Whilst writing the last blog post about the satanic homosexual, drug-user, embezzler priest, I reflected on the fact that the man was in an establishment for sodomites without wearing his clericals.
Obviously so, you would say. Well yes and no. Let me explain.
Let us imagine that I am a priest with some vices on the side; a frequenter of strip clubs, say, or a client of escort girls. If my parishioners are accustomed to never see me in clerical garbs (because I am oh so “modern”, “pastoral”, and all other stupid terms come into fashion after Vatican II), then it will be rather easy for me to get out of my place at whatever hour during the day without arising any suspicion and, from there, head to wherever I please. No one seeing me going out of the rectory would smell anything fishy.
But let us imagine that the obligation to wear clerical garbs is strictly – and I mean: strictly – enforced. I have a problem now. If I get out of my place during the day without my clericals, I am bound to be noticed sooner rather than later, and If I wait for the darkness I am in even worse trouble. Add to this that I would not be able to play strange tricks, like getting out of my place in clericals and change clothes in some public toilet. It would never work, as I would be constantly at risk of being recognised and automatically exposed.
This would be even worse for a homosexual priest, as the kind of establishment these people frequent tend to be in strange neighbourhoods. One would have to be constantly recognisable as priest, the more so in the strange neighbourhood, to avoid trouble.
Of course, where there’s a will there’s a way; but really, if the rules were thoroughly enforced a whole lot of ways would be closed, and only the most dangerous would remain open.
Which leads me neatly to the other, shorter half of this blog post: all of these priests who do not wear clerical garbs and want to be so much one of us; so much so that they don’t want to be immediately recognised and recognisable as priests:
what are they up to?
You will remember Herman Spronck (this is apparently the correct name, not Spronk as previously reported), the Dutch Salesian Superior who was publicly fine with sex at twelve and, in the wake of the scandal caused by his words, suspended and at risk of being defrocked.
1) Herman Spronck has, as his lawyer reports, left the order. It is not clear whether he went away or he was officially defrocked; possibly he was allowed to do the first to avoid the second.
2) In his position as the head of the Salesians in the Netherlands, Mr Spronck was the man who conducted the conversations with people alleging to have been victims of abuse through the Dutch Salesians. Yes, you have read correctly: the Salesians had a man who thinks OK to have sex with a boy of twelve be the one who talks to those claiming to be victims of sexual abuse. It’s a bit like having a wolf having preliminary conversations with the sheep claiming to have been assaulted by a wolf.
3) In case you think the salesians were in the dark as to the, erm, dark soul of Mr Spronck, you might be surprised (or not, as the case may be) to know that Spronck was convicted in 2006 for possession of child pornography and was condemned to 240 hours of unpaid work, (which is, I understand, the maximum allowed before jail kicks in). I agree with Messa In Latino that it is simply not credible that the Salesian Headquarters wouldn’t know of this conviction.
Therefore, the Salesians knew what kind of person he was and not only they left him at his place, but even allowed him to continue to be directly responsible for the handling of alleged cases of abuse. This truly goes beyond disgusting.
Messa in Latino makes the easy predictions that this is not the end of the revelations; and in fact, it is difficult to imagine any person in possession of a degree of sanity to have allowed Spronck to have remained at his place without the necessity of covering up further problems.
Please note that Spronck’s conviction is not a very old episode happened, say, in times were some people played with the idea that such behaviour was not so bad after all – if you are surprised, look at how sodomy is looked at now by these very same “liberal” people – but it is only five years old, of a time when the scandal was raging and the roles of priests as educators subject to particularly close scrutiny. Frankly I can’t imagine that here stupidity on an unprecedented scale was at play, rather something worse.
Spronck’s might well not be the last head to roll.
I have written here about the unspeakable Herman Spronck, the Dutch Salesian Superior being on record with saying that sex with a child of twelve is fine with him.
It would now appear that this evil man has been suspended, and that a decision of the Pope is pending whether he should be defrocked.
The source of this is, says here, the Dutch journalist Roland Strijker.
If this news is confirmed (and the source seems to be credible, if even Messa In Latino doesn’t hesitate to echo it) this would show, semel in anno, a remarkable speed from both the Salesians and the Holy Father in reacting to the events.
It is true that the declarations of the Spronck man were openly evil. Still, it is a pleasure to see that a new praxis is paving its way in the corridors at least of the Vatican, that grave scandals are now punished without the slowness traditionally abused by bastards and heretics of all kinds.
If it can be of interest, the pedophile organisation called Martijn, of which the suspended Salesian at the origin of Spronck’s interview was a member, complains with the Pope and the Vatican and showers lauds on the Spronck man. Nothing else to say, really.