I really do not know what has become of these people, the post V II “progressive” religious. It would seem that if you aren’t a pervert, or a bastard, or both you can’t make any career or be given any serious responsibility in one of those orders that have embraced V II so enthusiastically. I have posted just a few days ago of the Jesuit for whom praying in the name of Christ is an optional, and now this……
When one reads such people (notice, here, the huge effort I am making not to say anything worse than that; I leave it to your imagination) one truly thinks that the scale of naivety – particularly during the years of JP II – in having allowed these people to stay among children must have been immense. I say naivety, because to think otherwise is to me utterly impossible.
We have now from Rorate Caeli the translation of an interview to the Dutch Salesian Superior, a man called Spronck. A chap who has tolerated and allowed to operate a confrere of whom he knew, (let us say this again: of whom he knew) that he was a pedophile. A chap who keeps a pedophile priest in contact with children after the man has been caught twice flashing because hey, “this is not a serious offence”. A chap with such a diabolical mind, that he dares to make to the interviewer the example of a boy who “suffered” because his pedophile priest was taken away from him. A chap who says that things between his own Salesian and children can become sexual as if this was something natural, and normal. A chap who says that if he had his way, sex with children of 12 would be legal.
This is pure evil, this is Satan himself talking out loud in defiance of every Christian rule. The man was probably not even aware of the trouble he would get in, so deeply evil, so entirely corrupt is he.
The text of the interview is the most open admissions of diabolic agenda I have ever read as an official declaration of a religious.
The stunning revelations concern here three families of abominations:
1) that the superior knew, and did nothing besides giving some warning that one must abide by the law, when in front of a clear case of pedophilia. He prides himself that he always stood by the pedophile priest. Unbelievable.
2) that the man abandons himself to shocking affirmation as to sex with minor, up to saying that sex between a boy of 12 and an adult would, if he had the choice, not be forbidden. This is, purely and simply, satanic. I wonder how one can read such things and not suspect that the man is a pedophile, or a homosexual, or both himself. Again, this is pure evil.
3) that the man seems to consider premarital relationships (irrespective of their circumstances) something he has nothing to say against. Now we all live in the same planet and we are all aware of the temptations of the flesh; but this is different, this is just putting God’s law out of the equation. Towards the end of the interview, he even “explains” how these things happen: hey, there were no women around…….. .
Our chap has in the meantime said that he was misrepresented, but frankly I am sick and tired of such sickos hiding behind one finger. If you read the entire interview (if you can, and I understand you if you don’t) you’ll see that the one or other word might have been mistranslated, but the tone and mentality behind the entire interview cannot have been misconstrued entirely.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this man were soon to be arrested himself, as it seems to me that here a diabolical intent is at work, a scale of evil thinking that clearly reveals the darkness of the soul behind it.
After the interview, you’ll find an update of the Salesians with the clarification that the Salesians never condone pedophile behaviour, which is exactly the contrary of what transpires from the interview. Well of course they would say it, wouldn’t they? But this is the Dutch Superior, not a quisque de populo.
I truly hope that there will be further consequences than a press release. This Spronck is pure evil.
Below, just some of the stunning answers given by Mr Spronk. I am very sorry, but whatever “clarification” would now come is rather too late.
Please keep this post away from children and if you can, say a prayer to St. Michael the Archangel.
What do you think of Father Van B., who was twice convicted [for indecent exposure], did he obey the law?
I repeatedly told him what he should do. He was warned several times for flashing, which is, of course, not a serious offense.
But to a pedophile priest to work in churches where he comes into contact with children, without their knowing it, is that really a good idea?
I have always told Father Van B. that he had to obey the law and nothing has ever really happened. So I saw no reason to doubt Father Van B..
Father Van B. says himself that it is necessary to watch him near children. If not, then the pressure increases and he is afraid that things go wrong. What do you say?
I have never seen a reason why he could not work with children. Only in 2007 – after the incident when he worked in the parish of St Luke in Amsterdam – I decided it was sensible that he no longer work with children. I got him sent to Nijmegen. He takes care to older brothers.
How do you feel about sexual relations between adults and children?
Of course there are certain social norms that everyone has to comply with. But one wonders if that is not going too far. Formally, I always say that everyone must obey the law strictly. But these relationships are not necessarily harmful.
You believe that relationships between adults and children are not necessarily harmful?
I have an example. I was once approached by a 14-year-old boy who had a relationship with an older priest. He was sent away, and this boy suffered immensely, he suffered because [the priest] had been sent away. He told me, “Father Herman, why did you send him away?” And, now, what should I say to a boy like this?
So, then, relationships between adults and children are fine?
Personally, I believe that relationships between adults and children are not necessarily wrong [Persoonlijk wijs ik relaties tussen volwassenen en kinderen niet per definitie af.] Do you know Foucault? The philosopher. Do you know his writings? No, you should read that once again, especially the introduction to Part 4. It does depend on the child. You should not look so inflexibly at age. You should never enter into the personal space of a child if the child does not want it, but that depends on the child himself. There are children who themselves indicate that it is admissible. Then, sexual contact is possible.
At what age do you think that sexual relationships are possible?
Saying the age of 18 years is, I think, too inflexible.
Do you think that from the age of 12 years then is fine for sexual relationships with adults?
If it were up to me, they should be.
Will there be in the Salesian Order any more relationships between older people and children?
Just imagine that in the 50s/60s all lived together in ‘s Heerenberg. We were all away from our family and had only each other. Adults and boys – there was no woman to see – then lived together and some things bloom.
Old-ish, but absolutely delightful blog post from Gerald Warner (hat tip to Lux Occulta’s Shane for the hint).
Together with Delingpole, Warner is by far the best blogger of the Daily Telegraph and is most notable for being very away from the politically correct, lavender-reeking tone of the majority of his blogging colleagues.
Warner gives us, with the usual punch, his own take about the attitude of many people (in Ireland and elsewhere) regarding the so-called paedophile priest scandal (correctly: homosexual paedophile priest scandal) and shines with a very lucid analysis of both the origin of the problem and the way to put an end to it.
You should really click the link and read the contribution in its entirety, you will certainly enjoy Warner’s beautifully vitriolic style. I allow myself here to quote some of the brilliant statements contained in the blog post:
Abolish clerical celibacy? The last thing a priest abusing altar boys needs or wants is a wife
Celibacy goes against the grain of today’s “unrepressed”, “non-judgemental”, let-it-all-hang-out attitude to sex; its continued existence is a reproach to the hedonist Western world; so Rome must be persuaded to abolish it – likewise its condemnation of divorce, abortion, contraception, homosexuality and all the other fetishes of liberal society. Dream on, secularists.
These offences took place in the wake of Vatican II, when doctrines were being thrown out like so much lumber. These offenders were the children of Paul VI and “aggiornamento”.
Once you have debauched the Mystical Body of Christ, defiling altar boys comes easily.
In the period when this abuse was rampant, there was just one mortal sin in the Catholic Church: daring to celebrate or attend the Latin Tridentine Mass. A priest raping altar boys would be moved to another parish; as for a priest who had the temerity to celebrate the Old Mass – his feet would not touch the ground.
“I am so shocked by the abuse scandal I am leaving the Church.” Right. So, the fact that some degenerates who should never have been ordained violated young people – in itself a deplorable sin – means that the Son of God did not come down to earth, redeem mankind on the cross and found the Church? This appalling scandal no more compromises the truths of the Faith than the career of Alexander VI or any other corrupt Renaissance Pope.
Should bishops be forced to resign? Oh yes – approximately 95 per cent of them worldwide. These clowns in their pseudo-ethnic mitres and polyester vestments with faux-naïve Christian symbols, spouting their ecumaniac episcobabble, have presided over more than sexual abuse: they have all but extinguished the Catholic faith with their modernist fatuities. They should be retired to monasteries to spend their remaining years considering how to account to their Maker for a failed stewardship that has lost countless millions of souls.
This man has more understanding of Catholic orthodoxy than many Bishops have felt the need of in their entire life. He speaks clearly because he knows that problems are not solved by ignoring perverted priests, or simply moving them around whilst feeding easy platitudes to the customers, er, the fold.
This blog post is several months old (pre-Mundabor blog times, in fact), but it truly has lost nothing of its beauty.
A good way to start the new year, which we hope will mark another little step towards the return of orthodoxy.
Absolutely brilliant entry (some months old, but with all its freshness intact) of One Timothy Four about the various distortions of how the media and public opinion deal with the issue of the (homosexual) paedophile priest scandal. This article is notable because it comes from someone who, though in the meantime a full-fledged Catholic (and I mean real Catholic, not soi-disant one) had indirect but credible experience of the Anglican part of the matter. This is not to say that the Anglicans are particularly affected from the problem, or that the problem is exclusive competence of Christian denominations; only that it does help to put a thing or two in the right context.
Let us see the most salient phrases of this extremely interesting contribution:
there is good evidence (largely ignored by the media) that the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church and elsewhere grew in direct relationship to generalized sexual liberation
The BBC will never tell you this. The winds of “modernity” (or modernism) blowing after Vatican II carried with them a kind of “tolerance” bound not to stop in front of any sin. If we start saying in the seminaries that “it doesn’t help to see things in terms of sin” – I think this is another pearl of wisdom from our less-than-beloved Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent “Quisling” Nichols; but I smell a “fashionable” turn of phrase here – how can we be surprised if any kind of sin, even the worst, will be seen “not in terms of sin”? What is the concept of sin for, if not for the sin to be seen as such?
Growing up in the cofE, I can remember from a very young age being aware – thankfully not through personal experience – of Anglican clergy who had been allowed to quietly fall from grace because of ‘little boys’
(all emphases mine)
It would seem that this is not something suddenly exploded within the Church and before non-existent outside of Her.
And as an adult in the cofE, one continues to be aware on a slightly too regular basis of Anglican clergy who have been caught with child pornography on their computers or having been more directly involved in child sexual abuse.
This is not the golden past, this is the actual situation. Something the BBC never tells you anything about. Particularly if there’s a Pope coming, or some homo shouting “discrimination!”.
Limiting myself to my direct contemporaries at Anglican theological college, one has certainly been convicted of having child pornography on his computer and others have suffered directly and indirectly through Anglican clerical abuse. The one who has been caught is male, as most but not all abusers are, but also married (with children of his own) and is an enthusiast for women priests – so those who like to blame clerical abuse of children in the Catholic Church on priestly celibacy and negativity towards women need to think again, and stop using abuse to further other agendas.
This is very beautifully said. Abuse within the Anglican so-called church seems not to spare priestesses and to also affect married men with children. Oh well, this is the same that happens all over the world then! Very strange, I thought that in order to become a child abuser one had to have chosen celibacy…..
But the Anglican examples barely and only momentarily make the press, and – to throw the net wider – what about the widespread abuse of children and young people in secular care systems, and at the hands of the members of other caring professions where the breach of trust is surely every bit as heinous despite the fact the perpetrator does not wear a clerical collar?
Another very perceptive observation: not only are the Anglicans generally spared from the ire of the press, but for example the NHS seems to make headlines more for superbugs than for reasons related with their own people. The superbug allows the liberal press to attack the government at ease, the abuse issue would pose uncomfortable questions and demand a wider debate about the (homosexual) Catholic priest abuse issue, too.
The particular and real phenomenon of abuse by men who should never have been ordained as priests in the first place is being used: a) to distract us from the other many and varied forms of child abuse to which secular society continues to turn a blind eye; and b) as a generally useful and hefty stick with which to attempt to beat the Catholic Church into submission over other issues on which it and its teaching challenge secular society – such as describing homosexual inclination as a psychological and moral disorder.
Nothing to add here…..
…there is no excuse for using the abuse of children by particular Catholic priests to misdirect the attention of society away from its manifestation in institutions and contexts that are dear to the liberal heart but which haven’t shown anything like the same will as the Catholic Church now does to do something about child sexual abuse, and all because it doesn’t present a useful opportunity to bash the Pope.
…. or here.
A brilliant analysis. We should repeat these concepts and defend these arguments everytime the issue comes out among our friends and acquaintances either seriously misinformed or in the mood for an ego trip. In time, the wider public will start having a wider and more balanced perception of the problem.