"Liberal" and Green Support for Paedophilia? [Part 2]

Allen Ginsberg - "I Joined NAMBLA in defense of Free Speech"

The Paedophile Information Exchange, NAMBLA and Gay/Civil Rights Organisations

This is Part [2] of a four-part series "Liberal" and Green Support for Paedophilia?"  Sections (1) and (2) are contained in Part [1]  Please note that I wrote this article in 2010 so - for example - Harriet Harman is no longer Deputy Leader of the Labour Party !

(3) Danes First to Legalise Child Pornography

This was also the fate of an article published in The Sunday Business Post on 28 October 2007 by John Burke – “Danes First to Legalise Child Pornography”. [5] It began:

The sexual revolution of the mid-1960s heralded a dramatic increase in the demand for pornography of all types, fuelled by what leading Irish criminologist and UCD academic Ian O’Donnell notes was a narrowing of what was perceived to be obscene. Censorship laws were relaxed and the Danish government led the march by legalising all forms of pornography in 1969. The effect was to create a massive industry that created materials that later became mainstays among the international paedophile market.

One expert has described the following decade as a ‘‘ten year madness’’. A lack of legislation in other Western countries permitted a global industry to develop which was primarily based on images of children being abused, which were sourced and distributed from Denmark. Some years after he became a rich man from the production of child pornography, Danish businessman Willy Strauss recounted how his 1971 magazine, which was entitled Bambina Sex, sold more than 10,000 copies among pornography dealers within two hours of it coming off the printing press. ….

John Burke observes that by the time the Danes made the production of child pornography illegal, the industry had made numerous people vast sums of wealth through the creation of images of children being sexually abused, and the distribution for sale of millions of magazines and films reputed to remain in circulation among paedophile networks around the world today.

In a related article (“Protecting Childhood”) in the same issue of The Sunday Business Post, John Burke quotes Ian O’Donnell as wondering whether Irish society’s preoccupation with child sexuality has done more harm than good. Have we ended up viewing all children through the eyes of a paedophile, seriously altering the manner in which we interact with them as a result?

O’Donnell believes parental fear over other adults’ possible interest in their child’s sexuality has led to a vastly changed parenting environment. ‘‘A belief that the world was a safe place and that other adults could be relied upon has been sundered. In its place has grown an attitude of generalised mistrust, accompanied by an ingrained tendency to overestimate the dangers of childhood. It seems as if adults have lost the ability to discriminate between degrees of danger."

One might add that the ludicrous reaction to Pope Benedict’s perfectly reasonable – and accurate – observations is a further indication of society’s inability to discriminate between truth and hysteria.

(4) Paedophile Groups and Gay/Civil Rights Organisations

(A) Paedophile Information Exchange (UK) and National  Council for Civil Liberties etc

The Paedophile Information Exchange had links with “gay” organisations from the very beginning and with the National Council for Civil Liberties up to 1983 at least. In 1976 it attracted the ire of that doyen of reactionaries Mary Whitehouse who succeeded in preventing the government-funded “Albany Trust” from publishing a booklet provided by PIE and the Paedophile Action for Liberation (PAL) group. The reason the Trustees gave for declining to publish the booklet was that it wasn’t sufficiently “objective”. (The Albany Trust was founded in the United Kingdom as a registered charity in May 1958 to complement the Homosexual Law Reform Society. After the Sexual Offences Act 1967 partially decriminalised homosexual relationships, the Albany Trust became an educational and counselling organisation and was also involved the development of sex education – hence the paedophile booklet project!)

According to the Wikipedia article on the Paedophile Information Exchange:

“PIE was set up as a special interest group within the Scottish Minorities Group by founder member Michael Hanson, who became the group's first Chairman.

“Since the majority of enquiries were from England, PIE relocated to London in 1975 where 23-year old Keith Hose became its new Chairperson. Hose had connections with the South London group of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF). GLF thinking questioned the family as the basis of an economic, social and sexual system and certain sections of GLF favoured the abolition of the age of consent; their youth group had staged a march in support of this demand (however, it should be noted that the age of consent for homosexuals was 21 at the time, in comparison to 16 for heterosexuals).

“Paedophile Action for Liberation [PAL] had developed as a breakaway group from South London Gay Liberation Front. It was the subject of an article in the Sunday People, which dedicated its front page and centre-spread to the story. The result was intimidation and loss of employment for some of those who were exposed. It later merged with PIE.

“This exposé on PAL had a chilling effect on PIE members' willingness for activism. In the PIE Chairperson's Annual Report for 1975-6, Keith Hose wrote that 'The only way for PIE to survive, was to seek out as much publicity for the organization as possible.... If we got bad publicity we would not run into a corner but stand and fight. We felt that the only way to get more paedophiles joining PIE... was to seek out and try to get all kinds of publications to print our organization's name and address and to make paedophilia a real public issue.'

“A campaign to attract media attention was not effective at that time, but Hose's attendance at the 1975 annual conference of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) in Sheffield, where he made a speech on paedophilia, was covered at length in The Guardian.

In the same year Hose also attended a conference organized by Mind, the national mental health organization, where it was suggested that PIE should submit evidence to the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee on the age of consent. PIE submitted a 17-page document in which it proposed that there should be no age of consent, and that the criminal law should concern itself only with sexual activities to which consent is not given, or which continue after prohibition by a civil court. …..

In 1976 both PIE and PAL had been asked to help the Albany Trust to produce a booklet on paedophilia which was to have been published by the Trust. This collaboration was 'uncovered' by Mary Whitehouse, who alleged that public funds were being used indirectly to subsidize 'paedophile groups'. The Albany Trust was partly supported by government grants. The Trustees decided not to publish the booklet, saying that it wasn't sufficiently 'objective'. ……

Affiliation To The National Council For Civil Liberties

By 1978 PIE and Paedophile Action for Liberation had become affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty, with members attending meetings. The organisation campaigned against newspapers' treatment of the Paedophile activist groups. Whilst affiliated with NCCL, PIE also campaigned to reduce the age of consent and oppose the proposed banning of child pornography. In 1976, in a submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the NCCL asserted that “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage” and that the Protection of Children Bill would lead to “damaging and absurd prosecutions”. Whilst PIE was affiliated with it, the organisation argued for incest to be decriminalised and argued that sexually explicit photographs of children should be legal unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered harm or that the an inference to that effect or to the effect that harm might have been caused could reasonably be drawn from the images themselves, with Harriet Harman (later deputy leader of the Labour Party) arguing that it would “increase censorship”. NCCL had excluded PIE by 1983.

Patricia Hewitt, Harriet Harman and P.I.E.

Since Harriet Harman is now deputy leader of the Labour Party, it is remarkable that her role in the NCCL from 1978 to 1982 regarding the paedophilia issue, has not come under serious scrutiny (It is not even mentioned in her Wikipedia article). Much the same applies to Patricia Hewitt who joined the NCCL as a woman’s rights officer in 1973 and was their general secretary for 9 years from 1974. (Hewitt was to become Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and later Secretary of State for Health.) The careers of both in the NCCL, dovetail neatly with the heyday of the Paedophile Information Exchange whose NCCL affiliation was only removed in 1983 – the year that Patricia Hewitt resigned to pursue a career in politics. (Hewitt  became Press Secretary to the leader of the Opposition Neil Kinnock where – as per Wikipedia – “she was a key player in the first stages of the 'modernisation' of the Labour Party”.) [6]

One of the rare occasions when the media questioned the role of these former NCCL stalwarts occurred in December 2009 when the Daily Telegraph published an article entitled “Harriet Harman under attack over bid to water down child pornography law”. According to the article:

The Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for Women and Equality, who also sits on a Cabinet committee on young people’s welfare, is being touted as a possible successor to Gordon Brown. But she faces fresh criticism from Opposition MPs and campaign groups after The Daily Telegraph obtained documents showing that she called on ministers to make sexually explicit photographs or films of children legal unless there was evidence that the subject had been harmed. 

At the time she made the official submission, she was a senior figure in a civil liberties organisation that wanted the age of consent to be lowered to 14 and incest decriminalised. It also defended self-confessed paedophiles in the press and allowed them to attend its meetings.

Last night Tim Loughton, the Shadow Children’s Minister, said: “Clearly there is a serious conflict of interest with the committees she sits on, who might want urgently to clarify her position on the exploitation of children for the sexual gratification of adults. “It’s a shame that Miss Harman’s zeal for positive discrimination and all things politically correct among adults does not extend to the exploitation of children. Any child who is used for the sexual gratification of adults counts as an abused child and needs protecting.”

Miss Harman, 58, was a newly qualified solicitor when she became legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty, in 1978. At the time its general secretary was Patricia Hewitt, who went on to become health secretary under Tony Blair.

Among the groups affiliated to NCCL were the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation, whose members argued openly for the abolition of the age of consent. NCCL complained to the press watchdog about their treatment by tabloid newspapers and said in one article: “We support any organisation that seeks to campaign for anything it wants within the law. They have that right.”

In NCCL’s official response to the Government’s plans to reform sex laws, dubbed a “Lolita’s Charter”, it suggested reducing the age of consent and argued that “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage”. It claimed that children can suffer more from having to retell their experiences in court or the press.

Amid growing public concern about adults preying on children, the Protection of Children Bill was put before Parliament in order to tighten the laws on child pornography by banning indecent images of under-16s. NCCL’s official response, signed by Miss Harman and submitted in April 1978, claimed that the new law could lead to “damaging and absurd prosecutions” and “increase censorship”. …….

Miss Harman left NCCL in 1982 when she was elected MP for Camberwell and Peckham, by which time several members of PIE had been jailed for conspiracy to corrupt public morals.

A spokesman for Miss Harman said: “She has always opposed child pornography and has never supported PIE and to suggest that she did is untrue and misleading. “NCCL’s approach to the protection of children’s bill was to argue for clear definitions in  the bill to make sure the law was precise so that it was about child protection and not about censorship.”

The spokesman added: “PIE had been excluded from the NCCL before she became legal officer.” However press cuttings from 1983 make it clear that it was still considered an “affiliate group”.

It looks like the NCCL only cut its links with the Paedophile Information Exchange AFTER both Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt had left. Well at least the NCCL didn’t wait for a further decade – it wasn’t until Nineteen Nighty Three (1993) that the International Gay and Lesbian Association cut loose NAMBLA – the North American Man/Boy Love Association.

(B) The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and the Gay Movement

According to the Wikipedia article on NAMBLA:

The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age of consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors, and campaigns for the release of all men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion. Some reports state that the group no longer has regular national meetings, and that as of the late 1990s, to avoid local police infiltration, the organization discouraged the formation of local chapters. Around 1995, an undercover detective discovered that there were 1,100 people on the rolls. As of 2005, a newspaper report stated that NAMBLA was based in New York and San Francisco.

HISTORY  Events such as Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" campaign in 1977, and a police raid of Toronto-area gay newspaper The Body Politic for publishing "Men Loving Boys Loving Men" set the stage for the founding of NAMBLA. 

In December 1977, police raided a house in the Boston suburb of Revere. Twenty-four men were arrested and indicted on over 100 felony counts of the statutory rape of boys aged eight to fifteen. Suffolk County District Attorney Garrett Byrne found that the men used drugs and video games to lure the boys into a house, where they photographed them as they engaged in sexual activity. The men were members of a "sex ring", and said that the arrest was only "the tip of the iceberg." The arrests sparked intense media coverage, and local newspapers published the photographs and personal information of the accused men. The "Boston-Boise Committee", a gay rights organization, formed in response to these events and to protect the "rights of gay men" and promote "gay solidarity." NAMBLA's founding was inspired by this gay rights organization. It was co-founded by the gay historian David Thorstad. …….

In 1994 NAMBLA was expelled from the International Lesbian and Gay Association, having been the first US based organization to be a member. "Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys" was produced and directed by Adi Sideman in 1994. Members of NAMBLA were interviewed and presented defenses of the organization. Allen Ginsberg appeared in the film.  …….

Media reports from 2006 have suggested that for practical purposes the group no longer exists and that it consists only of a web site maintained by a few enthusiasts.

RELATIONS WITH LGBT ORGANIZATIONS   The first documented opposition from LGBT organizations to NAMBLA occurred in the conference that organized the first gay march on Washington in 1979.In 1980 a group called the "Lesbian Caucus – Lesbian & Gay Pride March Committee" distributed a hand-out urging women to split from the annual New York City Gay Pride March because the organizing committee had supposedly been dominated by NAMBLA and its supporters. The next year, after some lesbians threatened to picket, the Cornell University gay group Gay PAC (Gay People at Cornell) rescinded its invitation to NAMBLA founder David Thorstad to be the keynote speaker at the annual May Gay Festival. In the following years, gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA’s participation in gay pride parades, prompting leading gay rights figure Harry Hay to wear a sign proclaiming "NAMBLA walks with me" as he participated in a 1986 gay pride march in Los Angeles.

By the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had "retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics," opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for "groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community," such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process.

In 1994 the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a "Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA" saying GLAAD "deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD." Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization."

In 1994 NAMBLA, along with many members of the Gay Liberation Front participated in the "The Spirit of Stonewall" march which commemorated the 1969 Stonewall Riots. …..

THE INTERNATIONAL LESBIAN AND GAY ASSOCIATION CONTROVERSY   In 1993, the International Lesbian and Gay Association achieved United Nations consultative status. NAMBLA's membership in ILGA drew heavy criticism and caused the suspension of ILGA. Many gay organizations called for the ILGA to dissolve ties with NAMBLA. Republican Senator Jesse Helms proposed a bill to withhold $119 million in UN contributions until U.S. President Bill Clinton could certify that "no UN agency grants any official status, accreditation, or recognition to any organization which promotes, condones, or seeks the legalization of pedophilia, that is, the sexual abuse of children". The bill was unanimously approved by Congress and signed into law by Clinton in April 1994.

IN 1994, ILGA expelled NAMBLA and two other groups (MARTIJN and Project Truth) because they were judged to be "groups whose predominant aim is to support or promote pedophilia." Although ILGA removed NAMBLA, the UN reversed its decision to grant ILGA special consultative status. Repeated attempts by ILGA to reacquire special status with the UN were eventually successful in 2006.

Gregory King of the Human Rights Campaign later said that "NAMBLA is not a gay organization ... They are not part of our community and we thoroughly reject their efforts to insinuate that pedophilia is an issue related to gay and lesbian civil rights." NAMBLA responded by claiming that "man/boy love is by definition homosexual," that "man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture," and that "homosexuals denying that it is 'not gay' to be attracted to adolescent boys are just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying it's 'not heterosexual' to be attracted to adolescent girls."

Some Prominent NAMBLA Supporters

According to Wikipedia, “David Thorstad (born June 6, 1941), an American political activist and historian of the gay rights movement since the 1970s, was a founding member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance. He was also active in Trotskyist politics for some years. ….  In 1978 Thorstad was a founding member of NAMBLA, "served as a member of the Steering Committee from some undetermined time until September 1996" and was one of a group of NAMBLA members who were sued in 2000 for the wrongful death of a ten-year-old boy in a long-running court case Curley v. NAMBLA in Boston.”  The Wiki article also mentions that Thorstad describes the modern gay rights movement as "politically correct zombies” – presumably because of their (rather late) repudiation of paedophilia?

According to Wikipedia, “Allen Ginsberg (June 3, 1926 – April 5, 1997) was an American poet and one of the leading figures of both the Beat Generation of the 1950s and the counterculture that soon would follow. He vigorously opposed militarism, economic materialism and sexual repression. Ginsberg is best known for his epic poem "Howl", in which he denounced what he saw as the destructive forces of capitalism and conformity in the United States.”

However Ginsberg obviously did not see paedophilia as one of these “destructive forces”. In fact he was a supporter and member of NAMBLA. In "Thoughts on NAMBLA", a 1994 essay published in the collection Deliberate Prose, Ginsberg stated, "I joined NAMBLA in defence of free speech." He referred to NAMBLA "as a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, a discussion society not a sex club." 
At any rate that is what the editors of his Wikipedia article regarded as fit to publish. (It suggests that Ginsberg was simply taking the principal of freedom of speech to its logical – if extreme – conclusion.) However the collection “Deliberate Prose also includes a letter from Ginsberg to Ralph Ginzburg [7] in June 1962:

 “Prepubescent boys and girls don’t have to be protected from big hairy you and me,  they’ll get used to our lovemaking in 2 days provided the controlling adults stop making those hysterical NOISES that make everything sexy sound like rape.  RAPE is the only obnoxious love, which we all want to discourage naturally, so you can call up the cops for that. If you still need sex-cops when nobody steals what they can get for free. Yes there’ll always be a few irreducibly unattractive eccentrics, to be sure, grabbing unpleasantly as long as there are little girls coming home from school. One barely needs a bit of law to deal with them and that law a law against violence, not really a sex law. Also need a couple of tantric cops or mescaline detectives, men of a certain delicacy to pacify the violent.” [8]

Andrea Dworkin reflected this in her 2001 autobiography "Heartbreak: The Political Memoir of a Feminist Militant" where she wrote "But in fact, he (Ginsberg) was a pedophile. He did not belong to the North American Man Boy Love Association out of some mad, abstract conviction that its voice be heard. He meant it. I take this from what Allen said directly to me, not from some inference I made. He was exceptionally aggressive about his right to fuck children and his constant pursuit of underage boys." (page 38) 

(C) Radical Feminism and Paedophile Groups

Andrea Dworkin was a Man-Hating Feminist in the full literal sense of the term. Ginsberg and his fellow male liberals had originally collaborated with feminists in their common aim of destroying a hated Male, Bourgeois, Christian establishment and achieved considerable success in their goal from the 1960s onwards. As is common with successful revolutionaries, they then turned this hatred on each other. Paedophilia seems to be an almost exclusively male perversion and provided a perfect platform for feminist radicals who not only saw Patriarchy as the root of all evil but regarded men as their enemies. Dworkin’s denunciation of Allen Ginsberg is one indication of how and why “liberal” attitudes to paedophilia began to change in the 1980s. A decade later most liberals had not only abandoned their previous support for paedophilia but had managed to forget about it as well! (No doubt this is why in December 2009, a spokesman for Harriet Harman was able to claim that the Paedophile Information Exchange had been excluded from the National Council of Civil Liberties before she became legal officer in 1978, whereas the exclusion actually occurred in 1983 - the year after she left to become an MP.)

The career of Patricia Hewitt after she left the NCCL in 1983 to pursue a political career illustrates the new direction taken by feminists. As per Wikipedia :
“ In 2001, she joined Blair's cabinet as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, before becoming Health Secretary in 2005, chiefly remembered for getting smoking banned in public places, against heavy opposition. Hewitt has sparked many controversies, notably her selection of a female job-applicant over a stronger male candidate, and her theory that fathers may not be a useful influence in the upbringing of children.”

Very curious attitudes and achievements for a former general secretary of Britain’s premier Civil Liberties advocacy group! Wikipedia gives further details:

In September 2005, a Judicial Review found Hewitt "guilty of unlawful sex discrimination" when she employed a female applicant for a DTI [Department of Trade and Industry] position ahead of a significantly stronger male candidate. The judge ruled that Malcolm Hanney had lost out to a candidate ranked third by the interview panel and that the failure to appoint him was "in breach of the code of practice for ministerial appointments to public bodies". Hewitt had quoted the Code of Practice on Public Appointments, which said: "Ministers will wish to balance boards in terms of diversity as well as skills and experience.", though the panel had clearly stated that Mr Hanney was "much the strongest candidate". 

The DTI apologised and Hanney was awarded £17,967.17 costs. The appointment was not overturned however and Hewitt herself did not apologise and claimed not to have realised she was in breach of the law. Rod Little of The Times juxtaposed Hewitt's claim with the fact that Hewitt's department was itself responsible for the Sex Discrimination Act, suggesting she believed the purpose of sex discrimination legislation "was intended to be of benefit only to women" rather than "maltreated job applicants...foolish enough to be born with a penis".

The Wikipedia article does not discuss the relationship between the NCCL and the Paedophile Information Exchange during the period when Hewitt was general secretary of the former. However it appears that her attitude to men and children had undergone a very strange evolution. As per Wikipedia:

Sociologist Geoff Dench has stated that Hewitt discourages male involvement in child rearing by questioning "whether we can trust men with children" and she concluded that it would be necessary to adopt the practice of "not leaving men on their own with groups of children". Dench also criticised Hewitt for suggesting that it requires less intelligence and education to raise children than to be employed.Erin Pizzey similarly criticised the views expressed by Hewitt and her co-authors in the 1990 IPPR report "The Family Way". Writing in the Daily Mail, Pizzey claimed the report was a "staggering attack on men and their role in modern life" as a result of its stating, "it cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion".

And again:
Hewitt was criticised for a 2003 report by the Women and Equality unit which was run by Hewitt, in which it was stated that there was a "real problem" with mothers who stayed at home to bring up their children. It was described as '"bullying and intolerant" by The Institute of Directors with criticism also coming from mothers groups. [9]

Does this represent some sort of turnaround from the days when the National Council for Civil Liberties were hand in glove with the  Paedophile Information Exchange? Or is it just a logical development from what had gone before?


NOTES:

[5] The two related articles regarding “Danes First to Legalise Child Pornography” are behind the Sunday Business Post firewall but can be read at:
http://www.irishsalem.com/international-controversies/denmark/danesfirst-childpornography-28oct07.php

[6] As per Wikipedia,  Hewitt “had sent a letter to Kinnock claiming to fully support his leadership bid and lobbying for the role, yet also sent an identical letter to Kinnock's opponent in the Labour leadership election, Roy Hattersley.”

 [7] Ralph Ginzburg (October 28, 1929 – July 6, 2006) was an American author, editor, publisher and photo-journalist. He was best known for publishing books and magazines on erotica and art and for his conviction in 1963 for violating federal obscenity laws. One person who had no problem supporting Ginzburg was Allen Ginsberg who travelled to Washington and picketed the Supreme Court building to protest a ruling against his friend.

[8] from page 168 of “Deliberate Prose: Selected Essays 1952 – 1995 by ALLEN GINSBERG”, Forward by Edward Sander/ edited by Bill Morgan, HarperCollins Publishers
According to a quote on the cover from the San Francisco Chronicle, “These essays rise towards the incantatory power of poetry” 
http://www.harpercollins.com/browseinside/index.aspx?isbn13=9780060930813

[9] The highly informative Wikipedia article on Patricia Hewitt is at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patricia_Hewitt

"Liberal" and Green Support for Paedophilia? [Part 1]

Peter Tatchell

Pope Benedict XVI

This is the first of a 4 Part series - based on an essay I wrote several years ago. I was inspired by Pope Benedict's observation in 2010 that  "In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children"  - and the furious reaction from "Liberals" some of whom had genuinely forgotten while others were very anxious to cover up their own role in this moral fiasco!

It's relevant to the present controversy involving Peter Tatchell and Ireland's  new Minister for Children (and Equality) Roderic O'Gorman who served as Chairman  of the Green Party from 2011 to 2019

(1) Pope Benedict on “Liberal” Support for Paedophilia in 1970s

In an address to the Vatican diplomatic corps in shortly before Christmas 2010, Pope Benedict stated that:

“In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained - even within the realm of Catholic theology - that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a "better than" and a "worse than". Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today ………

Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen.”

 ‘This triggered the usual outbursts of rage from liberals who had chosen to forget what their predecessors had been saying and doing during that decade.

 Margaret Kennedy, from the “British Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors” group, complained: 

“He is trying to say that the modern world is corrupt and sexually rampant. It is blaming society for what is actually their responsibility. No one in any age has ever thought that adults having sex with children is right.” [!! My emphasis].

And of course, Barbara Blaine, head of SNAP, the “Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests” which is based in the US:

“It is fundamentally disturbing to watch a brilliant man so conveniently misdiagnose a horrific scandal … Catholics should be embarrassed to hear their Pope talk again and again about abuse while doing little or nothing to stop it and to mischaracterise this heinous crisis … The Pope insists on talking about a vague ‘broader context’ he can’t control, while ignoring the clear ‘broader context’ he can influence - the long-standing and unhealthy culture of a rigid, secretive, all-male Church hierarchy fixated on self-preservation at all costs. This is the ‘context’ that matters.”

Reading between the lines, it's possible that Barbara Blaine knew what Pope Benedict was talking about but choose to see it as irrelevant. In contrast Margaret Kennedy seems to be an innocent at large! Both are quoted in former IRA-man/ hunger striker Anthony McIntyre’s blog “The Pensive Quill”: article entitled “Papal Bull” dated 26 December 2010  [1]

Sinead O’Connor was – naturally – among the “innocent” ones, although it is difficult to distinguish her kind of ignorance from malice. In an open letter to Pope Benedict she wrote:

… Please deign to respond to this letter directly and personally and put aside all the pomp and titles and so-called ‘proper channels’ all of which belong not in the 21st century but the 12th and are unbecoming of Christ.

Exactly who held the theory that pedophilia was fully in conformity with man and with children? Please give us their names.

Exactly when did they hold this theory? Exactly when if ever did they cease holding the theory?

Why was this information not given to victims? ….   [MY COMMENT: Oh my God!]

(2) ‘Der Spiegel’ on Sex Abuse by German Leftists and Greens

However in an article in the Irish Independent on 24 December 2010 (Pope is Right on Views of Paedophilia in the 1970s), David Quinn pointed out among other things that:

(i) In the 1970s there was a movement to legalise sex between children and adults and it was supported by some of the leading lights of the time who believed that relationships of this sort weren’t evil at all, let alone an absolute evil. 

(ii) Earlier in 2010, the German magazine, ‘Der Spiegel’ (itself on the left) reminded us of this fact in an article entitled ‘The sexual revolution and children: how the left took things too far.’  ***  

(iii) The article describes the kinderladen movement in Germany set up by leftists in the 1970s as a rival to the kindergarten movement. Its intention was to radicalise very young children, and to ‘sexually liberate’ them.

(iv) Der Spiegel described what this involved: ‘The educators’ notes indicate that they placed a very strong emphasis on sex education. Almost every day, the students played games that involved taking off their clothes, reading porno magazines and pantomiming intercourse.’ In addition the children were encouraged to fondle each other and to fondle adults. 

(v) How did the parents who sent their children to these schools justify this? As Der Spiegel makes clear, they believed they were ‘liberating’ children from ‘repressive’ and ‘bourgeois’ notions about child sexuality. …

(vi) The kinderladen movement was not the work of fringe cranks; in fact the far left in Germany, as elsewhere in the 1970s, was fantastically influential. One of the kinderladen leaders was Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a great hero of the 1968 student rebellion. Der Spiegel recounts how Cohn-Bendit appeared on French TV in 1982 and had the following to say:

“At nine in the morning, I join my eight little toddlers between the ages of 16 months and two years. I tickle them, they tickle me and we cuddle … you know, a child’s sexuality is fantastic thing ….. when a little five-year-old girl starts undressing, it’s great, because it’s a game. It’s an incredible erotic game.”

Today Cohn-Bendit laughs this off and says he was being merely provocative! He is now co-president of the Greens in the European Parliament. 

(vii) The Der Spiegel article also reminds us that, as late as 1985, the Green’s state organisation in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia argued that: “nonviolent sexuality between children and adults should generally be allowed without any age restrictions”. 

(viii) The doyen of leftist philosophers Jean Paul Sartre had similar views at the time.  In 1977, he and 69 other French leading lights wrote a letter to newspaper Le Monde in which they demanded the release of three men accused of having sex with minors. [2]

(ix) This attitude – ranging from ambivalence towards child/adult sex to outright support – still continues in France and elsewhere. In 2010 many people defended the film director Roman Polanski, among them other famous directors, actors as well as French government ministers. They demanded Polanski’s release from a Swiss prison even though he admitted to the statutory rape of a 13-year-old in 1973.

(x) In the 1970s a pro-paedophile organisation called the Paedophile Information Exchange was a member of the British Council of Civil Liberties. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) was a member of one of the biggest gay rights movements in the world – the International Lesbian and gay Association – right up until 1993.

*** The Spiegel article by Jan Fleischhauer and Wiebke Hollersen  is dated 2^nd July 2010 and an English version is available online at the Spiegel International website:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/the-sexual-revolution-and-children-how-the-left-took-things-too-far-a-702679.html

It begins:
“Germany's left has its own tales of abuse. One of the goals of the German 1968 movement was the sexual liberation of children. For some, this meant overcoming all sexual inhibitions, creating a climate in which even pedophilia was considered progressive.”

It was good of the Irish Independent to publish David Quinn’s article but nobody – either journalist or letter writers to the editor - seems to have followed it up and it doesn’t appear to be available on the Indo website either. [3] In fact there appears to be a pattern where such non-PC facts are occasionally published and then quickly buried.

Derek Scally had an article in the Irish Times on 10 August 2010 based on the Der Spiegel article. It is now behind the Irish Times firewall but contains the following gem about the “Kommune 2” group:

“On a typical day, April 4th, 1968, communard Eberhard Schultz reported in graphic detail how Grischa (a three year old girl) got into bed with him and began stroking him intimately, which he reciprocated.

“Unknowingly, the two children [Grischa and four year old Nessim, a boy] became stars of the progressive educational scene. A leading left-wing magazine printed a double-page photo spread of Grischa and Nessim romping naked in the commune.

“The sexualisation of children and child-rearing spread to the “Red Freedom” kindergarten in the Kreuzberg district.

“Teaching plans from 1969 include the “development of socialist personalities” and “Agitprop” about the Vietnam War. Playtime was devoted to “street battles”, in which the infants were divided into groups of students and police or “pigs”. The sexual education of the toddlers was promoted through group study of pornographic magazines and sexual pantomime.”

Scally also points out that this culture had become such an integral part of left wing culture that in the interests of “open debate” “the left-wing Tageszeitung newspaper regularly published articles on child sexuality”.

In one 1979 series, Scally says, “a male author praised the 'liberating feeling' of sex with children. A motion at the 1980 Green Party conference sought to “liberalise sex between children and adults”. [4]

The German Green Party seems to have recovered rather well from that potential scandal – in fact “potential” is the key-word as their journalist sympathisers never had any intention of calling them to account on this issue. There was no follow up to the publication of the Irish Times article and most people in this country have completely forgotten about the basic facts. In this respect – if in few others - Sinead O’Connor is perfectly normal!

NOTES: 

[1] The article is at http://thepensivequill.am/2010/12/papal-bull.html

For a former terrorist and hunger striker who has broken with the IRA, Anthony McIntyre exhibits extra-ordinary naivety. Has he replaced the British with the Catholic Church, as the supposed fountain-head of all evil? 

[2] According to a post on “The Pensive Quill” 

Take for example the 1977 petition in France to remove ‘age of consent’ laws and the decriminalization of all consented relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen.

“This was signed by such luminaries as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and André Glucksmann, Roland Barthes, by the novelist/gay activist Guy Hocquenghem, the actor/play-writer/jurist Jean Danet, writer and filmmaker Alain Robbe-Grillet, writer Philippe Sollers, pediatrician and child psychoanalyst Françoise Dolto and also by people belonging to a wide range of political positions.”

[3] David Quinn’s article is available on the Alliance Support site at

http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/003972.html

[4] Quoted on “The Iona Blog” by Tom O’Gorman – article entitled “How Radicals Tried to Sexually ‘Liberate’ Children”

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=988

Fr James Martin SJ, the Catholic Church and the LGBT Ethos

Fr James Martin SJ

Background to Dispute:

In an article in the National Catholic Register on 5 December 2019 Monsignor Charles Pope explained that in November 2019 Judge Sara Smolenski, Chief Judge of the 63rd District Court in Kent County, Michigan, was advised by her pastor, Father Scott Nolan, that she should not receive Holy Communion because she claimed to enter into a “marriage” with a woman. He did this privately, but she chose to make the matter public. You can read the full story here.

As per Monsignor Pope, the priest’s actions were certainly proper. Judge Smolenski’s civil marriage is a public act, and because she is a public figure her actions were widely known. For the good of her own soul, as well as to avoid the scandal of apparent approval, the pastor was correct in requesting that she refrain from presenting herself to receive Holy Communion. Judge Smolenski is certainly a public dissenter from the Church’s constant teaching that marriage is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman. There is also the reasonable public perception that she is engaged in and approves of illicit sexual union — in this case, homosexual acts.

As expected, there are charges that this action is targeting the “LGBT” community. Judge Smolenski herself says, “This feels like selective discrimination. Why choose gay people and why now?” However, the standard for worthy reception of Holy Communion applies to all. Neither heterosexuals in invalid marriages nor those cohabitating outside the bonds of marriage may licitly receive Communion. No one may simply go on living in an invalid marriage (adultery) or in cohabitation (fornication) and still be worthy to approach for Holy Communion. Fornicators, adulterers and those who engage in homosexual acts may not licitly receive Holy Communion unless (and until) they repent and receive absolution in the sacrament of Confession.

No one person is singled out, nor is any group singled out — chastity is required of all. There is no place for sexual intimacy outside of traditional marriage. There are no exceptions.

The Diocese of Grand Rapids issued a statement in support of Fr. Nolan’s actions. Included in it were these essential points:

As Pope Francis explains in Amoris Laetitia, ‘The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members.’ (186) Lifelong Catholics would surely be aware of this.

Inclusion and acceptance have been a hallmark of Catholic Churches in the Diocese of Grand Rapids throughout the diocese’s history. They remain so. They presume, however, a respect on the part of individuals for the teachings and practice of the wider Catholic community. No community of faith can sustain the public contradiction of its beliefs by its own members. This is especially so on matters as central to Catholic life as marriage, which the Church has always held, and continues to hold, as a sacred covenant between one man and one woman. [My emphasis RC]

Answering Fr James Martin SJ (by Fr. Dwight Longenecker)

Fr James Martin has taken to Twitter again to whine and distort the truth in his usual subtle way. This time he is lamenting the request made by Fr Scott Nolan in Grand Rapids that Judge Smolenski refrain from presenting herself for communion.

Below are Fr Martin’s tweets with my replies.

James Martin: As with all these sad cases, the question is: Why are only married LGBT people being singled out? Is Communion denied to all parishioners who are not following church teachings? That is, married couples using birth control or IVF? Or young people engaging in pre-marital sex?

DL: LGBT people are not being “singled out” for not following church teachings.  Ms Smolenski was not denied communion because she is a lesbian. She is not even being denied communion for being in a lesbian relationship. She is being denied communion because she “married” another woman. This is not simply a matter of “not following church teachings.” By attempting a marriage with a woman Ms Smolenski publicly, formally and irremediably denied the Catholic teaching about marriage.

Marriage is a Catholic sacrament. It is one of the means of grace. For it to be a valid sacrament it requires proper form, minister and matter. The proper matter is the conjugal act. The proper ministers are the man and woman marrying one another. Therefore to attempt a same sex marriage is not simply “not following church teachings” it is rejecting church teachings and doing so formally and publicly. When a Catholic attempts a same sex marriage they are rejecting the Catholic teaching about the sacraments.

That Fr Martin does not admit this or teach this indicates either that he is very poorly educated (but he is a Jesuit so that can’t be the case) or he is deliberately misleading God’s people.

Attempting to marry a person of the same sex is not at the same level of commitment as a couple using birth control or IVF or someone committing fornication. All these sins are private sins and can be repented of. In a same sex marriage the person is not just “not following church teaching.” They are rejecting church teaching.  They are saying by their words and actions, “Gay sex is not a sin. It is something to be celebrated. It is something God blesses. The Catholic Church is wrong and I am publicly, formally declaring that I reject the Catholic Church’s teaching.”

In other words it is not breaking the rules it is rejecting the rules and in rejecting the rules rejecting the authority that sets those rules.

This distinction is something any eighth grade confirmation student could understand.

James Martin: The argument is made that same-sex marriage is a “public” sin.” But there are many other examples of public acts well known among parish communities. Is Communion denied to someone who is cruel or abusive to a spouse, who doesn’t forgive coworkers, who holds a grudge for years?

DL: Does Fr Martin hold the common view that a wedding is simply a lovely ceremony in which two people celebrate their love? This is the typical secular, sentimentalized understanding of weddings. It’s a lovely time to have a party and celebrate the love of the happy couple.  Yes, maybe, but not for Catholics. For Catholics a wedding is the start of a marriage and it is far, for more than that. The Catholic understanding of marriage is interwoven with the union between Christ and his church, and it is therefore a sacrament and of vital importance to the faith.

A same sex marriage is not only a public sin denial of the Catholic faith. It is also a formal sin. In other words, it has a legal component and a contractual, formal component. It is deliberate, premeditated and done with full knowledge and consent. A same sex marriage is also, by its nature, irremediable. In other words, the intention of the person contracting a same sex marriage is that this position they are taking is for life. That’s what marriage IS–a commitment for life. The equivalent with holding a grudge, not forgiving co workers or being abusive to a spouse would be for the cruel, abusive person to hire a lawyer and a public meeting room, invite his friends and family, sign a contract and take a public oath that he believes beating his wife is a good thing and holding a grudge against co workers is a noble and worthy action and that he solemnly vows to abuse his wife and hold grudges and seek revenge for all the rest of his days.

James Martin: Moreover, why is it only a “public” act that bars someone from receiving Communion? If pastors chose to, they could easily ask married couples if they are using birth control, or ask young people if they are engaging in pre-marital sex. Of course, they choose not to.

DL: See above. The equivalent would be for the married couple using birth control or the young couple fornicating to hire a public space, sign a contract and declare to all that they believe contraception and fornication to be wonderful, blessings from God and that they are from henceforth always and everywhere committed to contraception and fornication. Come now. Let’s not be absurd.

Once again, Fr Martin is either stupid or badly educated (and we know this is not true because he is an exceedingly clever and well educated person) or he is deliberately obfuscating the truth, distorting the Catholic faith and misleading people.

James Martin: The answer is often: “Of course. Because it would be unethical to investigate and pry.” Yet in many of LGBT cases, the news of the person’s marriage comes from scouring Facebook pages, from someone else reporting them, or from a priest grilling friends and family members.

DL: Why would the gay person wish to be married unless they also wished for their choice to be publicly known and celebrated? Do Catholic priests have the time and inclination to spy on people? Really? I’ve never heard of such a thing. On the contrary most Catholic priests do everything they can to avoid conflicts like the one Fr Nolan found himself in. Do people tattle tale? But surely a Catholic who attempts a same sex marriage knows they are going against church teaching. Why should they be surprised or upset when fellow Catholics are scandalized and Catholic priests and bishops affirm what the same sex couple already knew was true?

The priest is engaged on a witch hunt against the poor LGBTQ victims? I doubt it. On the other hand, perhaps the priest’s hand is forced because the LGBT person and their fellow activists have thrown their behaviors into the face of the Catholic clergy challenging them in an aggressive manner, threatening their positions and pushing to have them removed– as is the case with Judge Smolenski who, it is reported, turned up at St Stephen’s Church with a group of fellow activists wearing rainbow badges and that was what prompted Fr Nolan to ask her to desist. [My emphasis. RC]

James Martin: Overall, the only area that seems to matter in these cases is sexual morality, and the only sexual morality that seems to matter is that of the LGBT person. It is a clear targeting of a specific group of people on a specific question of morality.

 DL: Nonsense. 

My Conclusion

What appears too have happened is that Judge Smolenski stopped attending St. Stephens “last spring [2019] for fear that she would be denied the Eucharist,” as other parishioners apparently had. She attended Mass on November 17, and received the Eucharist, but Father Nolan subsequently “called her to demand that she ‘respect the church’ and not return for the sacrament in the future.” She then went to the media and complained about the priest's action also telling the local news station that she had devoted her life to the Church and recently given a $7,000 gift to the parish. She had previously attempted to not only smear Fr Nolan as a bigot, but tried to get him removed as chaplain of the Catholic Lawyers Association of Western Michigan. And this is the lady whom Fr James Martin believes was unfairly singled out!

Let's try to look at this through the other end of the telescope. From the foundation of the Irish State until the 1970s "the [Protestant] minority was strongly over-represented in the higher echelons of all business activities, including agriculture". [1] In 1932 Dublin hosted the 31st International Eucharistic Congress "in a city decorated with bunting, banners, garlands, floral arrangements, shrines and various other forms of religious decoration. The main pontifical High Mass on 26 June was attended by an estimated one million people".[2] During the Congress Catholic-owned businesses were keen to advertise the fact of their ownership in order to attract customers by distinguishing themselves from their Protestant competitors. But suppose things had gone further than that. Suppose Catholics had deliberately targeted a printing company owned by a Protestant and demanded that he publish Congress material - knowing that this man didn't want to do so. Suppose that the owner played a prominent role in the Irish Print Union and the "offended" Catholics demanded that he be removed for "intolerance". What would Fr Martin make of THAT situation?


Let's go further still. Suppose Irish law had required printing companies to accept any legal material for publication. Would this justify the behaviour of the "offended" ones? But Fr Nolan was under no obligation to give the Eucharist to Judge Smolenski. On the contrary,  he should have denied her Communion on 17th November but choose not to create a public scene - which is what SHE wanted and what she proceeded to do by denouncing him to the media. In the circumstances, I find Fr Martin's attitude to be incredible! 

[ Much of my own life has been bracketed by my experience of two Jesuits - Father Michael Sweetman in 1967 to Fr James Martin today. I never met the latter, but his unwillingness to stand up for fellow priests when targeted by the secular mob, is all too familiar. ]

[1] The Life and Death of Protestant Businesses in Independent Ireland , Frank Barry

[2] John Charles McQuaid 

Sex Scandals Rock the Catholic Church - and the Role of Pat Rabbitte

Pat Rabbitte Chair of Child Protection Agency Tusla

According to the website of  the Child and Family Agency Tusla 

 "Mr. Pat Rabbitte has served as a public representative for 30 years. He is a former Irish Labour Party politician who served as Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources from 2011 to 2014, Leader of the Labour Party from 2002 to 2007 and Minister for State for Commerce, Science and Technology from 1994 to 1997."

Tusla go on to expand on Mr Rabbitte's career in more detail and mention that he "was appointed Chairperson of Tusla by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Dr Katherine Zappone". Dr Zappone was a member of the Irish Human Rights Commission in 2004 when they declined to investigate the journalists and broadcasters who were making false allegations of child murder against the Christian Brothers. (This is the subject of my article "Blood Libel in Ireland...") Tusla do not however mention Pat Rabbitte's role in the fall of the coalition Government headed by Albert Reynolds in 1994, following a grotesque allegation made by Rabbitte in Dail Eireann that targeted Cardinal Cahal Daly and Attorney General Harry Whelehan as authors of a non-existent conspiracy to protect a paedophile priest.

As Minister for Communications in 2014, Pat Rabbitte reacted to RTE's libeling of John Waters and other members of the Iona Institute as follows :

Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte is to relax the rules that require broadcasters to ensure nothing can be aired that can be regarded as “reasonably” causing offence.The move by Mr Rabbitte comes amid the continuing controversy over damages paid by RTÉ to six people including members of the Iona Institute and columnist John Waters.The payment of about €85,000 followed an interview on RTÉ’s The Saturday Night Show with performer Rory O’Neill, otherwise known as drag queen Panti Bliss, who accused certain named individuals of homophobia. 

While Mr Rabbitte said the defamation laws are outside his remit, he told the Dáil he intends to relax certain aspects of the Broadcasting Act.

Quoted in Irish Times article ‘I’ve been beaten, spat at, chased, harassed and mocked’ subheading Gay TDs tell Dáil of treatment as Rabbitte says broadcasting rules to be relaxed

So the then Government Minister's reaction to a successful libel action against the State Broadcasting Company was to try to make it more difficult to sue RTE in future. If RTE had libeled the above-mentioned Gay TD - Fine Gael's Jerry Buttimer - Pat Rabbitte's reaction would have been very different. It fact it would have been the opposite! 

The following discussion includes the views of the late UK cultural historian Richard Webster on Pat Rabbitte and his conspiracy theory concerning Cardinal Daly and Harry Whelehan. See Comment number 11.***  No Irish historian seems to have gone into that amount of detail concerning Rabbitte's antics - which is surprising because Webster didn't write that much about the affair!

*** It should have been number 1 but  the Moderators originally declined it. I was perhaps lucky that another person made a thuggish comment about the Church that was published and may have opened the door for me!

Rory Connor
9 June 2020

At the end of December 2009, BBC journalist and broadcaster William Crawley did a round up in his Blog of the Top Ten Religion Stories of the Year , the first of which was Sex scandals rock the Catholic church. He wrote:  

This was the most difficult year for the Irish Catholic Church for as long as anyone can remember. In May, the Ryan Report made headline news across the world when it revealed that rape and sexual molestation were "endemic" in schools and orphanages run by the Irish church over seven decades. Two months earlier, Bishop John Magee was forced to "stand aside" from the management of his Cloyne diocese, in county Cork, after an investigation, published the previous December, found that his diocese had put children at risk by failing to follow child protection guidelines.

Things got considerably worse for the church with the publication, in November, of the Murphy Report into the sexual abuse scandal in the archdiocese of Dublin. Judge Yvonne Murphy chronicled an organised cover-up of child abuse allegations in the diocese spanning a period of nearly four decades. In the wake of the report's publication, there were unprecedented calls for the Pope's diplomatic representative, the Papal Nuncio, to be expelled from Ireland, after it emerged that he failed to correspond directly with the Commission of Investigation. Four bishops named in the report resigned, many said belatedly. A fifth bishop, Martin Drennan of Galway, has so far resisted the growing clamour for him to also step down.

The archbishops of Armagh and Dublin visited Pope Benedict, who expressed his sense of shame and outrage at what was exposed in the report, and Ireland was promised an historic pastoral letter from the pontiff setting out in detail how the church proposed to deal with the crisis. At the end of the year, commentators were predicting the greatest organisational shake-up of the Irish Catholic church for centuries. 

COMMENTS: This is a selection from the 21 Comments the story attracted. I am Kilbarry1

Comment number 1. At 12:06 1st Jan 2009, Kilbarry1 wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.   [See Comments number 10 and 11]

Comment number 3. At 22:35 1st Jan 2009, LucyQ wrote:
.........   The #1 Irish story of last year and in fact the past few hundred is the ongoing, systemic abuse of children by Roman Catholic clergy. I simply cannot fathom how it is that anyone can so easily believe that gods, leprechauns, life after death or any aspects of magical enchantment that is the bases of religious belief is true other than in literary fiction. Any pope, priest or other clergy that claims to specific evidence of any of the above is lying. Reasonable, intelligent adults surely know better than to be emotionally bullied by such silly talk any longer.

Today is the day that the Irish Blasphemy Law comes into play. As if the cops don't have enough on their hands in dealing with serious crime now they have protect religious superstition from those who would shine the light of truth on the fantasies. Aren't people embarrassed by this? BTW it is impossible to blaspheme against something that doesn't exist.

Atheist Ireland Publishes 25 Blasphemous Quotes to counter the crazy new law.

Comment number 4. At 00:24 2nd Jan 2009, mccamleyc wrote:
Normally with petulant teenagers it's best to ignore them, but in Lucy's case I'll make an exception. Why do people who believe in nothing care so much what other people believe?

Except of course Lucy has her own little made up belief - "the ongoing, systemic abuse of children by Roman Catholic clergy", for which of course there is precisely no evidence.


Comment number 10. At 00:33 3rd Jan 2009, Kilbarry1 wrote:
There are now 9 comments. Mine was the first 2 days ago now but is still "referred to the moderators". In the meantime you published the patently ludicrous comment that there is "ongoing, systemic abuse of children by Roman Catholic clergy."

That is the kind of attitude dealt with by Richard Webster in "The Secret of Bryn Estyn: The Making of a Modern Witch-Hunt" which was shortlisted for the Orwell Prize in 2005. It is the kind of hysteria that enables people to conjure up child abuse conspiracies - and even use them to bring down a Government, as happened in Ireland in 1994.

Since the late Cardinal Daly figured in that conspiracy theory, this is a good time to consider how it could have happened.

Comment number 11. At 00:45 3rd Jan 2009, Kilbarry1 wrote:
Perhaps my original comment (no 1 above) was simply overlooked? If so here it is again:

The life and death of Cardinal Cahal Daly provide a link between your first and last stories of the year. In his article on child abuse panics "States of Fear, the Redress Board and Ireland's Folly" UK cultural historian Richard Webster also recognised the importance of the Cardinal's story. The following is an extract:

Another country which has developed a particularly intense and dangerous crusade against child abuse is the Republic of Ireland. Here, as in almost every modern instance, the collective fantasy which has been progressively developed has a core of reality. The beginnings of the story go back to 1994 when the authorities in Northern Ireland sought the extradition from the Republic of Father Brendan Smyth, a Catholic priest who was facing a number of counts of child sexual abuse to which he would eventually plead guilty. It would appear that he had previously been protected against allegations by his own Norbertine order, which had moved him from parish to parish as complaints arose, and failed to alert the police.

Perhaps because of the age of the allegations, which went back twenty years, there was a delay of several months during which the Irish attorney general took no action in relation to the extradition request. Unfounded reports began to circulate in Dublin that the process was being deliberately delayed in response to a request made at the highest level by the Catholic Church. An Irish opposition deputy, Pat Rabbitte, then referred in parliament to the possible existence of a document that would ‘rock the foundations of this society to its very roots’. He apparently had in mind the rumoured existence of a letter written by the Primate of All Ireland, Cardinal Cathal Daly, to the attorney general in Dublin. In this letter the Cardinal had supposedly interceded on behalf of Father Brendan Smyth and requested the delay in his extradition which had in fact taken place.

No evidence has been produced that any such letter ever existed. Yet, as a direct result of the rumours which now swept the country, confidence in the ruling establishment was undermined and the Fianna Fail government of Albert Reynolds fell, amidst talk of a dark conspiracy involving politicians, members of Opus Dei, the Knights of Columbus and others. This conspiracy was allegedly seeking to cover up the activities of paedophile priests.

Webster's essay is taken from his book "The Secret of Bryn Estyn" about a child abuse witch-hunt in North Wales in the 1990s. This was directed at LAY child care workers not religious. However Webster - who is probably an atheist - sees the connection with the anti-clerical hysteria that has torn this country apart since 1994 and of which the late Cardinal Daly was one of the first victims.

(Actually the consequences for Albert Reynolds and the then Attorney General Harry Whelehan were worse. In general the fact that someone could use false claims of a child abuse conspiracy to bring down a Government, set a ghastly precedent for our society).

Comment number 12. At 01:33 3rd Jan 2009, romejellybeen wrote:
LucyQ Please!!!

"The ongoing sytematic abuse of children by Roman Catholic clergy."

How dare you smear the good name of priests in this manner. You have absolutely no proof what so ever that the abuse is "ongoing." MCC and Kilbarry1 are absolutely correct to jump to the defence of poor, innocent clergy (in the exact same way that they didnt jump to the defence of victims of that abuse. In the same way that they didnt want fair play and a fair hearing for the abused.)
Please correct your statement to, "The ongoing systematic COVER UP of the abuse of children by Roman Catholic clergy."

You have absolutely no way of providing proof that sexual abuse by clergy is either 'ongoing' or 'systematic.' No one has.

However, the cover up by the Bishops and the Vatican is much easier to prove. You'll find plenty if you just google any combination of - abuse, Vatican, cover up. MCC and Kilbarry1's moral indignation may then be tempered.

I know what was whispered at Deanery and Diocesan meetings over the gin and tonics 20 years ago, 10 years ago and five years ago. I know how many priests knew.... and, through fear, said nothing. I was there. [My emphasis - RC]

They do not need apologists or self perceived Knights in shining armour to jump to their defence. They need to confess to their people that they share the guilt, to admit that they were frightened and to ask forgiveness FROM THEIR PEOPLE.

Their people WILL forgive, and then the Church can begin to be healed.


Comment number 16. At 03:03 5th Jan 2010, Kilbarry1 wrote:
romejellybean wrote: I know what was whispered at Deanery and Diocesan meetings over the gin and tonics 20 years ago, 10 years ago and five years ago. I know how many priests knew.... and, through fear, said nothing. I was there.

I was there myself 40 years ago in a religious congregation of Brothers that ran industrial schools. (Diocesan priests would rarely be involved in that work.) It is true I was only there for 3 years and not involved in residential institutions. However I lived in a few different houses of the congregation, including one very large one, and I was with Brothers who had been teaching all their lives in every type of institution. I can assure you that I never heard such conversations.

I have been out of touch with my former colleagues for a very long time now but I understand that the situation is similar to that of the Christian Brothers i.e. practically every Brother who ever worked in a residential institution was accused of child abuse. In Artane allegations were made against about 75 Brothers. After a 3 year investigation involving 10 Gardai, ONE prosecution was approved and one Brother was eventually convicted of indecent assault. (See article in Irish Independent on 4 September 2003
Ten gardai, a three-year inquiry . . . but only one prosecution )

Assuming the proportions were similar in my own congregation, it is hardly surprising that we did not whisper the stories over our gin and tonics, or even Guinness.

Comment number 17. At 09:29 5th Jan 2010, graham veale wrote:
I think it's important to remember that abusers wouldn't be uniformly distributed across the Church. That's like saying 3 in 100 people have Swine Flu, then assuming that there are 9 pupils in my School with Swine Flu as it has 300 pupils. Some groups of 100 will have more than the average, some less.

So Kilbarry and RJB's experiences are both noteworthy. But neither can extrapolate out to the whole Church from their own experience.

(It's also worth considering that abusers would be drawn to, and survive in, areas were their risks were low. That may mean that we are more likely to find them in certain diocese compared to others.)

Comment number 18. At 01:03 6th Jan 2010, mccamleyc wrote:
I only ever heard rumours about one priest and that was about a month before it became public and obviously the complainant was in legal discussions at that stage. Perhaps there were loads of people who knew about these things but the great majority of priests I know weren't aware of them. And RJB I'm not saying you are a liar before you conclude that - I'm just agreeing with Graham that it wasn't my experience.

As for "they didnt want fair play and a fair hearing for the abused" - you have no basis for that statement. If the abused had simply got "fair play and a fair hearing" then we wouldn't have heard about most them because the normal judicial process would have excluded the vast majority of these cases. The normal fair approach is you go to the police with your complaint, they investigate, assess the evidence, present to the DPP who decides whether to bring a prosecution. The great majority of victims whether in the Ryan Report, Ferns or Murphy would never have had a day in court. If the Church had simply dug in its heels and stuck with the sue me approach most of these victims would never have been heard.

Appendix 1

Author, journalist and somewhat unconventional feminist Victoria White wrote about Pat Rabbitte's antics - and their long-term consequences - in the Irish Examiner on 25 April 2013. This is an extract from her article Labour is Paying the Price for Unrealistic Coalition Expectations [emphasis is mine]

It was Nov 16, 1994, and I was so excited that I made an excuse to get off work and cycled home to watch telly. There was a motion of “no confidence” in Fianna Fáil Taoiseach Albert Reynolds amid controversy relating to his appointment of Harry Whelehan as President of the High Court.

There was an allegation that Whelehan had delayed the extradition of Fr Brendan Smyth to the North to face child sex abuse charges. In fact Whelehan had never been made aware of the case. It was further alleged that Cardinal Cathal Daly had put pressure on Whelehan to delay the extradition. Pat Rabbitte, then of Democratic Left, suggested in the Dáil that there could be a letter to this effect in the Attorney General’s office which would “rock the foundations of this society.”

No such letter has ever been found. We are talking George W Bush looking under the desk for the weapons of mass destruction here. But I didn’t really care if the allegation was true or not. It felt true. The Left was doing battle with a nasty conspiracy between Fianna Fáil and the Catholic Church, as far as I was concerned.

Wasn’t Whelehan as attorney general responsible for seeking the extradition of Ms X when she travelled to the UK for an abortion? Matter a damn that it was his job to defend the Constitution on which we, the people, had voted. He should have ignored the Constitution, that’s what he should have done, but word was out he was a practising Catholic.

I’ll never forget the speech Labour leader and Tánaiste Dick Spring gave that day. Well actually, I remember nothing about it except its oratorical structure, the build-up to the sudden explosion when he said his party was withdrawing from Government. It helped that Spring was tall and handsome. I was quite sick with excitement and I remember friends calling over so we could crow over it together.

I never stopped to think about the progressive Programme for Government which Labour had put together with Fianna Fáil: the establishment of the Department of Equality and Law Reform, of the Department of Arts and Culture, provision for decriminalising male homosexual acts, provision for a referendum on divorce. I only cared about the optics. Did the Labour leadership feel the same? They’d just had a bruising bye-election result and one of their candidates had lost to then-Democratic Left member, Kathleen Lynch. Were they looking for an out? Albert Reynolds mishandled the situation badly. But what was the point of Labour throwing the whole government down the swanney? Alright they entered a Rainbow Coalition with Fine Gael and DL, but their Spring Tide went right out in the election of 1997...........

 I neither understand nor accept Labour’s refusal to discuss Coalition with FF since Spring’s dramatic departure in 1994. I put it down to the fact that their vote is in the middle class just like Fine Gael’s. But a politician friend suggested it was because FF and Labour have so much in common that Labour would lose its identity in coalition with them. THESE are selfish reasons. What we need in politics now, and have needed since 1994, are courage and generosity.....

What the Labour Party is likely to get in the NEXT election is a Sinn Fein government with the Antifa thugs who attacked us as their street-fighters AND Labour (possibly) as a junior partner!

 Appendix 2

This is based on on an article on my old website (not Blog) entitled The Fall of the Government of Albert Reynolds (1994)  AND on Shane Coleman's book "Foot in Mouth" published in September 2006.

Historians have practically ignored the role of Pat Rabbitte in the fall of the Fianna Fail-Labour Coalition Government led by Albert Reynolds in November 1994. Yet it was the first time in the history of the State that a Government fell because of mindless hysteria. It was also the first Government to fall as a result of religious bigotry - involving a false claim that the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland had conspired with a Catholic Attorney General to block the extradition of a paedophile priest. Is this why historians don't like to deal with the issue?

Oddly enough you can get more useful information from journalistic fluff like Gene Kerrigan's satirical opus "This Great little Nation" (1999) and lately Shane Coleman's book on famous Irish political gaffes "Foot in Mouth" (Sept. 2006). It's not that these gentlemen are sticking their necks out and risking the wrath of their liberal colleagues. The books are aimed at the mass market of people who like silly stories. This defuses the effect of the scandals related but it also gets around the ideological blinkers worn by more "serious" writers.

The following is from the chapter in Coleman's book entitled ROCKING THE FOUNDATIONS - PAT RABBITTE

"It was the 16 November 1994 and the Dail [Parliament] was experiencing one of its most dramatic days since the Arms Trial almost a quarter of a century before. The Fianna Fail-Labour Government had been under strain for some weeks over Taoiseach [Prime Minister] Albert Reynolds move to appoint his Attorney General (AG) Harry Whelehan as President of the High Court, despite opposition from Labour. Now the Government was on the verge of collapse over the handling of the Father Brendan Smyth extradition case. there had been a delay of seven months in processing the extradition warrant in the office of the AG. Wild and unsubstantiated rumours swept through Leinster House as to the reasons behind that long delay. One of the unfounded rumours was that the AG's office had received a letter from a senior figure in the Catholic Church which contributed to the delay in the Smyth case.

THE GAFFE

"Pat Rabbitte, then a member of the Democratic Left Party, got up to speak in the Dail during a procedural discussion on the Order of Business. He asked: "Will the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste [Deputy PM] say if. in respect of the recent discovery of documents in the Attorney General's office, there is another document that ought to be before this house that will rock the foundations of this society to its very roots?" Rabbitte added: "If there is such a document its contents should be before this House before Deputy [John] Bruton moves his motion [of no confidence in the government] and we should know now whether the Labour Party has rowed in behind the Taoiseach following the discovery of this document".

THE IMPACT

"The effect on what was already a highly charged atmosphere was sensational. Rabbitte's dramatic use of vocabulary and the suggestion that the very foundations of society would be rocked, suggested scandal at an unprecedented level.

"Rabbitte's party leader Proinsias de Rossa also waded in. "It seems that we are dealing with one of the most sleazy events in Irish parliamentary history. Is it true that a memorandum has been found in the Attorney General's Office which indicates that there was outside interference in the decision by the Attorney General not to proceed with extradition for seven months?

The problem for Rabbitte and Democratic Left was that it quickly became apparent that there was no evidence that any such letter or document existed or had ever existed.

In his immediate response to Rabbitte in the Dail, Taoiseach Albert Reynolds said his efforts to get to the root of complaints about "documents that are supposed to exist in the Attorney General's office" had drawn a blank. " I understand that one of the stories doing the rounds - this is what I was told when I made inquiries- is that there is supposed to be in existence a certain letter which cannot be traced. I requested my office to contact Deputy Rabbitte to see if he could assist us in accelerating our inquiries and he was not in a position to give us much help......All the staff in the Attorney General's office available in the country have been interviewed about this matter and each and every one of them have said that they have no knowledge whatsoever in this regard...No member of the staff who have been interviewed can assist in this regard. They say they have no knowledge of any such letter."

"Such was the level of speculation sweeping Leinster House that day, that the Catholic Primate, Cardinal Daly, was moved to dismiss as "utterly absurd, untrue and a total fabrication" the rumours that he had made representations to the AGs office on behalf of Fr Smyth. "I can't speak for everyone but I am quite certain that nothing is known to me about any approach whatsoever to anyone connected with this case", he said adding: "It is incomprehensible to me how anyone could have invented such a story".

"The strength of Cardinal Daly's comments left little room for doubt and history has shown them to be entirely accurate....."

Shane Coleman goes on to describe the collapse of the Reynold's government  and concludes his article as follows:

"While Rabbitte unquestionably gaffed by going over the top in his comments, it did nothing to stop his rise in Irish politics. Within five years of his party merging with Labour, Rabbitte had become leader of the new party - his robust and colourful debating style [!!] was clearly a factor in his victory."

MY COMMENT in 2007:

This was the real beginning of the Child Abuse Witch-hunt in Ireland. It became clear, first that you could slander the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland with impunity and second that you could profit mightily from so doing. Pat Rabbitte has often claimed that the Catholic Church has not paid enough into the compensation scheme for "victims" of child abuse. For him nothing would be enough. He has helped to create a Compensation Culture that is fueled by a heady mixture of greed, anti-clerical bigotry and blind hatred. It is not only the Church that is suffering from this mania and it will long outlast Pat Rabbitte and his political ambitions.

And today 14 December 2020, I see no reason to change my views. After the next General Election we are likely to have a Government headed by Sinn Fein. The Labour Party may be junior partners in such a Government but they have gutted their integrity and are incapable of reining in their masters even if they want to.

Appendix 3 The Dismissal of Matt Russell

(from article on my old website  Pat Rabbitte and 'The Passion of Nora Wall' )

Matt Russell was the senior civil servant in the Attorney General's office who had the extradition warrants for Brendan Smyth on his desk for seven months. He later explained "I did not give it special priority because I did not identify it as a case which required that priority over other priority work". He told the Dail Committee on Legislation and Security: "In dealing with the volume of work priorities have to be applied.... I worked on the Smyth file at intervals when there was an opportunity to do so." He agreed that in retrospect his judgement was wrong but he did not offer to resign. "I was not made aware of any reason that I should." Matt Russell stayed in place when Harry Whelehan resigned.

What did for Matt Russell was his failure to respond to two letters written by a solicitor on behalf of the victims of Brendan Smyth. The letters were received in November 1994 and January 1995. On the face of it they were ridiculous. They demanded compensation for the victims because of the suffering caused by the original extradition delay. In the light of the reigning hysteria Matt Russell should have taken them more seriously but he favoured the logical approach.

"Furthermore...many more actions are threatened are threatened by solicitors letters than are commenced, and in view of the tenuous nature of the claim I thought this might well occur in this case."

Matt Russell was perfectly logical and perfectly correct in his view of this claim. However such considerations are irrelevant in a witch-hunt and he was forced to tender his resignation to Taoiseach John Bruton on 29 May 1995.

In the Dial on 31 May John Bruton gloated over his success in removing Matt Russell. "Compulsory retirement, although legally provided for has never been successfully achieved. Whereas Mr. Russell was not prepared to go quietly or otherwise under the previous administration, my actions have resulted in his immediate retirement from the civil service. That speaks for itself."

It certainly did. John Bruton, a decent and honourable man, was boasting about the results of a process that caused the fall of a Government, the resignation of a High Court President and the forced retirement of a senior civil servant. Unprecedented events caused by hysteria alone........

Since some people may still be reluctant to attribute these events to hysteria it is useful to check on how the authorities in the UK viewed the issue. After all, they were the ones who wanted to extradite Father Brendan Smyth. If there was a conspiracy between Church and State in Ireland, then the judicial authorities in the UK were the target of said conspiracy.

The following are extracts from the House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 November 1994:

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General what representations his Department received from the Catholic Church in respect of Brendan Smyth; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: None.

..........

Opus Dei

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy in relation to employing members of Opus Dei in his Department.

The Attorney-General: There is no specific policy in relation to the secondment of Opus Dei members to my Department. The civil service does not discriminate on grounds of religion.

If it were not so politically incorrect, one might imagine the Whitehall mandarins being quietly amused at the antics of their ridiculous ex-colonial subjects.

"New caught sullen peoples, half devil and half child" indeed - should they ever have let us go?

CONCLUSION:

This is an extract from an essay on my old website "The Passion of Nora Wall"

Epilogue: Harry Whelehan and Nora Wall

These extraordinary events have received rather cursory treatment from historians of modern Ireland. In particular the role of Pat Rabbitte has been air-brushed from the story. However in his book "The Transformation of Ireland 1900-2000" Diarmaid Ferriter makes this significant comment:

"Some became angry when that when Harry Whelehan was questioned and denied the existence of a Catholic conspiracy within the Attorney-General's office, he felt the need to defend his right to be a practicing Catholic."

This issue had never before arisen in Irish politics. The first President of Ireland was a Protestant. During the de Valera era, Jews played a prominent role in Fianna Fail (whose founder Dev, had been a close friend of John Charles McQuaid when the latter was President of Blackrock College) and there had been Jewish Lord Mayors of Dublin and Cork. The disgusting attacks on Harry Whelehan indicated that religious hatred was making its opening debut in Irish public life. The fact that it took the form of anti-clericalism rather than anti-Semitism made it acceptable to many liberals.