The Bunker Mentality: "The Babe" and the Catholic Church

October 11 2005
Counterbias.com
Mel Seesholtz
 

“Put God back where He belongs!” was the exclamatory title of a September 19, 2005 World Net Daily article by Barbara Simpson. Her brief bio at the end of the piece noted that she’s also known as “’The Babe in the Bunker’ … to KSFO 560 radio talk-show audience in San Francisco.”

Following the most recent court ruling about The Pledge of Allegiance, “The Babe” crawled out of her bunker and went on the prowl: “I decided to listen to hear how they’d handle the story.” Ms. Simpson identified the “they” as “the more liberal radio talk-show hosts.” One (unidentified) caller-host exchange really got to her with its honesty and bluntness. In reporting her audio voyeurism, Ms. Simpson was unclear as to who said what, but whether it was the caller or the host, the message was the same: 

Get Him [“God”] out of marriage – i.e., homosexual marriage should be legal and the homosexual lifestyle approved. Get Him off our money. Get images or references to God out of the courthouses and government buildings. Get religious chaplains out of the halls of legislatures, out of the courtroom and out of the military unless each religious denomination pays for their chaplain, but only if there’s a request to have them there. Get God totally out of the schools, in every manifestation. (italics mine)

Irate and near temper-tantrum, Ms. Simpson raged against the idea that politically motivated religious fanatics’ definition of “God should have neither presence nor influence in our public lives, nor should He or His values influence our laws, practices or systems.” Perhaps it was her bunker’s echo that prevented Ms. Simpson from hearing much less understanding the truth of what was said, beginning with “marriage,” which wasn’t always called that.

The word “marriage” did not enter the English language until the 14th century. For most of the civil institution’s history (which predates the evolution of the three Western monotheistic religions), it was just that: a civil union or contract, a secular institution designed to secure inheritance and property rights. The English word derives from French “mariage” that derived from earlier French mari/marier, that in turn derived from Latin maritus, husband. The root of maritus is mas or maris, meaning “male”: that is, property given to the male.

As commentator and author Charles Karel Bouley observed in an October 2003 Advocate on-line article posted October 22, 2003,

The principal property that marriage was developed to deal with – a property that is still the core right of marriage in many cultures across the globe – is the woman. In this most traditional, most historically accurate form of marriage, the woman is considered a possession: first of her father, then of her lawful husband. She has little voice in where she lives; what her husband does; whether, or how many children they have; or her own duties and chores in the arrangement. She is expected to devote herself to her husband and her family. (Think this is from long, long ago? It’s only been since the emergence of feminism that “love, honor, and obey” in the woman’s vows in most Christian ceremonies was reduced to two out of three of those.) Historically, wives were often awarded to men for great victories or feats of strength and bravery. Sometimes they were – and still are – simply sold outright. …

 

According to these millennia-old traditions, marriage is a contract that has nothing to do with faith, religion, God, or the like. It has everything to do with real estate, wealth, lines of succession, and business and political negotiations. ...

Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, noted in his book Virtually Normal that “in secular society, marriage was largely a matter of business: cementing family ties, forging social and economic alliances, providing social status for men and economic security for women, conferring dowries… marriages were mergers and acquisitions.”

Philosopher Richard Mohr has noted that, legally speaking, marriage is “nothing but an empty space delimited only by what it excludes – gay couples,” siblings, parents and children, and certain individuals who lack the mental ability to understand or enter into legal contracts. In his book Gay Marriage, Jonathan Rauch elaborated by explaining that there are no rules or behaviors that automatically negate a marriage:

If a man beats his wife… he may be convicted of assault, but the marriage is not automatically dissolved. Couples can be adulterous (or “open”) yet still be married, as long as that is what they choose to be. They can be celibate, too; consummation is not required. They can live together or apart, in the same house or in different countries: there is no residency or cohabitation requirement. There is no upper age limit. Spouses need not know each other or even meet before receiving a marriage license. They need not regularly see each other; a prisoner of war or a sailor or adventurer can be separated from his wife for years and be no less married. They can have children or not. Not only can felons marry, they can do so on their way to the electric chair. … Within those rules, a marriage is whatever the spouses agree it is. So the laws say almost nothing about what marriage is for: just who can be married.

One of the most thorough studies of the civil contract and institution is Stephanie Coontz’s Marriage: A History. The comments of Publishers Weekly make the point:

In ancient Rome, no distinction was made between cohabitation and marriage; during the Middle Ages, marriage was regarded less as a bond of love than as a career decision; in the Victorian era, the increasingly important idea of true love undermined the gender hierarchy of the home (in the past, men rulers of the household were encouraged to punish insufficiently obedient wives). Coontz explains marriage as a way of ensuring a domestic labor force, as a political tool and as a flexible reflection of changing social standards and desires.

The last clause is key: “a flexible reflection of changing social standards and desires.” Today, the “changing” includes same-sex marriage. For those who hide in the biblical bunker when it comes to that particular change, allow me to refresh your selective memories with Leviticus 20:10: “if a man commits adultery with the wife of another man both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.” Deuteronomy 22:22 reinforces Leviticus: “If a man is caught lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman as well as the woman.”

As I’m sure the “Babe in the Bunker” is aware, on September 8, 2004 – during the height of the pre-election campaign to “save traditional marriage” – the Christian marketing-research Barna Group issued a report entitled “Born Again Christians Just As Likely to Divorce As Are Non-Christians.” It documented that “among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%.” Barna also documented that “nearly one-quarter of the married ‘born agains’ (23%) get divorced two or more times.” No doubt more than a few of those multiple divorces among born-again Christians reported by the Barna Group involved adultery.

Why is the Bible applied so literally by the Christian Right in their arguments against same-sex marriage and not at all to adulterers in their own flock? Could it be that “God” and “religion” are simply being used to justify ad hoc bigotry?

“A bigot is one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ believing they, as a group, deserve special treatment above and beyond everyone else.” In commenting on this definition of “bigot” she’d seen in an “Alert” on the web site of the Family Research Council – the ultra-conservative, bible-thumping, anti-gay marriage organization that arranged and sponsored Justice Sunday and Justice Sunday II – CounterBias reader Eavan Callaghan sent me astute, common sense analysis:

Who is more intolerant than a conservative fundamentalist Christian with respect to homosexuals? …
 

It is the fundamentalist Christian who is trying to force their beliefs and ways of conducting one’s life upon homosexuals.  If the fundamentalist Christians had their way, homosexuality would be illegal, it would be legal to discriminate against homosexuals, homosexuals would have no place to work and no place to live and, of course, they would not be able to marry.  All of this would have a serious and negative impact on the life of a homosexual.

 

On the other hand, if a homosexual lived next door to a fundamentalist Christian and worked at the same company as the fundamentalist Christian and the homosexual had a partner to whom he was married but the fundamentalist Christian did not know any of this, the life of the fundamentalist Christian would be in no way affected.  If the fundamentalist Christian became aware of this, he may become quite ‘bothered’ by it but his life would still be in no way affected.

These self-evident truths are just reasons for getting “God” and “religion” out of civil marriage, the legal system, government buildings, and especially schools where all children should feel safe enough to learn.

The religious bigots and purveyors of hate who claim to be “doing God’s work” have been waging holy war against Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs meant to foster tolerance and understanding among students.

According to the National Center for Victims of Crime and the Federal Bureau of Investigations, violence against gays and lesbians increased 8 percent between 1999 and 2000. Of the 1,317 violent incidents attributed to the victim’s sexual orientation, 69 percent were against boys or men perceived to be gay. These trends have continued unabated. Indeed, a report just released by Amnesty International documents that police abuse and misconduct against gay and lesbian Americans were rampant: “At times, the mere perception that someone is gay or lesbian provokes physical or verbal attacks.”

The Christian Right’s attacks on Gay-Straight Alliance groups in public schools have also had a marked effect. “We’re alarmed by a noticeable increase in gay youth facing discrimination or hostility in just the last month since the [2004] election. While we’ve just been through a very contentious national election that focused a great deal on the rights of gay couples, that can’t be allowed to threaten the well established rights of gay youth to be out, safe and respected in schools,” said Michael Adams, Director of Education and Public Affairs at Lambda Legal. “The rights of gay youth are very clear, and they’re not up for public debate. We see an urgent need to get this message out in communities where gay youth have experienced problems since the election, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.”

A 2005 survey by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Educational Network of public schools nationwide showed that four out of five gay and lesbian students reported being verbally and/or physically harassed at school because of their sexual orientation.

The lack of tolerance and support for at risk gay and lesbian students seems to delight the Christian Right. An early 2005 study issued by Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) documented that 95 percent of counseling services in the nation’s public schools have little or no gay, lesbian or bisexual resources. Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink newsletter began its January 7, 2005 story – “PFLAG Targets Schools” by Stuart Shepard – about the PFLAG report this way:

A major support group for the relatives of homosexuals has released its analysis of the nation’s schools, and while many family advocates will find the results encouraging, some say the study is simply a tool to gain leverage for pro-gay causes. (italics mine)

The use of the word “encouraging” is nothing short of chilling and the precise definition of “with malice aforethought.”

The attacks on GSA clubs have grown more intense and more demented. White County school administrators in northeast Georgia have banned all extracurricular clubs in a frenzied effort to prevent a GSA one. Georgia state senator Ralph Hudgens (a Republican, of course) is promoting legislation that would require all George public school students to have parental permission to join any club. Mr. Hudgens make no pretense. He’s on record stating that he hopes his bill will help reduce if not eliminate membership in GSA clubs in junior and high schools.

In Lebanon, Pennsylvania, members of the Cornwall-Lebanon school board were told by evangelical Christians that hurricane Katrina was God’s way of punishing New Orleans for planning to host a gay event, and that if the school district allowed GSA clubs, the same fate would befall them and their city. One has to wonder how these evangelicals and the other religious fanatics who claimed hurricane Katrina was “God’s wrath” against homosexuals will account for hurricane Rita.

Perhaps Rita was God’s wrath against the overtly homophobic governor of Texas, Rick Perry who, during a press conference, was asked how he would tell Texas gay and lesbian war veterans returning home from Iraq that they cannot get married in Texas. The governor’s answer: “Texans made a decision about marriage and if there's a state that has more lenient views than Texas, then maybe that's a better place for them to live.” Or perhaps Rita was God’s wrath for George W. Bush’s perversion of “God” and “religion” for his own political purposes.

On September 19, 2005, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network that sponsors GSA clubs launched “Ally Week,” a program that sought “to empower straight students, faculty and administration to be allies in making anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) name-calling, bullying and harassment unacceptable in K-12 schools.” Immediately, the Christian Right attacked. Executive director of the Family Foundation of Virginia Victoria Cobb called the effort to keep all students safe “yet another example of the all-out assault on our values by the homosexual community through our public schools.” Apparently Ms. Cobb is one of those good Christians “encouraged” by the lack of support for and physical violence directed against gay and lesbian students.

The other obvious reason to keep “God” and “religion” out of the public schools is the perversion of science by creationists and their intelligent design brethren. They have already succeeded in creating a religious-political controversy where there is none scientifically. Using their “thinking,” perhaps public schools should teach alchemy along side chemistry and astrology along side astronomy, and then let the students decide what “science” is. Should that science-is-whatever-you-think-it-is approach be carried into higher education, and beyond? How about into medical school?

As for getting “God” off the money, perhaps the Bunker Babe and those who share her “thinking” may want to have a look at Matthew 22:18-21: “But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” If one is to follow Yeshua’s lead, the word “God” should not be on government issued money, or in the Pledge of Allegiance. 

The (Protestant) Christian Right and the Catholic Church are always harping about “moral relativism,” yet they fervently practice it as they preach “scientific and civic relativism.” As for meaningful “morality,” busted evangelical leaders such as Jimmy Swaggart, who said he would have no problem murdering gays, and Jim Bakker, whose affair with Jessica Hahn brought down his lucrative “ministry,” and homophobe extraordinaire Rev. Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition who, after the attacks of 9/11, argued against giving aid to the surviving members of gay and lesbian partnerships and their children, have none. Neither does the Catholic Church.

The larger than usual headline of the Philadelphia Inquirer on Thursday, September 22, 2005 read “An ‘Immoral’ Cover-up.” A grand jury indicted the Philadelphia archdiocese in a 418-page report detailing rampant pedophilia and sexual abuse as well as decades of well planned, sinister cover-up orchestrated by two Philadelphia cardinals, (the late) John Krol and (recently retired) Anthony Bevilacqua. Krol was and Bevilacqua is an outspoken critic of “gay rights,” especially the civil right to a civil marriage. Here are just a few of the heinous examples cited by the grand jury:

An 11-year-old girl who was repeatedly raped by a priest who took her for an abortion when she became pregnant.

 

A fifth grader who was molested by a priest inside a confessional.

 

A teenage girl who was groped by a priest while she lay immobilized in traction in a hospital room.

 

A priest who offered money to boys in exchange for sadomasochistic acts of bondage and wrote a letter asking a boy to make him his “slave.” The priest remains in ministry.

 

A sadistic priest who enjoyed having children play the roles of Jesus and other biblical characters in parish Passion plays. He made them disrobe and whip each other until they had cuts, bruises and welts.

 

A priest who falsely told a 12-year-old boy his mother knew of the assaults and consented to the rape of her son.

The grand jury found that many victims were abused for years and that many priests abused multiple victims, sometimes preying on members of the same family. Father Albert T. Kostelnick had 18 victims. Father James J. Brzyski, whose conduct the report described as a “criminal rampage,” abused 17 victims, many of them from a single parish. Father Nicholas V. Cudemo abused 16 victims and was allowed to stay in his pastoral role for decades after the first abuse report in 1966.

And how did the archdiocese respond? In a truly disgusting display of perverted self-interest and bunker mentality, they claimed to be victims. Even more disgusting is that no criminal charges can be filed against the priests or against “Prince of the Church” Cardinal Bevilacqua, despite the following excerpts from the grand jury’s report:

After reviewing thousands of documents from Archdiocese files and hearing... from over a hundred witnesses, we, the Grand Jurors, were taken aback by the extent of sexual exploitation within the Philadelphia Archdiocese. …

 

For any who might want to believe that the abuse problem in the Philadelphia area was limited in scope, this Report will disabuse them of that impression. The Jurors heard from some victims who were sexually abused once or twice, and from many more who were abused week after week for years... . Indeed, the evidence arising from the Philadelphia Archdiocese reveals criminality against minors on a widespread scale – sparing no geographic sector, no income level, no ethnic group. We heard testimony about priests molesting and raping children in rectory bedrooms, in church sacristies, in parked cars, in swimming pools, at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, at the priests’ vacation houses in the Poconos and the Jersey shore, in the children's schools and even in their own homes. …

 

Cardinal Bevilacqua, Cardinal Krol and their top aides all abdicated their duty to protect children. They concealed priests’ sexual abuses instead of exposing them. …

 

There is no doubt that the cardinals and their top aides knew that Philadelphia priests were abusing children. There is no doubt that these officials engaged in a continuous, concerted campaign of cover-up over the priests’ sexual offenses. …

 

Sexually abusive priests were either left quietly in place or ‘recycled’ to unsuspecting new parishes - vastly expanding the number of children who were abused. …

 

Documents clearly established that Cardinal Bevilacqua knew that the priests had admitted abusing minors. They also established that he alone was responsible for subsequently placing or leaving the priests in parishes where they would present a severe danger to children. …

 

Cardinal Bevilacqua had a strict policy, according to his aides, that forbid informing parishioners...  The Cardinal, in fact, encouraged that parishioners be misinformed. …

 

Cardinal Bevilacqua was trained as an attorney...  The Grand Jurors find that in his handling of priests’ sexual abuse, Cardinal Bevilacqua was motivated by an intent to keep the record clear of evidence that would implicate him or the Archdiocese. To this end, he continued many of the practices of his predecessor, Cardinal Krol, aimed at avoiding scandal, while also introducing policies that reflected a growing awareness that dioceses and bishops might be held legally responsible for their negligent and knowing actions that abetted known predators. …

 

To protect themselves from negative publicity or expensive lawsuits – while keeping abusive priests active – the cardinals and their aides hid the priests’ crimes from parishioners, police and the general public.

Moreover, while treating abusers gently, with good wishes and promotions –

Bevilacqua included one molester, the Rev. Albert Kostelnick [who had the greatest number of victims], at a 1997 luncheon honoring priests, and promoted him, even though the church had received a constant stream of abuse allegations against him, including an eyewitness account from a fellow priest.

– the grand jury found that Bevilacqua had lashed out at those within the diocese who tried to raise an alarm. After a seminarian came forward to report that a priest was an abuser, “Cardinal Bevilacqua ordered an investigation – of the seminarian.” Bevilacqua refused to allow the seminarian to complete his studies and forced him to seek ordination outside the diocese.

Nevertheless, the statute of limitations has run out. So the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has once again gotten away with crimes against humanity while protecting their own depraved institution.

Pope Benedict XVI’s bunker mentality and widely publicized plan to purge seminaries of gays is little more than an attempt to shift blame from the corrupt, immoral Church to “gay priests.” The facts about pedophilia in no way support the pope’s initiative, as was so succinctly put by Kathryn Conroy, assistant dean at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a recent New York Times letter:

Reliable studies show that pedophiles (those adults who sexually abuse children) are overwhelmingly heterosexual. In fact, homosexuals are statistically underrepresented as those who sexually abuse children. …

 

Further, women have far lower rates of sexually abusing children than men do. So if the church were really serious about protecting children from sexual abuse by priests, gays would not be excluded from the priesthood and ordination would be extended to women.