Search Box

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Tyrants

Two sociopaths made the front page of the NY Post in the last couple days. One is Father Miqueli, a closeted gay priest who skimmed money from the collection plates at his parish in the Bronx and spent it on S&M sessions with his master, expensive liquor, and a house in NJ.


It turns out that Miqueli was, according to the Post:

a holier-than-thou blowhard who denied sacraments to “unworthy” parishioners, railed against gays at baptism class, yelled at the faithful on the Communion line and conducted his own vindictive war on Christmas, say members of his flock.

The other is James Burke, a former police chief in Suffolk County, NY. He was in the news for having purposely stymied an FBI investigation into the Gilgo Beach serial killings for several years, and also for having beaten up a handcuffed man who was accused of breaking into Burke's car and stealing his sex toys and pornographic tapes. Burke is also alleged to have broken into the suspect's apartment to retrieve those stolen items, and to have intimidated potential witnesses, including police who worked for him.


(To get the full flavor of each man's personality, look at the linked articles.)

Father Miqueli and James Burke both illustrate what happens when you give a sociopath power: they become tyrannical.

Miqueli was more of a petty tyrant, as he could only make life miserable for his parishioners in small ways. Burke was a little scarier, as he had real power. It's possible that if Burke had allowed the FBI more access to information about the Gilgo Beach murders, the killer might have been caught and stopped by now.

Unfortunately, sociopaths are more adept at rising to positions of power, as they will do anything to achieve those. If you doubt that, just think about Miqueli's and Burke's actions.

A guy who embezzles money from his church and does his best to make lit miserable for his parishioners would not have felt any qualms about currying favor with the right people in the Catholic hierarchy in order to land that plum parish in the first place.

And a police chief who beats a handcuffed suspect in front of his officers, intimidates those officers, and stymies an FBI serial killer investigation would certainly not have hesitated to campaign aggressively for the position of chief in the first place.

One thing you can always count on with a sociopath is that he will always act in character, and will abuse whatever power he is given.

24 comments:

whorefinder said...

Not to defend the priest too much, but it appears he might have been a bit better than a sociopath, assuming the Post article is true (and that's a big IF, given the Post's reputation).

I would posit the priest, instead, as a man who was extreme in his beliefs---he probably hated himself for his sinning, and abstained for months over it, and then, when sinning, went whole hog into it, stealing money, fucking gay prostitutes, etc--all because he believed, well, I'm evil, fuck it, I'll be extremely evil. A yin-yang, pendulum-swing, bi polar.

First, he was fervently anti-gay in some of his sermons and denied people sacraments based on their sinful lifestyle. Usually, the fag priests are very "open to dialogue" with gays, and don't condemn them, and avoid the anti-gay aspects of the liturgy. The gay-friendly priests also don't deny people sacraments, and generally downplay the mystic aspects of Catholicism and focus on "good works" and doing left-wing social protests. Many bishops---including his bishop---look the other way when it comes to the gay agenda and don't force priests to condemn it.

This guy, as I said, seems actually not to be in favor of gayness, but instead deeply hated it and thought it sinful. He probably tried to fight it, and then gave up and started being demonic.

But a sociopath doesn't have that moral conflict; he doesn't have any conscience of evil; he is only selfish. This guy's actions reek of a man who is deeply self-loathing and believes in good and evil, only that he was incapable of it.

Anyway, that's as much as I can guess from one Post article.

Rape!

John Craig said...

Whorefinder --
I understand the case you're making, and it's possible for some gays to hate themselves and be very anti-gay publicly, and, in a weird way, privately. And the fact that sexually Miqueli was a masochist would fit in with that analysis. And if that were all that Miqueli did, I might be willing to buy it. But ALL of Miqueli's actions stank of dishonesty and hypocrisy and were those of someone who just enjoyed making life miserable for others. The way he forced that guy with cerebral palsy to come visit the church despite the church not being wheelchair accessible in order to get that letter. The way he yelled at the boys receiving communion. The way he castigated that single mom. The way he wouldn't baptize babies. The way he would peremptorily fire people from their volunteer jobs for petty reasons. Then there was his corruption, and the way he spent the church's money on himself and his self-indulgences, including $300 bottles of liquor. It all adds up to a guy with absolutely no compunctions at all, which means he was a sociopath.

Lady Bug said...

Sociopaths both of them, open and shut. Although I do think that the detective is worse than the priest, as you point out. This is a rare case where I agree with literally everything you wrote, John!

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
Rare?? I thought we were more in sync than that! Thank you though, and yes, these are both pretty obvious cases.

Anonymous said...

I read an article where a brother of the priest signed an online petition by parishioners to get rid of the priest. The brother identified himself as the priest's brother, letting everyone know that he's embarrassed by having the priest as a blood relative.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
Yes, the brother was mentioned in one of the Post's articles about Miqueli. The priest was definitely bad seed.

whorefinder said...

@John Craig:

You make a good argument, but it doesn't sway me too much. I'll just let it drop, because I don't know more. But your implication that his spouting anti-gay rhetoric was to curry favor in the church is wrong (if that is your implication, which it may not be).

In today's Catholic church, especially the American church, and especially in his specific diocese run by Cardinal Dolan, being anti-gay is actually very much a hindrance to gaining power and advancement.

Since Vatican II many many potential priests have left the seminaries or the priesthood precisely because of the Gay Mafia that took hold post-Vatican II. Many saw too much corruption and/or saw their pleas against gay priests go either unheeded or got themselves punished. The blogger Lamentably Sane was in a seminary and then left; Michael Voris (of Church Militant.com) was in a seminary but left, and he says he was propositioned by a priest before he was in the seminary and just a student at Notre Dame. The Church doesn't have a problem attracting priests, it has a problem with corruption in their training.

Dolan marches in gay-friendly parades and knowingly allows catholic churches in his parishes to have pro-gay-pride masses. So any priest spouting anti-gay rhetoric would likely be punished, not promoted. That seems to be the case here: it's likely that another gay priest dropped a dime on this priest not because this priest was abusing his power, but because he was attacking gays.

At least one Pope commented that the Gay Mafia wing of the church is now so powerful that he could not make any meaningful attacks on homosexuals in the ranks. It would take a couple of generations to clean out the filth, but the effort hasn't even been taken up by the church.

John Craig said...

Whorefinder --
No, I wasn't suggesting he was anti-gay in an effort to ingratiate himself with church hierarchy; by the time he was doing that he already had his plum assignment in the Bronx, a rich parish whose collection plate he could plunder. I think he was just anti-gay in his sermons because it was one more way of demeaning others, which he obviously loved to do. That pattern of behavior (take a look at some of the NY Post articles about him) was so consistent that it was quite apparent it was something he enjoyed doing.

You obviously know more about the church than I do, so I'll defer to you on the internal politics of Vatican II etc. I just recognize sociopaths when I see them, and know that they inevitably abuse whatever power they're given, and that was the point of this post. That said, it doesn't surprise me that there's a gay mafia in the church, my guess is that there has been for quite some time. what else would one expect of a profession which forbids marriage or even, theoretically, outside sex?

whorefinder said...

. That said, it doesn't surprise me that there's a gay mafia in the church, my guess is that there has been for quite some time. what else would one expect of a profession which forbids marriage or even, theoretically, outside sex?

That's a common misconception that the church is "always gay."

During good times in the church, there were very few homosexuals. Yes, an all-male institution given a lot of power will always attract gays, but it was only during bad times that they became powerful. The church has regularly cleaned them out; it took its vows seriously. During bad times they proliferate (such as the just-prior-to the Protestant Reformation ones) and corrupt, but there always is a cleansing process (the Counter-Reformation and Inquisitions).

The post-Vatican II time is unique because not only have gays proliferated, they have sought to be open and try to change church teaching on gay behavior. That's completely different from gay corruption in the past; gays in the past would never have dreamed of trying to make it church law that "gay is ok." Vatican II allowed a gay mafia movement unprecedented in its history. From a Catholic point of view, it really is scary.

John Craig said...

Whorefinder --
Again, it's obvious you know much more about this than I do, so I'll defer to you. In fact, let me ask you a question: isn't there a big difference in attitude between the church's attitude towards "regular" homosexuals and pederasts? All of the scandals of the past 30 years or so have involved priests who molested underage children, not priests who might have had affairs with other grown men (Father Miqueli excepted). I wold hope that the church would take the pederasty more seriously than it does the other type.

Lady Bug said...

Whatever the history, the church hierarchy strikes me as being now completely gay. I think that it's impossible to clean them out and the church will simply collapse.

There is a difference between being in sync and agreeing 100%, John.

John Craig said...

Lady Bug --
You sound like a former Catholic yourself.

OK, then we'll just have to agree to be simpatico (but not 100%).

whorefinder said...

Again, it's obvious you know much more about this than I do, so I'll defer to you. In fact, let me ask you a question: isn't there a big difference in attitude between the church's attitude towards "regular" homosexuals and pederasts? All of the scandals of the past 30 years or so have involved priests who molested underage children, not priests who might have had affairs with other grown men (Father Miqueli excepted). I wold hope that the church would take the pederasty more seriously than it does the other type.

--Actually, its not pedophilia/pederasty at all. It is the opposite: about 80% of all the "abuse" cases in the last 30 years involved priests having sex with males who were sexually mature, post pubescent teenagers and adults . The only thing that made these illegal (under secular law) was the arbitrary age-of-consent laws. There is a world of difference between sexual attraction to someone who is sexually mature (post-pubescent) and a pre-pubescent child (i.e. pedophilia).

That means almost all of the abuse cases weren't child molesters, but homosexuals on the prowl, finding other homos or confused young men, and hooking up with them---but some were under the arbitrary ages of consent. In other words, the gays and gay-friendly media have used pedophiles (who made up only 1/5th of all the alleged cases) as scapegoats to hide their own misdeeds. Similar logic to how black-friendly media blamed Mormons for the defeat of the gay marriage amendment in CA rather than black voters, who were huge in defeating it.

I would encourage those interested in the scandal and looking for proof that it is homosexuality, not pederasty, driving this scandal to read this article and view the accompanying videos embedded therein: http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/priestly-sex-abuse-would-not-have-happened-without-homosexuals.

In almost all scandalous cases, the church noted that the priest had hooked up with a gay teenager or sexually-confused teen , or attempted to, and then quietly moved the priest because the hierarchy protects gays.

John Craig said...

Whorefinder --
Thank you for that, that was informative. I'd been under the vague impression (without having done any research) that a larger percentage of the cases involved priests and 10-year-old altar boys. I'd say there's still a big difference between having sex with a, say, 17-year-old who's got the body of a man, and a 14-year-old, who's technically post-pubescent but who still might have ignited Michael Jackson's fancy. But, I take your point, it was the regular gays using the pederasts for cover, that does make perfect sense.

I remember the Mormon/black church defeat of the gay marriage bill in CA, in fact wrote about the phenomenon you describe here:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2010/05/when-different-forms-of-political.html

The other similar situation was when the NY Times and their ilk, which had been carrying on about the Catholic church sex scandals ad nauseum, came out squarely against the Boy Scouts when they allowed gay boy scouts but balked at gay troop masters, which would have in fact been a very analogous situation to the way the Catholic church took problem priests and just moved them around, putting new boys at risk:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-boy-scouts-vs-catholic-church.html

By the way, I have another question for you: what exactly does your moniker signify?

Anonymous said...

John, I knew a somewhat similar priest growing up. He was quite bombastic, and very strict in his interpretation of church doctrine. One day, when I was a teen, I was standing in the back the crowded church and he noticed that I was chatting, though quietly, with a friend of mine. He stopped his sermon and pointed to my friend and me. Everyone in the church turned around to see who he was calling out. (Exactly what he wanted to happen.) While we surely shouldn't have been talking, we really weren't disrupting anyone. It wasn't necessary to humiliate us.

We were probably members of that parish for about a dozen years, when my grandmother, who had lived with us for most of that time and attended church in that parish, was dying. My mother called and asked the priest to come say last rites at the nursing home where she was now living in, a town away. The priest refused to go, saying it was out of his parish. It didn't matter that it was less than ten minutes further away, or that she had attended church there for years, or had donated to its coffers for years. He was quite literal.

I remember one day complaining to my mother about how unlikeable he was. She said that I was too hard on him, and told me that I probably didn't know that he never took a vacation -- that during his assigned vacation, he would ride the subways looking for wayward boys to help. That seemed noble at the time, but today would set off alarms!

I later read that he was accused by multiple boys of befriending them, serving initially as their mentor, eventually engaging in "play" wrestling with them, and finally molesting them. I have often wondered whether he was really a religious man with a problem, or whether the religion was just a cover so that an evil man could have access to young boys. It seems it is not uncommon for these types to have been overly strict in their application of church rules. Julie

whorefinder said...

what exactly does your moniker signify?

Heh. If you read my website you'll figure it out.

I'd say there's still a big difference between having sex with a, say, 17-year-old who's got the body of a man, and a 14-year-old, who's technically post-pubescent but who still might have ignited Michael Jackson's fancy

True, but now we're into some much murkier waters. After all, there have been very popular female porn stars who look very young. Kitty Jung and Little Lupe come to mind immediately as women who look like just-post-pubescent teen girls. That is also part of the appeal of Asian women (and young looking ones)generally in porn: many play the Lolita/schoolgirl/babysitter role a very long time.

John Craig said...

Julie --
Nice to hear from you, it's been a while. The parallels between your priest and this guy are quite striking, both were petty tyrants who evidently thrived on making life miserable for others. These types are very officious about everyone else obeying the letter of the law, but they always seem to make exceptions for themselves.

You're absolutely right, the way he spent his vacations should have set off alarms. And by the way, you don't have to wonder any more: the religion was just a cover, and he was an evil guy who just wanted access to young boys. I've always felt that people who use religion for their personal ends are a particularly despicable breed. They prey on the innocent and unsuspecting (their flocks), and have absolutely no compunctions about what they do for themselves. And, like a lot of sociopaths, aren't satisfied with appearing as good as everyone else (morally speaking), they have to appear better -- even though they are worse.

When you think about it, anybody who says he has a direct pipeline to God is almost by definition a liar, and some of the most obvious con men have been the famous televangelists who exude goodness and sincerity but somehow seem to become extremely rich off of their preaching.

John Craig said...

Whorefinder --
Okay, fair enough, with some of these it's a question of where you draw the line.

I actually did read the first page of your blog when you first commented here, but still couldn't figure out your name. I just went again and read the "about" piece and yes, that did explain it.

For anybody who happens to read this but doesn't go to Whorefinder's website --

https://whoresoftheinternet.wordpress.com

-- he's using the term metaphorically.

Anonymous said...

Some of the televangelists have no problem living like kings and queens. Jesus Himself was poor, an itinerant Jewish teacher, teaching the gospel.

- Susan

John Craig said...

Susan --
Not exactly Joel Osteen's lifestyle. Or Pat Robertson's. You're right.

Douglas Carkuff said...

I would suggest that aspiration to positions of power and authority over others is, in itself, an indicator of sociopathology. I don't doubt that there are some people who seek positions of authority out of a desire to help others and make the world a better place, but there is no doubt that sociopaths are drawn particularly to such positions and I suspect they out number non-sociopathic people in these kinds of positions by a wide margin. I take it for granted that if you aspire to having power and authority over others there is something deeply wrong with you.

John Craig said...

Douglas Carkuff --
I basically agree with you, but with this caveat: power often goes hand in hand with money, and everybody wants more money. Maybe it's a question of degree: sociopaths tend to lust after both power and money in a much more all consuming way than non-sociopaths do.

Quartermain said...

That "grin" of that "priest" looks like a grimace and most likely is. He doesn't look happy, he looks ticked off. He also doesn't look warm or welcoming, he looks condescending and contemptuous.

I heard it said that a sociopath can only feel desire, anger and fear but nothing else. Maybe that is why he's into what he is into. Reminds of a United Way exec that embezzled the charity funds to pay for a visit with a dominatrix.

It doesn't seem that being flogged in the public square would be torture or punishment to him. What would be torture or punishment to him would be confinement to a cell with only Amazing Grace and recitations of the 23rd Psalm being piped in.

John Craig said...

Allan --
Yes, to me he looked annoyed at the fact that somebody was taking his picture. He also seemed to have a look of self-importance. "Condescending and contemptuous" is a good way to describe it.

Yes, it's true that sociopaths feel none of the positive emotions like love and gratitude and affection. They're more like barnyard animals, except those at least have strong parental instincts. The weird thing is, sociopaths fake the positive emotions better than anyone.

Ha, yes, either a flogging or being "forced" to be someone's bitch in prison would probably be somewhat pleasurable for him. I like your idea of a just punishment.