Ruth Speaks Out

This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.


Historic Summit Rips Mask from the Lies of the Sexual Revolution

Finally, Victims and Survivors of the Sexual Revolution will get their turn at the microphone!

History will be made in Lake Charles, LA, on April 27, when the Ruth Institute holds its first annual Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution.

Ruth Institute Founder and President, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. stated:

“The Summit is historic because:

  • The false promises of the Sexual Revolution are unraveling all around us.
  • Its supporters are doubling-down defending their outrageous policies.
  • No one but the Ruth Institute has the guts to challenge the whole rotten ideology.”

The Summit for Survivors of the Sexual Revolution is unique because it features top experts on the impact of divorce and the gay life-style on individuals and society. In addition, the Summit also includes “Survivor Panels” featuring people who have suffered from the lies of the Sexual Revolution.

Dr Morse charges: “Far from liberating, the Sexual Revolution has left millions of ruined lives in its wake. Casualties of one of history’s most destructive revolutions keep piling up:

  • 45 million children of divorce
  • 70% of divorces include a “reluctant partner” who’d like to stay married
  • 900,000 refugees from the gay lifestyle
  • 20 million new cases of sexually transmitted disease every year."

“The Summit will rip the mask off the Sexual Revolution,” Morse promised.

Expert Keynote Speakers will include:

Dr. Stephen Baskerville (Professor of Government, Patrick Henry College, author of The New Politics of Sex: The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties and the Expansion of Government Power) “How No-Fault Divorce Empowers the State.”

Mrs. Leila Miller (Catholic blogger, mother of eight and author of Primal Loss: The Now-Adult Children of Divorce Speak) “The Lifelong Impact of Divorce on Children”

Dr. Robert Gagnon (Professor of New Testament, Houston Baptist University, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics) “What the Church Really Teaches About Homosexual Activity: Refuting Common Pro-Homosexual Scriptural Misinterpretations.”

Fr. D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D. (author of The Ruth Institute’s Clergy Sex Abuse Report) “The Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children, and the Impact of the Homosexual Sub-Culture on Clergy Sex Abuse in the Catholic Church.”

There will also be panels by Adult Children of Divorce and Abandoned Spouses, as well as refugees from the gay lifestyle, presenting first-hand testimony.

The evening before the Summit, there will be an Awards Dinner where scholars, leaders and activists will be honored for their contributions to the pro-family cause.

For more information on the Summit’s program, go to http://www.ruthinstitute.org/upcoming-events/survivors-summit

To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse: media@ruthinstitute.org.


What Did Frederic Martel Hope to Accomplish With ‘Closet of the Vatican’?

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was published March 18, 2019, at National Catholic Register.

(Daniel Ibanez/CNA)

The reception of Frederic Martel’s widely anticipated book In the Closet of the Vatican has been surprising. The tantalizing hints dropped before the “bombshell,” “salacious” book’s release exclaimed, “80% of Vatican priests gay.” After an initial international media flurry, the book has dropped out of sight. Two questions arise in my mind. First, what, if anything, can we infer from this deeply flawed book? Second, what did Martel believe he was accomplishing?

The author, Frederic Martel, is a self-described “French gay atheist.” His overarching theme is that the Church’s stance on homosexuality is hypocritical and harmful. Many priests are living “double lives,” professing Church teaching by day and seeking homosexual sex by night.


The solution, in Martel’s mind, is to change Church teaching so that these clergy can live openly homosexually active lives. In this, he, no doubt, has many supporters, both inside and outside the Church.

But all sides of the Catholic debate over moral issues have panned Martel’s book. They make essentially the same critique: Martel trades in stereotypes, gossip and innuendo. He is grossly unfair to prelates he (evidently) does not like.

To answer the first question, I infer beyond any shadow of a doubt that Cardinals Raymond Burke and Müller and Pope Benedict are not homosexual. Not that I ever thought they were. But Martel makes a great deal of suggestive noise on this topic, without a shred of proof. Jesuit Father James Martin objects, saying flatly, “Pope Benedict, Cardinals Burke and Mueller are treated unfairly.”

If Martel had the slightest shred of actual evidence, he would have provided it. Instead, he goes on about their choice of clerical vestments.

Therefore, we can reasonably conclude: These men are not “gay” in any morally relevant sense. Tripping Martel’s “gaydar” doesn’t prove a darn thing.

Second, we can infer from In the Closet of the Vatican that Archbishop Carlo Viganò’s charge that Pope Francis knew about then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s misdeeds is substantially correct. Martel states that “the pope’s entourage indicated to me that Francis ‘was initially informed by Viganò that McCarrick had had homosexual relations with adult seminarians, which was not enough in his eyes to condemn him.’ In 2018, when he learned for certain that he had also, apart from his homosexual relations, sexually abused minors, ‘he immediately punished the cardinal.’”

In other words, Martel’s implied defense of Pope Francis and his unnamed “entourage” is that homosexual activity with seminarians is not problematic in any way worthy of serious correction.

Thirdly, we can conclude that two synods on the family were deliberately steered toward changing the ancient teachings of the Church on marriage, divorce and the Eucharist, with the added goal of changing the teaching on homosexual practice.

In the chapter entitled “The Synod,” Martel’s highly-placed sources, including Cardinals Lorenzo Baldisseri and Walter Kasper, confirm this. Whether they intended to reveal as much as they did, I cannot say. I feel certain, though, that Martel does not realize that his chapter confirms the worst suspicions of defenders of traditional teaching. Pope Francis deputized a “war machine,” a “gang” of “fast workers.”

I followed the synods closely and even participated in a conference designed to encourage and equip the minds of prelates who would be participating in its deliberations. I remember when Ignatius Press published Remaining in the Truth of Christ, a collection of essays by prominent cardinals defending the traditional teaching. Ignatius mailed it to the synod participants. None of them received it. The book “disappeared.” We were all suspicious, but nothing could be proven at the time.

But Martel reports that Cardinal Baldisseri “had the pamphlet seized!” Martel does not seem to realize the significance of what he has said.

This brings me to my second question: What exactly did Martel believe he was accomplishing?

I think he thought that demonstrating hypocrisy and double lives would be a “slam-dunk” argument in favor of changing Church teaching. By painting “conservatives” as closeted and not-very-nice homosexuals, he seems to have thought he would discredit them personally, and by extension, discredit their views.

But proving someone does not live up to his professed beliefs doesn’t actually prove much. The hypocrite is unattractive; that is for sure. But we cannot automatically conclude that he should change his beliefs. Perhaps his professed beliefs are correct and his behavior is wrong. Piling up examples of hypocrisy, even if they were all true, (which, in this book, they certainly are not) does not tell us whether the hypocrite should change his beliefs or his behavior.

To answer that question, we have to look elsewhere.

What is Martel’s underlying belief system about human sexuality and its place in our lives? He does not explicitly say. But his “Rules of the Closet” give us clues. In a chapter on Roman clergy who use male prostitutes, Martel tells us:

“In prostitution in Rome between priests and Arab escorts, two sexual poverties come together: the profound sexual frustration of Catholic priests is echoed in the constraints of Islam, which make heterosexual acts outside of marriage difficult for a young Muslim.”

Confining sex to marriage is “poverty” for young Muslim men, and, we would suppose, non-Muslim men, as well. Keeping sex inside marriage is an unreasonable, even unbearable, burden to place on young men: Martel evidently thinks that people cannot live without sex.

His belief has this one virtue: It is easy to live up to a standard that says there are no standards. There will be no conflict between that belief and any possible set of behavior. When sex is an entitlement, there are no hypocrites.

This is exactly the belief that has caused so much trouble in the past 50-plus years. We now know (or should know) that “consent” is not an adequate standard for judging the worthiness of sexual behavior. We now know (or should know) that people who think they are entitled to sex cause a lot of problems for other people.

The more powerful they are, the more problems their power allows them to cause. We now know that sex within marriage protects the legitimate interests of children to a relationship with both of their parents. And we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that children need their parents.

In other words, the evidence of the past 50-plus years tells us that the Church’s teaching is correct. We can eliminate hypocrisy, but not in the way Martel supposes. We, the members of the Body of Christ, need to change our behavior to conform to the Church’s teaching.


Weaponized Self-Pity, Part I: Divorce

The children of divorce, even as adults, have become accustomed to being silenced.

 

by Jennifer Roback Morse 
This article was first published February 25, 2019, at NCRegister.com.


Recently, I noticed my friend Leila Miller repeating online that she does not insist that people remain living with an abusive spouse. My inclination was to say, “Stop! You don’t need to say it again!”

Around the same time, I noticed that I was about to repeat myself on a seemingly unrelated topic. I started thinking, “What exactly is going on here?” My answer: We are dealing with weaponized self-pity, not a good-faith question.

 


 

Miller is the author of Primal Loss: The Now-Adult Children of Divorce Speak. She gives voice to the adult children whose lives were disrupted by their parents’ divorces. This is the context in which people continually challenge her about abusive marriages. “Why,” Miller asks herself in frustration, “do I have to keep assuring people that no one is required to remain living in abusive situations?”

I’ve had this experience myself. Like Miller, I point out how difficult divorce can be for children. Our focus is on the children, their lifelong suffering and what we can do about it, as individuals and as a society.

The children of divorce, even as adults, have become accustomed to being silenced. As children, they were expected to go along with whatever the adults decided to do. Their parents’ love often seems uncertain and fragile. Challenging the parents’ interpretation of events risks that love.

Even as adults and even outside their families, children of divorce often hesitate to speak up. When they state that divorce was hard for them, people regularly shut them down. In fact, some children of divorce sardonically take bets among themselves in online discussions. “When we talk about how hard divorce was for us, how long will it be before someone says, ‘But what about abusive marriages?’ Counting down, 3-2-1 …”

Do you see that bringing up abusive marriages in this context is changing the subject? The subject is the child and the impact divorce had on him or her. Whether the marriage was abusive or the divorce was justified: These are subjects for another time.

The children of divorce deserve to have at least a few minutes where their experience is the primary subject. “What about abuse?” shuts down the child and his or her perspective.

 

It is true, however, that sometimes people bring up the question of abuse as a justification for divorce in good faith. Perhaps those asking the question want to know what public policy should be on the issue. Or maybe they want to know how to think about an abuse situation they’ve encountered in which divorce otherwise may not be an option.

I’ve noticed that the person asking a good-faith question is generally satisfied with a good-faith answer. “No, in a truly abusive situation, a woman may have a responsibility to herself and her children to create physical separation between herself and her husband. That may ultimately include civil divorce.”

But some people are not satisfied with such an answer — or with any answer, really. In such cases, the woman (and it is almost always a woman) will desperately recount the abuse. She will urgently tell me more than I wanted to know. She ratchets up her description of the horrors of her marriage, although it doesn’t usually come to physical danger. The final blow is: “You don’t understand! How dare you judge me?!”

I also have another sort of experience of women telling me about their abusive husbands: Often times the husband is a sex addict committing multiple infidelities, violent to the point of throwing furniture through walls, or the spouses’ daughters feel creeped out by their fathers’ pornography addictions. These women don’t need my assurance on the right or prudent thing to do, although I gladly give it.

These same women don’t flip out when I say, “Divorce is hard on children.” They already know that. That is why they worked so hard to preserve the marriage. But, given the circumstances, they are at peace with themselves and their decision.

What is the difference between these two types of responses — the one irrational and angry, the other calm and reflective?

My working assumption is that the first group has unfinished business with their divorce. Maybe they are not really sure it was abusive. Maybe they had a new boyfriend waiting in the wings, whose significance they diminish by shouting, “Abuse!”

Somehow, in some way, their conscience is bothering them. They don’t want to believe they inflicted unnecessary pain on their children. No matter how many times Leila Miller or I assure them that abused spouses can remove themselves, they can’t hear it.

Honestly, I don’t care how they treat me. I bet Miller doesn’t either. What bothers me is that these parents cannot hear what their children want to say to them, need to say to them and have every right to say to them.

These parents have grown deaf to their children by feeling sorry for themselves and by not thinking about the impact of their behavior on others — especially their children. They weaponize self-pity, using it as both a shield and a projectile. Argue with them and you will get blasted with the sad story of their lives.

Divorced parents, if your adult children are trying to talk to you about a long-ago divorce, I’m begging you: Set self-pity aside. Whatever problems you may have in your lives, self-pity will not help you solve them. You will be happier without it. And you will be more available to listen to your children, who may really need you.

The weaponizing of self-pity is on high display in another arena of recent public discourse when priests come out as “gay” and tell a sad story about life “in the closet.” Part 2 will discuss that in greater detail.

 

 


"Pathetic:" Ruth Inst. to LA Archdiocese, reporters

Ruth Institute President Calls Response to Request That Cardinal Mahony Withdraw from Education Conference “Pathetic”

“Pathetic.” That’s how Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. characterized the response from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to the Institute’s petition calling on Cardinal Roger Mahony to withdraw as a speaker at the L.A. Religious Education Congress (March 22-24).

“The Cardinal has become a symbol of the mishandling of sex abuse complaints,” said Morse. “For him to address a Catholic education conference at this time is wildly in appropriate.”


Morse notes that, as head of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles from 1985 to 2011, “Cardinal Mahony had a terrible record of covering up sex abuse, to such an extent that the Archdiocese was forced to pay $660 million in damages – the largest such settlement in the Church’s history.”

In response to a request from America magazine, Carolina G. Guevara, archdiocesan communications director, stated that Mahony “apologized for mistakes of the past” and “met personally with victims and established a Victims Assistance Office to ensure that they would receive the support to help them through the healing process.”

Said Morse, “To call the horror of clerical sex abuse, and the Cardinal’s role in covering it up, ‘mistakes of the past’ is an understatement of epic proportions.”

“It’s good that Cardinal Mahony met with some victims of crimes he may have helped to cover up,” Morse observed. “But, if he’d acted responsibly when he was in a position of authority, there wouldn’t be as many victims in need of healing. Guevara’s statement is a weak rationalization for inexcusable conduct that diminishes the suffering of victims. Imagine how they will feel when he speaks at a conference where he will, in part, interact with youth.”

Morse added: “For the sake of victims, and the pain that never goes away, the Cardinal should do the decent thing and withdraw from the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress.”

The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit, non-denominational organization dedicated to fighting the Sexual Revolution and helping survivors to heal. It defends the family at home and in the public square and equips others to do the same.

To sign the petition asking that Cardinal Mahony withdraw from the L.A. Congress go to https://citizengo.org/en-us/fm/168278-ask-cardinal-mahony-withdraw-participating-religious-education-congress

To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse media@ruthinstitute.org

 


A sociologist looks at the Catholic sex abuse crisis

Bishops need to regain the trust of their flock.

by Fr. Paul Sullins

This article was first published August 24, 2018, at Mercatornet.com.

Paul Sullins is a sociologist and Catholic priest with four books and over 100 journal articles, book chapters and research reports on issues of faith and culture to his credit. He has studied the issue of sexual abuse by Catholic priests and gives his views on the current crisis in this MercatorNet interview. A former Episcopalian priest, Fr Sullins was ordained as a Catholic priest by then-Cardinal Ted McCarrick.

********

MercatorNet: It didn’t seem possible for any more surprises to pop up. And then there was Cardinal McCarrick, or rather, ex-Cardinal McCarrick. And then there was Pennsylvania. Is anything else coming down the pike?


It's very likely. The Pennsylvania grand jury report was clear that the misbehaviour they could find and document suggested that there was more out there that they couldn't find or document. Recently an American bishop spoke of a homosexual subculture among the bishops, something that's often been suspected but never acknowledged.

We had an abuse scandal in early 1990s people often forget about, then in 2002, and now 2018. I hope it all comes out; it would be painful but also very good for the Church.

I hope American Catholics will have a #MeToo moment which will encourage many victims to share their stories. It may be a quixotic hope, but the best thing the bishops could do is to disclose anything further themselves, voluntarily in confession, before the knowledge is forced out of them by action of law.

A few priest perpetrators have done this (all abusers of women, by my count, but I could be mistaken), but to my knowledge no bishop has said, "I did the following (previously undisclosed) actions or made the following errors in judgement that I now realize were sinful and betrayed the trust of God's people. I thought it was right at the time, and no law is forcing me to say this, but my conscience now convicts me that I was more concerned for the career and good image of the priest than the healing of the victim. I ask the forgiveness of the victims involved, and I am submitting my resignation to the Holy Father."

Nothing could restore trust in our episcopacy more than some statements like this. I wouldn't completely put this kind of revival past our bishops, especially if we pray for it to happen. But I'm not holding my breath.

MercatorNet: The media’s focus has been on male homosexual predation in Catholic institutions. But if reports like the Pennsylvania Grand Jury’s were made for other churches or large organisations, would the results be significantly different?

The results would not be significantly different in the scale of abuse; it's actually somewhat lower among Catholic clergy than for comparable groups like Protestant clergy, schoolteachers, camp counselors.

But those groups experience predominantly male-on-female abuse, while for Catholic priests it is predominantly male-on-male abuse. The numbers are very clear on this: in the John Jay Report (2004), female victims were a majority only for the 5 percent of abuse that was with prepubescent children; 95 percent of the abuse reported was with children over the age of 8, and of these incidents 83 percent were male-on-male abuse. The 2011 John Jay Report states: "More than three-quarters of the acts of sexual abuse of youths by Catholic priests, as shown in the nature and scope study, were same-sex acts (priests abusing male victims)." In the recent Pennsylvania grand jury report, 77 percent of abusers were homosexual predators.

The Church has a particular, unique problem with male-on-male predation by priests. The highest estimate I know (Richard Sipe's) of the proportion of Catholic priests with homosexual orientation is about 25 percent. By this estimate, 83 percent of the abuse in the John Jay Report was perpetrated by 25 percent of priests. Statistically this implies that (most conservatively) same-sex attracted priests were 15 times more likely to engage in child sex abuse than opposite-sex attracted priests.

MercatorNet: The late Richard Sipe, a sociologist and a former priest, claimed that a large proportion of the Catholic clerical community was not practicing celibacy. In your experience is that true?

There's no way to know for sure, but I doubt it. In multiple anonymous surveys, for example by the Los Angeles Times, only a small proportion of priests report that they are not celibate, or even struggle with celibacy. The John Jay Report, written by secular social scientists with no axe to grind on this issue, concluded that celibacy was not a factor in child sexual abuse by priests.

Sipe (who did valuable work on this issue, and who sadly passed away only a few weeks ago) left Catholic religious life to marry; and based his conclusions on clinical samples he saw in his psychiatric practice, not the general population of priests, so his conclusions may well be biased. The John Jay Report notes that 80 percent of priests who seek or are remanded to treatment for sexual misbehaviour are not practicing celibacy.

MercatorNet: In the distant past, failures in celibacy took the form of concubinage or love affairs as in The Thorn Birds. Are homosexual attachments more damaging for spiritual health of the Catholic clergy?

Is it more spiritually damaging to sodomize than to rape, or for a male victim to be sodomized than for a female victim to be raped? Aquinas would say yes, and at some level of moral reasoning I would have to agree. But both are heinous crimes, and the distinction is not very dispositive in this crisis, in my opinion.

Any sexual attachment by a priest in violation of his vow/obligation of celibacy is damaging to his spiritual health (though the causation may run more the other way; a lack of spiritual health leads to seeking a sexual attachment). I would not want to make abstract comparisons in the present situation.

MercatorNet: You’ve mentioned the existence of homosexual cultures within some Catholic seminaries. When did this begin? What made it possible?

Short answer: probably in the 1970s, due to the general rise in sexual laxity during the Sexual Revolution that invaded Catholic thinking and life.

Donald Cozzens, a prominent seminary rector, in a controversial 2000 book, raised the concern that friendship networks of gay priests and seminarians in most dioceses or seminaries in the United States had become an exclusive subculture or clique “who interact continually with each other and seldom with outsiders, and who develop shared experiences, understandings and meanings.”

Such cliques had become so pervasive, including among seminary faculty, Cozzens argued, that they tended to marginalize heterosexual seminarians or priests. Cozzens argued that “straight men in environments populated by a significant number of gays experience a sense of destabilization. They wrestle with a certain self-doubt, a feeling that they don’t fit in. On both psychic and spiritual levels, they are not ‘at home’.”

Cozzens’ concerns echoed those made by psychoanalyst Richard Sipe in a series of influential books on the sexuality of Catholic priests. Using institutional and expert reports, Sipe found that during the 1980s, compared to the 1960s, “the reporting of homosexual behaviours increased significantly and the reliable estimates almost doubled”. The difficulties were concentrated in a minority of dioceses with high concentrations (the estimates were between 42 and 75 percent) of active homosexual clergy.

The main cause of this situation, Sipe alleged, was a shift away from the structure of highly regulated seminary life beginning in the early 1970s which led, in the closely confined all-male environment of the Catholic seminary, to the development of homosocial organizations in some seminaries that encouraged “relationships with sexual objects”. The secrecy of the confessional and a culture of official denial hindered church authorities from addressing the problem.

Subsequent research has confirmed Cozzens’ and Sipe’s concerns. In priests surveys a majority ordained the past twenty years responded “yes” when asked if there was a homosexual subculture in their seminary.

In formal Catholic teaching the presence of homosexual men in the priesthood is problematic on its face, and so their prevalence constitutes a disadvantage of celibacy. Catholic teaching holds homosexuality to be a disordered inclination which is not conducive to godliness and human well-being. Though persons, through self-denial and self-control, can achieve Christian maturity in spite of the condition, it is not a recommendation for Church leadership. Catholic norms formally prohibit any known homosexual man from being ordained.

MercatorNet: As long ago as 2008 Richard Sipe published documented allegations about Cardinal McCarrick on his website. They were openly available. Yet no one in authority acknowledged them. What was going on?

No idea. Clearly a lack of interest on the part of the hierarchy to investigate.

MercatorNet: The US Catholic bishops say that they are determined to purge their own ranks of abusers and colleagues who are soft on abuse. Do you think that they will eventually succeed? If they do, will the crisis be over?

The US Catholic bishops cannot be trusted to solve this problem, which is largely of their own making. This is true even though a good bit of the accusations against them is unfair. It will take papal intervention. I support the idea of a mass resignation, with the Pope ruling on which resignations to accept, as happened in Chile. This would put the problem squarely in Pope Francis' lap. Where it should be.

MercatorNet: You are a former Episcopalian priest who converted to Catholicism. You were ordained by Cardinal McCarrick. You must feel betrayed by him, but has it shaken your faith in the essentials of the Catholic Church?

None of this affects my faith in the Church, whose indefectibility comes from Christ himself. Jesus weeps with the victims, and that is where the Church should be. The grace of the sacraments does not depend on the perfection of any ordained person to be effective (else persons at my Masses would be in big trouble). No bishop who has ever ordained anyone has been sinless, and the sins of the man who ordained me don't dismay me from the faith in the slightest.

(I could go on at length. We all come to the Church because we are sinners, not because we are righteous. Almost all the patriarchs and saints committed serious sins. David, the most celebrated king of Israel, in whose lineage Christ was born and who was called a man after God's own heart, committed adultery and murder. Good and evil are not commensurable; we are not saved by the good we do; one's good doesn't make up for one's evil, and one's evil doesn't prevent one's good.)

Frankly, I encountered worse difficulties on this issue (homosexual abuse by clergy) in the Episcopal Church, but they were not at all shy to report to the police, and more successful in keeping it out of the press.

I have a profound sense of betrayal and dismay, not just by McCarrick but by all our bishops, who overlooked and enabled him, to the extent of secret settlements. Now when I hear a bishop say something or make a decision, I have to wonder, what is he not telling us? What gross sin is he hiding?

Rev. D. Paul Sullins is Research Professor of Sociology and Director of the Leo Institute for Catholic Social Research at the Catholic University of America, and Senior Research Associate at the Ruth Institute. He has written four books and over 100 journal articles, book chapters and research reports on issues of faith and culture. His latest book is Keeping the Vow: the Untold Story of Married Catholic Priests (Oxford, 2015). Formerly Episcopalian, Fr Sullins is a married Catholic priest with an inter-racial family of three children, two adopted.



Stop Exploiting Desmond: A Challenge to the ‘LGBTQ’ Community

Put an end to the exploitation of an 11-year-old boy.

Desmond attends an event June 1 in New York City.
Desmond attends an event June 1 in New York City. (Craig Barritt/Getty Images for Teen Vogue)
 
DEC. 28, 2018 at NCRegister.com.
 
by Jennifer Roback Morse

Imagine this scenario: A married mother and father encourage their 11-year-old daughter to dress in sexually provocative clothing. They take her to a strip club and allow her to dance onstage. The patrons throw money at her. No one touches the girl in any way, given the environment. What are we to think of these parents?

Now imagine this scenario: A priest invites an altar boy to spend evenings with him. The priest encourages the boy to dress in women’s clothing. The priest tells the boy how nice he looks and how wonderful it is that he is expressing his true self. The boy and the priest spend time together watching videos of men in drag. He arranges for the 11-year-old boy to perform at a nightclub that caters primarily to a homosexual clientele. The patrons throw money at the boy. No one, including the priest, touches the boy, at the club or elsewhere. What are we to think of the priest?

These completely hypothetical scenarios are based on the real-life events of an 11-year-old boy named Desmond. He wears women’s clothing. His parents say he chooses the clothing and he enjoys wearing it. His choices are not just ordinary women’s clothing, but provocative women’s clothing.


In fact, his choice of clothing is stereotypical drag-queen clothing. His parents have arranged for him to have his own website, “Desmond Is Amazing,” to showcase his talents as a drag performer.

I don’t know if anyone has inappropriately touched him. But his parents did arrange for him to perform at a gay nightclub, where the patrons threw money at him.

If a mother and father did this to a little girl, we would think there was something seriously wrong with them. If a priest did this to a little boy, the whole country would be in an uproar.

We would instantly recognize either of these situations as exploitation and endangerment of an innocent child. We would recognize the nightclub performance as sexual grooming. Any adult who supported this would be regarded as a scoundrel. Some people might call on Child Protective Services to take the child into custody or demand the local authorities confiscate the nightclub’s liquor license.

I bring this up not to remove Desmond from his parents or to shut down the New York nightclub that hosted Desmond’s performance.

Instead, I want to issue a challenge to people who identify themselves as part of the “LGBTQ community”: Please stand up and publicly object to this.

I’ve seen a few individuals who describe themselves as “gay” or “liberal” objecting to this on social media. I am urging more of you to speak up.

The “Gay Establishment” could put a stop to this egregious exploitation of a child. They could speak publicly about boundaries and the innocence of childhood. In addition, it could probably solve this immediate problem without public incident. Someone from the Human Rights Campaign or other advocacy organization could quietly call up Desmond’s parents: “Look, we’ve spent millions of dollars convincing Middle America that transgenderism is harmless, heteronormativity is unnecessary, and that we aren’t interested in sexualizing children. You are creeping people out. Knock off the gay-bar scene with your 11-year-old.” I bet Desmond’s parents could be persuaded.

If those who consider themselves “sexual minorities” or “gender-nonconforming” were to speak up, the Gay Establishment just might listen.

Do these organizations really speak for everyone who identifies as “LGBT” on every issue? How about on this particular issue — of whether an 11-year-old should be performing in a nightclub of this type?

I raise this question from my own experience as a nonconforming, nonfeminist woman. Establishment feminism does not speak for me. Oh, sure, they try to create the impression that they speak for all women all the time. But they don’t speak for me or most of my friends. They have never spoken for me, and I have been a woman my entire life. That is what makes me wonder whether the Gay Establishment really speaks for all the people who identify themselves under its umbrella.

If they really want to contribute to the well-being of this preteen, they should speak out against his sexualization. Urge them to speak up on social media against this sexualization of a child. Urge them to write to the Human Rights Campaign, or any other advocacy group they may support. You can write to these organizations, as well. They will be more likely to listen to you than to me.

Then maybe we can put a stop to the exploitation of this child.


RUTH INSTITUTE ASKS CARDINAL MAHONY TO WITHDRAW FROM LOS ANGELES RELIGION EDUCATION CONGRESS

On February 15, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, sent a letter to Cardinal Roger Mahony, asking him to withdraw as a speaker at the upcoming Los Angeles Religious Education Congress (March 21-24).

In her letter, Morse notes her work as an advocate for survivors of the sexual revolution, many of whom have suffered from childhood sexual abuse. “Rightly or wrongly, they see you as a symbol of the mishandling of the sexual abuse of children by the clergy,” Morse told Mahony.

Cardinal Mahony was archbishop of Los Angeles from 1985 to 2011. In 2013, he was barred from any public ministry in Los Angeles by his successor, Archbishop Jose Gomez.


At the time, an article in the National Catholic Reporter said the move reflected, “Mahony’s alleged failures to protect young people from sexually abusive priests – documented in court filings in recent years.”

In light of this, Morse said it was difficult to comprehend why Mahony was invited to address the Congress in the first place and that his appearance at an event geared in part to youth is “deeply hurtful” to victims of clerical abuse.

Morse told the Cardinal that withdrawing from speaking at the Congress “would show respect for the feelings of people who have already suffered too much.”

The Ruth Institute is the sponsor of an online petition calling for Cardinal Mahony’s withdrawal.

The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization that defends the family at home and in the public square, while equipping others to do the same.

To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, write to media@ruthinstitute.org.


The Truth About the Priest Abuse Data

Listen to the podcast with Patrick Coffin and Fr. Paul Sullins here.

The Roots of The Priestly Abuse Scandal—Part I

This is the first in a series on the roots of the priestly abuse scandal. I know, a sad and depressing topic. But we have to “go there” if we want to “get there.”

Father Paul Sullins, PhD, author and professor emeritus of sociology at the Catholic University of America, has done us all a huge favor. He has collated and made sense of the data drawn from the John Jay Report, the data from the USCCB, the 2002 Los Angeles Times poll about homosexual priests, the data of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Reports, and intel from CARA (Center for Applied Research In the Apostolate).


It’s all in one place, a study done in collaboration with The Ruth Institute. Get the link below. His findings are stunning and sobering.

In this episode you will learn

  • Approximately how many boys would NOT have had their lives badly damaged by homosexual priests had the ratio of homosexuals in the priesthood had not skyrocketed from 1950-1980s.
  • Why we need to boldly tell the truth about the real causes of the crisis
  • The approximate proportion of priests today between 65 and 85 who are homosexual
  • Why the crisis is not about clericalism
  • Solid facts to back up bad logic and anti-Catholic arguments about celibacy, and the truth of what has happened in the last 50 years regarding predator behavior among some priests

Resources mentioned in this episode

 





New Year’s Resolution: No More Defeatism

by Jennifer Roback Morse

This article was first published January 7, 2019, at NCRegister.com.

 

Hermann Stilke, St. Joan of Arc in Battle1843

I have a New Year’s resolution for you to consider. My suggested resolution is doable. It will make a difference in the quality of your life. It will allow you to make a difference in the world around you, including the clergy sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, and in the politics of your community.

Give up defeatism.

You know the sort of thing I mean. “Western Civilization is collapsing. The Church is collapsing. Everyone is corrupt. I can’t trust anyone.” Even worse, the defeatist thought pattern leads to the defeatist behavior pattern: “Nothing can be done. So I will do nothing.”

 


 

Sorry. No-go. None of us has the right to excuse ourselves from constructive action.

Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not saying everything is hunky-dory. Far from it. We are in the midst of a civilizational shift. The old structures and rules are not working as they once did. We are living in a time of deliberately created confusion, pathological selfishness and the calculated creation of divisions. The world is shaking itself apart. When the shaking stops, we will be in a different world.

For reasons that are not entirely clear to us, God has assigned us to live in this time and this place.

This very moment of crisis is actually an opportunity. In fact, the word “crisis” dates from the late Middle English and is based on a Greek word meaning “decision.” In medical usage, the term “crisis” means the turning point of a disease when an important change takes place, indicating either recovery or death.

In other words, we are in the process of deciding what kind of world we are going to become. “We” includes you and me, dear reader. What we do matters.

To be fair, not many people actually embrace full-on defeatism. “The end of the world is at hand. Nothing can be done about it. Head for the hills. Hunker down. Protect your own family. Poke your head up periodically to post comments on my internet site.”

But if the material you are reading makes you want to head for the hills and hunker down, you’ve got a problem.

The question isn’t whether or not things are bad. They are. The question is, “What is my responsibility in this situation? What is God asking of me, right here, right now?”

Here are some suggestions for implementing the “No-Defeatism Resolution.”

  1. Form a prayer group, if you haven’t already. Jesus said, “Where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” That is a promise we can take to the bank! We are in the midst of serious spiritual warfare. Don’t make the mistake of thinking we can prevail without the highest-quality spiritual weapons.
  2. Walk away from conversations that have no hope of changing anyone’s mind. Talk to someone else. Or learn how to shift the conversation into a constructive and thoughtful direction. Many pro-life groups have developed good strategies along those lines. Over at the Ruth Institute, we sometimes offer similar suggestions for talking about family issues. But under no circumstances should you waste your time banging your head against the wall (either in person or online) in a conversation that is going nowhere.
  3. Stop reading websites that make you feel hopeless. I won’t mention any particular sites here. Many sites have a combination of important news and “sky is falling” commentary. Read with discernment. Besides, what makes me feel hopeless may not have the same impact on you. You may feel angry and energized by something that drives someone else to drink or despair. Monitor your own feelings, and act accordingly.
  4. Find something constructive to do. We can help you in this regard. I’ve talked about my “3½ Step Plan for Reforming the Church” in previous editions of this column. We’ve talked about it repeatedly in the Ruth Institute weekly newsletter, to which you can subscribe here. Volunteer at your local pregnancy-care center. Support local pro-family organizations. I don’t care what you choose. Just do something, other than wallowing in feelings of desolation.

Besides, you will feel better if you are doing something constructive. The world sometimes tries to tell us that we need to feel better before we change our behavior. This counsel is especially destructive for parents of small children. “Make your children comfortable and happy. Then they will behave.” The opposite is closer to the truth. Kids feel better when they behave better. Focus on the behavior. The feelings will follow.

That same principle applies to us as adults. We can’t change the whole world, but we can change our little corner of it. And we’ll feel better when we know we’ve done something constructive.

We are living through some terrible times. Decades of theological dissent have taken their toll. Besides the inept catechesis and poorly formed consciences, we now know that dissent has provided cover for a lot of truly immoral behavior.

The revelations of corruption and abuse are a good thing. The corruption and abuse have been there for a long time. Now that we know, we can do something about it.

The sexual revolution, inside and outside the Church, is imploding. It is collapsing on its own insubstantial core. The sexual revolutionary ideology promised “fun” and “freedom.” Those things do not look so appealing anymore.

We have the opportunity to reclaim lost territory for Jesus Christ and his Church, but only if we don’t lose our heads. We have to keep our wits about us. We must stay on the playing field.

That is why I am resolved: No defeatism in 2019.

 

Support the Ruth Institute