- The clergy sex abuse was no different than pedophilia found in other circles of society; that is homosexuality wasn't a major factor.
- There would be financial repercussions to Catholics as lawsuits would be paid from insurance policies.
They made what they now consider to be a mistake; they opened the floor for our questions. We made plain that we weren't buying the yarn. In regard to the first point, we reiterated that we were examining the sex abuse that was occurring among Roman Catholic clergy, not general pedophilia. We weren't going to compare apples versus oranges. We pointed out that over 90% of the victims of perverted clergy were boys, so indeed the problem lay at the feet of homosexuals within the clergy.
In regard to the second point, we let them know that the insurance premiums were being paid from our collection-plate dollars, and that those premiums would be skyrocketing as a result of the mess. In hindsight, I think we can see from where Obama got his crackpot idea of his mandate "accommodation" for religious organizations. Before it was Obama's crackpot idea, it was the bishops' crackpot idea!
That first meeting at St. Raphael's was also the last meeting. We now see that the archdiocese was only attempting "damage control" and that we weren't buying it. From the perspective of the archdiocese, the meeting was a miserable flop - but an eye-opener for the rest of us.
Click here if you can't see embedded video.