Media Coverup: Hiding the Homosexuality of Sex Abuse Perpetrators

The concerted media attempt to attack the Church and the pope in particular has been interesting in one specific way. The mainstream media goes out of its way to hide the homosexuality of most of the abusers. They use the word "pedophile" because pedophiles are notoriously sex nonspecific in their attacks. Girls, boys: it's all the same to a pedophile who targets pre-pubescent children whose bodies (at least with clothing) look pretty much the same.

But who were the abusers in the priest abuse cases? Over 80 percent attacked adolescent boys, young men, post-pubescent young men. The cases were largely homosexual assaults. But you wouldn't know that from the mainstream media.

Daniel Oliver has a fascinating article about the New York Times' coverage of priestly sex abuse, specifically the case of Fr. Hullermann in Germany and what and when Cardinal Ratzinger knew whatever he did know.

The Times, Oliver said, omitted an imporant fact: Hullermann's homosexuality. Here's what he writes:

Here are four possible interpretations of the Times's curious omission of Hullermann's homosexuality. One, that the Times reporter didn't know that Hullermann was a homosexual -- and wasn't curious enough to find out. Two, the editors of the Times assumed all its readers would assume Hullermann was a homosexual. Three, the people at the New York Times thought the fact irrelevant. And four, the people at the Times are in thrall to the homosexual community and didn't want to disparage it.

One and two are implausible. If you could figure out Hullermann was a homosexual, so could a reporter for the New York Times. And since when did the newspaper of record omit an important fact just because many readers would know it anyway? Three is absurd: clearly the homosexuality of the offender would be one of the most important parts of the story.

Leaving the fourth reason: the Times made a choice to speak no ill of homosexuals....

There is almost surely a cover-up here. But it's a cover-up by the New York Times of a group of people whose lifestyle the Times celebrates. The Times seems to be more interested in protecting its friends in the homosexual community than the youngsters in churches -- and in any other institutions where they might fall victim to predatory homosexuals.

Exactly! The media, accusing the pope of a coverup have been providing cover for homosexuals for years. They will attack the priests as priests, but NEVER criticize their homosexuality. Even in the case of serial murderers like Jeffrey Dahmer, the homosexual nature of his attacks was swept under the rug.

Which leads one to apply this observation about doctors to the reporters at the Times and other mainstream media outlets.  "Physician, heal thyself." Reporters, examine your own biases.

Unfortunately, Church leaders have engaged in the same charade. Look at VIRTUS and their insistance that homosexuals are less of a threat to children than heterosexuals. The so-called "safe touch" programs have been part of the coverup which unfortunately continues.