Skip to comments.Sandusky-Joe Paterno-Penn State,Catholic Church, and H.R.1681 "Every Child Deserves a Family Act"
Posted on 11/16/2011 11:54:29 PM PST by John Roco
The Shared Realm: Sandusky-Joe Paterno-Penn State, the Catholic Church, and H.R. 1681 "Every Child Deserves a Family Act" by John Roco 11/16/2011 7:40 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time
The most unqualified failure in American culture is failure to recognize impending disaster. Examples such as, the housing crisis that lead to the economic downturn, or even 9/11 with warnings of terrorists learning to fly jet liners, figure in to our national persona, our Achilles heal.
The culture of the Catholic church in a prior day and age is so similar to what happened at Penn State, that Bishop Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, has offered Penn State or others institutional educational assistance due to the steep learning curve in such gaffes.
That is the good thing, here in America if something large occurs, we learn for a time. But a closer look at what occurred both in the Catholic Church, and Penn State, is warranted given the weightiness of the issues involved, that we truly learn and not have another such terrible mishap. Essentially, in Sandusky, we have a highly respected man who set out to help underpriviledged children- that is, on the outside. What he truly was doing, was stalking victims. In the Catholic Church, we had a situation where men who were attracted to children (81% of the victims being boys) become priests, entering into situations of trust in parishes and schools. These men (most of the perpetrators being 'gay' or homosexual) then 'took liberties' as did Sandusky. They abused positions of priviledge, honor, by appearing to be interested in the welfare of children- on the outside, while in truth and reality, just stalking victims.
What does this have to do with H.R. 1681, "Every Child Deserves a Family Act" 2011, you might ask? First a little background. Pete Stark (D-CA) introduced this bill into the federal House of Representatives, and it now has 81 co-sponsors (just under 1/5 of the House). On October 31, 2011, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced this bill into the senate. What this bill would do, is make it illegal to operate a foster family or adoption agency unless the agency is willing to accept homosexual, gay or lesbian couples. In essense this bill would shut down Catholic Charities foster care and adoptions nationwide, as has already happened in Massachusetts (2006), DC (2010), and Illinois (transfering away all cases as of Nov. 15, 2011). So, this bill would essentially force every foster care and adoption agency in the nation to be pervasively intertwined with gay and lesbian culture. What you have are couples who join an agency and are interviewed and have background checks, who eventually receive children in their care, and are paid for it.
The interviews usually last a couple hours at a time (I am a former foster family agency social worker), and it is a standard fingerprinting background check, with possibly a series of classes, then certification. It is actually in some ways much easier to become a foster parent, than to begin a nonprofit organization, as Sandusky did, given that you pass the background check. I wonder if Sandusky had any prior criminal record. Because as Sandusky, many who have figured into the field of 'helping the underpriviledged,' as foster and adoptive children are, may not at all be interested in beneficence.
At the top of this page, in 'yellow highlight' with 'green text' you will see a link to an article from a gay online magazine. Simply click the link, and you will find outright gay euphoria over the advantaged realm they will find themselves in- positions of exploitation of children 'in need-' as Sandusky did. And if you read the 'comments' section, there will be some rather blunt comments on the 'gay agenda-' which was not in any way 'welfare of the child.'
So what is the similarity between Penn State, the Catholic Church, and H.R. 1681? It is that gay cultured individuals approach into positions of power and trust- appearing to be 'saviors' for underpriviledged children, when in reality only looking for their own gain and benefit- whether money or lust.
I clicked the referenced article on the site, and there is analysis of this comment by the queers that completely misses the point:
“Posted: Oct 29, 2011 at 3:13 pm · @Reply · [Flag?]
No. 5 · Will
Exxxcellent phase two of the gay agenda is on schedule. In case youd forgotten, the agenda as it currently stands;
1: Marriage Equality
2: Adopt ALL The Children
This format, (step 1: xxxx, step 2: ????, step 3: profit!) is a well-known joke amongst younger folks, that refers to an episode of South Park. Applying serious analysis to such a statement is pretty ludicrous.
I don’t support the gay agenda, but it’s foolish to use as one of your main pieces of evidence a statement that is obviously a childish joke. I do agree with the thrust of the article though.
Thanks- I hadn’t known of the ‘South Park’ reference. I was looking towards an allegory in the article - that is, the gay culture ‘profits’ from ‘getting all the business’ that would be eliminated with H.R. 1681 if it passes eventually and all related Catholic Charities services end.
So I spoke of ‘money or lust’ in the end, more attuned to the real situation that the gays want- of their own ‘gay or lesbian’ foster or adoption agencies- taking the place of Catholic Charities and obtaining those kids (it was 25% of the kids in foster care in those regions of Illinois), which does equate to more money in the Gay and Lesbian lobby.
Thank you for your comment.
Here's the "underpants gnomes" plan from South Park, just for kicks: