Priest Admits Guilt in Sex Abuse Cover Up, Then Asks Court to throw out charges

In the Philadelphia Archdiocese case Monsignor William Lynn says he’s not guilty because a superior ordered him to destroy the lists of pedophile priests, but that’s merely admitting his guilt and a demonstration that the average priest still thinks that the church’s instructions outweigh civil law.

The fact that the church ignored civil laws and aided and abetted child abusing criminals for decades is the problem, and the reason for this case. It really doesn’t matter that his superior in the church ordered him to cover it up, he still should have reported the crimes and the list of perpetrators to the authorities. He cared more for the church and his position in it than the abused children.

The recent unexpected and shocking discovery of a March, 1994 memorandum composed by Monsignor James Molloy, Monsignor Lynn’s then-supervisor, on the topic of this review, clearly reveals that justice demands that all charges against Monsignor Lynn be dropped,” Lynn’s attorneys said in a filing. As revealed in court papers filed on Friday, Molloy’s handwritten memo dated March 22, 1994, informed Bevilacqua that the secret list of 35 priests had been shredded per his instructions. On 3-22-94 at 10:45 AM I shredded, in the presence of Reverend Joseph R. Cistone, four copies of these lists from the secret archives, Molloy’s memo stated. The action was taken on the basis of a directive I received from Cardinal Bevilacqua at the Issues meeting of 3-15-94 ….”

via Attorneys: Cardinal ordered memo on priests destroyed – CNN.com.

The church thinks it is above the law, and another example of that is the bishop’s screeching over having to let their female employees choose when they bear children by refusing to provide for birth control in their insurance plans.

On Heading Off to Hate Church

It’s not a secret that hate churches are on the rise in the US, the prototypical one being the Phelps clan; Westboro Baptist tends to castigate Homosexuals and other religions, such as Judaism.

The Phelps hate church is really just the tip of the iceberg however, and a convenient focus for media and others who would define hate churches – those who would point at the Westboro Baptist Church and say “See? We’re not as bad as them…”

However the reality belies that argument — from the Churches that pray for our President’s death to those that hate Islam and want to hurry a Civilizational apocalyptic war with all of Islam, to those that hate gays, to those fed by foreign lobbies with arcane goals, these hate churches are on the rise.

The two themes you find constant among these groups are hate for other religions (Judaism, Islam, etc.) and hate for Gays. Occasionally you will find racial prejudice fed as well, but that’s inconstant.

So why does religion sometimes foster hate? More importantly: why does a minority of church goers in the US pick a church that extolls hate? This is something I will be discussing and speculating upon over the next few weeks, since most people who are religious cannot begin to fathom where these fringers are coming from.

In the Baylor study, college students recruited from introductory psychology classes were primed with either religious-word letter strings like “Bible,” “faith,” “Christ” and “church” or neutral words like “shirt,” “butter,” “switch” and “hammer.” Researchers found that religiously primed students demonstrated “a slight but significant” increase in racial prejudice.

Previous studies show a complex relationship between religiosity and racial prejudice. Some dimensions of religion have been shown to increase levels of prejudice, while others reduce it. Those studies all rely on self-reporting, however, and are therefore skewed by the phenomenon of “social desirability,” meaning that some people report more positive racial attitudes than they actually hold.

The Baylor study is thought to be the first to test whether exposure to religious concepts may contribute to racial prejudice.

Barack Obama 1995: Reverend Wright Represents the Best that the Black Church has to Offer

You’ve probably already seen the videos of Reverend Wright saying “G-D Damn America!” “Ameri- KKK- A!” and in one of his worst rants blaming 9/11 on the US with his “chickens coming home to roost” statement. You’ve also seen Presidential Candidate Obama separate himself from him – but that was only because he needed to do so to run for president. Here’s a 1995 interview where you can see him extolling the virtue of Wright, ending by saying “Reverend Wright represents the best that the black church has to offer.” Is there any doubt that if McCain had a similar racist, america hating preacher that he would have been out of the race long ago?

In it you can also hear him talking about black liberation theology – he clearly understands what it is and the divisive nature of the marxification of black churches. All his protestations and genuflections to moderation, his dodges and his deflections are blown away by this interview. Indeed, you can hear him saying a similar thing to those that Reverend Wright did here.

This was 13 years before Barack conveniently condemned Wright and left his church. Black liberation theology is part of Barack’s identity, and like all identity movements based on race, tribe, or religion there is a large dose of hate for the “other”. This is racism writ large, and the black identity movement is no better than any of the other identity purist ideologies that I’ve bashed here in the past.