by Professor Revilo P. Oliver (August 1992)
When you pick up a newspaper these days, you are likely to find, perhaps in a small item at the bottom of a column on an inside page, the report that another holy man is in trouble for paederasty or, at least, homosexual perversion. Only infrequently do you see, probably with a sense of relief, news of a Man of God so illiberal and old-fashioned that he seduces women.
The Roman Catholic Church is most often the denomination involved in the scandals. According to a reporter in the *Los Angeles Times*, 13 October 1990, that church had already paid out between $100,000,000 and $300,000,000 to quiet parents whose children were victims of libidinous priests, and had just settled for $22,000,000 claims arising from the libido of a priest who had been convicted in the courts of Louisiana of enticing or forcing thirty-seven altar boys, Boy Scouts, et al. to satisfy his sexual appetites. The *San Diego Tribune*, 21 July 1990, reported that a priest who had been convicted of sexual molestation of some thirty children in 1986, but given probation, had been caught enjoying a fourteen-year-old boy and sentenced to prison. The *Chicago Tribune*, 16 June 1992, reported that fifteen priests in or near Chicago had been or were being relieved of their holy office when found guilty of sexual molestation of boys, and on 22 June, reported that a priest had been indicted in Wisconsin for sexually assaulting altar boys and for threatening to kill another boy if he disclosed the holy man's favorite sport--and that the indicted priest was asking his parishioners to secure his release from custody by posting a $50,000 bond! And so on, around the country.
One expects sexual scandals in the Roman Church, given its doctrine that sexual continence somehow contributed to the efficacy of the magic performed by priests. The monastic orders, needless to say, were founded on the theory that sexual abstinence manufactured merits that were duly recorded by the celestial bookkeepers, thus giving the Church a huge credit balance on which its ministers could draw to cancel the debts of sinners. Whether celibacy was also required of priests and their superiors in the hierarchy was long in doubt. As early as the Fifth Century, a pope named Leo, whose effective authority probably was limited to the vicinity of Rome, is said to have forbidden married men to put away their wives when they were ordained as priests, relying on them to take vows that after ordination they and their wives would live together without sexual intercourse. A canon lawyer once told me that as late as 1917 such an arrangement remained *theoretically* a legal possibility.
The first real attempt to enforce celibacy (and presumably abstinence) on the clergy was made by a wily Jew who masqueraded under the Germanic name of Hildebrand and Became Pope Gregory VII. (1) There is always a vast difference between enacting legislation and enforcing it. Gregory's ukase did in time limit married priests to outlying regions, such as Scandinavia, and it eventually prevented the ordained clergy everywhere from having wives, except by special dispensation from the Papacy. (2) The result, naturally, was concubinage, which was very common, almost normal, until the Council of Trent and the Counter Reformation.
(1. See my *Christianity Today* ( = *Liberty Bell*, November 1987), pp. 22-25.)
(2. Thomas Aquinas codified the opinion held by many theologians before him, that the celibacy of priests was ordained, not by God but by the Church, which could therefore grant dispensations from its own regulation. Needless to say, the requisite dispensations were usually given only to ranking and influential members of the hierarchy who were in the good graces of whatever pope was in power at the moment.)
Since the Counter Reformation regarded a presumption of sacerdotal chastity as an important factor in competing with the Protestant sects, concubinage, the maintenance of resident concubines, became relatively rare and clandestine, and priests of normal masculinity had to content themselves with more or less temporary liaisons with available females. Some, no doubt, had a success that Casanovas might envy. It is said that in France in the Nineteenth Century there were sophisticated priests who boasted to their confrres that they had seduced *every* attractive woman in their parishes.
Whether the Counter Reformation increased the incidence of homosexuality among the clergy is problematical. Judicious Catholics, whatever their public pronouncements, have always recognized that, as a practical matter, there was only a choice between the two alternatives.
About thirty years ago I had a graduate student who had spent two years studying for the priesthood in what was the finest Catholic seminary in the United States. A favorite project of Cardinal Mundelein, it had architecture that was in good taste, was lavishly furnished, and was culturally endowed in both its library and in the paintings (not always of religious subjects) by famous artists that adorned its walls. Even at that time, however, the seminary had only a fourth as many candidates for the priesthood as it could have accommodated. My student was certain there was no tendency to perversion among his fellow students; he described how eagerly they watched, every Friday afternoon, for the procession of limousines that brought to them a contingent of select whores to remind them that women were ever so much more fun. (3)
(3. This pragmatic practice may have fallen into desuetude. The *Champaign* [Illinois] *News-Gazette*, 16 June 1992, reported that the present Archbishop, alarmed by the scandalous (and, no doubt, expensive) tastes of so many priests in his diocese, would probably take the prophylactic precaution of hiring pseudo-scientific medicine men to discover, by psychiatric inquisition, among the students in the seminaries under his jurisdiction, those inclined to paederasty. There was no mention of other forms of male homosexuality.)
One of the few points of doctrine on which almost all Protestant sects agree is a married clergy, and since marriage can always be supplemented with judicious adultery, one would expect in theory that male homosexuality would be virtually unknown among the Protestant clergy. As we all know, paradoxically the reverse is true. Every one of the larger denominations now has perverts in its clergy, many of them prancing proudly as they obscenely avow and justify their now fashionable depravity, and the sect's annual conventions are convulsed with heated debates over the piety of having perverts in its pulpits and of subsidizing a blessed increase in the numbers of *semi-viri* practicing this form of Christian love.
No Protestant sect is exempt, not even those in which you would least expect to find perverts. The President (head) of a quite small and reputedly conservative Lutheran sect recently confessed that he derived lots of fun and the virus of "AIDS" from the homosexual divertissements with which he had indulged himself for twenty years, although he has a wife of whom he was presumably sufficiently fond to infect her. Even a minister of the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church has recently confessed to sexual abuse of thirteen-year-old boys under his care. The bureaucracy that is now running that church into apostasy and dissolution resorted to blanket denials and frantic denunciation of the *Duluth News-Tribute*, the newspaper that reported the scandal, evoking from its editor a public letter that occupied almost an entire page of *Christian News*, 18 May 1992. The editor, addressing the Synod's bureaucracy, concluded by remarking: "As a human being, I must confess that I find your lack of concern for the victims to be outrageous."
How much of the current scandals is to be attributed to the frantic promotion of an exacerbated sexuality by the public schools, "Liberal" circles generally, and the Rockefeller Foundation, (4) and how much results from the weakening of the political forces that once stifled scandal about religious bodies, and how much is excited by the publicity that has made known the opportunity of victims to recover fairly large sums of money in compensation for the degradation and suffering that was inflicted on them by divines, is uncertain.
(4. See *Liberty Bell*, February 1992, pp. 14-21.)
Since Christianity inherited the Jews' morbid and nasty preoccupation with sex, the religion has always had a strong underlying eroticism. Female mystics and pietists usually identify their Jesus as an ideal lover. (5) Male mystics and pietists frequently think of Jesus in homosexual terms. For this they could claim scriptural authority, for although a homosexual passage was expunged from the gospel attributed to an unidentified Marcus, (6) there remained in the gospel attributed to a certain Iohannes the suggestive episode of the "beloved disciple," who reclined on Jesus's breast at dinner, as a favorite mignon would do.
(5. Among the laity, this is commonly done by Nordic women who have a strong faith in their superstition. A distinguished attorney, who has observed many Protestant congregations, tells men that whenever the women are permitted to choose a hymn, their choice is usually "In the Garden," in which the singer affirms that she met Jesus "And HE walks with me, and He talks with me, / And He tells me I am His own, / And the joys we share as we tarry there, / None other has ever known." Mediterranean women, on the other hand, usually focus their devotion on Mary, a goddess who, like Isis and Juno, bore children but miraculously recovered her virginity, and who can understand and sympathize with their sexual desires and frustrations.)
(6. For an English translation of this passage, see Professor Morton Smith's *The Secret Gospel* (New York, Harper & Row, 1975).)
A clear illustration of homosexual piety may be found in autobiographical passages in the voluminous writings of Rupert of Deutz, (7) who was one of the most important theologians of the Twelfth Century. (8)
(7. *Divitia*, in Mediaeval Latin also *Duitia* and *Tuitium*, in the Rhineland near Cologne, where Rupert was Abbot of the Benedictine Monastery. He died before 1126, perhaps in 1129, when he was about sixty.)
(8. So far as I know, no one of the many "specialists" in the study of Mediaeval Christianity has thought of writing a potentially sensational book by claiming Rupert as a precursor of the Protestant Reformation. Rupert's writings are mostly expositions of portions of the Vulgate, but he insists on interpreting the texts in ways that contradict Augustine and the established doctrines of the Church, thus making the texts (as he understood them) superior to the established orthodoxy. He was prosecuted at least once for heresy while he was at Lige, and had eventually to flee to the more tolerant Rhineland.)
Rupert tells us that, in preparation for his task of correcting the current interpretations of Scripture, he subjected himself for eight years to austerities (which would have driven anyone mad!), after which he received divine authorization when he perceived that the Christ on a lofty crucifix was alive and regarding him benignly. He was miraculously raised to the level of the crucifix so that he could embrace Jesus, who not only kissed him again and again passionately, but opened his mouth so that they could kiss with tongues as well as lips. (9)
(9. This mode of osculation, sometimes called "French kissing" or "soul kissing," is popularly believed to be so sexually provocative as to make coitus an almost inevitable sequel. The passage to which I refer will be found in Rupert's exegetic commentary *De gloria et honor filii hominis, super Matthaeum*, in Migne's *Patrologia Latina*, Vol. CLXVIII, column 1601. Rupert thought (*Ibidem*, 1603) that his canoodling with Jesus was in keeping with the opening verse of the *Cantica canticorum*, where the King James version has "Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine." Whether the masculine pronouns are justified depends on a nice point in the grammar of Koine Greek, but they are inconsistent with the following phrase which, subjected to theological tampering in the King James version, really says, "for thy breasts are better than wine," certainly implying a female recipient, as elsewhere in that diatribe of incoherent eroticism.)
Male homosexuality, a subject about which almost no one seems willing to talk sense, must be understood historically and requires a treatment far beyond the scope of this article, which is concerned with only a phase of that subject, paederasty, (10) and, for the most part, indeed, with a special and especially repulsive form of that vice, the abuse of very young children of either sex.
(10. 'Paederasty' is the accepted, and indeed the only correct term for sexual intercourse between an adult and a boy who is pubescent or in the earliest stage of adolescence. Perverts, like Jews, like to hide by crawling under misused euphemisms, and, as we all know, the creatures who morosely exhibit their depravity in public are called 'gay' by the whores of journalism, who are so debased that they gladly prostitute their mother tongue. The creatures who practice sexual abuse of young children call themselves 'pedophil' in their propaganda, not knowing what that misspelling of 'paedophil' would really mean if interpreted by a plausible etymology. Now paedophilia is simply a liking or fondness for children, and is often used of women who are fond of children in general as well as their own. There seems to be no specific term for the sexual abuse of children far below the age of puberty. One could suggest *paedophthoria*.)
The sexual abuse of very young children is a vice of which we find little trace in the records, except among Jews, where specified forms of it are explicitly sanctioned by the Talmud. (11) So far as I know--and I must remind you that I speak on the basis of general reading and without having undertaken any research on a most unpleasant topic that is not mentioned in the few works of reference that I have at hand--the rape or virtual rape of young children, usually boys but sometimes girls, beginning at the age of four or five, which seems to be becoming popular in some circles today, is attested in the past only for a few creatures that are accounted monsters of inhuman depravity and actually insane: Giles de Rais, the infamous "Marquis" de Sage, (12) and a very few others.
(11. For some of these provisions, see the pages photographically reproduced from the official English translation of the Babylonian Talmud in the documentary appendix to Elizabeth Dilling's *The Plot Against Christianity* and the revised edition of that work now in print, *The Jewish Religion and Its Influence Today* (Torrance [now Costa Mesa], California; Noontide Press, 1983.))
(12. He was actually a count, but promoted himself to the rank of marquis. He claimed descent from the noble family that attained prestige in the Seventeenth Century by asserting that Petrarch's Laura had been a De Sade. He is best known for his famous dictum that "All men are created equal," his project of a "United Nations," the word 'sadism,' and three atrocious books, *Juliette*, *Justine*, and *Cent vingt jours de Sodome*, all of which are worth reading, *if* you are cynically hardened to the desolating panorama of human depravity *and* if you have a *very* strong stomach. There are said to be English translations, but I have seen none of them and shall be astonished if any is complete.)
I cannot tell you, therefore, when holy men first acquired a taste for assaults on young children. It may have been common for a long time and successfully kept from public knowledge, or it may have been a consequence of the promotion of an exasperated sexuality by the public schools and much touted "sexologists" (e.g., Freud, Kinsey). Although cases of such abuse have been publicly reported only in the past few years, they have been common since the 1950s at least. The *Christian News*, 13 July 1992, contains an article on a priest who indulged his propensities for thirty years and whose victims are said to number three hundred. The attitude of the Roman Church, which transferred him from parish to parish when there seemed to be a danger of prosecution, is shown by an irate Cardinal's boast that he will get old Yahweh to punish the newspapers that did not keep the pious peccadilloes secret ("We call down God's power on the media"!).
A particularly heinous example of the sexual abuse of children is the subject of a new book by Michael Harris, *Unholy Orders* (Toronto, Penguin Books Canada, 1991). Before considering it, I think it worthwhile to sketch the historical antecedents of the events it describes.
In 1684 Jean Baptiste de la Salle, a French priest and canon of the cathedral at Rheims, founded the Institutum Fratrum Scholarum Christianarum to provide free instruction for male children who were orphans or had parents too poor to pay tuition in the existing schools in France. And to train teachers in his schools he established what appears to have been the first normal school, thus setting an example that was imitated throughout the world. (13) The order was eventually recognized by the Pope and given headquarters in Rome. It established many schools in France, where its members were popularly and satirically called *Frres ignorantines*, because the founder, himself a learned priest, wisely provided in the by-laws that men with a theological education were excluded from membership; and *Frres fouetteurs*, from the frequency and severity with which they applied the lash for even very minor infractions of discipline. The schools were so successful and highly regarded that Baptiste de la Salle was eventually made a saint and thus became the celestial recipient of prayers his ghost would transmit to the rulers of Heaven.
(13. Every state in the United States established several normal schools, usually one in each of the four quarters of the state, so that pupils would not have to travel long distances from their homes. These normal schools were intended to provide the rudiments of a college education in the subjects that the pupils, usually young women, prepared themselves to teach in elementary and, later, secondary schools. They were eventually invaded by the racket called "Science of Education," which John Dewey and his fellow conspirators used so successfully to keep American children ignorant and prepare them for an existence as unthinking chattels in a state that is communist in all but name. -- The normal schools flourished until the wild inflation of "higher education" that followed the catastrophe of 1945, when every normal school, so far as I have noticed, set itself up as a "University" and a bottomless funnel into which the state's legislature poured millions and millions of dollars extracted from tax-paying animals so stupid that any "do-gooder" can milk their udders. It is true that a few of these institutions attained a measure of academic respectability.)
The Catholics of Ireland, living under the Protestant government of England, which looked with disfavor and suspicion on their religion and all that was connected with it, (14) found a patron in their fellow Catholic, a very wealthy merchant named Edward Ignatius Rice, who began in 1801 to endow schools for poor boys, and enlisted followers and supporters for an organization, modeled on La Salle's, that was recognized and blessed by Pope Pius VII in 1829 as the Fratres Scholarum Christianarum in Hibernia, commonly called in English the Christian Brothers. (15) The Brothers took vows of chastity, poverty, perseverance in providing free instruction for boys, and monastic obedience to their Superior General, who had his headquarters in Dublin. The first to hold that office was Rice; his successors were, perhaps, more dependent on their order's Procurator General in the Vatican. The new order acquired a high and, so far as we know, deserved reputation in Catholic Ireland.
(14. See Appendix.)
(15. When I last noticed, decades ago, the official designations of Catholic orders, episcopal sees, etc., were still officially in Latin, but in the routine administration of the Church Ecclesiastical Latin had been supplanted by Italian, in which the order is called Fratelli delle Scuole Christiane d'Irlanda. It will be found under that title, for example, in the *Annuario Ponteficio*.)
In 1583, the ill-fated Sir Humphrey Gilbert, commanding a small squadron, set out to annex for Queen Elizabeth the island of Newfoundland, taking with him, by the way, a young Hungarian Humanist, Stephanus Parmenius, who wanted to describe and celebrate the new colony in Latin verse. (16) Gilbert found the island frequented by numerous Portuguese, French, and English fishermen, who were exploiting the seemingly inexhaustible shoals of codfish on the Grand Banks. British claim to the island was vindicated after several wars with France. Although immigration from Ireland was discouraged by various restrictions imposed by the British authorities, who feared that Irish Catholics would constitute a domestic danger in any war with France,--an opinion not without justification in experience,--there was a considerable influx of Irish during the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, when they formed about a third of the island's total population.
(16. We know only his Humanistic name; his Hungarian name is unknown. He was evidently the child of a prosperous family of Calvinists in Hungary, which was then a Turkish province. When he perished at sea, as Sir Humphrey was to do a little later, he must have had with him the manuscript of the projected poem, which he had doubtless begun, so we now have on this subject only the 330 hexameters *De navigatione* that he wrote in anticipation of the voyage to Newfoundland. They were published in London in 1582 and edited, with a biographical memoir, the Humanist's other extant writings, commentaries, and English translations (which I have not checked) by David B. Quinn and Neil M. Cheshire: *The New Found Land of Stephen Parmenius* (University of Toronto Press, 1972).)
Many of the Irish on Newfoundland, regarded with not entirely unjustified suspicion by the British government, were unable to pay for their children's education, and those who could pay found that their offspring were not welcome in either Anglican or other Protestant schools. They accordingly asked the Christian Brothers of Ireland to establish schools on Newfoundland, but it was not until 1875 that the first Christian Brothers came to the island, and, in the following year, began to teach male children of the poor in the Old Orphan Asylum. A combined orphanage and school was opened at Mount Cashel in 1898. In the 1950s, Mount Cashel, which had thus far depended on private charity and the operation of a farm that produced foodstuffs, began to receive subventions from the Province of Newfoundland and later from the Federal government of Canada. (17)
(17. Newfoundland became a Province of Canada in 1949.)
During all those years and until sometime in the 1970s the combined orphanage and school had a high and unblemished reputation and was regarded by the people of Newfoundland, Catholic and Protestant alike, with respect and gratitude. We may assume that until 1952 this reputation was justified, although we cannot be sure that it was not in some part attained by successful secrecy.
THE HOLE IN HOLINESS
The boys in the school, orphans or separated from their parents, were, of course, totally at the mercy of the Brothers, and it is not clear when the latter or some of them first began to abuse the boys sexually.
Mr. Harris has given us a book of 383 pages, of which the essentials relevant to our interest here could have been stated in a twenty-page article. He was Editor and Publisher of the newspaper in St. John's (capital of Newfoundland) that was principally responsible for the investigation that finally resulted in the conviction of eight Brothers, and he has written an extremely detailed and often tiresome chronicle of the affair, because he regards the conduct of the Christian Brothers, deplorable as it was, as posing an even more fundamental social, religious, and political question.
The first report of the sexual abuse of children in the orphanage and school at Mount Cashel reached the Archbishop of the province in 1952. How was it possible for the Church and the government to keep the Brothers' sexual abuse of children secret for twenty-three years, and even then so stifle the inquiry conducted in 1975 that it was not until 1988, when the scandal could no longer be concealed from the public, that there was a real investigation which led to the arrest and eventual conviction of some of the child-raping perverts?
If you are familiar with the normal behavior of the hierarchy of any large and prosperous ecclesiastical establishment, and are also familiar with the normal process of "democratic" government, you know very well what gave the holy men at Mount Cashel freedom to indulge their appetites for thirty-six years, and the details will merely bore you. Mr. Harris, on the other hand, is determined to establish the responsibility of the ecclesiastics, politicians, and others who kept the lid on the boiling and malodorous pot, and to recognize the courage and industry of the few men who finally breached the wall of official silence and evasion. He accordingly painstakingly details each complaint and the way in which it was hushed up, and gives biographical sketches of all the numerous individuals who were concerned with the scandal in one way or another. His account will doubtless interest many citizens of Newfoundland, but you and I will find this long narrative merely another performance of a play we have seen too often.
Mr. Harris, furthermore, has confused two radically different matters: corporal punishment and sexual rape. A long chapter is devoted to a mother's protest over a beating of her son in the orphanage. It is not at all remarkable that her protest was shelved by the authorities. The Brothers, after all, had a tradition that went back to the "*Frres fouetteurs*," and the corporal punishment they administered, though sometimes severe, was not more painful--was usually less painful--than the "birching" to which English boys were routinely subjected in the best preparatory schools for infractions of discipline or failure to prepare lessons properly. There is no evidence that such punishments harmed the boys. (18) Swinburne, one of the greatest of all English poets, even composed a series of verses about the often bloody "birchings" inflicted on him and his fellows at Eton. Corporal punishment by the Brothers was noteworthy only when it was a preliminary to sexual assault or a means of terrorizing the victims and ensuring their silent submission. Had Mr. Harris perceived this, he could have spared himself and his readers many tiresome pages about "child abuse."
(18. Whether they served to "form character," as was believed in the Nineteenth Century, is a question that need not detain us here.)
The Brothers' rape of young boys, described in some detail here and there in the course of the book, followed a more or less fixed pattern, but each Brother seems to have had a favorite or favorites whom his fellows did not molest. It is not clear how many of the Brothers enjoyed the privileges of their pious calling. We learn that the eight who were convicted on criminal charges and sentenced were not the only offenders; others--we are not told how many--have been accused. Yet others may have escaped implication because their victims, if still in the school, were ashamed or afraid to speak, while those who had left the orphanage and were trying to establish themselves in some trade or profession did not come forward as witnesses. What is beyond doubt is that in so relatively small and closed a community *all* of the Brothers must have been aware of the sexual activity of the guilty and condoned it, for they made no protest and did not appeal to their ecclesiastical superiors. They may have known, of course, that complaints to the hierarchy of the Church would not only be futile but would bring upon them reprisals from episcopal dignitaries who resented being informed of what they already knew or suspected and were determined to ignore.
The libidinous Brothers usually began their erotic efforts by manipulating the sexual organs of impuberate boys to induce an unnatural and morbidly precocious sexuality as a preliminary to sodomy and irrumation. They thus gave a kind of informal "sex education," going a little beyond what is recommended in the public schools today, and, of course, the result was that after the victims became puberate adolescent homosexual activity became prevalent among the boys themselves. That was ensured, if by nothing else, by the natural impulse that accounts, in large part, for the perpetuation of college fraternities, fraternal orders, and secret societies that are not political conspiracies. That impulsion is sometimes called the First Commandment: "Do unto others as was done unto you."
One secret of the Brothers' long immunity from prosecution and even suspicion was their success in terrifying their victims. One man, who had been placed in the orphanage at the age of eight and at once was given a sexual education by one of the Brothers, testified that he and his two brothers had been so terrified that no one of them learned that the others were also victims until after they were released from Mount Cashel years later. Some who lived through their incarceration in the orphanage tried to commit suicide when they were released or took to narcotic drugs to escape from their memories.
I see no need for you to read this tedious and disgusting account, but if you do, read carefully and analytically the passages which describe the Brothers' sexual activities in detail as recounted by victims who did not censor their own stories.
PRAGMATIC "SEX EDUCATION"
Needless to say, the sexual violation of children is not a specialty of holy men. I first became aware of it among members of our race not notoriously insane (19) about twenty-five years ago, so nearly as I can recall. A chauffeur employed by a line of taxicabs that I frequently used was convicted of aggravated homicide. He had inadvertently killed the five-year-old son of one of his friends, because he was so intent on his own delights that he did not realize that the boy was being suffocated.
(19. E.g., Albert Fish of Washington, D.C., who was executed in 1935. He was a thoroughgoing "pedophil," so fond of children that he not only violated them sexually but ate them. I am not informed of his race, so you are free to suspect that he was some kind of hybrid.)
A particularly revolting case was reported in *The Spotlight*, 1 June 1992, pp. 14-17. If that report is correct, the McMartin Pre-school in Manhattan Beach, California, must have been constructed for the purposes for which it was used for ten years, with tunnels beneath the building's floor into which the "pre-school" children were taken and forced to witness Satanic rites and the killing of animals as sacrifices to fictitious demons. The children were thus terrified to the point of mental aberration and their silence ensured. Our ardent feminists will, no doubt, be pleased that there was no discrimination between male and female children.
The school, however, was not founded merely to provide entertainment for its staff. After the District Attorney of Los Angeles County and other authorities could no longer ignore the evidence that at least forty-one children had been victims of the educational establishment, there was a series of trials, at which some of the principal witnesses were not permitted to testify, ending in the eventual acquittal of all the accused. That is not at all astonishing, if it is true that the children, after having been accustomed to sexual violation, were taken from the school and prostituted to clients who paid lavishly for the kind of fun they preferred, and that the clients included men who "were household names, actors, sports figures, politicians." That fact, also, is not in the least astonishing.
If you have the fortitude to consider analytically attested cases of the rape of young children, you will discover that in many cases, at least, the conduct of perverts cannot be adequately explained by a need to release sexual tensions or indulge sexual lust. There is an underlying--perhaps even overriding--motive, a determination to degrade and defile their victims. That frenzied desire is sadism, which Christians will identify as Satanic, and to which rational men apply that term metaphorically. That is more than lubricity; it is something inherently evil--and, remember, sadism is not mammalian or bestial: it is specifically and exclusively human.
All this presents us with an urgent problem. Now that male homosexuality has not only been made fashionable, but has been so glorified that perverts, in and out of pulpits, now preen themselves as though they were heroes decorated for valor in battle, the "pedophils" (20) are preparing to attain the same social distinction. I have seen propaganda from their organizations which proves "scientifically" that impuberate children are saved from "psychological imbalance" and "damaging cultural constructs" by being given a practical education in sex at the earliest possible age. And the propaganda complains about legal violations of the "civil rights" of the "pedophils" who are so anxious to do good to young children.
(20. Cf. footnote 10 *supra*.)
More significantly is a recent development in the academic world, where, you must remember, most of the administrators of colleges and universities think first of staying in fashion: "monkey see, monkey do."
The University of Massachusetts has long advertised its high intellectual standing by assuring homosexuals that they will be welcomed and taken to the bosom of their *alma mater*. (Whether scholarships have been established to attract such pearls of great price, I do not know.) The institution, with its eye on the stupid tax-payers, exempted from its cordial invitation paederasts, of whose recreations it officially disapproved. But the University has now become more "Liberal" and is keeping in tune with the times. According to a news item reproduced in *Christian News*, 15 June 1992, the University, at least on its principal campus at Amherst, has rescinded the bigoted provision that denied the protection of Alma Mammy's bosom to "persons whose sexual orientation includes minor children." The "pedophils" will now enjoy the special privileged status given to "minorities," such as ordinary homosexuals, niggers, etc.
We live in an age in which the public schools generally instruct boys and girls of eight or nine, somewhat prematurely, in the use of free condoms (21) for "safe sex" with persons of the same or opposite gender, and in New York City youngsters in high school are instructed in the use of surgical gloves in a kind of almost incredible depravity of which most Americans have not even heard. Everyone believes in the magic of "education," of course, but just the same, I am sure that there are Americans who disapprove of progress such as the University of Massachusetts is promoting. I am sure there are some, I say, but I shall not guess how many.
(21. I cannot refrain from commenting on the amazing revolution of social standards in the past forty years. In 1951, thinking to be of service to the few who still practiced the high art of Latin epistolography, I prepared for the *Classical Weekly* a glossary of English words for which there was no equivalent in Classical Latin (typewriter, rifle, aroplane, Communism, spiritualism, etc.), giving the Modern Latin equivalents approved in Cardinal Bacci's *Lexicon eorum vocabulorum quae difficilius Latine reddunter* (in which the lemmata were in Italian). One of the words was 'condom.' The *Classical Weekly* had once been a strictly scholarly publication, but it had been taken over by an association of teachers in high schools and preparatory schools, many of whom were women. The editor, Professor Edward Robinson, consulted the editors of highly respected periodicals such as the *Atlantic Monthly* and *Harper's*, and found that 'condom' was an obscene word that must never appear in a journal of general circulation. He and I would have been utterly incredulous, had we been told that within a few decades, 'condom' would become one of the words most frequently used in public schools, magazines, and newspapers, and that up-to-date holy men would be distributing those fallacious guarantees of "safe" promiscuity to their bovine congregations.)
I shall not try to guess, for I have learned from experience. Around 1954 I made a colossal error in attempting to conjecture what was likely in the then immediate future. I assumed that Americans were still a viable species of mammals, and that, like all the larger mammals and many birds, (22) they still felt the imperative to assure the survival of their species by protecting their offspring until the latter were old enough to fend for themselves. I reasoned accordingly that Americans would never voluntarily consent to having their children subjected to the degradation and danger of forced association with young niggers. I was, of course, totally wrong. There were a few protests, but the mongrel traitor and War Criminal, Eisenhower, in flagrant violation of the Constitution that was then still regarded as in force, sent in troops to overawe the undegenerate parents with bayonets, and the majority of the boobs applauded, obviously not giving a damn about what would happen to their own hapless children.
(22. Only the other day a friend of mine, hearing peeping from a hedge, looked into it and saw a nest with several fledglings in it. One of the parents, mistaking his interest and regardless of the possible consequences to itself, descended on the man's head and slashed his scalp with its beak.)
So I shall not venture to say more than that I believe that there are still Americans who will disapprove of the Wave of the Future. And I do not expect them to do more than mutter to one another when they are sure they will not be overheard.
Before you start cursing English "bigotry" and "intolerance" with Hibernian vehemence, perpend a well-known historical fact that is almost never mentioned in this context. In 1199, when Richard Coeur de Lion, suffering from mortification of the wound he had received at the siege of Chlus, was dying in agony, he named, or was said to have named, his younger and despicable brother, John, his successor as King of England, although he had theretofore tried to prevent John, who hated him, from attaining any political power, and had recognized as his successor the legitimate heir, Arthur of Brittany. Pope Innocent III, taking advantage of John's enormous unpopularity and his dubious title to the throne, which he had not strengthened by murdering the legitimate heir in 1203, forced John, in 1213, to acknowledge that the supreme ruler of England and Ireland, appointed by God, was the Pope, and that he, John, was King of England and Ireland only because those realms had been bestowed on him as a feudal fief by his sovereign lord, the Pope. This was not a legal fiction: Innocent actually began to rule England through his legates. This was more than Nordics could bear, and the revolt of the barons, who forced John to accept the Magna Carta of English liberties at Runnymede in 1215, was in part a revolt against Papal rule. It is uncertain what would have happened, if Innocent III had not died in 1216. John was succeeded by his son, the incompetent and thoroughly dishonest Henry III, who was little better than a Papal vassal, and the English had to force on him the Provisions of Oxford in 1258 and finally to defeat him in battle in 1264, after which Henry was virtually or actually a prisoner until his death. Later Kings were strong enough to ignore Papal overlordship and later Popes realized they could not then enforce the right that John had conceded to them, but you should remember that the English always had hanging over them the menace of Papal suzerainty, which some reversal of fortune might make no longer theoretical. This political rather than religious consideration had much to do with the success of Henry VIII's repudiation of Papal authority over the English Church and with English enthusiasm for Queen Elizabeth when she succeeded Queen Mary.
Papal claims to Ireland were, for a long time, more than theoretical, and various pontiffs entertained hopes that, with the aid of France, Ireland could be detached from the English crown and made a separate kingdom in which Protestants could be exterminated. They counted especially on the activity of the Irish priests, most of whom constantly exhorted their ignorant customers to hate the English, the vile heretics who were enemies of God's Vicar on Earth, and declaimed about the Irish right to become true Christians and independent of the minions of the Anti-Christ, thus nurturing a spirit of clandestine sabotage and schemes for an open revolt, which was feared by the Catholic upper classes as much as by the Scotch and English Protestants in Ireland. Thanks to the Papacy and its priests, Ireland was for centuries a potential danger to England. That fact may make English distrust of Irish Catholics explicable in less emotional terms than you are accustomed to hear.
This article originally appeared in Liberty Bell magazine.
All Original Content and Design © HiddenMysteries - TGS (1997-2007)
HiddenMysteries.com Internet Store ~ HiddenMysteries Information Central
Texas National Press ~ TGS Publishers Dealers Site
All Rights Reserved
The articles being presented and published are not necessarily the views or the research of TGS HiddenMysteries. TGS may or may not agree with the assumptions, the articles, or the conclusions of the authors. Each article is presented to give everyone every possible source to TRUTH available. Discerning TRUTH is the responsibility of each reader.
We welcome challenging viewpoints from all sources...even opposing viewpoints. In diversity of views we can still find the research and documentation valuable, whether we agree with the views of the author or not.