Catholic Bishop: Obama Acting Like Hitler and Stalin

What happened to those homilies about the prodigal son and rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s? Parishioners were surprised with this Sunday’s homily by Peoria Bishop Daniel Jenky comparing President Barack Obama’s health care policies to policies of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin.

During the Sunday homily at St. Mary’s Cathedral Jenky noted that previous governments that “tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches . . . Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services and health care . . . In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda – now seems intent on following a similar path.”

Some have objected that the church should lose its tax exempt status over such advocacy. However, this is less political as hysterical. Churches are allowed to sermonize on public issues and condemn what they view as attacks on their faith.

What is more interesting is the response by Diocese Chancellor Patricia Gibson who insisted that Jenky had merely “offered historical context and comparisons as a means to prevent a repetition of historical attacks upon the Catholic Church and other religions.” A “repetition of historical attacks upon the Catholic Church”? That sounds like reaffirming this bizarre analogy. Gibson assured people, however, that “[w]e have currently not reached the same level of persecution. But Bishop Jenky would say that history teaches us to be cautious. … (He) is concerned that our government is truly treading on one of our most dear freedoms, which is religious freedom.” Well Jenky sure found his audience.

I would venture to suggest that there is a little distance between a squabble over health care and genocidal authoritarian regimes. But that is just me.

Source: Chicagoist

106 thoughts on “Catholic Bishop: Obama Acting Like Hitler and Stalin

  1. There maybe some distance at this time….. But at present we don’t have a chancellor….. Or do we…..

  2. “I would venture to suggest that there is a little distance between a squabble over health care and genocidal authoritarian regimes. But that is just me.”

    Only about a parsec and it’s not just you.


    Dear Bishop Jenky,

    Hyperbole works better when you don’t stretch it to the point of absurdity and/or incredulity.

    Your cooperation on these matters is greatly appreciated.

  3. Daily Beast

    18 Apr 2012 11:04 AM
    Hewitt Award Nominee

    “In the late 19th century, Bismark [sic] waged his “Kulturkamf,” [sic], a culture war against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany. Clemenceau, nicknamed “the priest eater,” tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century. Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care. In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path,” – Bishop Daniel Jenky.

    Words fail. It is not encouraging when a reference to nineteenth century Germany cannot get the spelling of Bismarck or Kulturkampf right. But this is the current hierarchy. They weren’t selected for their intelligence, which, after all, could be a liability. They were selected for their subservience to their superiors.

    And the good, if intellectually challenged, Bishop is comparing a deliberate policy of minority Catholic persecution in Germany in the nineteenth century, when thousands of Catholics were thrown in jail, with a tiny provision in the first universal healthcare law in America (a longstanding Catholic goal) that would include contraception in health insurance paid for by the insurance company. No woman would be forced to use it. And yet 98 percent of Catholic women still consult their consciences and do. The Vatican’s own commission on the subject came to the same conclusion as these Catholic women – only to be vetoed by one celibate man, Pope Paul VI. If this is a totalitarian attack on religious freedom, then I am a proud heterosexual.

    What it actually is is a dyspeptic eruption from an all-male “celibate” hierarchy about the loss of its power over its employees, Catholic and non-Catholic. And it is a terribly depressing sign that the Catholic hierarchy, like much of the evangelical leadership, is now in danger of becoming a front for one political party.
    Andrew Sullivan

  4. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church in America can use the word “celibate” without a blush of shame only because they define “sexual relations” as those which occur between a man and a woman. Those that occur between a Catholic priest and a boy, on the other hand, will remain undefined and therefore outside the realm of discussion.

  5. This guy? Come on, Blouise. His parent organization has apparently hired Don Draper & Co. to do their PR. (To be fair, I’ve never seen “MadMen”, I’ve just read it’s full of womanizing boozehound PR types.)

  6. When will the IRS revoke the tax exempt status of this arm of the Republican party? As to “religious leaders” the Catholic church hasn’t been religious for hundreds and hundreds of years. Christ would not be welcome in the Church. He would be branded a heretic– too much compassion for the sick the poor and the oppressed. The fact they the Church attacks Obama for trying to provide health care to the people is a badge of honor.

  7. I am done. I have had enough. I am no longer catholic. These last few years have been too unchristian for me.

  8. Well, he ought to know about Hitler:

    “There is general agreement that the Concordat increased substantially the prestige of Hitler’s regime around the world. As Cardinal Faulhaber put it in a sermon delivered in 1937: “At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad.”

  9. Now, I have it on good authority that both Hitler and Stalin occasionally shut down their concious mind so their bodies could “repair” themselves, and now the President of the United States is rumored to engage in the same act.


  10. In Vietnam, I used to wonder about the etymology of the GI expression, “Kill them all, and let Gawd sort it out.” Decades later, I heard of GIs in Iraq and Afghanistan using a somewhat modified version: “Kill them all and let Allah sort it out.” I found the answer in a book about the Christian Crusades of the twelfth through fourteenth centuries entitled Dungeon, Fire, and Sword, by John J, Robinson:.

    “A Roman Catholic knight had killed Peter of Castelnau, but that was not the way the murder was reported to the world. Innocent III blamed the Cathar heretics. In March of 1208 the pope issued a bull of anathema against the Cathars, condemning them all to death. At the same time he declared Peter of Castelnau to be a saint of the Catholic Church.

    “A call to Crusade went out, promising identical spiritual rewards for going to Southern France as previous Crusaders had been promised for going to the Holy Land.The bloody robe of St Peter of Castelnau was taken from one town to another to rouse the people to join in the war of extermination.

    “The murder of a Cistercian had been used to trigger the call to Crusade, and now Innocent III appointed another Cistercian as papal legate to lead it. He was Arnald-Amalric, the Cistercian general. Forty days was all the military service he required for any knight or commoner to earn the Crusader’s special place in heaven, although as it turned out it took years to accomplish the maniacal slaughter throughout such an extended area.

    “The Crusade began with the public confession and humiliation of the count of Toulouse, who swore to obey the Church in all things and pledged himself and his vassals to eliminating the Cathars. He took his knights from Toulouse to join the growing Crusader army at Montpellier.

    “Their first target was the walled city of Béziers, whose citizens, sympathetic to the gentle Cathars among them, would not open their gates. It was well known that the Cathars constituted only a small minority of the population of Béziers, and they looked exactly like their Catholic neighbors. How were the Crusaders to know which ones to kill? They put the question to Arnald-Amalric. The papal legate’s remarks rank as one of the most memorable quotations in military and religious history. ‘Kill them all,’ he said. ‘God will recognize his own.'”

    The hierarchy of the Catholic Church — in any country — has a lot of damn gall lecturing to anyone else about “the lessons of history,” especially those dealing with persecution of others for their religious or non-religious views. No religious institution in the history of the world has a longer or worse record when it comes to stamping out individual freedom of belief and conscience. As Galileo said to the pope who threatened him with unspeakable torture if the scientist did not publicly recant his observations: “You care nothing for the truth. You only care about your authority.”

    If Hitler and Stalin got their ideas about persecution from anywhere, they got them from the history of the Catholic Church.

  11. “A new “call to arms” by a heroic warrior-Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church to fight the Administration of Barack Obama and equating his war against Catholics to the repression of Nazi Adolf Hitler and Communist Joseph Stalin may sway enough Catholics and people of faith to defeat Barack Obama, remove Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader, and make the U.S. House of Representatives a strong bastion for religious liberty. (full text of the homily at the end of this article).

    This past Sunday’s homily at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Peoria, Illinois, while entitled “A Call to Catholic Men of Faith” is nonetheless a clarion call to all Christians and all men of faith, not just to come to the aid of fellow Christians under siege by the Administration of Barack Obama but to rise to the defense of religious liberty and indeed the very idea of a government constrained by the constitution and by the people.

    Ever since the February “edict” – which they call a mandate – that ordered the Catholic Church to provide for and to pay for what it calls “infanticide” services despite its clear teaching that such conduct is sinful and wrong, the Catholic Church has been attempting to defend religious liberty and its very existence in the United States.

    Now this text of Bishop Daniel R. Jenky is the clearest and most angry call to arms yet heard by any Catholic in America, and is clear and convincing enough I pray, that it will help cause a reversal of the Catholic vote that enabled Barack Obama to win the Presidency in 2008.” Red State

  12. I am becoming more ashamed that I raised my children to be catholic. Our family was mostly Jewish and for safe passage, my grandfather was forced to become a catholic.

  13. Let’s not all laugh ourselves silly, folks. What this bishop (and his obvious supporter) has done has been to follow a well-known path that DOES WORK and in fact DOES WORK ALMOST EVERY TIME to one degree or another. Check out the PROPAGANDA Exhibit at the Holocaust Museum in DC. You do not need to be logical, correct, honest, or anything else, to begin and nurture (and bring to murderous fruition) a “big lie” campaign that equates an unknown to a known evil. Most people in American have never read the Health Care bill and couldn’t understand how would work even if they did read it; furthermore, they have not read the insurance policies they have HAD and can’t understand THEM (and neither can most of the employees of those health insurance companies that use them!) either. The Bishop has, however, jumped over all the hurdles usually presented by FACTS and by debating FACTS. He has begun a trial by litany — which is always conducted INDEPENDENT of facts anyway. He has said, in language many if not most people understand: OBAMA IS HITLER IS STALIN, so OPPOSE HIM WITH YOUR LAST DROP OF BLOOD and you will go to Heaven, and otherwise, YOU WILL BE HURT.

    Sounds dumb? Only because you’re smart. Defies a real understanding of the facts? Irrelevant. Flies in the face of logic and common sense? Not an issue at all. What we have hear is another use of a nearly unbeatable formula. WHO HE IS = WHAT YOU HATE = BAD, GET RID OF IT.

    Stop laughing. The future is now.

  14. Elaine M — comparisons of people you support are not necessary. Child Sexual Abuse is the ultimate expression of patriarchal power. I heard a judge once say to two lawyers (neither of whom would confirm it officially for fear of this particular judge’s wrath):

    I f*ck you, you f*ck me, whoever f*cks last wins. That’s life.

  15. Blouise,

    If you say so. :mrgreen: I mean I’ve seriously avoided the program. I loathe advertising so why would I want to watch a show about it?

  16. “If the Obama administration was already on bad terms with abortion opponents, it’s not going to improve relations by hiring Planned Parenthood’s former spokesman for a job at the Department of Health and Human Services.

    Tait Sye, Planned Parenthood’s former media director, has joined HHS as deputy assistant secretary for public affairs, HHS made public Friday. He’ll have the public health portfolio — an area where you can be pretty sure abortion and contraception issues will come up.

    Sye, who led the family planning organization’s press shop for four and a half years, left the organization last week to move to HHS. He will have responsibility for communications involving the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    As Planned Parenthood’s spokesman, Sye was involved in the organization’s defense of HHS’s rule requiring that contraception be covered by most employers’ insurance policies.

    Sye’s appointment was greeted with outrage by anti-abortion groups that have lobbied aggressively to cut off federal dollars to his former employer.”

    Read more:

  17. Gene H and Blouise, Madmen is my favorite show that is currently on TV. My son was just telling me how good “Game of Thrones” is. He sat next to one of the “Madmen” stars on the subway in Brooklyn last week.

  18. it is time to revoke the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status. I am damned tired of having to pay more property taxes to pay for services they get for free off of MY money. I am also damned tired of having the GOP get tax credit for charitable contributions for their political party.

  19. SwM,

    I used to watch Madmen but lost interest for some reason. I also highly recommend Game of Thrones. Gene recommended it to me so I spent last weekend catching up on season one and then moved on to season 2 which is currently running. (There’s a lot of soft porn but it works well in the presentation so isn’t at all gratuitous.)

  20. Wow, look at Mon Senior Jabba. Looks like they’re not just raping kids any more, now they’re eating them too. Gluttony is clearly not a sin any more.

  21. Not just the church, those who have forgotten the past don;t have a clue as to why they are wrong (as post and this link)

  22. I thought they were supposed to take an oath of poverty. The Bishop does not look poverty striken to me. He never missed a meal in his life. In fact, he looks like he gets double helpings at every meal and snacks in between.

    I am sure he relates well to the laity who do well to have one meal a day–about like the Mittster relates to the working poor who he says he does not care about.

  23. seamus,

    Salted or unsalted? Personally I think they need a dash, but a man of the Monsignor’s stature should probably stick to low-sodium children.

  24. OS, He probably did not have to take a vow of poverty. Priests that are members of orders like Franciscans do but not usually those who work for the diocese.

  25. Just looked at the initials by his name, and he is a member of the Holy Cross order. Don’t know if they take vows of poverty.

  26. Do you know what the Hatch Act is? Federal employees who express political views at work are subject to termination. Is that a violation of your First Amendment rights? Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

  27. MJ, not sure to what you are referring. The Hatch Act applies to civil service government employees. In no way does it apply to private organizations such as a church.

  28. Jump the shark there much Bishop? Wow, do we really want to do the Nazi comparison and still expect to be taken seriously?

  29. OS,

    I know that the Hatch Act doesn’t apply to private organizations such as a church. But what about seperation of church and state?

  30. MJ,
    Any member of a church is able to make any kind of statement they want, no matter how idiotic. The Bishop is living proof of that.

    Separation of church and state refers to the fact the government is forbidden to either endorse or prohibit any religion or religious practice. If a church is tax exempt, they may not make political endorsements part of their official doctrine, but that does not keep individual members of the church from saying anything they want on any subject.

  31. OS,

    What is a political endorsement? If The Most Reverend is criticizing a current President on his policies, is that not endorsing his opponent?

  32. MJ, the crux is whether he is speaking as an individual or making an official policy statement for the church. The IRS has been fairly flexible in their interpretations, in an effort to stay out of the religion business. In the present instance, I think a good case can be made that the Bishop is being an idiot on his own without church help. I have no idea what his boss, a former Hitler Youth, thinks about all this.

  33. Mad Men: I watched a few shows and found them very well done but disconcerting. Found it to be too close to attitudes of the time. I lived through enough of the misogeny and outrageous double standards and I didn’t need to do it again, nor experience the emotional abuse of the behaviors. Won’t watch it again.

  34. OS,

    If the Governor gives a speech, is he only speaking for himself? And how about Hitler; he used to get off during his speeches. Do you know who Bartholomew was? He hanged the Governor. Then the British blasted him with grapeshot.

  35. OS,

    Each order decides whether they will take a vow of poverty or not….. I once knew a catholic priest that drove a mercedes……. And got a new one every 2 years…..

  36. Here is what it means to take a vow of poverty….. “Since many priests, brothers and sisters make the vow of poverty, why is it that many of them drive newer cars or even live in good homes?

    A. As is explained in Acts 4:32-5 above, the vow of poverty is not related to being poor, but rather to sharing everything in common. Those who embrace the vow of poverty do not claim private ownership of any possessions. Everything they have is used for the common good of the religious Order.

    By being free of owning private possessions, those who embrace a religious life are free to testisfy regarding the glorious Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    In view of the facts that the priests are expected to be on time to celebrate the Holy Mass or to administer the Last Rite to the sick, this sometime requiring that they travel a great distance, the religious Order that owns the vehicle(s), provides its priests with vehicles that are believed to be reliable to ensure continuity in their ministry of evangelization. The same can be said for the brothers or sisters who are required to teach at local schools or attend to other spiritual work as part of their callings.

    Equally, the religious Orders provide their members with proper housing to ensure that they will be able to evangelization effectively. In communities where it is cold, they have furnaces to warm up their houses. Also, it is acceptable to have a television in the common room so the members of the religious Order can watch the local and international news so they are aware of the world situation.

    While it is admirable to read of the Saints who had no television, no cars and who lived in poor houses that had no windows, at the same time, it must be recognized that in their days, there were no television or cards and the condition of their houses often met the standard of most houses where they lived. Many of them did not live in countries that had snow on the ground for months.”

  37. Matt, you seem to have a problem with different parts of the First Amendment. If the Governor gives a policy speech, he is speaking as an elected offficial. If he goes to a church and makes personal remarks–what my Baptist friends call ‘witnessing’–he is speaking for himself. If a minister speaks for or against a given candidate from the pulpit; that is, telling the congregation how to vote, they are gettig close to the edge for a tax exempt organization. What the preacher says in a press conference or an informal conversation in his office, is personal.

  38. AY,

    Since when does a Catholic priest need a Mercedes? They need transportation, but perhaps a Chevrolet Impala would do.

  39. If one’s relatives buy the car, pay the insurance, and provide the credit card used for gas and repairs, then the priest, who is the only allowed to drive the car, can appear to be following his vows and he drives to the Country Club to play golf with his parishioners. Golf is usually followed by drinks in the bar and dinner which, of course, is always paid for by someone other than our vow of poverty priest.

    Bless me father.

  40. Blouise, They usually assign the priest to the parish that suits him. If he is a money man, he is assigned to wealthy parish. Most parishes are not wealthy. Many are very poor. In texas we have mission parishes.

  41. SwM,

    (I posted this but got it on the wrong thread … it was meant to follow my criticism of certain priests.)

    That being said. I have known some truly dedicated priests who follow their vows and tend their flock with devotion.

    I have worked with both types and prefer the latter.

  42. MJ,

    God knows.

    (One can take that two ways, as an exclamation of agreement or as an assurance of knowledge. In this case, both apply. ;) )

  43. Matt,

    It was family money….. It was not church property…he did not like the house provided by the church, so he had one built to his satisfaction….

  44. SwM,

    He’s one of the former and probably spends a great deal of time bending his elbow with those members of his congregation in agreement with his politics. He doesn’t look like he spends much time on the golf course.

  45. There are some orders that yours becomes the community…. In this case his was his to keep and do with as he pleased…..

  46. Blouise, He looks like he is invited out to dinner every night and in his spare time he imbibes in the communion wine.

  47. Any opinion coming from this giant pig of a man, a horrible sinner and glutton, can be dismissed out of hand. He has damaged his brain, his body and his morals with sin.

  48. AY,

    What do you think church consists of? It’s a social community. If you can’t manage that society, don’t go there.

  49. Arthur Randolph Erb bleated: “it is time to revoke the Catholic Church’s tax exempt status. I am damned tired of having to pay more property taxes to pay for services they get for free off of MY money. I am also damned tired of having the GOP get tax credit for charitable contributions for their political party.”

    Waaah… revoking the tax exempt status would actually be doing a church a favor, since that would remove control the gov’t had concerning the church. (What happened to separation of church and state – oh… that is only used inversely, by atheists)

    You’ll have to revoke the tax exempt status of all the leftwing liberal groups as well. I don’t want my tax money going toward leftwing liberal nutjob policies.

  50. The Catholic Church owns massive amounts of property which is tax exempt and forces the rest of us to take up the slack. I see BC is also ignorant as well since the so called left wing groups are scrupulous about their statements and policies, unlike the Church. If they cross the line of tax exempt rules they know damn well they will be shut down. The Catholic Church has NO such fear.

  51. No tax exempt status for anybody. And since when does the Vatican get to be considered an independent state? How about the Protestants? Do they get their own independent state?

  52. BC,

    Do you know what will happen to the Catholic Church when they lose their tax exempt status? Be careful what you wish for.

  53. Actually the reasoning behind not taxing churches is sound and based in the Free Exercise Clause. The surest way to have government influence religion is to allow taxation. However, when religious organizations start engaging in secular politics – endorsing candidates, lobbying, etc. – they are attempting to impose their religion upon others using the force of law just as the RCC is doing in this instance which is arguably in violation of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause regarding people of other creeds. If churches and religious organizations want to maintain their tax exempt status, I think that it is only fair that they not engage in politics and keep their influence in its rightful place: the pews of their own domain. When they engage in politics, their exemption should be lifted. Quid pro quo. Government keeps its hands of churches and churches keep their hands off government. If churches choose to ignore the Separation Doctrine to further their ecclesiastical agendas politically, then they should have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Separation of Church and State. That’s equitable.

    And that doesn’t even address the hubris of the organization in trying to manipulate the law via lobby while at the same time systematically aiding and abetting pedophiles escape justice.

    The arrogance of the RCC is simply astounding.

  54. Gene H.
    1, April 20, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    Salted or unsalted? Personally I think they need a dash, but a man of the Monsignor’s stature should probably stick to low-sodium children.
    likes them same as he likes his donuts

    cream filled

  55. Speaking of National Socialists — i.e., Nazis:

    “At first … both Hitler and Ley tried to assure the workers that their rights would be protected. Said Ley in his first proclamation: ‘Workers! Your institutions are sacred to us National Socialists. I myself am a poor peasant’s son and understand poverty … I know the exploitation of anonymous capitalism. Workers! I swear to you, we will not only keep everything that exists, we will build up the protection and the rights of the workers still further.’

    “Within three weeks the hollowness of another Nazi promise was exposed when Hitler decreed a law bringing and end to collective bargaining and providing that henceforth ‘labor trustees,’ appointed by him, would ‘regulate labor contracts,’ and maintain ‘labor peace.’ Since the decisions of the trustees were to be legally binding, the law, in effect, outlawed strikes. Ley promised ‘to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of a factory — that is, the employer. … only the employer can decide. Many employers have for years had to call for the ‘master of the house.’ Now they are once again to be the ‘master of the house.'” — William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

    This National Socialist kind of thing sounds more like the current crop of union-busting Republican governors — especially Walker of Wisconsin, Kasich of Ohio and Snyder of Michigan — than President Obama, a rather pathetic corporate tool who seems simply bewildered by the bitter resentments his many concessions to Republicans and their ideology predictably elicit from them.

  56. Kevin Phillips has written many books on the Republican party and its political prospects in America. In one of his latest, American Theocracy: the peril and politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st century he writes:

    “The excesses of fundamentalism, in turn, are American and Israeli, as well as the all-too-obvious depredations of radical Islam. The rapture, end-times, and Armageddon hucksters in the United States rank with any Shiite ayatollas, and the last two presidential elections mark the transformation of the GOP into the first religious party in U.S. history [emphasis added].”

    Sheldon Wolin adds, in America, Inc: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, that the “key components” of this new religious party are “corporate capital, the very rich, small business associations, large media organizations, evangelical Protestant leaders, and the Catholic hierarchy [emphasis added]. Models of organization tend to be corporate as well as military.”

    The Catholic hierarchy now unabashedly functions as an overt component of the first religious political party in American history. Its spokespersons loudly denounce America’s secular Constitution as, well, “secular” — a term of unspeakable evil to them. They need to crawl back into their caves and back under their rocks where they can fester and decay in the darkness they so dearly love. The political affairs of the nation do not concern them.

  57. As a non-Catholic, I found the Roman Catholic Church working way too hard to shove their doctrine/dogma down my throat all my life. I have been appalled at all the Republicans who have lost all sense of decency and good manners when they speak about our first African-American President. I am surprised that a church official would join the Republicans in this boorish behavior toward the President of the United States. I believe this official of the Catholic Church was totally out of line and should suffer some backlash as a result of his very bad manners–not to mention is lack of moral authority regarding the raping of young boys and covering it up.

  58. A morbidly obese guy who doesn’t need to worry about health insurance reeally should not be weighing-in (no pun intended) on health care reform.

  59. Well, the Bishop should be familiar with Hitler for the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Pius XII was complicit in supporting fascism in Europe be it Mussolini, Hitler or Pavelic of Croatia. Pope Pius XII was a racist and anti-Semitic of which were factors of the resultant NAZI and the Ustasa (Croatian) Holocausts killing millions of Europeans. After WWII, the Roman Catholic Church under Pope Pius XII direction was instrumental in establishing “Ratlines” from Italy and Spain for thousands of NAZI and Croatian War Criminals to escape to South America, funded in a large part by the American Roman Catholic Church. Notable War Criminals such as Franz Stangl, Adolf Eichmann, Josef Mengele, Eduard Roschmann and Walter Rauff escaped justice by use of the Roman Catholic Church ratlines to South America. There is the unanswered question of the stolen gold taken from the victims of the Holocausts and nations defeated by NAZI Germany, which the Vatican has yet to reveal. For example, there is clear evidence that the Yugoslavian gold stolen by the Croatian fascists was secreted to the Vatican bank.

  60. Pius XII was even worse than Mussolini since he complained to him about the fact that the Italian troops in Yugoslavia in the Italian zone would not turn Serbs over to the Ustashi for murder.

  61. Elaine M, I wrote a truly garbled response, didn’t I? I’m sorry. (Probably tired and trying to do multitasking thinking, when that just turned into double-speak.) I actually had to go back and re-read your and my comments to figure out what I had meant my-damn-self! So first, an apology. I sounded half-nuts in that comment I made, and it is well known that I am only one/third nuts most of the time.

    Your comment had been: I wonder to which historical figures Bishop Lenky would compare the priests who sexually abused children????

    And I just got mentally chaotic, in trying to answer. I’m putting my nose to the grindstone and my shoulder to the wheel now, to explain myself to you because you are, for me, one of the real intellectual authorities on the Turley blog.

    Here was my incoherent response (written after I had written a comment, then posted it, THEN read your comment about Lenky comparing the pedophile priests to historical figures):


    Elaine M — comparisons of people you support are not necessary.
    Child Sexual Abuse is the ultimate expression of patriarchal power.
    I heard a judge once say to two lawyers (neither of whom would
    confirm it officially for fear of this particular judge’s wrath):

    I f*ck you, you f*ck me, whoever f*cks last wins. That’s life.

    OK. “Comparisons of people you support are not necessary” meant:
    Lenky is not trying to compare the pedophile priests (whom he supports) to anyone because he doesn’t want to try to obliquely slander them. He will invariably come out saying that they never did any wrong and that their accusers and detractors are all horrible sinners who, for no good reason, are trying to destroy these wonderful men and their wonderful church. And blah blah blah blah blah ad nauseam.

    “Child sexual abuse is the ultimate expression of patriarchal power.”
    This one is worth a book in itself, not that either (a) I have the expertise, authority or opportunity to write or even edit that book or (b) that the idea is in any way my invention or my intellectual property. But it has long been my opinion that the reason there are so many cases of pedophile priests does not really relate to the fact that the Catholic Church requires celibacy of its priests (which I believe is a misconception brought about by the same silly idea that makes men who have molested their children argue that it is the fault of their wives for not providing sexual satisfaction for them). In my view, the reason you have more sexual abuse by priests (at least more being reported and coming to light) than elsewhere is that the Catholic Church provides an environment that is very much like the extremely patriarchal family, and in that kind of environment, the father or father-figure is entitled to what was often called “Droit du Seignor” — and perhaps I misspelled that, but it means, “The Master’s Privileges.” In other words, fathers, father figures, masters in the sense of master and servant, owners in the sense of owners and slaves, priests in the sense of authoritarian figures who CONTROL the dishing out of sin and punishment, etc. etc. etc., HAVE the privilege of taking what they will from their subordinates. Included in that are sexual services if the subordinates are THAT FAR BELOW THEM as, for instance, a slave to her master, a child to her father, an altar boy to his priest, a maid to her boss, and many permutations, many many permutations. I am willing to bet that the actual proportion of youngsters molested by their priests, within a controlled experimental evaluation, would not work out higher than the proportion of children molested by their older male relatives, within the nuclear or extended family. Just guessing. Don’t know how to do the research. Of course, the NIJ could do the research if it wanted to — who knows if they are even interested. NIMH could do the research if they wanted to — who knows, again. That is a world I know nothing about.

    But pedophile priests became vulnerable to the allegations a while back and then it became more and more possible to MAKE the allegations and families of children who had alleged such abuse began to come forward and support the allegations and slowly, the scene changed, and now, allegations against Catholic Priests — father figures in the most rigid and powerful community imaginable — are actually being held accountable. Is it possible that there are some accused who are not guilty? I think it could not be said to be impossible. Yet I had a remarkable experience once, and will narrate it here, although I fear I might have already (getting old). I was working on a case in Kentucky. A mother had stepped into custody court and made the unwelcome allegation that her ex-husband molested her four-year-old son. She lost custody in about two weeks, I think. On appeal, the judges affirmed but one judge wrote a very thorough and extremely forceful dissent, saying that the evidence used by the judge to buttress his decision that the mother was a liar and the father was innocent (and therefore that the mother did not deserve to keep her child and the father should have sole custody with only supervised visitation four hours once per month for mom) was without evidentiary support in the record. He wrote I think about a ten page dissent and footnoted it like a dissertation. I was wowed! It didn’t do a bit of good, of course, but he did it. I was then sending copies of the decision, with the dissent, to various legislators in Kentucky and asking them to introduce and pass a bill that said that if a parent made allegations of abuse about another parent within a custody dispute, the truth or falsity of the allegations themselves (proven either by clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, or not proven by either standard) could not IN AND OF ITSELF become the sole factual foundation for a custody decision, which had to be made using a “preponderance” standard. I sent the proposed draft of the bill to all the legislators on the judiciary committees of the two houses of the Kentucky legislature. No response, no action, OK, that’s life.

    About two, maybe three months later, I got a call from a Kentucky legislator who told me he was in DC for some kind of a conference and he saw my presentation to the legislators (he was not one of those to whom it had been addressed because he served on different committees at the time) and wanted to speak with me. I was thrilled because I thought he was going to back the bill somehow. He took me to lunch at a nice restaurant in downtown DC. I’d say the guy was in his early sixties at the time we met.

    He said he wanted to talk to me about child sexual abuse because he had never told anyone (no therapist, not his wife or family, never his parents while they lived, no priest, no colleague, no friend) about what had happened to him as a child, when he was an altar boy, and he was molested by a priest. I froze. I am not a therapist; I have no credentials for any professional job. He spoke. He spoke and spoke and spoke. We ordered more and more coffee. He spoke and spoke and spoke and spoke and spoke. I can’t remember what, if anything, I said. I think the conversation must have been about 3 hours; he did not stop speaking. His voice was a bit louder than a whisper. I believed every word that man said. It had invaded his entire life. It had devoured huge parts of his “life interest.” It had brought his very soul to the edge of the pit, because he was still a Roman Catholic, and he still believed in sin and redemption, and he had never “confessed” it and he had never been able to walk through the fire without feeling very Hell, for himself.

    I do remember asking him why he thought it would be OK to speak with me about it, and he said, “You wrote that paper for us to read about the little boy being molested, and I thought, ‘this little boy should not have told anyone,’ and then I began to think, ‘this little four-year-old is braver than me.’ So I came here to tell you.”

    He gave me details. I never give people who have been victimized any advice because I believe advice to a victim is an additional burden, for most of the time they can’t take the advice, and then feel like they deserved the victimization. But this time I gave the guy advice. I said, “Why don’t you just confess that you had angry thoughts toward a priest, and not say why you had those thoughts, and get your penance and perform your penance, and get forgive for THAT; wouldn’t that be enough?”

    The patriarchal power (which this guy was a part of, as a legislator) brings with it the trappings of power, and within those trappings are the assumptions of guiltlessness and righteousness that do not fall magically away simply because the powerful may victimize someone. They do not fall away even with the greatest effort. The first thing a victimized person faces when fighting back against more powerful victimizers is the demonization, the blaming, the punishment, the condemnation — this is the real force of the abusers, and it is wielded with astonishing regularity and extremism.

    Uhhhhh — so that explains my SECOND sentence. (You see that I was thinking in shorthand and writing as if you and I had already had years of conversations with each other and you would know exactly what I meant — how silly of me!)

    And then finally, that story I told about the judge giving his version of what happens in court and in life. That was a Judge of the New York Supreme Court, circa 1994 — he died a couple of years later, had a heart attack while on the treadmill at his home in Manhattan. Well this judge was describing what he thought the world was made of, at least what HIS world was made of. I quoted it to illustrate what my version was of “patriarchal power” in reference to its use by the Catholic Church. The Church uses its power as it sees fit, and it changes the “religion” to fit the seeing-fit of its use of power, and this has been its history since it was established. This particular judge was not Catholic, by the way; he was Jewish. But the Church, and priests like Lenky, and many many others, all operate within the system that is actually very much like what the Judge said here.

    Elaine M, I’m sorry this explanation was so long-winded, and I really regret writing such a little flip “burst of buckshot” reply to a pithy comment you had posted. Be well.

  62. Jeff,
    ‘A stretch’? How about ‘a psychotic episode,’ instead?

    I would be interested in reading your definition of ‘socialist.’
    Which of Obama’s policies make his ‘socialist leanings’ clear?


  63. Jeff,

    You should be happy with Obama. He’s the most centrist Republican President since Eisenhower although he’s not nearly as much of a centrist as Ike was. Or are you one of those people who get their history from Skousen and think Eisenhower was Communist agent?

  64. Jeff,
    Thanks for the link. I noted a misquote of Thomas Jefferson, and a very cogent remark about Thomas Jefferson’s opinion of the current Democratic Party, and the “current occupant” of the White House. An excerpt from my reply at the site:

    [Quoting the site]
    “Mostly Right thinks it is very safe to say that TJ would denounce the policies of the modern Democratic Party and handily condemn the current occupant at Pennsylvania Avenue.”

    Well, yes, TJ would. He was a big-time slave owner. As in owning a village of slaves. Up to 130 slaves at one time.

  65. Jeff,

    [More quoting from the site]
    ” I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

    Does your mother still take care of you?

  66. My husband and i were now fulfilled when Albert managed to deal with his analysis from your ideas he made out of your weblog. It is now and again perplexing to just find yourself freely giving tips other people could have been making money from. Therefore we keep in mind we have got the website owner to appreciate for that. All of the illustrations you’ve made, the straightforward web site navigation, the relationships you can assist to foster – it is most remarkable, and it’s really letting our son in addition to the family reason why this content is pleasurable, which is incredibly essential. Thank you for everything!

  67. I may be christain but I dont believe a word they are saying anymore and Im not following any of their rules anymore either. The past few years have been to much for me to handle. and then the bishop wonders why no one is going to church, or sending their kids to catholic schools.

Comments are closed.