As far as I can tell there is no difference between JoePa and JoePope. Both were kings of their worlds. Both turned a blind eye to sexual abuse of children to protect their records and their brand. As well as make a boatload of money.
Let's go through the timeline. According to CNN:
1977 - Jerry Sandusky founds the Second Mile, a charity to help troubled youth.
1998 - He is accused and admits to showering with a boy and says he sorry. The DA does not go forward with the charges and advises the Campus Police to drop the case.
Hmm, the police, the DA all investigate. Do we think JoePa (the king of Penn State) knew?
Maybe not.
1999 - Sandusky retires from Penn State football, but stays on as a "volunteer" and has full access to the campus and facilities.
A year later he retires from his job at one of the most successful college football programs in the country? Why would he do that? Is it really possible JoePa did know. Maybe.
2000 - A Janitor sees Sandusky performing oral sex on a boy in the shower and reports it to his supervisor. Who does not report it to the police. And this point I'm guessing it has been reported to JoePa, just to protect his program and brand.
I think we are seeing a trend here. It looks pretty familiar to me.
2002 - McQueary sees the now famous shower rape scene and tells his father, who is not a police officer. Because if he were it would have made sense. They tell JoePa the next day. Second Mile is told.
And...nothing.
2004 - 2008 He abuses another boy while volunteering to help a wrestling coach. Wrestling. How convenient. He can quickly claim that his sexual contact is wrestling or horseplay.
And on. And on.
To digress for a moment, when Sandusky's narcissistic sociopathic side decided to phone in his interview with Bob Costas, he claimed it was horseplay.
"I could say that I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them, and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact," said Sandusky.
He went on to describe turning on all the showers and sliding across the floor as part of the horsing around. And that may be odd, but not sexual abuse of a child.
He is right. It is called grooming.
He is preparing the child for sexual contact by making it fun and safe to play around with a grown and naked man. 
It would probably happen a few times without any intimate contact at all. Then slide on the floor through my  legs. Accidentally touch. And you can imagine the rest.
And I hope you do. You need to think about how awful this is.
In 1970 a young Tom Teczar was in seminary studying to be a priest.  He was kicked out twice and  Bishop Flanagan from the Diocese of Worcester Massachusetts, wrote in response to an inquiry from Catholic University's dean, of Teczar's "predilection for intimate and rather exclusive companionship with young boys."
He noted that because in the mid-60's Teczar was fired from the Nazareth Home for Boys (a home for trouble youth - sound familiar?) for "inappropriately touching" a 10 year old boy.
So they ordain him and send him to Saint Mary's in Uxbridge Massachusetts where he has been known to have "allegedly" abused at least five boys. I was "allegedly" one.
Caught, is bounced around from parish to parish until in 1988 he was moved all the way to Fort Worth Texas. Where Bishop Delaney took him, even though he was well aware of Teczar's history.
Finally in 2002 he is arrested in Texas where he is now serving a 25 year sentence.
Can you imagine if someone had called the police in the mid-60's with that 10 year old boy?
Can you imagine if the DA had prosecuted Sandusky in 1998?
JoePa and JoePope couldn't.
But I wish they had.

I don't normally use this blog to promote any of my work. It is usually a place for me to poke the bag of Catholic with a stick. It is when I am irritated enough by the news of the day that I tend to sit down and write one of these. I haven't done that in awhile.
It's not that I haven't been irritated. I have. But I've been busy trying to promote my little short horror film called "Microcinema." But more on that later.
Today I want to talk about Sinead O'Connor. Apparently some people are upset that she tweeted "That there'd be a fucking bloodbath. Me meet the fucker off the plane myself" if Pope Benedict visited Ireland. In another tweet she talked about pulling the trigger.
And people are calling her crazy. Really? Have you looked at the Pope while he parades out another group of clergy sexual abuse survivors in Germany and apologizes. Just like he did in D.C. to people that I actually know.
He uses them as a PR tool, is humbled, promises change then leaves after the photo op to change nothing and continue to allow abuse through the old cover up game plan of move 'em and don't report. Which ultimately re-traumatizes the people he just humbly posed with.
How is that not infuriating? Last year I shot a short called "Putting on Its Shoes," which you can watch if you follow the link. It's free. It was shot in roughly the same place I shot "Microcinema." But more on that later. And it is .99 cents. The Best Horror for Under a Dollar.
Hey, an artist has to eat.
In "Putting on Its Shoes" I estimate that there are roughly 1,200,000 victims/survivors of clergy sexual abuse worldwide. And I'm guessing these numbers are low. These numbers are staggering. The stuff that rises to the level of crimes against humanity.
The U.N. has sent in troops to countries for humanitarian purposes to stop such crimes. And the Holy Sea is a sovereign nation, so... Is Sinead that far off base? Not from where I'm sitting.
But I'm guessing the highly paid spokesperson for The Catholic League, Mr Bill Donohue will have a different take on Sinead.
Look at what he said about a recent Rolling Stone article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely about the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. 
"She treats the Rolling Stone readers to some of the most salacious renderings imaginable, drawing from the grand jury testimony of "Billy," a man who claims he was worked over by two priests and one lay teacher, beginning when he was 10."
The Irish Central then reports he smears "Billy" that would not dignify by quoting.
Why would a highly paid spokesperson for the Catholic Church say such a thing?
Because it is what Jesus would do.
Jesus Hitler, Adolf's older and meaner brother.
How does this stuff not drive people to the brink, like Sinead?
Which brings me to "Microcinema"
My horror short is about a highly educated, young man of means who passively watches snuff films. He even uses the phrase "passive observance" to describe his behavior. He decides to take it to the next level and produce his very own short.
When he finally decides to take action it isn't to stop it, but to participate. Because there is very little difference.
It reminds me of my favorite Walt Whitman poem "I Sit and Look Out" which ends with the lines:
All these-All the meanness and agony without end, I sitting, look out upon,
See, hear, and am silent.
If you are not doing anything to stop it, you might as well be doing it. 
It is the same for everyone who remains a passive observer of this criminal behavior by men posing as conduits to God. Pass the basket please.
Good Lord! If the DA's and Federal Prosecutors won't get it done for me, like Sinead I'm shooting something to get justice.  I shoot a camera. My revenge is the horror short "Microcinema" 
Suffice it to say, the cinematic justice I served up seems to have struck a nerve with the reviewers as you can see below.
If horror is your thing, with metaphors that run way beyond the Catholic Church, drop the .99 cents for "Microcinema" already. Halloween is coming.


Reviews:


"I figured I was in for one of three things:  a really solid work, a bite size film that left me feeling nothing, or one of those that makes me want to substitute rat poison for the salt on my dinner table.  Those are the three categories all art falls into for me, always.  Yet, when it was all said and done, Shea's vignette carved a whole new icky slot out just for itself. 9 out of 10 Stars" - The Conduit Speaks
"Brilliant. 8.5 out of 10 Stars" - The Gruesome Hurtzogg Horror Movie Review Podcast.
"Skip Shea is an adept director with equal ability to write, his short film gets more across than most full length films. Microcinema is available here for a very worth it $0.99, (it's worth more, in my opinion). 4 out of 5 Stars" - The Bleeding Dead Film Reviews. 
"What I find particularly interesting about Microcinema is its plot and how it seems to blend together torture, voyeurism, and a lot of other really weird horrific topics like snuff films." - Horror Society 
"Microcinema Doesn't Disappoint" - Victor Infante, The Worcester Telergram & Gazette
"You will not be expecting to see the events that unfold in this shocking short film." - The Horror Spot
"The new indie horror romp Microcinema and it is a dozy." - Truly Disturbing Horror
Unicornsblud Horror Review Stamp of Majestic Approval.

It looks like the church has figured out the cause of the sexual abuse scandal. According to the 2 million dollar John Jay Report, the cause was the sexual and cultural revolution of the 60's and 70's. Apparently listening to songs like "Young Girl" by Gary Puckett and the Union Gap makes priests lose impulse control and forces them to, well, force themselves on children.
According to the report - "The rise in abuse cases in the 1960s and 1970s was influenced by social factors in American society generally. This increase in abusive behavior is consistent with the rise in other types of ‘deviant’ behavior, such as drug use and crime, as well as changes in social behavior, such as an increase in premarital sexual behavior and divorce."
American society generally? Did the church export American society to Ireland and every other country where reports of the scandal have exploded?
That's right, they can't blame the 60's for the abuse in Ireland as reports say the epidemic of abuse there started in the 30's. John, Paul, George and Ringo weren't even born yet.
But did it really start in the 60's here? Well, not according to a blog I wrote in 2009. Hey, if Norman Mailer can quote himself why can't I? I know I've used that joke before, but I figured what the heck, I'm repeating myself anyway.
According to a New York Times article in 2009, "From the 1940’s through the 1960’s, bishops and superiors of religious orders sent their problem priests to Father Fitzgerald to be healed."  In 1947 Rev. Gerald M. C. Fitzgerald founded of the order, Servants of the Paraclete, a treatment center for priests, including pedophiles, in Jemez Springs, N.M.
According to the article he wrote in a letter in 1957, “We are amazed to find how often a man who would be behind bars if he were not a priest is entrusted with the cura animarum,” meaning, the care of souls. 
He even went so far as to put a five thousand deposit on a Caribbean Island where he planned to build an isolated retreat to sequester priests who were sexual predators.
Fitzgerald finally met the Pope in 1963 to explain that there was an epidemic in the church. Which, as history has shown, only got worse.
All before a child of God was walking along the road, on the way to Woodstock.

After what appeared to be a relatively quiet spell, Catholic news has been like a blizzard. Fresh off the heels of the announcement of the beatification of John Paul II sparking requests for vials of his blood comes the discovery of a letter to the Irish Bishops during John Paul II's reign.
The 1997 letter is a response to a letter from the Irish Bishop's discussion of mandatory reporting of sexualabuse to civil authorities.

The letter, signed by the late Archbishop Luciano Storero, Pope John Paul II's envoy to Ireland, it instructs bishops that their new policy of making the reporting of suspected crimes mandatory "gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature"
The letter also says reporting such abuse would be embarrassing. I bet.
Yet the Vatican and groups like the Catholic League are saying this was merely a suggestion that they meticulously follow the Code of Cannon Law. This didn't mean they couldn't report the abuse. It just meant they shouldn't. Isn't that better?
Bill Donohue, spokesperson for the Catholic League, defended the letter by saying:

"Last month, several media outlets ran a story on how a rabbinical court in Brooklyn ordered its 10,000 members not to report crimes to the police. Not among those reporting on it was the New York Times...
So who wants mandatory reporting for everyone? The Catholic bishops want it—it's the liberal media and liberal activist groups who don't."
What? Maybe it is because I haven't had a cup of coffee yet but I have no idea what The New York Times has to do with the behavior of the Catholic Church.
As for the Jews, well the Catholic League also thinks they need to re-examine the role of Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust.  Right. I wonder if he was the one who suggested Sarah Palin use the term "Blood Libel." 
Did you know his salary is close to $400K?
So according to the well paid Mr. Donohue the Catholic Bishops want mandatory reporting. That's curious. 
Let's look at a letter written in 1984 by Silvio Angelo Pio Cardinal Oddi, who was from 1979 to 1986 Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Clergy - that is, the Curia, which is, together with the Pope, the governing body of the Catholic Church.  The Pope still being near saint John Paul II.
The letter addressed to Bishop Moreno of Tuscon says there isn't "any need for engaging in the so called "due process" procedures," and "The files of a Bishop concerning his priests are altogether private; their forced acquisition by civil authority would be an intolerable attack upon the free exercise of religion in the United States."
I've got to hand it to Donohue, he may be right. The Bishops may want mandatory reporting. It is the vatican who doesn't. Along with the New York Times.
But what about the Cardinals?
Boston attorney Mitchell Garabedian released on his Web page the names of 117 priests, deacons and lay members that he claims abused 750 children over half a century. He released the names in order to prompt the Boston Archdiocese to release the names for sake of public safety.  Of the 117 names, 19 were new. Never before reported.
Of the 19 new names 12 are now deceased. Spokesperson Kelly Lynch for the Boston Archdiocese said  “Since all of the new names are deceased men, clearly no child was put at risk because these names were not in the public domain.” 
And? 
On December 21st Pope Benedict said in reference to the abuse scandal, "We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred." 
Okay, instead of asking yourselves why not ask me? I would suggest releasing all of the names, including the ones who are deceased so a person who may have been abused by that dead priest may start to get the help they need to cope with the abuse and try to lead a normal life. 
Or are you afraid they might just lawyer up to help repair the injustice and handing over files is just too intolerable?
Full disclosure can repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. So would a Congressional Hearing into what appears to be an organized cover up. Or a federal prosecutor with some balls.

Maybe the Pope finally gets it. In his traditional end of the year address, held on December 21st - The Winter Solstice - Benedict said revelations of abuse in 2010 reached "an unimaginable dimension" that required the church to accept the "humiliation" as a call for renewal. 
It is about time. He continued.
"In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children," the pope said. "It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a 'better than' and a 'worse than.' Nothing is good or bad in itself."
What? 
In the realm of Catholic Theology, in the 1970's the church believed that pedophilia was normal?
Why am I not surprised? 
Maybe because they have believed that behavior was normal for quite some time. Sister Mary MacKillop, from Australia who was excommunicated from the church in 1871 after making charges against a pedophile priest. I guess protecting the pedophiles has been the policy of the church for a very long time.
And why not? According to the theology of the church, as the Pope said, it is normal behavior.
Unless the  Pope misspoke and meant to say the 1870s it was considered normal and not the 1970s. 
Not that 100 years makes a huge difference to the church. It took them over 350 years to officially pardon Galileo.
But I digress. Still I'm baffled at how the church could come to this conclusion. 
In Mark 9:42 Jesus says:
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea"
Translation: Don't screw around with kids. Literally.
Which makes me wonder, who the heck is in charge of PR at the Holy See. Seriously.
Why would you encourage the Pope to say it was "normal" publicly?
Just recently released from the PR department, the Pope said it was okay for male prostitutes to use condoms to prevent the spread of aids.
And why not?
I'm imagining that if the church believed - as late as the 1970s - that it was okay for a man to have sex with a child, that it isn't too much of a leap to believe it is okay for two consenting adults to have sex without the risk of spreading disease.
Unless, of course, they are the same sex, then it is evil.  
Unlike pedophilia in the 1970s. And earlier.


The Catholic Church, the gift that keeps.
Merry Christmas Folks. Thanks for reading.
I will leave you with a Holiday Celebration from the Vatican.

As part of a multi-million dollar settlement, the Diocese of San Diego was forced to release personnel files of sexually abusive priests. Attorney Anthony DeMarco said "These documents demonstrate years and years and decades of concerted action that has allowed this community's children to be victimized, and it is not until the community looks at these documents that this cycle is ever going to be ended."
What concerted action?
Apparently the Diocese had a habit of moving abusive priests from parish to parish without notifying the police.  Once again, I'm guessing, I'm sure the Pope is shocked and saddened.
Who knew? Outside of folks in Boston, Ireland, Australia, etc where everyone knew, it is safe to say the Bishop in your Diocese might have known too.
Heck, even the Pope knew how to do this when he was a Bishop in Germany when he shipped a pedophile from Esson to Munich for engaging in oral sex with an eleven year old.
Yet most still believe him when he says he is shocked and saddened. Even with such an enormous paper trail.
Which brings me back the the 10th Congressional District in Massachusetts and candidate Jeff Perry.
At a recent debate he claimed that if he knew Officer Flanagan was assaulting a fourteen year old girl, 
“I would have locked him up myself.”
However, just like the church, there is a paper trail.
Two civil suits were filed. One surrounding the assault of a 16 year old girl in 1992 and one on the assault of the 14 year old girl in 1991.
The suits named Flanagan and Perry as defendants, along with the Town of Wareham. The one filed by the 16 year old girl's family went to trial and and they won the verdict saying Perry and the town acted with deliberate indifference. 
That doesn't quite sound the same as locking someone up.
In fact, in this case Perry didn't really show indifference. He was quite active. Even though he wasn't present (this time) during Flanagan's assault he went the the girl's house the night of the crime, claiming to have been with Flanagan telling her parents they found what might have been marijuana on their daughter's possession.
Perry tried to facilitate a cover-up. Unfortunately for him, he didn't quite have the expertise in this area like the church.
The family called the Wareham Police the next day.
After the verdict in this case they decided to settle with the 14 year old out of court.
Yet pundits for the right, filling the role of the Catholic League, will claim Perry did nothing wrong.
Ignoring the actual paper trail.
For the complete breakdown of the Perry and Flanagan relationship, just follow this link.

Excuse me for a moment while I scream. The recent circumstances surrounding the candidacy of Jeff Perry for the US Congress has my head spinning.
In 1991 a 14 year old girl was illegally strip-searched...Okay nice euphemism but she was actually sexually assaulted... by Scott Flanagan, a Wareham police officer while Police Sergeant Jeff Perry stood by, as close as ten feet away and did nothing to stop it and then tried to cover it up.
Flanagan forced the girl to lift her shirt and bra, as he stuck his hand down her pants. She screamed for help.
These facts are indisputable. The State Police Report puts him there.
In 1992 Flanagan again assaulted a 16 year old girl in Wareham. Perry wasn't present this time, however later that evening he accompanied Flanagan to the victims house and threatened her parents. 
He only reported his awareness of the assault, after the girls parents came forward to report it.
Yet Jeff Perry has consistently denied any wrong doing. Excuse me, I feel the scream coming on.
Can some one tell me the difference between this man's badge and a Bishop's ring? Can someone tell me the difference between Jeff Perry's behavior and Cardinal Law's?
He was a man in power who allowed the abuse of children and actively covered up. It is simple, if Perry had stopped the assault in 1991 and reported Flanagan, the 1992 assault never would have happened.
No difference between Law protecting and moving a Father Geoghan. None.
Now, Flanagan's first victim steps forward to hold Perry accountable to the truth, as he is running to become a United States Congressman. I know there are plenty of punch-lines to write about accountable congressman, but I'm not in a joking mood.
The assault from the right on this victim for coming forward is frightening. The comments posted by people on the Herald and Globes are horrifying. Most blaming the victim while blaming liberals for being soft on crime. What?
The hypocrisy makes me scream. Because it shows the basic truth, that conservatives want to stop the sexual assault and abuse of children, as long as it makes liberals look bad. Otherwise we will stand with our own.
Don't make the mistake that I only attack conservatives on this point. I have pointed out Martha Coakley's free pass given to Geoghan while she was a DA.  And I'm always horrified by the Democrats support of Rep. Fagan. 
But it is the right who consistently claims that the left, with their buddies in the ACLU, who don't go to proper lengths to hold criminals accountable.
But now they are throwing their support behind Cardinal Law for Congress.
I will repeat, if Perry had stopped the assault in 1991 and reported Flanagan, the 1992 assault never would have happened.
Just look at Charlie Baker running to stand by Perry's side. He says that Perry has done a good job explaining the 1991 incident. Clearly the reports show Perry has done the opposite. In the same story, Senator Scott Brown is reported as saying that Perry has "run an honest campaign."
I've been trying to help a group, CORSAL,  for years to eliminate the statutes of limitation of sexual abuse of children. Eliminate it. The right points to, rightfully so, the Democrat Eugene O'Flaherty  has been our biggest obstacle. He co-chairs the Joint Judiciary Committee and refuses to release it from committee for a vote.
But when they talk about Perry, they say, well this happened almost twenty years ago, as a way to minimize the abuse. 
Judged by Charlie Baker's response, I can only guess that he is in O'Flaherty's corner.
Because, at the risk of being redundant, if Perry had stopped the assault in 1991 and reported Flanagan, the 1992 assault never would have happened.
I really wish I could fine more people who stop viewing the sexual abuse of children a left or right issue and simply see it as wrong. And do everything they can to stop it.