40% of Catholic Nuns Have Been Sexually Abused

By Darryl Eberhart, Editor of ETI & TTT

Over the past several decades some major newspapers have been exposing the problem of priestly sexual abuse of boys, girls, women – and even nuns – within the Roman Catholic Church here in the United States of America. Please carefully consider the following quotations:

“A large part of the history of [Ed.: mandatory] celibacy is the story of the degradation of women and – an invariable consequence – frequent abortions and infanticide.

In the ninth century, many monasteries were the haunts of homosexuals; many convents were brothels in which babies were killed and buried…Promiscuity was rife in monasteries and convents. The great Ivo of Chartres (1040-1115) tells of whole convents with inmates who were nunsonly in name. They had often been abandoned by their families and were really prostitutes.” – Peter de Rosa (“Vicars of Christ”; 1988; Pages 404 and 408)

“According to the 1996 survey of nuns in the United States (which was intentionally never published by the [Ed.: Roman Catholic] Church but was leaked by some Vatican insider), it is reported that a minimum of 34,000 Catholic nuns (about 40% of all American nuns) claim to have been sexually abused. Three of every four of these nuns claimed they were sexually victimized by a priest, nun, or other religious person. Two out of five nuns who stated they were sexually abused claimed that their exploitation included some form of genital contact. All nuns who claimed repeated sexual exploitation reported that they were pressured by religious superiors for sexual favors.” – “Boston Globe” (1-8-2002) [Ed.: This quote is on p. 179 of the book, “Lucifer’s Lodge”, by William H. Kennedy.]

“Then sometimes the priests come [Ed.: to the convent] and they get angry with us [Ed.: i.e., the young nuns] because we refuse to have sexual relations with them voluntarily…and many, many the times to have him [Ed.: i.e., the priest] to strike you in the mouth – is a terrible thing! I’ve had my front teeth knocked out [Ed.: by a lecherous priest who was trying to force himself on Sister Charlotte]…and then get you down on the floor [Ed.: in order to molest her]. …

Here we are – a body [Ed.: i.e., a group] of little [Ed.: i.e., young] nuns. …[Ed.: One] morning the mother superior might say this: ‘We’re all going to be lined up here…’ …Then you know, there might be ten of us – there might be 15 of us. She [Ed.: i.e., the mother superior] will tell us all to strip. And we have to take every stitch of our clothing off. …Here we are lined up [Ed.: without any clothes], and here come two or three Roman Catholic priests with liquor under their belts [Ed.: i.e., the priests are intoxicated], and there they march in front of those nude girls [Ed.: i.e., the nuns], and choose the girl they want to take to the cell with them.

These are convents – cloistered convents – not open orders. The priest can do anything he wants to and hide behind the cloak of religion! Then that same Roman Catholic priest [Ed.: after sexually molesting a nun] will go back into the Roman Catholic Churches and there he will say Mass – and there he will go into the confessional box and make those poor people believe that [Ed.: he has the alleged power to grant] absolution from their sins – when he [Ed.: the priest who has recently sexually molested a nun] is full of sin, full of corruption [Ed.: and] vice. Still he [Ed.: the priest] acts as their ‘god’.

And then [Ed.: sometimes the priest, while attempting to molest a nun, will] kick you in the stomach. Many of the precious little girls [Ed.: i.e., young nuns] have babies under their hearts, and it doesn’t bother a priest to kick you in the stomach with a baby under your heart – he doesn’t mind – the baby is going to be killed anyway – because those babies are born in the convent. Why wouldn’t those babies be born, when you run places like these [Ed.: i.e., cloistered convents] under the cloak of ‘religion’ – the world thinks [Ed.: they are] religious orders. And there are babies born in there! …I’ve delivered those babies with these hands; and what I’ve seen with my eyes and done with my hands – I just challenge the whole world to say it isn’t true.

And oh I wish you could see that little [Ed.: pregnant] nun. She is not looking forward to that [Ed.: i.e., having a baby]. There won’t ever be a blanket around his body. They’ll never even bathe that baby’s body. But he can only [Ed.: live] 4 or 5 hours [Ed.: minutes?], and then the mother superior will take that baby and put her fingers in his nostrils and start [Ed.: to] cover its mouth – and snuff its little life out. And why do they build the lime pits in the [Ed.: cloistered] convent? What is the reason for building it [Ed.: i.e., the lime pit] if it isn’t to kill the babies? And that baby will be taken into the lime pit and chemical and lime is put over its body – and that is the end of baby!” – Sister Charlotte (Ex-Carmelite nun; a.k.a. Charlotte Wells; above excerpts are from a taped presentation by Sister Charlotte)

“Pope John Paul II [Ed.: pope: 1978-2005] presided over the second ‘pornography of the Papacy’. He presided over the greatest, most widespread, immoral scandal of sexual perversion in church history. Never in the annals of recorded history has such a scandal been displayed for the entire world to see. Documented case after documented case in the courts of the world, joined by thousands of other cases which never came to light as the BAG-MAN, as he was called, bought the silence of thousands of young men whose cases never came to the courts. Combined with other ‘faithful’ souls who, although sodomized as children, in their loyalty to mother church never even complained.” – Ronald Cooke (“The Death of the Pope of Rome”; 2005; Page 14)

“The late pope [Ed.: i.e., John Paul II; pope: 1978-2005] was the voice of a religious institution which became the reservoir of the most egregious sexual perversion known to man: MEN CALLED PRIESTS PREYING ON THEIR HELPLESS LITTLE ALTAR BOYS [Ed.: Emphasis in original]to satisfy their lust which arose in part from their enforced celibacy, which the Scriptures call a doctrine of demons. So as the chief voice of this reservoir of unnatural perversion, the late pope of Rome [Ed.: John Paul II] was surely the spokesman of a ‘Church’ which was filled with immoral priests under his authority; the spokesman for all the false doctrines of Romanism; and a man who himself claimed to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, making him then without doubt the MOST INFLUENCIAL IMMORAL VOICE OF OUR TIME [Ed.: Emphasis in original]. To have a REAL MORAL VOICE [Ed.: Emphasis in original] one must proclaim true Bible doctrine and repudiate falsehood, false claims [Ed.: e.g., such as alleged papal infallibility], and false practices.” – Ronald Cooke (“The Death of the Pope of Rome”; 2005; Page 15)

“David Rice (a Roman Catholic writer) in [Ed.: his book “Shattered Vows”] states the figure 100,000 several times to describe the number of [Ed.: Roman Catholic] priests resigning from the priesthood usually over questions of their own morality.” – Ronald Cooke (“The Death of the Pope of Rome”; 2005; Page 15)

“The policy of silence and cover-up [Ed.: concerning sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church] promoted by the Vatican is mind-boggling. The vast amount of data which the Vatican collected concerning the sexual activity of [Ed.: the Roman Catholic] clergy makes it clear that the Pope and [Ed.: the Roman] Curia were well aware of how wide-spread and common the sexual abuse problem was in the [Ed.: Roman Catholic] Church. It did nothing to redress the situation but continued with a policy of cover-up and silence. It seems that the only reason the Vatican ordered these secret sex studies was to get a global picture of where they stood and to develop informed strategies for hiding the problem in the future. Never was the welfare of the victims of sexual abuse taken into consideration, nor was the question of broken chastity vows [Ed.: by the celibate priests]apparently of any real concern.” – William H. Kennedy (“Lucifer’s Lodge: Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Catholic Church”; 2009; Page 178)

“The media black-out of the sexual abuse of women by clerics in both ritual and non-ritual cases is a great disgrace. The plight of male children who suffer under abusive priests is, of course, horrifying and should receive wide media coverage. However, the sexual abuse of nuns and women by clerics is a far larger problem.” – William H. Kennedy (“Lucifer’s Lodge: Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Catholic Church”; 2004; Page 180)

“It’s tough to stay a Catholic when you’ve been sexually abused by a [Ed.: Roman Catholic] priest, then raped again by the [Ed.: Roman Catholic] Hierarchy.” – Miguel Chincilla (a Roman Catholic sexually abused by a priest)

Ed. Comment to the preceding quote: For decades in the USA the Roman Catholic Church’s hierarchy tried “to keep a lid” (as much as they possibly could) on the extensive abuse of children – almost exclusively boys – by Roman Catholic priests. Many of these pedophile priests were moved from diocese to diocese as their patterns of sexual abuse became known. As much as they were able, the past pope (John Paul II) and the current pope (Benedict XVI) protected these priests accused of sexual abuse from prosecution, even bringing some of them to Rome and putting them up in apartments in order to prevent them from being brought to trial. In many cases, Roman Catholic prelates and other clergy brought tremendous pressure on Roman Catholic victims and their families in order to get them to drop charges against the abusive priests. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church’s hierarchy was much more concerned about protecting the Church’s already tarnished reputation (and protecting its finances against lawsuits) than it was in removing pedophile priests from the priesthood or helping the victims of the priestly abuse!

 
For Further Research on this topic: Please do a “google-style” search on the Internet for the book, “Lucifer’s Lodge: Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Catholic Church”, by William H. Kennedy, and for the name “Sister Charlotte”.

SOURCE