Catholic Church at centre of sex abuse hearing

Catholic Church at centre of sex abuse hearing


The hearing, part of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, is examining the current policies and procedures of the Catholic Church’s authorities in Australia relating to child protection and child safety standards, as well as their response to allegations of abuse.

In her opening address, Gail Furness SC said a survey revealed 4444 alleged incidents of abuse between January 1980 and February 2015 were made to Catholic Church authorities.

Ms Furness said 60 percent of all abuse survivors attending private royal commission sessions reported sexual abuse at faith-based institutions.

Of those, almost two-thirds reported abuse in Catholic institutions.

Ms Furness described the victims’ accounts as “depressingly similar”.

“Children were ignored or worse, punished,” she said.

“Documents were not kept, or they were destroyed. Secrecy prevailed as did cover-ups.”

The average age of the victims at the time they were allegedly abused was 10 for girls and 11 for boys.

Religious orders were in the firing line with the data suggesting that between 1950 and 2010, more than 20 percent of Marist Brothers, Salesians of the Don Bosco and Christian Brothers had allegations of child sexual abuse against them.

For the St John of God Brothers, that number was 40.4 percent.

It is the first time the data has been released.

Documents were not kept, or they were destroyed. Secrecy prevailed as did cover-ups.”

The average age of the victims at the time they were allegedly abused was 10 for girls and 11 for boys.

Religious orders were in the firing line with the data suggesting that between 1950 and 2010, more than 20 per cent of Marist Brothers, Salesians of the Don Bosco and Christian Brothers had allegations of child sexual abuse against them.

For the St John of God Brothers, that number was 40.4 per cent.

It is the first time the data has been released.

Nearly 1300 priests accused of abusing children

One of the Catholic Church’s most senior figures choked up as he acknowledged nearly 1300 priests had been accused of abusing children.

Francis Sullivan from the Church’s Truth, Justice and Healing Council described the number as “shocking”.

“These numbers are shocking, they are tragic and they are indefensible,” he said.

“Each entry in this data, for the most part represents a child who suffered at the hands of someone who should have cared for, and protected them.”

The Archbishops of Sydney, Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne and Canberra-Goulburn have congregated in Sydney to give evidence as part of the three-week public hearing.

Questions are expected to focus on the extent of child abuse over almost seven decades and what church leaders are doing to protect children.

This is the 50th public hearing of the four-year-long royal commission and it is the 16th dealing with abuse in the Catholic Church.

The royal commission has investigated how institutions across the country, including schools, churches, sports clubs and government organisations, have responded to allegations and instances of abuse.


State abuse inquiry a ‘long time coming’

State abuse inquiry a ‘long time coming’

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the historical abuse of children in residential state care has been a long time coming – so long, in fact, that a number of the former wards we will hear from will probably be well into their 80s.


In terms of summoning old ghosts, however, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern deserves credit for allowing a comprehensive political fact-finding exercise in which the reputation of some previous Labour governments also appear booked to take a wallop.

New governments, after all, typically tend to concentrate on serving up rich sauces of symbolism, high in popular cholesterol and with much joyfully self-referential music playing in the background.

The idea usually is not to make them potentially damaging to their own political health or that of their party brand.

Ms Ardern has said the inquiry, which will be the most retrospectively far-reaching of its kind to be held in her first term, will not primarily be about the individual cases RNZ and other media have highlighted over the past 18 months.

Rather, she says, it will be about examining those systems that failed. It will look at what governments did and didn’t do as they blundered for the most part through the decades in looking for new ways to care for the neglected young and those who landed on the wrong side of the youth courts.

Many of those administrations were Labour-led.

Troubled history

It was, after all, under a Labour government that these onetime educational residences became the youth crime facilities that have featured in so many of the hard-luck stories that the public has become familiar with over recent years.

The first dramatic turn for the worse almost certainly occurred in 1972 when the old Child Welfare Division of the Department of Education, as it had been known since 1948, morphed into the then new Department of Social Welfare, which assumed the oversight of the country’s residential institutions.

Many of the abuse claims currently outstanding relate to the years immediately following this change, which passed on the watch of the third Labour government.

Fifteen years on, it was another Labour government that began winding down the national operation as it had become.

What remained of the 26 residences closed their doors – but there was to be no closure of the sort the Royal Commission will be looking to give and which Labour at the time, had it not been mired in its own ideological civil war, might have provided.

As the reverberations of the failed experiment first began to be felt, it also fell to the last Labour government to deal with the hundreds of miserable claims made by former wards.

The government of former prime minister Helen Clark oversaw the establishment of a Historical Claims Unit within MSD, which soon found itself overwhelmed by petitioners.

Outstanding claims

Within a couple of years, the number of claims in the unit’s quiver had reached 140 – many of them highly complex – that somehow had to be dealt with by a team comprising just five advisors and a couple of administrative staff.

By the unit’s own estimate in 2010, around two-thirds of the claims the hard-working unit had worked on had reached some kind of agreeable resolution, whether in the provision of important information or the issuing of an ex grata payment, usually at the lower end of the spectrum up to $30,000.

But this accounted for just 36 such claims; a further 137 still awaited action even at that point, and the number over recent years has only grown apace.

None of this to suggest the issue has been only of Labour’s making. Indeed, more than most, the matter of these old residences remains an equal-opportunity political offender, reflecting not only the two major parties but others like the Māori Party and the Greens who between them barely murmured when the subject first began to air.

What is more, it was the National Party that refused to countenance any kind of official inquiry at all.

“Today we are sending the strongest possible signal about how seriously we see this issue by setting up a Royal Commission of Inquiry,” Ms Ardern said in announcing the overdue remedy. True enough. But she is also sending the strongest possible signal that few previous administrations are likely to emerge with their reputations enhanced by it.

* David Cohen, a former ward of Epuni Boys’ Home, is the author of Little Criminals (Random House), a portrait of the state-run children’s residences that operated in New Zealand between the 1950s and late 1980s.

‘The ground has been covered’ – English on state abuse inquiry

‘The ground has been covered’ – English on state abuse inquiry

17 Jan 2018

‘The ground has been covered’ – English on state abuse inquiry

12:11 pm on 17 January 2018

New Zealand is already working to change the state care system, and an inquiry into child abuse will only distract from that, opposition leader Bill English says.

Many of the thousands of children placed in state care between the 1950s and 1980s were subjected to sexual, physical and mental abuse.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern promised an inquiry would be launched in Labour’s first 100 days, but there have been calls to broaden the government’s inquiry into the abuse of children in state care.

Ms Ardern rejected that, saying the focus should stay on the role the state played.

Speaking to Summer Report for the first time this year, Mr English said he had not changed from his government’s position that there was no need for a historical inquiry.

“An inquiry that’s launched now in my view frankly is likely to take the energy that’s currently been directed to positive change, so these things do not happen again and direct it into going over ground that has been gone over,” he said.

“The previous government had a very hard look at how state care was working, went through a process in great detail, and now there’s a major change going on in the operations of state care based on all the analysis of all the past performance and on principles of social investment so we can do a much better job for these young people.”

The United Nations recommended in August that New Zealand hold an independent inquiry into the abuse of children and adults with disabilities in state care.

Similar inquiries have been set up in Australia and the United Kingdom, but Mr English said the situation in New Zealand was different.

“The inquiries in Australia and the UK … they’ve been Royal Commission type inquiries not really focused on changing the machinery of government, based simply on listening to the stories.

“Now, in New Zealand there’s been a parallel process going back quite a number of years through the confidential listening process, and a large number of legal settlements regarding abuse, and that has provided the opportunity for people to be heard.”

“So in that sense the ground has been covered in a couple of different ways,” he said.

He also said he had heard some of the stories first hand.

“As an MP I’ve had the experience I’m sure many other local MPs have had, of sitting in the office and hearing these stories.

“In fact, I remember them going back to the early ’90s, hearing some of the horrific stories out of the mental health institutions at the time, which certainly persuaded me that those needed to at least change and probably be closed.”

“One of the benefits of the processes that have been gone through is that victims get to tell their story.”

However, the stories have not generally been aired publicly, and the government has not yet apologised, although the new Minister for Children has said it should.

Mr English also criticised the government’s 100-day plan, saying although it had done most of what it set out to, it achieved little.

“The question is whether the checklist is compiled of things that are going to make any difference to anybody.”

“Setting up the mental health commission doesn’t change any mental health services, setting up the child abuse inquiry if anything may detract from the scale of change that’s going on there right now.

“The free first year of tertiary education … is being explained to us in Parliament as MPs didn’t need $100,000 a year, well in my case they’ve handed my household $600,000 a year.

“Its’ a very expensive, very poorly targeted policy that will have the effect of getting maybe a few thousand, couple thousand more people into tertiary education.

He said New Zealand was doing well, and his opposition would criticise the government where it seemed to be going “off track”.

“When you’ve got an economy generating so many jobs, you’ve got strong government books that allow us to deal with child poverty, you’ve got well-developed policy that’s allowing us to fix the quality of fresh water in New Zealand – then keeping that momentum going is important.”

“If the government says they can do better then we’ll encourage them and support them where they have policy that says they actually will do better.

He also targeted the coalition arrangement.

“The question is going to be will they agree on anything past that 100 days.”

Calls to include faith institutions in abuse investigation

Calls to include faith institutions in abuse investigation

The Labour-led government has promised to set up an inquiry and groups of survivors want its scope broadened.

They are being backed by psychologist Michelle Mulvihill, who was a consultant to Australia’s royal commission on institutional sex abuse.

Dr Mulvihill spent nine years consulting around child sex abuse cases at the St John of God Brothers, which included a New Zealand case in Canterbury where there were 76 victims at the hands of two priests.

She said the Australian commission found the majority of children sexually assaulted were abused in faith-based institutions so they should be included in New Zealand’s inquiry.

She said if it did not happen, only half the story would be told.

“These victims of faith-based organisations need to be seen in a context and the context is wider than the discussion about whether they’re the same or different to those people in the state-based institutions. It’s criticially important to their well-being.”

Dr Mulvihill said the men she had met were in dire straits.

“They’re not people who are searching about for money, they’re people who want to be recognised and acknowledged properly.”

Darryl Smith – who attended Marylands School in Christchurch in the early 1970s – said he was raped and abused from the age of six.

He said an independent inquiry into the abuse he endured while in the care of the Catholic Church was vital for his ongoing recovery and healing.

The Minister for Children, Tracey Martin, said no decisions had yet been made about the scope and detail of the inquiry.

* The Network of Survivors of Abuse in Faith-based Institutions can be contacted at

Catholic Church rejects changes aimed at preventing sexual abuse

Catholic Church rejects changes aimed at preventing sexual abuse

Australia’s leading child protection agency, Bravehearts, is disappointed at the Catholic Church’s swift rejection of proposed changes to confession to help prevent sexual abuse.

The report has called for an overhaul of the confessional, with religious ministers forced to report any child sexual abuse revealed to them. Photo: 123RF

The country’s Royal Commission of Inquiry into abuse has recommended changes that would force priests to report information confided in them in confessional.

The agency’s chair Hetty Johnson said the church’s attitude was not surprising.

“This is the culture that we’re dealing with and the attitude that the Canon law is superior to the laws of the nation, I mean this is what has to change, this dinosaur mentality.”

Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart has said he does not fully support some of the 189 new recommendations delivered by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

In what would be a shake-up of centuries of tradition, the recommendations called for an overhaul of confessional, with religious ministers forced to report any child sexual abuse revealed to them.

But Archbishop Hart said he does not support any changes to confession that would force a priest to report information to authorities.

“I revere the law of the land and I trust it but this is a sacred, spiritual charge before God which I must honour and I have to respect and try to do what I can do with both,” Archbishop Hart said.

Archbishop Hart cautioned against making changes to confessional, saying it was a “serious spiritual matter”.

He admitted that if someone revealed their child abuse to him in confessional, he would feel “terribly conflicted” but he would not break the seal.

“The penalty for any priest breaking the seal is excommunication, being cast out of the church, so it’s a real, serious, spiritual matter,” he said.

Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher also warned against changing confessional, describing it as a “distraction”.

“I think any proposal to effectively stop the practice of confession in Australia would be a real hurt to all Catholics and Orthodox Christians and I don’t think would help any young person,” he said.

“I think if young people are to be kept safe, focusing on something like confession is just a distraction.”

Of all the survivors who reported abuse in religious institutions, more than 60 percent said it had happened at the hands of the Catholic Church.

The royal commission report said the Catholics had demonstrated “catastrophic failures of leadership”, particularly before the 1990s.

The average age of abuse victims at Catholic institutions was 11 years old.

The report also called for the Catholic Church to make celibacy voluntary for its clergy, saying it contributed to child abuse.

New criminal offence, national office recommended

While the details of much child abuse uncovered by the royal commission had been published already, today’s report is the final, most comprehensive reckoning for religious, government and other institutions put under the microscope over the past five years.

Alongside recommendations made to churches, it called for a new criminal offence to be created that would make it easier to prosecute institutions who had failed to protect children.

Among the other recommendations were the creation of a new National Office for Child Safety and a website and helpline to report child abuse.

The report estimated the number of child victims in the tens of thousands, saying their abusers were “not just a few rotten apples”.

“We will never know the true number,” it read.

“Whatever the number, it is a national tragedy, perpetrated over generations within many of our most trusted institutions.”

The report is told over 17 volumes – its length reflecting the exhaustive process which included 57 public hearings and 8000 private sessions. A total of 409 recommendations have been made.

About 4000 institutions were reported to the royal commission, which heard from 1200 witnesses over 400 days of testimony.

More than 2500 people have already been referred to police.

Chief Royal Commissioner, Justice Peter McClellan AM, handed the report to Governor-General Peter Cosgrove on Friday morning.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull paid tribute to the commissioners and survivors.

“It’s been very tough, often harrowing work, but above all, I want to thank and honour the courage of the survivors and their families who’ve told, often for the first time, the dreadful stories of abuse that they received from people who actually owed them love and protection,” he said.

Spotlight on religion

The Catholics were not the only religious institution to come under fire.

In its findings, the royal commission said all Jewish institutions in Australia should explicitly state a Jewish law, known as mesirah – which forbids a Jew from informing on another Jew – does not apply to the reporting of allegations of child sexual abuse to police.

It said the Anglican Church should adopt a uniform standards framework to ensure bishops and former bishops are accountable to an appropriate authority or body in relation to their response to complaints of child sexual abuse.

It also recommended the Jehovah’s Witness organisation scrap the two-witness rule – which requires two eye witnesses to an allegation of sexual abuse – in cases involving children.

Making it easier to prosecute alleged child abusers formed a large part of the report.

The royal commission called for changes to current laws, which would make it easier for a defendant’s criminal history to be revealed in court.

It said state and territory governments should introduce legislation to provide that good character be excluded as a mitigating factor in sentencing for child sexual abuse, with the exception of New South Wales and South Australia.

The royal commission called for state and territory governments to extend grooming laws, so that it’s not just an offence to groom a child, but it is also an offence to groom their parents or carers.

Schools need more guidelines

The report also urged state and territory governments to provide nationally consistent guidance to teachers and principals on how to prevent and respond to child sexual abuse.

It said particular emphasis should be placed on monitoring boarding schools to ensure they meet the Child Safe Standards.

It said the Council of Australian Governments should review minimum national requirements for assessing the suitability of teachers.

The final report said it was believed that thousands of children may have been harmed by other children’s sexual behaviours in Australia each year.

“We also believe exposure to violent or harmful practices in an institutional context is a risk factor for exhibiting harmful sexual behaviours,” it said.

The report said institutions may have enabled harmful sexual behaviours by allowing a “culture of violence and intimidation to prevail” so that abuse was “normalised”.


Call for state abuse survivors to shape inquiry

Call for state abuse survivors to shape inquiry

The Race Relations Commissioner has asked victims of state care abuse to give feedback on how they would like an independent inquiry to run.

Dame Susan Devoy Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King

In July, the National-led government rejected a petition signed by 12,000 people calling for an independent inquiry into state care abuse.

The new government has since honoured their pledge to give the victims what they want.

Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy said it is crucial the voices of survivors are heard and the loved ones of those who did not survive are front and centre in any independent inquiry into the abuse of New Zealanders held in state care.

She said she wanted state abuse survivors to share their stories as well as their hopes for what an inquiry could look like.

In an email sent to the survivors, Ms Devoy said the inquiry would give the victims some kind of closure.

“We can never change the past but what we can do is make sure the truth of what happened in the past is known.

“This is the beginning of a journey that we need to take as a nation, looking back at the past, making amends for what happened and making sure it is never repeated.”

The commission will send submissions to the independent inquiry once it is established.

So how do Auckland priests break down sexual inhibitions to promote the glbtqi+ agenda?

To become more ‘friendly’ they advertise their fantasies during their homilies at St. Patrick’s cathedral of course!

Naturally those like minded will approach him after the service.

But many have never considered his fantasy!

This from a parishioner listening to Msgr David Tonks in 2009:
January 20, 2009 at 1:53 pm

My wife and I were at that mass. We could not believe our ears. And, judging by the amount of whispering and shuffling of the rest of the congregation, we weren’t the only ones.
May I quote? –
(priest speaking of himself) “Admit it, sometime you just want to find a big sexual orgy!”
This was said right after a little explaination of how the imagination is a very good thing and we are quite ok to indulge anything that comes into it.
“Sexual orgy” was said more than once through the homily.
My wife and I were celebrating out second wedding anniverary up in Auckland. We had had a wonderful time in your lovely city before then, and we were both very impressed with the upgrades to the Cathedral. Very beautiful. But we both felt like having a shower after hearing that homily. Quite disgusting.
He baptised a little boy straight after the homily. Seriously, after hearing him say all that I wouldn’t let that guy any where near my kids.
Even more to the point, if he’s more than willing to admit this to a packed cathedral congregation, what sort of things does he keep to himself? The mind boggles.

alt link:

Flashback 2015: NZ Bishop promotes homosexual agenda to Vatican


Most Holy Father,

Dear brother Bishops and fellow participants,

The anthropological cultural context of the family (Instrumentum laboris, Chapter One) neatly links this Synod with that of the New Evangelization.

The focus of the 2012 Synod reminded us that in many countries the majority of those who identify themselves as Catholic (cf. census statistics) do not gather for Mass on Sundays. Analysis of them indicated clusters: the first marriage of a significant portion had come to grief; some were homosexual; and many simply did not recognise themselves in the language we use to describe marriage and the family. In New Zealand, the questionnaires of this present Synod prompted many responses from these same groupings. They, whom some describe as having drifted from the Church, in fact harbour a yearning to belong but their experience is one of being beyond the Church. For them the greatest cause of suffering is rejection – whether perceived or real. That suffering affects the wealthy as well as the poor.

Most of our people, however, including the disaffected, find personal encounters with our priests and parish workers positive and encouraging. For this we give thanks. It seems therefore that where renewal is most required is within the framework and language with which our faith is communicated at a public level. When people hear themselves as being an object of judgement rather than a subject of worth, rejection is most felt.
Our Lord’s encounters with the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:1-30) and the adulteress (Jn 8:1-11), and with Zacchaeus (Lk 19:1-10) and Matthew (Mt 9:9-13), and so many others, are not exceptional cases; they are the normative pattern of the Christian way. Mercy is common to them all. While we tend to experience mercy on the level of affectivity, of equal significance is what we might call the epistemological consequence of mercy, captured in the Holy Father’s motto (miserando atque eligendo; Venerable Bede, Homily 21). Filled with mercy, our Lord is able to comprehend the tax collector Matthew in a new way recognizing within him an already existing goodness to which others had been blind.

Could not this sense of mercy, which unlocks in the heart of the beholder a deeper truth about the other, help us when we come to consider a particular category of those who suffer rejection: persons with homosexual tendencies? The mercy for which they yearn is not one of pity but of comprehension of the truth of who and how they are. Decoupled from the question of same sex marriage which will never be part of the Christian way, the Church’s theologians can engage seriously with the voices of science that say sexual orientation is neither a personal choice nor a matter of social conditioning but rests in the deepest ontological makeup of the individual and thus forms part of the mystery of human nature which is good.

Such a dialogue of theology and science (cf. Fides et Ratio, 69) would deepen our understanding of the anthropological cultural context in which we evangelize, and would do much to protect the credibility of the Church, including our claim to be a people of mercy and truth.

Thank you.

+Charles E Drennan
Bishop of Palmerston North
New Zealand

Making Milo: A recipe for Abuse.

Making Milo: A recipe for Abuse.


1 Catholic priest,
1 young boy,
1 parish congregation,
1 Catholic Bishop,


Mix: 1x Catholic priest and the 1x young boy by leaving them alone together, in privacy.
Cover: with a parish congregation who ignore the homosexual priest in their midst thinking it will harm the church to identify him.
Garnish: with 1x local Bishop in denial who facilitates priests movements around the world.

The first recorded case in New Zealand occurred before 1900.
Catholic priests who abused New Zealand children will not be investigated.
Cost to American Parishes (as at 2002): over US$572M

It is interesting to note that Milo’s attitude to youth sex was exactly mirrored by the Catholic Nuns teaching theology to future Anglican priests at the University of Auckland School of Theology when the subject turned to women’s rights to chose what is good for them without patriarchal influence.

Milo, CPAC, Homosexuality, and Pedophilia

Milo has provided a window into a disturbing aspect of gay culture.

By Michael Brown Published on February 20, 2017 •

Conservative gay activist Milo Yiannopoulos is surrounded by controversy yet again, first because he was invited by the conservative giant CPAC to keynote their next conference, then because he was dropped after critics posted several audio clips in which he apparently endorsed pedophilia, and now because of his statement strongly denouncing pedophilia, speaking as a child abuse victim himself. What are we to make of all this?

What to Make of Milo

First, it was an error for CPAC to invite Milo to keynote, despite his rhetorical brilliance and his ability to dismantle and expose today’s ridiculous PC extremes.

It’s one thing for Milo to speak on college campuses and other settings, where he can also be himself, including using his full range of profanity, vulgarity, and gay flaunting. It’s another thing for CPAC to celebrate an out and proud homosexual as one of its champions (after all, that’s part of being a keynote speaker at a conference of this kind; you are invited because of your leadership and your voice).

I gladly interviewed Milo on my radio show and would gladly do so again, but I would not invite him to be the graduation speaker at my organization’s school of ministry. And while CPAC is a political organization rather than a religious one, if it fails to hold the line on gay activism, it will cease to be truly conservative.

Second, while denouncing pedophilia (which is something every gay man I have ever talked to about this has done, without equivocation), Milo drew attention to the fact that many older gay men are involved with much younger gay men (commonly called “boys,” according to Milo), a practice defended in 2013 by the influential gay journalist Michelangelo Signorile, who noted that, “Historically, gay men have engaged in intergenerational sexual encounters, brief romances and long-term relationships — among consenting adults — probably much more than straight people have.”

And although Milo alleges that these aforementioned “boys” are all of the age of consent, it is no secret that gay activists have often been at the forefront of pushing for the lowering of the age of consent. (For a 2010 example from England, see here.) It is also no secret that gay literature through the centuries has celebrated the “love” of grown men and boys, and in these cases, there is no doubt that they were minors rather than young men.

8 Principal Arguments to Defend “Man-Boy Love”

As I demonstrated in painstaking detail in A Queer Thing Happened to America, the identical arguments that have been used by gay activists to defend homosexuality have also been used by advocates of so-called “man-boy love” (or, in its sanitized form, “intergenerational intimacy”).

The 8 principal arguments I listed were:

  • Pedophilia is innate and immutable. (This is increasingly accepted by scientists, who now call for sympathy for the pedophile’s struggles, while continuing to denounce their actions. It is also becoming more common to classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation.)
  • Pederasty is richly attested in many different cultures throughout history.
  • The claim that adult-child sexual relationships cause harm is greatly overstated and often completely inaccurate.
  • Consensual adult-child sex can actually be beneficial to the child.
  • Pederasty should not be classified as a mental disorder, since it does not cause distress to the pederast to have these desires and since the pederast can function as a normal, contributing member of society.
  • Many of the illustrious homosexuals of the past were actually pedophiles.
  • People are against intergenerational intimacy because of antiquated social standards and puritanical sexual phobias.
  • This is all about love and equality and liberation.

As I noted in 2011, “none of these arguments should surprise us. After all, the age of increasing sexual anarchy in which we live is a fruit of the sexual revolution of the 1960’s, and the seeds of sexual anarchy were sown already by Alfred Kinsey in the late 1940’s, as Prof. Judith Reisman has tirelessly documented. And it was Kinsey, after all, who relied on the research of pedophiles to document the sexual responses of infants and children.”

To repeat: Every gay man who has ever commented to me about pedophilia seemed as repulsed as I was to the thought of an adult sexually abusing a child, and I’m absolutely not equating homosexuality with pedophilia.

But I am saying that, whereas most heterosexual teens who lose their virginity do so with their peers (schoolmates and the like, perhaps just a few years older than them), there is a disproportionate amount of intergenerational sex among homosexuals, often involving older men and boys (by which I do mean boys).

In the aftermath of the arrest of child abuser Jerry Sandusky, I noted that the acclaimed gay journalist Randy Shilts stated that “at age 11, [gay icon Harvey] Milk began attending performances of the New York Metropolitan Opera where he met with ‘wandering hands’ and soon was engaged in ‘brief trysts [with grown men] after the performances.’ While still in junior high, he ‘dove headfirst into the newly discovered subculture,’ and by the age of 14, Milk was ‘leading an active homosexual life.’”

This led to the obvious question: Were the men who were sexually involved with Harvey Milk much better than Jerry Sandusky? And can an 11-year-old give truly informed consent to such acts?

Shilts also wrote that as Milk grew older, the pattern reversed itself to the point that, at age 33, he hooked up with a 16-year-old named Jack McKinley, one of a number of younger men with whom he was intimate. How common was Milk’s experience among gay men?

I suggest that Milo has provided a window into a disturbing aspect of gay culture, one in which gay men do not abduct children and abuse them but one in which they do engage in sexual and romantic relationships with minors — unless we are actually to believe that when gay men speak about having sex with “boys,” they mean, “but only those who are consenting adults!”

I think not.

PRESS CONFERENCE: Milo Yiannopoulos Resigns from Breitbart, Tells Story of Past Sexual Abuse (FNN)


Paedo-theologians (or Paedosex-theologians) are those religious academics and clergy advocating that young children should be sexualised by the state, in state run schools, encouraging them to experiment and chose a gender, and be trained up, by the state, as to how that gender behaves.

Paedo-theologians have campaigned for the normalisation of homosexuality knowing that the next step is to normalise their sexual bahaviour for children.

The Paedo-theologian’s consider that their desire to sexualise children follows naturally from the normalisation of the GLBTQi+ spectrum within the wider church community. They seek to identify potential futures members of their sexually orientated communities earlier in their lives to enable them to practice their new sexual behaviours without discrimination. This would enable them to further flourish in their lifestyle choice when they grow older.

The normalisation of the GLBTQi+ community throughout all New Zealand churches has been demonstrated by the teaching of the Catholic Institute of Theology, the legitimacy of which was tested in the Human Rights Commission trial of the Anglican Church in 2013, and the resulting Motion 30 which has split the church of New Zealand.

The theology of Paedo-theologians follows broadly the Theology of a paedophile.