|Defender of the Faith Joseph Shaw
I believe that Joseph Shaw is the head of UK’s Latin Mass Society. Shaw is long on self-righteousness yet quite short on truth and decency. According to Mr. Shaw: How LGBT agenda offers perfect cover for predators to groom children. Shaw’s diatribe includes a tirade about gender-affirming medical care:
… a clinic belonging to the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) adopted a policy of “affirming” the expressed desires of young people and children to “change sex”, prescribing them powerful drugs, whose long-term effects remain little-known, to “block puberty.” The courts have now determined that this policy was wrong, because younger children are incapable of consenting to this treatment, and even the consent of older children must be treated with great caution.
If you think that Mr. Shaw gives a crap about the welfare of children you would be mistaken. His moronic bullshit is about defending scripture. Never mind that gender-affirming care is the clinical practice standard in the United States according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society. Both professional organizations are recognized internationally for their expertise.
Furthermore, on the whole, minors do not provide consent to gender-affirming interventions. At least not in this country. Ordinarily it is parents who provide legal consent with the clinical consent of several doctors. The Court made a number of errors in the Tavistock decision which is likely to be appealed. It also left parental consent in limbo.
…a Catholic Sex Education course promoted to “introduce” children as young as nine to the “gift” of “sexuality”. This man, a priest called Joseph Quigley, has now been convicted of pedophilia.
According to media reports:
Describing the perverted priest as ‘a sexual sadist and voyeur,’ Judge Peter Cooke remanded him in custody while a report is prepared on him to assess the danger he poses in the future.
Allow me to add another media report:
A suspended Catholic priest has been charged with raping a teenage girl at his former parish in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, The Inquirer reports. The priest, Rev. Armand Garcia, is also charged with recording their sexual encounter …
Quigley is not representative of gay people just as Garcia is not representative of straight people. Moreover, the gender of victims of child abuse is not representative of the sexual orientation of the abuser. Numerous studies of pedophile priests have concluded that they are victims of opportunity for the offending priest.
What has been happening in each case is that people in authority have been manipulating children and young adults to bring about something those in authority want.
In Quigley’s case it was the trust and openness which would facilitate abuse.
Actually that is false. Priests are able to abuse because of their position of authority rather than “trust and openness.” Priests are regarded as representatives of their god.
In the NHS case it was the promotion of an agenda regarded as politically urgent. Those involved were desperate to show that they were on the right side of the debate about gender, even though this meant sacrificing the mental and physical health of children. Quigley also was riding a wave of fashion which suited his twisted ends.
It’s nice to know that Mr. Shaw is an adept mind reader. Furthermore he is claiming that children were harmed by gender affirming care without evidence to support his assertion. According to the science, gender incongruent children are harmed when denied gender affirmation. The science is clear that gender-diverse kids do well when their gender is affirmed and they have parental support.
Again, Shaw’s concern is not for the welfare of children but for the defense of scripture.
Something similar is happening with the homosexual (“LGBT”) agenda. Joseph Sciambra, a victim of clerical sexual abuse, has recently written:
At a recent Los Angeles Religious Education Congress, I squirmed in my seat as some third-rate gay activist priest persuaded a group of gap-mouthed and wholly impressed Catholic religious and educators to recognize vulnerable children, befriend and gain their trust, and to then impose upon them an LGBT identity. It’s as if my abuser rose among the ranks in the Church and became the voice of reason on this issue. After the presentation, I ran to the public restroom and vomited.
|Joseph Sciambra selling his schlock. Jesus is appalled|
Perhaps Mr. Shaw might find a better source of nonsense than Joseph Sciambra. Brian Tashman once referred to Sciambra as the “ex-Nazi-witch-Satanist-porn-star who authored the salacious memoir ‘Swallowed by Satan.’” Aside from being a fruitcake, Sciambra is consistently dishonest. That narrative (above) makes no sense.
Sciambra is an “ex-gay” douchebag. This is the first time that I have come across Sciambra claiming that he was abused by a priest. It is a common practice for ex-gays to claim that they were victims of abuse. It’s a way of blaming someone for their sexual orientation.
Returning to Shaw’s drivel:
… what Sciambra found is that the “born that way” message is a gift to abusers, because it imprisons young people not only in a category of person, but in a pattern of behavior.
Born that way is a bit misleading. We form sexual orientation by about age two. The overwhelming consensus of science is that sexual orientation is a continuum with heterosexual and homosexual at extreme opposite ends. Every point in between is natural variant of human sexuality that is resistant to change.
Sciambra runs a pray-your-gay-away, … something. There is no evidence that either prayer or some form of “therapy” can change someone’s sexual orientation. There is evidence that attempts to do so are futile and harmful. In fact that is the judgment of every mainstream medical association.
When someone wants medical science to be subverted by religious dogma, that someone is a religious fanatic and a crackpot.
Much of Sciambra’s experience of Catholic priests was to be bounced between two kinds. There were the priests who told him that because of his nature, which he couldn’t change, behavior objectively contrary to the moral law was appropriate, and that he shouldn’t struggle against this. And then there were the priests who took advantage of his vulnerability actually to abuse him.
Sciambra is not an honest witness to anything other than his desire to be validated. Any religion that accuses gay people of aberrant behavior is abusive. Any religion that seeks to compel gay people to change their sexual orientation is exploitive.
What Shaw is trying to suggest is that the priests who were intellectually honest made it possible for the abusive priests to molest children. It is nonsense that is not supported by any evidence. It also doesn’t make an iota of sense.
A child or adolescent who accepts their sexuality is no more prone to be a victim of pedophilia than a child or adolescent in denial. In fact quite the contrary because the gay kid usually develops a reservoir of ego strengths. Closeted kids are insecure and more easily manipulated by an authority figure.
The suggestion becomes explicit
The first thing an abuser needs to do is to undermine his victim’s resistance to the proposed abuse, and the “gay affirming” ideology does exactly that. It prepares young people for abuse.
Mr. Shaw is less interested in the welfare of children than he is in defending the catechism of the Catholic Church. Being gay affirming is not an ideology and, rather than affirming, the correct phrase is “gay accepting.” Telling a kid that he is going to Hell isn’t going to change their sexual orientation.
Shaw attempts to claim that a UK grooming scandal is comparable to accepting a kid’s sexuality. According to the Manchester Evening News:
Nine men who abused girls as young as 13 were convicted over a child sex grooming ring, guilty of 21 counts of sexual abuse over a two-year period. They were convicted on the back of evidence from who were as young as 13 when the abuse happened between 2008 and 2010. The vulnerable girls, some of them runaways or in the care of social services, were given the attention they craved before being plied with drink, raped and driven all over the north to have sex with other men.
A proud gay kid is not comparable to an adolescent girl desperate for attention. The reverse is the more likely outcome. Ostracize that gay kid and he become insecure, neurotic and more vulnerable.
As a society we must free ourselves of the idea that following moral rules hinders healthy psychological development.
It depends upon what those moral rules are and who their arbiter is. In the course of human history, nothing has inspired more immorality than religion. We do not have to go back to the Spanish Inquisition or our ethnic cleansing of Native Americans.
This very day, for example, religious fanatics are causing gender-diverse kids to suffer by influencing their parents to disregard medical science in order to defend ancient texts. The fact that those same children are more prone to self-harm seems irrelevant to the zealots who believe that they are proxies for a deity.
Leave it to a religious fanatic to invoke upisdownism. Joseph Shaw has found a way to claim that treating youth decently is to place them in peril. He has done so without a scintilla of evidence.
Religion does not provide an excuse for indecency or intolerance.