Undercurrent Pt. 1

When Americans look back on the Fifties and Sixties, we view those two decades in different shades of rose tinted glasses: white roses for the Fifties; blood red roses for the Sixties and Seventies.

In the Fifties, Dwight Eisenhower was President and everybody said, "I Like Ike!" Rock and Roll was young and catchy. The cars had fins: some big, some small. We rightly feared the Russians, but went about our business and enjoyed the most healthy economy we had ever witnessed. Oh, and we just won WWII. Also, the Roman Catholic Church in America was still celebratring the Tridentine Mass and honoring the Holy Father, Pope Pius XII. But, underneath this sweet and idyllic venere flowed a river of treason and moral corruption. That river is called The Beatnik.

The Beatnik has a few estuaries, most notably The Hippy which branches off and flows right through the Sixties and Seventies. Humor aside, we view the Sixties and Seventies through the blood-red shades of Vietnam and the Counter-Culture. Michael J. Matt's "Gods of Wasteland" briefly addresses the Soviet program of menticide-"the lethal psychological process that leads to 'suicide of the mind." In it, Matt quotes Dr. David A. Noebel:

"...the Communist Conspiracy conducts a scientifically planned attack on the human mind on many levels with techniques adapted to the circumstances. It is true that methods vary in this field, but the object is the same-to create a sick mind." -(The Marxist Minstrels, American Christian College Press, 1974)

I do not need to contrast the decades of Rock with the decades of Jazz or the centuries of Classical as it is already very clear to the general public. But, the understanding of such a contrast differs between the older and younger generations: the older generations readily recognize the sickness of Rock while the younger generations dismiss such notions as manifestations of fear, ignorance, and intolerance. The younger generations are actually conned into believing that Rock is a sort of social vaccination against the visible evils of the world: maybe if I go to a Marilyn Manson concert and watch "MM" slice himself with a razor, maybe I won't have a problem watching a slasher movie anymore or; if I watch enough of 80's MTV, maybe watching some American Indian guy dressed like "Billy Jack" jumping off a cliff and flying like a bird in a Pink Floyd video will cure me of vertigo, then I could stand on my tippy-toes at the edge of Grand Canyon, paying no mind to the loose gravel there. I am not saying that this is what people think, but it is eventually what happens: people find themselves doing or saying things that they would not otherwise entertain. Ideas get distorted and egos become inflated. An excellent depiction of this can be found in the movie, "The Emperor's Club."

The Emperor's Club is about a prep-school teacher whose life becomes complicated when a new and disruptive pupil is introduced to his class. This student is the proto-typical revolutionary. When the teacher tries to instill morality and critical thinking in his students, this one pupil challenges him at every turn. One example is when the teacher has his students reading Julius Caesar aloud. The revolutionary reads the part of Brutus with complete disregard to the characters remorse of his killing of the Emperor, then proclaims that Brutus was a weakling and that Cassius -having no remorse- should have proclaimed himself Emperor. The teacher is totally taken aback by this student's complete willingness to embrace amoral absolutes.

The parts of this movie that explain the students ruthelessness -and his dishonesty during an academic contest- are his strained and distant realtionship with his father and the cache of porn magazines under his bed: true marks of the Cultural Revolution; the disconnected father who made his career in the Fifties and the son's anti-morality rebellion of the early Sixties.

Rock has always addressed and promoted these symptoms with mantra's like Don't trust anyone over thirty...especially since the one's over thirty are the ones who are responsible for the education of those under thirty. Ironically, those socialists who told youngin's back in the late Fifties and Sixties to not trust anyone over thirty are now themselves ancient...and way over thirty. So, given their Communist ideals and their standing orders, I am obliged to obey -in the spirit of our new Counter-Revolution- and not trust bearers of grey pony-tails on the fast track to retirement and dementia.

***

Fast forward to the Twenty-first Century where such social conservative icons as Rush Limbaugh use Rock music in their program intros. This past month, I ran across an article in National Review Online by John J. Miller titled, Rockin' the Right: The 50 greatest conservative rock songs. I almost fell out of my chair as read this unbelievable article. Here, I will address Mr. Miller's article and disect it. My comments will be italicized and marked THA2.

(Disclaimer: I like some of these songs, so you will see me agreeing with some of their premises.

However, keep in mind what the Rock lifestyle has done to these people.

That is my angle.)

***

Rockin' the Right: The 50 greatest conservative rock songs.

By John J. Miller

EDITOR’S NOTE: This week on NRO, we’ve been rolling out the first five and now all 50 songs from a list John J. Miller compiled that appears in the June 5 issue of National Review . Here’s a look at #1 and get the whole list—complete with purchasing links—here.

On first glance, rock ’n’ roll music isn’t very conservative. It doesn’t fare much better on second or third glance (or listen), either. Neil Young has a new song called “Let’s Impeach the President.” Last year, the Rolling Stones made news with “Sweet Neo Con,” another anti-Bush ditty. For conservatives who enjoy rock, it isn’t hard to agree with the opinion Johnny Cash expressed in “The One on the Right Is on the Left”: “Don’t go mixin’ politics with the folk songs of our land / Just work on harmony and diction / Play your banjo well / And if you have political convictions, keep them to yourself.” In other words: Shut up and sing.

But some rock songs really are conservative — and there are more of them than you might think. Last year, I asked readers of National Review Online to nominate conservative rock songs. Hundreds of suggestions poured in. I’ve sifted through them all, downloaded scores of mp3s, and puzzled over a lot of lyrics. What follows is a list of the 50 greatest conservative rock songs of all time, as determined by me and a few others. The result is of course arbitrary, though we did apply a handful of criteria.What makes a great conservative rock song? The lyrics must convey a conservative idea or sentiment, such as skepticism of government or support for traditional values. And, to be sure, it must be a great rock song. We’re biased in favor of songs that are already popular, but have tossed in a few little-known gems. In several cases, the musicians are outspoken liberals. Others are notorious libertines. For the purposes of this list, however, we don’t hold any of this against them. Finally, it would have been easy to include half a dozen songs by both the Kinks and Rush, but we’ve made an effort to cast a wide net. Who ever said diversity isn’t a conservative principle?

So here are NRO’s top 50 conservative rock songs of all time. Go ahead and quibble with the rankings, complain about what we put on, and send us outraged letters and e-mails about what we left off. In the end, though, we hope you’ll admit that it’s a pretty cool playlist for your iPod.

1. “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” by The Who. ; The conservative movement is full of disillusioned revolutionaries; this could be their theme song, an oath that swears off naïve idealism once and for all. “There’s nothing in the streets / Looks any different to me / And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye. . . . Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss.” The instantly recognizable synthesizer intro, Pete Townshend’s ringing guitar, Keith Moon’s pounding drums, and Roger Daltrey’s wailing vocals make this one of the most explosive rock anthems ever recorded — the best number by a big band, and a classic for conservatives.

THA2: Read these lyrics carefully! The Who are basically saying that there are no real differences between those in power. Example: Bill Clinton pushed for acceptance of homosexuality in the armed forces. The current Bush administration recently OK'd funding for NGO's supporting homo rights at theUN. As for Roger Daltry, this is the man who, many years ago on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno, jumped up on Lenos desk, stomped on it, and smashed it to pieces...with Leno still sitting behind it. Sorry Roger, you are not going to be my children's role model!

2. “Taxman,” by The Beatles. A George Harrison masterpiece with a famous guitar riff (which was actually played by Paul McCartney): “If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street / If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat / If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat / If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.” The song closes with a humorous jab at death taxes: “Now my advice for those who die / Declare the pennies on your eyes."

THA2: I have the Stevie Ray Vaughan version of this song. Admittedly, the lyrics strike a cord with me, as I assume it would with most Americans. Let us not forget, however, that George Harrison and Paul McCartney were members of The Beatles...the band John Lennon claimed was bigger than God, talked about a revolution, and told us to imagine a world without God.

3. “Sympathy for the Devil,” by The Rolling Stones. ; Don’t be misled by the title; this song is The Screwtape Letters of rock. The devil is a tempter who leans hard on moral relativism — he will try to make you think that “every cop is a criminal / And all the sinners saints.” What’s more, he is the sinister inspiration for the cruelties of Bolshevism: “I stuck around St. Petersburg / When I saw it was a time for a change / Killed the czar and his ministers / Anastasia screamed in vain."

THA2: I have only heard this song in passing and the notion of it being another Screwtape Letters is interesting, but given The Rolling Stones reported fascination with Allister Crowley and the image of Mick Jagger wearing a pentagram (which I have seen), I don't think The Rolling Candidates for the Geriatric Ward had the Christian intentions C.S. Lewis did when he wrote the real book, The Screwtape Letters.

4. “Sweet Home Alabama,” by Lynyrd Skynyrd. ; A tribute to the region of America that liberals love to loathe, taking a shot at Neil Young’s Canadian arrogance along the way: “A Southern man don’t need him around anyhow."

THA2: It is true that America definitely does not need a liberal Canadian socialist telling us what to do. Canada is the last place on Earth that should dictate to anyone on morality and civil freedoms. However, America does not need to be told by Lynyrd Skynyrd that Watergate is no less a crime than venial sins or petty theft. Watergate was a tremendous crime that rocked a nation to it's core because of the ensuing scandal and the breech of trust by the President. This is known as a mortal sin which saw little or no repentence from the parties involved. Still, I like the down-home feeling of Sweet Home Alabama.

5. “Wouldn’t It Be Nice,” by The Beach Boys. ; Pro-abstinence and pro-marriage: “Maybe if we think and wish and hope and pray it might come true / Baby then there wouldn’t be a single thing we couldn’t do / We could be married / And then we’d be happy."

THA2: I don't know a whole lot about The Beach Boys. They seem pretty harmless. But, then I guess that's what the Soviets wanted: introduce a cotton-candy kind of music that puts unrealistic expectations of marriage in the minds of young people so when those expectations are not met, there's always divorce. In comparison, Jazz -not without it's own sins- often tells a more honest tale of love and marriage. If you want to hear a great song about what a real family is like, listen to Nat King Cole's, "That Sunday, That Summer."

6. “Gloria,” by U2. ; Just because a rock song is about faith doesn’t mean that it’s conservative. But what about a rock song that’s about faith and whose chorus is in Latin? That’s beautifully reactionary: “Gloria / In te domine / Gloria / Exultate."

THA2: I have never heard this song, but I have a few reasons to avoid U2. Again, I love their music, but what I like does not matter compared to what is expected of me as Christian. Remember that U2 went through their cross-dressing period during "Achtung Baby." Also, in a recent interview, Bono spoke of a song called "Wild Irish Rose" which he wrote/re-wrote and how he was able to "wonderfully subvert" the Irish folk-style. For him, I am sure that it was an artistic expression. The trouble with U2 is that they borrow pretty directly from the Beatniks with Bono's very poetic bent. Then again, poetry has always been a huge part of Irish tradition. In their attitude towards society and the Papacy, I think there is more hope for U2 and it's members than any other Rock band out there. But, then again, we are most likely talking about a band of Pied Pipers. U2 may very well be menticide at it's deadliest.

LifeSite.com Interview with Cardinal George Pell of Australia Pt.1

This is part 1 of 3 in an interview with Australian Cardinal George Pell when he gave a commencemnet speech at Christendom College. This is from LifeSite.com.

Cardinal Pell on Sexual Abuse Scandal: "Obviously Connected with Problem of Homosexuality"
Homosexuality: "We've got to see that this is not tolerated amongst clergy and religious orders"


By John Jalsevac

FRONT ROYAL, VA, May 18, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Australia's Cardinal George Pell, was in Front Royal, Virginia over the weekend celebrating Mass and giving the Commencement address at Christendom College. LifeSiteNews.com interviewed the Australian Church leader at the college last Friday. LifeSiteNews.com will publish in three parts, the content of that interview beginning with today's instalment.

LifeSiteNews: Recently the church has seen corruption enter into its own walls in the form of the sex abuse scandals. What do you think the root of that problem has been, and how does it relate to the culture at large? Do you think that the culture at large has played a big factor in that, or is it just a separate problem in and of itself?

Cardinal Pell: "Human nature is always weak, but I do believe that the problem has been worsened considerably because of the moral confusion in society: the weakening of the faith, the absence of clear moral lines.

"As you know most of the abuse, at least in the English speaking world, that is most of the clerical abuse, is not in the strictest terms pedophilia, but what's called ephebophilia, and that is with young fellows as adolescents after puberty. And what is significantly different, which you would also probably be aware, is that 80% of the abuse is with young boys. So I mean it's obviously connected with the problem of homosexuality.

"I also think it's connected remotely with false views of conscience, where people come to think that all truth is relative, and that you can choose for yourself, especially when the pressure is on. It's not too difficult to deceive yourself morally. That's especially true in matters of sexuality. Of course now there's a very organized push to entice people into the world of active homosexuality.
"All these factors have impinged on the Church life, and made it more difficult. I think we've made very, very considerable strides in addressing the problem of pedophilia. But we've also got to be aware that we don't allow problems to develop with homosexuality just between adults within the church. We've got to see that this is not tolerated amongst clergy and religious orders."







-->
(c) Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call 1-866-787-9947 or (416) 204-1687 ext. 444Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/

Traditio in Radice: Traditio in Radice: One Year Old Today

Traditio in Radice: Traditio in Radice: One Year Old Today
A friend of Stephen Heiner's is friend of mine. Check it out.

You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry!

By Bart Hafford


Is it just me or is the media really trying to spin the supposed insigificance of protests against the Da Vinci Code? Is it just me or does nobody really give a damn about Our Lord anymore?The Liberal media would have us believe such a sad thing. But, rest assured, those of us who do believe in Our Lord and Our Lady strongly believe that the money made fromThe Da Vinci Code over the weekend is but glittering dust. On Judgment Day, Almighty God is not going to be concerned with how much money Ron Howard made, but that Catholics gave him money for blaspheming Our Lord. Has not anyone heard Pope Benefdict XVI, Cardinal Arinze, and Cardinal Amato all say to boycott, protest, and sue everything and everyone who has their hand in the making of The Da Vinci Code?

The Catholic organization known as TFP (Tradition, Family, Property) got the ball rolling when word got out that Sony was producing a film version of the Dan Brown novel, The Da Vinci Code. TFP's influence in the fight against the blasphemy has been the most influential. As of the other night, 1156 protests have been held all across America and Canada with many others held across the world.

Today, I went on the Free Republic and was astounded at what I found. An article was posted on Mel Gibson's condemnation of The Da Vinci Code. Now, keep in mind that Mel Gibson, as a Traditional Roman Catholic, voiced his disapproval of President Bush in another article, that Gibson saw an analogy between Bush and the story line of his new film, Apocalypto. The reaction to that article in people's responses left me wondering something: who do they think is going to be sitting on the Throne of Judgment, God or "W?" As a Catholic who happens to be American, I am not afraid to stand up for the President when he deserves it, nor am I afraid to condemn his policies that need condemning.

In retrospect, I wonder if some of the people posting on Free Republic were in fact liberals and satanists bent on turning Christians against eachother. That is, after all, the devil's MO. If that be the case, then Free Republic needs a few moderators. And, YES, I am angry...VERY ANGRY!!!

TrueRestoration.com

TrueRestoration.com

This is a very well written and intelligent blog for Traditional Roman Catholics!

TOMORROW, WE FIGHT!

Tomorrow, I lead a protest against the The Da Vinci Code movie. I have heard the news that this blasphemous film has already tanked at Cannes. I have read that Ron Howard is not too happy about this. This shows me that not only are God's Children protesting, but HEAVEN ITSELF IS PROTESTING!!! And to think that I was amazed, disappointed, and angry the the Bishop Gagnon of Victoria, Fr. Derek of St. Peters in Nanaimo, and the mall manager of Rutherford Mall in Nanaimo all said that they would not support or ALLOW the protest to take place. When Christ asks them why they did not defend His Divinity against Ron Howard, Dan Brown, Tom Hanks and their gang, I HOPE THEY HAVE A REALLY GOOD ANSWER!!! I am not passing judgment on their eternity, just on their Catholicism...and their turpitude...and their cowardice...and their hostility to Our Lord and Our Lady.

Okay, okay! Let me back up a bit. Bishop Gagnon's secretary said the Bishop did not want to incur anymore litigation by the United States (he's being sued by the Diocese of Seattle.) Fr. Derek of Nanaimo said he supports his bishop. Now, I don't fault Fr. Derek for his loyalty. Loyalty is a great quality. But, Fr. Derek, as a pastor, does NOT need permission from his bishop to lead a prayerful protest against a movie from Hollyweird. As for the nameless Rutherford Mall Manager, he claims that the The Passion of the Christ depicted, or referred to, Our Lord as a homosexual. Not true. I think the guy was confused and meant The Last Temptation of Christ. He ranted raved that nobody protested that film nor Fahrenheit 9/11. Well, perhaps they did not protest those films in Canada (where I live), but these most filthy, lie-filled pieces of trash were absolutely protested all over the United States of America.

I am glad and proud to say that many Canadians now are waking up and defending Our Catholic Faith tomorrow. Heaven is on our side. Our Lady of Victory and her angels will be protesting as well. Just think of St. Michael protesting...with his sword!:)

God Bless All the Protestors against The Da Vinci Code world wide.
John B. Hafford

Whose God May We Mock?

By Patrick J. Buchanan


If "such lies and errors had been directed at the Quran or the Holocaust," said Archbishop Angelo Amato, the Vatican's secretary for the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, "they would have justly provoked a world uprising."

The archbishop was speaking of "The Da Vinci Code," the Ron Howard film that debuts at Cannes and opens worldwide this week, and is expected to gross $500 million by summer's end.

The archbishop's point is undeniable. Blasphemous cartoons of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban, published a few months ago in a Danish newspaper and reprinted on the front pages of Europe's major papers, ignited demonstrations in Muslim communities across Europe and violent and deadly riots across the Islamic world.

Leaders friendly to the West, from Egypt to Afghanistan, felt compelled to denounce the cartoons, as did many in the West, as a provocation and insult to the faith of a billion people.

In the 1990s, the British novelist Salman Rushdie spent years in hiding after Ayatollah Khomeini issued a "fatwa" calling for his killing for publishing the blasphemous "Satanic Verses."

In the 1970s, the film "Muhammad," starring Anthony Quinn, was pulled from many U.S. theaters after bomb threats. The film had offended Muslim faithful by showing the face of Muhammad.

Last February, British historian David Irving, whose books on World War II have sold in the millions, was convicted in an Austrian court of Holocaust denial and sentenced to three years in prison. His crime: In two speeches in Austria in 1989, Irving asserted there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. Though he recanted in court, it did not save him. Prosecutors felt his sentence was too light.

Karen Pollock of Great Britain's Holocaust Education Trust applauded the verdict: "Holocaust denial is anti-Semitism dressed up as intellectual debate. It should be regarded as such and treated as such." In nine countries of Europe, Holocaust denial is a crime. In the United States, to deny the Holocaust happened or suggest that it has been exaggerated is not a crime, but marks one down as a social leper.

If you would know who wields cultural power, ask yourself: Whom is it impermissible to offend? Thus the hoopla attending the release of "The Da Vinci Code," based on the Dan Brown novel that has sold 7 million copies in the United States, tells us something about whose God it is permissible to mock and whose faith one is allowed to assault. For what "The Da Vinci Code" says is that Roman Catholicism is a gigantic fraud, that the church has for centuries been perpetrating a monstrous hoax, duping hundreds of millions into believing something it knows is a bald-faced lie. At the novel's heart lies the contention that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, that they had a daughter, that the Vatican has known this and been hiding the descendants of Jesus, that Opus Dei is a secret order whose agents will engage in murder to protect the secret. Leonardo da Vinci's painting "The Last Supper" is said to hold the secret, as Jesus is portrayed touching the hand of the youngest apostle, John, who holds the place of honor at his side - and who is, on close inspection, Mary Magdalene. In Catholic teaching and tradition, the Holy Grail is the chalice that contained the blood of Jesus. In the book, the Holy Grail is Mary Magdalene, carrying the flesh and blood of Jesus in her womb.

If "The Da Vinci Code" is based upon facts, no other conclusion follows than that to be a Catholic is either to be in on this fraud or to be the dupe of those perpetuating it. But if it is fiction, why would Hollywood put out so viciously anti-Catholic a film that can only have the effect of undermining the faith of millions of Christians? Putting "The Da Vinci Code" on film, with what it alleges about the Catholic Church, is the moral equivalent of making a movie based on the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and implying this is the truth about the Jewish plot to control the world. One imagines Ron Howard and Tom Hanks would take a pass on that script.

Like the "Hitler's Pope" smear of Pius XII, a man who did more than any other to save the Jews in World War II, "The Da Vinci Code" is a Big Lie that, though readily refuted by the facts, will be believed. But that it will be a box-office smash, that it is the subject of lavish praise in the press, that it is the best-selling novel of the 21st century, tells us we live not just in a post-Christian era, but in an anti-Catholic culture not worth defending or saving, for it is truly satanic.



Related offer: "Breaking the Da Vinci Code" DVD © 2006
HOT OFFERS!


Pat Buchanan's newest book, "Where the Right Went Wrong," reveals why America is being led to disaster ... and how to save our country. "Death of the West" warns of cataclysmic shifts in world power. If you'd rather order by phone, call WND's toll-free customer service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).


Pat Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party's candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national TV shows, and is the author of seven books.

Shakedown: How Catholics Are Getting Ripped Off in the Name of Justice

By Francis X. Maier


“We got a new law passed in California that opens up the statute of limitations for all victims of sexual abuse. It’s something we’ve been trying to do in several states for years. And I’m not waiting for it to click in. I’m suing the sh–t out of [the Catholic Church] everywhere: in Sacramento, in Santa Clara, in Santa Rosa, in San Francisco, in Oakland, in L.A., and everyplace else.”
—Jeffrey Anderson, plaintiffs’ attorneyApril 2003 interview

My wife and I were watching the news one evening last summer when the camera cut away to an attorney on the steps of Colorado’s state capitol. He announced to a cluster of reporters that he was suing the Archdiocese of Denver for $10 million for each of the various sexual abuse victims he now represented.

The attorney was Florida’s Jeff Herman. Herman is one of several high-profile litigators—along with Minnesota’s Jeffrey Anderson—who has made a business of suing the Catholic Church over the past decade. Under Colorado law, plaintiffs’ attorneys may not name the damages they seek to recover in civil suits. That’s a matter reserved for courts and juries.

Herman may or may not have known this. In either case, he couldn’t resist a photo op and sound bite. Ten million dollars has a nice ring to it. In Colorado, as elsewhere, the guerrilla theater of sex-abuse litigation has some very practical goals: shocking the public, frightening Catholics, polluting jury pools, and influencing judges and lawmakers.

In this case, though, as we sat in front of the TV, my wife—a teacher for 30 years—asked a simple question: “$10 million? I wonder how much we’d get if Danny were abused.”
In our house, the suffering of sexual abuse victims carries a special force. Our 15-year-old son, Dan, has Down syndrome. Two of our granddaughters also have serious genetic problems. Because of their disabilities, all three of them are up to ten times more likely to be sexually abused as a minor than the general population. For our family, worrying about the sexual abuse of children is not a theoretical problem. We’re alert to it every day, in every one of our son’s relationships—especially when he climbs on the bus to his school.

Dan attends a public high school. We don’t actually want him there; we’d prefer to have him in a Catholic school, where he’d be safer. But the law makes this option cost-prohibitive by denying us the opportunity to apply his educational financing in a manner we judge best for our son. We can live with that. But what we won’t live with is the hypocrisy of the news media and lawmakers blaming the Catholic Church for a culture of secrecy and sexual abuse when the same problems—and worse—pervade our public schools. In fact, if Dan ever does experience sexual abuse as a minor, the data suggest that he’s more likely to face it in a public school than anywhere else outside the home.

The evidence is alarming: Dan is safer serving Mass at our local parish than he’ll ever be in America’s public schools. And yet the Church has been the sole focus of attack since the clerical sex-abuse scandal came to light four years ago. And now, thanks to new legislation cropping up in states around the country, she may pay a heavy price for our nation’s selective blindness.
Dirty Secrets

A 2005 Associated Press report noted that in some states, sexual abuse is now the main reason public school teachers lose their licenses. A 1999 probe by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, appropriately titled “Dirty Secrets,” found that during the 1990s, “by far the most common reason for teacher discipline” in Pennsylvania “was sex-related offenses, according to state documents.” In January 2006, New York City’s special-schools investigator Richard Condon reported that 250 public school teacher misconduct cases had been substantiated in his jurisdiction alone during 2005. Of these, 92 confirmed cases involved sexual misconduct complaints against public school educators, ranging from rape and educator-student relationships to sexual harassment and public exposure.

And this isn’t a new development. More than a decade ago, Dr. Sherry Bithell, author of Educator Sexual Abuse, estimated that one in 20 teachers engages in sexual misconduct with students, from obscene comments to outright sexual abuse. Professor Charol Shakeshaft of Hofstra University, the leading national expert on sexual abuse by public school educators and staff, effectively confirmed this in her February 2006 testimony to the Colorado General Assembly, noting that 6.7 percent of all students in the United States report being sexually abused in a physical manner by an educator in public schools. In Shakeshaft’s words, “Of the approximately 45 million students attending public and private K-12 schools, more than 3 million will have been the target of physical sexual exploitation by an employee of the school by eleventh grade.”

Shakeshaft went on to stress: “These 3 million [victims] include only students who have been the target of sexual abuse that includes touching. This number does not include adults who show students pornography, who expose themselves, or who direct other forms of visual and verbal sexual abuse at children. I’m only talking about sexual abuse actions that include forced touch. If those [other abusive] actions are added, the number of students nationwide is 4.5 million.”
Even on the wild chance that these data are off by half, the scope of public school sexual abuse involves many hundreds of thousands of students and eclipses anything in the Catholic clergy. The evidence also suggests that from 1 percent to 5 percent of the teaching profession and up to 25 percent of all public school districts have problems of sexual abuse.

All of this should sound familiar—from stories about sex abuse in decades past, right down to an alleged pattern of what one angry public school parent called “passing the trash” (moving abusive public school teachers from job to job). In fact, Craig Emmanuel, an investigator with the Arizona Department of Education, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that, on average, teachers who molest children work in at least two to three school districts before they’re stopped.

But don’t expect to read about it in your local newspaper. According to Shakeshaft, most incidents of public school educator sexual misconduct with children “are not entered into criminal justice information systems, and abusers are generally subject only to informal personnel actions within the relative privacy of the [public school] administration.” As just one example, she cited “a study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse” in a major metropolitan area where “only 1 percent [of offending teachers] lost their teaching credentials.”

Terri Miller, a single mother and president of SESAME—Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation, a national, public school equivalent of the clergy-abuse victims’ group SNAP—offered similar testimony to the Colorado General Assembly this spring. Quoting data that suggest a much higher incidence of sexual abuse in public schools when compared with the Catholic priesthood, Miller pointed to one of the teachers in her daughter’s public school in Nevada who had been dismissed only when authorities belatedly discovered his long history of sexual misconduct at schools in Minnesota, Colorado, and elsewhere in Nevada. The teacher was never reported or punished, but rather allowed to move freely from one job to the next.

“This last point is not an isolated case,” Miller told Colorado lawmakers. “There are many [public school] teachers like this one in classrooms across the country, paid by our tax dollars, who are changing the lives of our children forever.”
Protecting Their Own
But in most states—including Colorado—there’s one big difference between sexual abuse in public and private institutions, with huge consequences for public school parents like my wife and me. The fact is, it’s much easier—and much more lucrative—to sue the Catholic Church, or any church or private organization, than it is to sue the local public school district. The reason is simple: Public school districts enjoy governmental immunity unless state law- makers say otherwise. And so far, the legislators in most states have kept that immunity in place. As a result, public school districts have a drastically reduced financial exposure with incidents of sexual abuse.

Under March 2006 Colorado law, and in many other states, my wife and I can recover a great deal more money, with much less effort, if our son Dan is abused by a priest at our local church than if he’s raped by a teacher or coach at his school. Parents in states like ours have much less time to identify, report, and legally pursue sexual abuse committed by a public school employee than if the same abuse is committed by the employee of a religious or private organization. The amount of money they can recover in damages is also sharply limited—in Colorado, $150,000.
And yet, according to the data, children are more likely to be sexually abused in a public school setting than at their local parish. Most state lawmakers either don’t seem to know this or simply don’t care. The message sent to parents of public school students is clear: Sexual abuse at the hands of a public school employee is less grievous and less expensive than exactly the same abuse at the hands of a pastor or Sunday school teacher. Something is grotesquely wrong with that kind of lawmaking.

My wife and I have heard the usual cynical arguments in favor of governmental immunity. Our favorite is the excuse that opening public schools to litigation might “bankrupt” them—as if bankrupting Catholic schools, charities, and parishes were okay. We’ve even heard the bizarre claim that churches and other nonprofits should be held to a “higher standard” because of their tax-exempt status.

But this ignores the fact that governments grant tax exemptions precisely for the benefit of the communities they govern and to reduce their own expenses. It implies that the abuse of a minor by a priest is somehow more loathsome simply because his parish gets a tax break, and that public school districts should be held less accountable because we pay taxes to support them.
Of course, governmental immunity does ensure one thing—that superstar plaintiffs’ attorneys won’t care a whit about public school sexual abuse, no matter how deep the pain or how vast the pool of victims. There’s just no money in it.

Shakedown
The sexual abuse of minors is a grave crime and sin, no matter who commits it. Catholics are right to be outraged at any priest who abused a child and at any bishop who callously refused to deal with the evil behavior. Many Catholics are parents themselves, with a deep sympathy for abuse victims and an eagerness to help them heal. This is a good and necessary thing. No one can listen to their suffering and remain unmoved. Unfortunately, some attorneys have built an industry on twisting the goodwill of today’s Catholic community into a hammer for smashing American Catholic life.

What many Catholics don’t realize is that big-league sex-abuse attorneys often sue the Catholic Church with the same money they took from other Catholics. The money your grandparents poured into building the Church, lawyers now use to rip it back down. In sex-abuse settlements against Catholic dioceses, plaintiffs’ attorneys often take 40 percent of the action. Aside from providing the attorney a hefty take, it also fills a firm’s coffers to file claims in other dioceses.

For the past 20 years, this has been a great way for some lawyers to make a living. But plaintiffs’ attorneys now face a decline of new cases. Contrary to media innuendo, most Catholic dioceses and institutions did learn the lesson of the 1980s. As a result, over the past decade, the flow of current clergy sex-abuse cases has slowed to a trickle. Most clergy sexual abuse allegations coming to light now are decades old—25, 35, even 50 years. That means that in many cases, these claims have expired. They’re time-barred by statutes of limitations.

And statutes of limitations exist for good reasons; that’s why law-enforcement officials almost always support them. Beyond a certain point, memories fade, people die, evidence gets lost or grows stale, and fraudulent claims increase. But these statutes put a major cramp on potential profits in the litigation industry. So what’s a hungry plaintiffs’ attorney to do? It’s easy. Get the rules changed—retroactively.

Two different law codes govern the disposition of sexual abuse cases: criminal and civil. The Supreme Court has ruled that criminal liability cannot be applied retroactively. It’s unconstitutional. But some lower courts have held that civil liability can be extended retroactively. And the threshold for proof in civil cases is much lower than in criminal cases. As a result, plaintiffs’ attorneys—usually backed by victims’ groups—have launched a national effort to lobby state lawmakers to change civil liability rules after the fact.

It works like this: Plaintiffs’ attorneys troll a new territory for possible cases. Each new claimant then identifies other potential claimants. Victims’ groups may assist in the process, or act as contacts with potentially sympathetic state lawmakers. Plaintiffs’ attorneys may then provide help in drafting the proposed new legislation that they themselves hope to profit from. This happened in California, where Jeffrey Anderson helped develop the text for the state’s catastrophic law SB 1779, retroactively revising the statute of limitations for sex-abuse cases in that state.

By the time the media enter the project, the plaintiffs’ storyline is firmly in place, and the press almost invariably follows it without deviation. One study found that during the first six months of 2002, the 61 largest California newspapers ran more than 1,700 stories about sexual abuse incidents in the Catholic Church but only four about the same problem in public schools. And, as happened in California, once the public has been suitably barraged with shock reports, the lobbying begins to secure “justice” for those victims whose claims have expired due to statutes of limitations. Some victims claim they were too afraid to come forward in the past. Others say they were so traumatized that they didn’t remember their abuse until recently. But all of them agree that the only way they can get closure and peace is by litigating their expired cases.

Whatever the merit of these claims—and many scientific sources reject the credibility of “recovered” or “repressed” memories—the goal is always the same: to overturn existing statutes of limitations for private (but not public) institutions. Once these safeguards go, the “legalized looting”—to quote one angry Catholic parent—can begin. How can a church community defend itself, for example, when an alleged perpetrating priest is dead, and so is every other witness except the accuser? But this has happened again and again. More than 1,000 new plaintiffs came forward in California during a 2003 suspension of the statute of limitations. So far, California Catholic dioceses and religious orders have paid out roughly $250 million to plaintiffs, and the bleeding continues.

The attack on statutes of limitations by plaintiffs’ attorneys has now touched 14 or more states. It’s a classic display of entrepreneurial skill—the fruit of years of carefully cultivating victims’ anger, media gloating, the hostility of some lawmakers toward the Church, confusion and guilt by Church leaders, and resentment among the faithful. The effect on American Catholic life is catastrophic. There’s no “Catholic Superfund” to pay for these massive, retroactive sex-abuse settlements, no secret pile of ecclesial wealth; and insurance, even in the best circumstances, covers only a modest portion of the total damages. In some dioceses, insurance companies are suing the Church to avoid payment.

In the end, the people who will pay the most for this crippling attorneys’ scam are our families—and our children. “Retroactive liability” has nothing to do with real healing for sexual abuse victims; it has everything to do with greed. It involves the financial and legal mugging of innocent Catholic families today, for alleged events that happened decades ago and in which they played no part. It amounts to punishing the innocent in the name of lost innocence. But no matter how piously an attorney frames the scam, two wrongs simply don’t make a right.

Waking the Sleepwalkers
The priests I knew growing up were good men—men I wanted to emulate without exception. But I also have two friends, and probably a third, whose sons were sexually abused by priests in decades past. They’ve struggled with that traumatic experience ever since. Like all Catholic parents in the last four years, my wife and I have listened to stories of clergy sexual abuse with a mixture of pain, disgust, and frustration. We look at our own four children, especially Dan, and we try to imagine what our attitude toward God, or the Church, might be today if they’d been hurt. More importantly, we’ve tried to pray ourselves into a deeper understanding of the wounds in the lives of young people damaged by sexual abuse.

Of course, we’ll never fully understand that pain, any more than an outsider can fully understand the experience of raising a disabled child. But as a parent, I also know that real justice is not served by creating a new class of victims—innocent Catholic families and communities today—in the name of helping other victims. Changing the civil liability rules after the fact is not justice; nor is bankrupting Catholic parishes and dioceses. It’s a form of financial and legal violence that will continue until the money’s gone—or we force it to stop.

As a Catholic, I believe I have a duty to help sexual abuse victims heal. And I have an equal obligation to the Catholics who came before me, and the ones who will come after me, to pass along the Faith and the resources with which I was entrusted. They’re not mine to throw away.
It’s revealing that, in Colorado and elsewhere, some of the biggest supporters of “retroactive liability” are disaffected, angry, self-described Catholics who resent the Church for her teaching on abortion, “emergency” contraception, embryonic stem-cell research, the death penalty, immigration, Iraq—the list of complaints is endless. Too often, Catholics of my generation seem to be diving headlong into an assimilation gone perverse, moved by a spirit of revenge against the Church for simply daring to be herself and not a theater prop for their own egos. And nothing serves her enemies—including the sex-abuse litigation machine—better than when the Church’s own children join in tearing her down.

American Catholics today are like sleepwalkers who dream they’re awake—who think they’re engaged with and accepted by their surrounding secular culture. In reality, we’re getting robbed of our identity and resources while we slumber.
It’s time to wake up.

Francis X. Maier, the father of four, writes from Colorado.

Introduction

My Name is John B. Hafford, but call me Bart. I have a blog on Yahoo360 called The Handsome American. This new blog is The Handsome American 2, as if you did not already know that.

I do not know exactly what I will be doing with this blog, but I can guarantee that it is Catholic and Traditional.

About me: I am an American living abroad in Canada. My wife, Carissa, is Canadian. We have one daughter -Anastasia- and are expecting our second child in late August.