my opinion, criminal. Intimating that having sex in one way is a cure to having sex in another way is ludicrous. This is as much about abuse of power as it is about abuse of sex. Priests are married to the Church by the Sacrifice of the Mass they offer, the wedding vows being: This is my body offered for you in sacrifice, the chalice of my blood poured out for you in sacrifice… But what is also criminal is that any seminary teaching the truth like this would be reprimanded by pretty much any bishop in Australia, for so many Australian bishops think and even say what the Commission says, as I’ve written about many times. The Commission, in my opinion, is simply parroting such bishops who have no idea what religion and celibacy and priesthood and family is all about. They are clueless. Or are they?
  2. The second recommendation of the Commission is that Confession will no longer have the benefit of the Confessional Seal, so that priests will be forced to turn penitents over to the law who confess to crimes against minors. This turns religion into State sycophancy. Where this is the law, this is tested by religion police (such as happens in China), whereby a State employee, conducting a sting operation, goes to Confession and falsely reports being an abuser (or a political dissident in China) to see if the priest will report the fake penitent to the police. If the priest doesn’t show up at the police station to make a report, he is imprisoned or worse. Of course, in all this the priest can have no comment because of the Confessional Seal. Just. Wow. The only effect this will have is taking away the benefit of Confession to all penitents and will make abusers go underground altogether. And that, in my opinion, is aiding and abetting of sorts. Criminal. Crazy. This all manifests total hatred of God and neighbor, using politics for this end. There are already priests in Australia who for years have said that they will no longer hear confessions. Get it?

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse

Royal Commission in Australia: Clergy accused of abuse is 7%. “Accused…”

royal-commission-abuse-report

Sure, there has been some abuse. Some are guilty. Many are innocent, but are sitting ducks because they are not allowed due process. The numbers of the actually guilty are much lower than the numbers of the merely accused. And on that score, it should be pointed out that whatever the numbers that have been reported, they are vastly smaller than the numbers reported for incest, which stands at something like 10-20% percent of the population, so that one in every five lay people you meet is an abuser. Anyway…

There’s a difference between accused and convicted and between convicted and guilty, right? Right? But as one judge told a bishop who asked if the judge if this was about money or justice, the judge said that it has nothing to do with justice, only money, and he intends to take as much money from the Church as possible.

But in the perception of people, you know, those with pious ears, if someone is accused of such a thing they are automatically guilty of everything for which they stand accused, you know, like the case of an accusation against a priest which was allowed by a judge even though the abuse is said to have taken place before the priest was born. This has nothing to do with justice. Generally speaking, clergy are not allowed to have due process. Settlements are made by their (arch)dioceses and they are removed from the priesthood forever, even while the accuser pockets money. Many church officials, making themselves heroes for being “tough”, stack juries against priests by making public statements about the certain guilt of the priest (with no proof) even before the jury is selected, with that statement from a diocese being used in the trial as the only “proof” which convicts the priest, with those church officials getting promotions for being heroes…

When, at the last judgment, the devil accuses before God those who falsely accused priests on this earth, and denied those priests due process, it seems to me that the advocate we have before God, Jesus Christ, with His wounds pleading for our forgiveness, will be denied them, so that everything the devil wishes to accuse them of will be attributed to them whether they are guilty of it or not. It’s only just, right? Right?

Here’s the deal: SNAP is being sued for corruption, for allegedly taking kickbacks, feeding lawyers any and every case and getting money in return from outcomes. SNAP, it seems to me, is on a world-wide blitz to take attention away from themselves by having such as those in the Royal Commission publish ludicrous numbers with no distinction between the accused and the convicted and the guilty.

We will see what the reality is at the judgment, for, let it be known, Christ Jesus, Himself falsely accused, will come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire. Amen.

P.S. I often hear from lay people, from priests and from bishops who are aghast that I would say such a thing about Jesus, exclaiming all breathlessly that Jesus wasn’t accused of such a thing as that and how dare you make such a statement. I explain to them that all false accusations are false accusations (easy logic, no?), and that any kind of false accusation leads to the death or dismissal also of innocent priests. They simply remain aghast, or put on such a pretense, revealing, it seems to me, an indication that they themselves may well agree that all accusations must be true, having invested themselves into this dynamic in conversations by quickly agreeing that so and so must by guilty, you know, just because, with the idea that in smacking others down they lift themselves up, making themselves heroes in being tough.

But here’s the deal. Those “heroes” only encourage real abuse: “Come get money! I’ll be your hero!” Even more, when people are sick of this kind of abuse of authority, they will no longer listen even to real victims. That’s terrible.

The way to go is justice all around. None of this “The victim is always right without any due process for the priest” rubbish. That only encourages abuse with impunity. Get it?

11 Comments

Filed under Abuse