Censored on First Things/First Thoughts (Thread: What I Mean By Acceptance – Melinda Selmys): The reality that some priests who abused boys were very much an embodiment of “gay subculture” is denied on FT

This comment was censored on the First Thing/First Thought blog (I’m banned from commenting there). Yet David Nickols, a disgusting man with a homosexual problem and an aggressive homosexuality agenda is given full reign to write on FT promoting his agenda.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 2:51 PM by


David said: “Priests who abused minors were not part of the “gay subculture.” They did not subscribe to gay publications, hold positions in gay-rights organizations, and march in gay parades. “

My banned comment:

Paul Shanley, as just one example, proclaimed everything that “gay subculture” proclaimed, from complete normalization of homosexuality/bisexuality to the sexual exploitation and abuse of adolescents as normal.

Of course, the examples David cites above would not have been permitted by the hierarchy.

Shanley “just” sexually abused and exploited in real life youngsters with a homosexual problem – instead of buying a porn magazine showing the same. After years of this, he abused young boys, and afterwards he had sexual activities with men.

In this respect, he is much more an embodiment of the grotesque homosexual subculture than those who merely “subscribe” to homosexuality magazines.


Commenter on FirstThings blog exposes the lies by Melinda Selmys and David Nickols regarding John Jay study

If anyone wanted any more proof that there is a lavender mafia steep in the ranks of FT, all one has to do is to follow the comments (aside from the editorial line).. As I commented earlier in an exchange with ArtDeco, this is in addition to the large number of article writers that promote homosexuality (in various ways), water down any religious or moral condemnation of it, and who claim to be authorities on the normalization of homosexuality because they have a homosexual problem themselves.
David Nickols, currently their (FT’s) most active and disgusting homosexuality agenda promoter, gave a show of his ignorance and homosexuality propaganda tactic in a recent exchange with a “ChrisinVA,” who certainly has much more knowledge on the John Jay study than you ever find on the Internet. Yet, people such as ChrisinVA are never invited (or allowed) to write informative articles for FT. One must ask: what is the ideological and political aim of FT.
I have copied here my reply to one of ArtDeco’s comments on my blog, because it merits being highlighted:

“What is more troubling is the current editorial regime at First Thoughts.”

Again, I had been commenting on FT for only a couple of years so I don’t know much of the past. By the time I was participating, David Nickols and Boonton had already infested the comments with their liberal/homosexual agenda – with clear and full support of the editor(s) and writer(s). While conservative commenters were systematically censored, Nickols and Boonton just blabbered away. I began to notice a pattern – a conservative article would be posted and immediately Nickols would comment on it attacking the conservative point endlessly. If you tried to argue back, you were often censored. It completely skewed the “debate” because the arguments were being censored on one side only. A rigged political site pretending to be conservative while letting its professed conservative viewpoints to be demolished in the comments – by outright censorship.

What was also suspicious was the timing – Nickols was often the first to post a comment on every article dealing with homosexuality/sexuality. (Did he sit 24 hours in front of his computer? or did he know in advance that the post was going to be published? One or both of the Matthews (writers) just gush over Nickols- aside from the fact that I see plenty of articles written by people acknowledging they are homosexuals on FT – why are they given so much space and others are not?)

And then there were other FT blog posts that were clearly very liberal/pink oriented – one example: saying men wearing tights and being metrosexuals was all very Normal. A post by a man promoting men wearing metrosexual tights -on FT? On Slate, the New Yorker Mag, sure – but what is FT about then? Some people have a very steep homosexual/liberal agenda in the FT ranks – and I bet it’s because they have a homosexual problem. My bet is on the Matthews.

Very recently – maybe a few weeks back? – they changed their commenting policies once again. First they limited the comment length – thankfully – and it seems they might be limiting the number of times that a person can respond to others. Although there was again one thread where Nickols just went off his homosexual agenda claptrap – so maybe not.
Another suspicious comment from Nickols was when I first got banned posting as “Alessandra” – he used to insist in his comments that FT was not promoting a homosexual agenda because no one ever got banned – and the editors obviously wouldn’t let anyone who had been banned confirm they had been banned!
Then I started commenting under another name “Heather” – and Nickols acknowledged he knew Alessandra had been banned. But how could he know? Given how the editorial staff just privileges his comments, just how much of a friend is he with the editing staff- especially some of the “men”? (I just saw today some awful new commenter using the name Heather btw)

Douglas Johnson, a commenter you might have noticed at FT, although he doesn’t post that often, tried to get a forum started where only socially conservative commenters would come together and discuss topics without the comment section being infested by the likes of Nickols, Boonton, and to some extent Ray Ingles. And where socons wouldn’t be systematically censored – but the forum didn’t take off.

Yet, I think such a space is sorely needed.

Kind of like “Public Discourse” with a comment section only for socons. That would be one wonderful site.


The  exchange (selection of certain comments) on the FT blog – comment section for the thread:  What I Mean By Acceptance
Tuesday, April 2, 2013, 2:51 PM

April 4th, 2013 | 4:23 pm

Dear Mrs. Selmys:

In a comment to your earlier article, Mr. Voris’s staff asked you to specify any of the errors you said you saw in his “FBI” program.

Have you done so? If so, please share them here. If not, why didn’t you?

They also invited you to appear on their Internet radio show. Did you accept?

Pax Vobis.

David Nickol
April 4th, 2013 | 6:04 pm

Mr. Voris’s staff asked you to specify any of the errors you said you saw in his “FBI” program. . . .


I really don’t want to watch the whole program, but here is the first serious distortion I ran across. From the script:

Sadly, even the Catholic Church has been severely affected.

The 2004 John Jay report recorded over four thousand cases of priestly sexual abuse … confirming the terrible problem.

For many people, Catholics and others … it was their first glimpse at the immense scope of the gay assault on society. Catholics realized that the previously timidly whispered-about gay subculture had become a driving force in the world.

The authors of the John Jay Report certainly did not claim to be documenting “the gay assault on society.” In fact . . .

. . . the researchers found no statistical evidence that gay priests were more likely than straight priests to abuse minors — a finding that undermines a favorite talking point of many conservative Catholics. The disproportionate number of adolescent male victims was about opportunity, not preference or pathology, the report states.

What’s more, researchers note that the rise in the number of gay priests from the late 1970s onward actually corresponded with “a decreased incidence of abuse — not an increased incidence of abuse.”

Now, you can lift statistics out of the John Jay Report and draw your own conclusions from them, but to imply that your own conclusion is somehow justified by the John Jay Report is false and misleading. And it is preposterous to claim that the sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church is somehow a product of the “homosexual agenda…

Melinda Selmys
April 4th, 2013 | 7:52 pm

Hi ChrisinVA,

I’m going to put together something dealing with the factual difficulties, and I’ll post it as soon as I can. I would like to be clear that I do think that the production was produced in good faith — I’m pretty sure that I know the precise sources for most of the problematic claims, and I will readily admit to having made the same mistakes myself when I first got into this racket. It might take me a while to get something together: I’ve been out visiting the kind folks who raised my son’s Autism Assistance Dog-Guide when he was a puppy, so I’ve only just become aware of the response.



April 4th, 2013 | 10:19 pm

Thank you. I recall that the John Jay report included the striking finding that over 80% of the crimes committed in the scandals the JJLS studied were “homosexual in nature.”

Dr. Brian Clowes published a lengthy series of articles in Homiletic and Pastoral Review indicating that, depending on the number of homosexual priests and their ratio to heterosexual priests, the homosexuals were between 100 and 1000 times more likely to abuse.

A later JJLS report had the audacity to claim that the crimes, while “homosexual in nature,” were not committed by actual homosexuals, but by heterosexuals acting like homosexuals.

These findings should influence your views, perhaps.

David Nickol
April 5th, 2013 | 1:40 am

A later JJLS report had the audacity to claim that the crimes . . .


You are proving my point. Voris cites the John Jay report as evidence of “the immense scope of the gay assault on society.” But that is not the conclusion of the John Jay report. That is Voris’s conclusion. The John Jay researchers explicitly deny it. Voris is misusing the John Jay report. He is also not accurately reporting the statistics. He says, “The 2004 John Jay report recorded over four thousand cases of priestly sexual abuse … confirming the terrible problem.” Presumably his number of “over four thousand” is based on the fact that 4,392 priests were accused. But of those, 3.6% were accused of sexually abusing both boys and girls, 22.6% of abusing girls only, 64% of abusing males only, and for 9.8%, the gender of the accuser was not known to those who compiled the report.

It apparently seems obvious to some people that a person who commits a homosexual act is “a homosexual.” But of course prison rape is a homosexual act, and homosexuals are most likely to be the victims of prison rape, not the perpetrators. Men who commit prison rape are overwhelmingly heterosexual before they enter prison and heterosexual after they get out. Does entering a prison turn some men into homosexuals and exiting it turn them back into heterosexuals? The Greeks, who had sexual affairs with adolescent boys, were married to women. Is a man who is married and has children a homosexual if he also has sex with adolescent boys?

April 5th, 2013 | 12:54 pm

Thank you for your self-congratulatory reply, which unfortunately evades the facts. Permit me to elaborate:

1) John Jay lawyers worked for the USCCB. The USCCB was their client. They would beguilty of malpractice if they did not defend their client.

2) The USCCB desperately wants the issue of homosexuality off the table as a non-factor because, as USCCB president Wilton Gregory admitted when the scandals broke, the bishops had ordained so many homosexuals that it was a challenge to keep the priesthood from becoming a gay-dominated profession

3) You trivialize the issue of homosexuality and its connection to abuse, affirming the bishops’ desire, to be sure, but ignoring the findings of Dr. Clowes that I referenced

4) The figures you cite indicate that homosexuals are more likely to abuse more frequently – did you even notice?

5) Your own assertions indicate that homosexuality is a chosen behavior, not a naturally-determined factor (e.g., the “homosexual gene”)

6) After which observations, there’s nothing much left of your assertions, other than that you apparently have had a hard time over the years coming to terms with reality.

7) which might indicate why you did not answer my question, have you agreed to appear on Mr. Voris’s program to make these assertions directly.

Pax vobis. I wish you well.

Melinda Selmys
April 5th, 2013 | 5:35 pm


You seem to have confused me for David Nickol. I’ll let David speak for himself, which he does rather well.
I have contacted ChurchMilitant.tv, and I’m waiting for them to get back to me w/r/t appearing on their program.
I have also posted a full analysis of the problems that I see with Voris’ documentary here: http://sexualauthenticity.blogspot.ca/2013/04/answering-michael-voris.html .



April 5th, 2013 | 7:53 pm


I think Christin is correct about the John Jay study. Also, in prison where all males are kept together with no females, it may be more likely that eventually, even heterosexual men will engage in sodomy.
However, priests are not locked away with no access to women. If a priest was going to engage in sexual activity, he could easily find a woman if he was straight. No- only a homosexual would have sex with a teen-age boy, unless perhaps if he was locked away in prison.

I read the John Jay study and I could not believe that they came up with that conclusion that it was not homosexuality when the figures in the report showed differently. I mean come on, use your head.

David Nickol
April 6th, 2013 | 5:37 pm

ChrisinVA and Joan,

The more misguided you believe the John Jay study to be, the more deceptive it is of Voris to cite it as if it bolstered his case. And let me quote from it again:

For many people, Catholics and others … it was their first glimpse at the immense scope of the gay assault on society. Catholics realized that the previously timidly whispered-about gay subculture had become a driving force in the world.

First, the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was not part of a “gay assault on society.” Priests who abused minors were not part of the “gay subculture.” They did not subscribe to gay publications, hold positions in gay-rights organizations, and march in gay parades. They were individuals acting alone, not a part of any movement or subculture. Also, even regarding the abuse scandal in the Church, 2004 was rather late for getting a “first glimpse.” The Boston Globe won a Pulitzer Prize in 2003 for its investigative reporting on the abuse scandal. The John Jay Report wasn’t an exposé of the sex abuse crisis. It was ordered by the USCCB as part of their response to the abuse crisis. By the time the John Jay Report came out, the sex-abuse crisis was practically old news (particularly since the report covered 1950 to 2002).

April 7th, 2013 | 8:37 am

You are mistaken, David. Take a look at the National Lay Board appointed **by the bishops themselves**!!

Cardinal Mahony, now disgraced and likely to face criminal charges (unless that famous “statute of limitations” gets him off the hook), insisted that the board’s Chairman, Frank Keating, be fired because Keating, a former FBI agent, recognized a vast cover-up attempt by the bishops.

John Jay worked for the **bishops.** They did indeed gather accurate information, which Voris uses. But did you notice that they did not break it down by diocese?

Under orders, the second round of JJ studies refused to **analyze** the data correctly.

Got that? Correct data, but carefully protected from proper and thorough analysis.

When Bishop Bruskewitz made a motion (Dallas June 2002 USCCB meeting) to investigate the causes of the scandals, he didn’t even get a second!

About John Jay:

A lawyer who does not protect his client is guilty of malfeasance and could be disbarred.

Draw your own conclusions.

Voris relies on JJ’s **data**, but in his analysis he is relying on authoritative findings by independent experts like Dr. Brian Clowes, and guided, frankly, by the candor (nowadays called a “gaffe” — truth uttered mistakenly) of Abp. Gregory, who acknowledged that the bishops had ordained so many homosexuals that the priesthood itself was threatened.

Remember Abp. Gregory’s successor, Bp. Skylstad, acknowledged the gay problems himself — and then attacked the truthtellers for conducting a “witch hunt”! (Did he include Abp. Gregory?)

John Jay, obeying its client, refused to draw the obvious conclusions from its own data. Heterosexuals “acting like homosexuals!”

Well, perhaps that represents a bow to natural law – that homosexuals are indeed perverted, rather than “gay” by nature. Intriguing, no?

So too does Virtus — **owned by…

“Gay marriage” is the symbolic way to pretend homosexuality isn’t perverted, dysfunctional, and disordered

This was a smart comment on the ideological strategy behind the push for homosexual “marriage.” (I have more to say, but not much time to blog right now))

Matt in TX says: (The American Conservative thread)

Mr. Raimondo’s argument — gay people are already so high-functioning, they don’t need marriage! — is really something.

Check out the HIV statistics, buddy. And I mean the HIV statistics *today*. People may not be dying en masse, but even now, in 2013, 1 in 5 gay men are infected, according to the CDC.

Think about when gay marriage first started to get advanced among gay people themselves. Here’s a hint — look in Larry Kramer’s “The Normal Heart.”

Read Steve Sailer’s theory on why gays decided to go for gay marriage.

“By superimposing the legal and social constraints of heterosexual marriage on gay relationships, we will succeed only in de-eroticizing them.”

Yeah. That’s the point. Gay men in the 1970s and 80s literally killed themselves with their debauchery. Jonathan Rauch may not be able to come right out and say it, but people like him know that.


In short, Americans hate to face how dysfunctional and deformed they are regarding sexuality and relationships.

Something just occurred to me. Think about what is written above: in a way it is as silly to claim that you are going to resolve how perverted and perverse LGBT people are with “marriage” as it is by the claim that it can all be “prayed away.”

Although many actions and interactions in life, such as prayer and other religious-based interactions, can impact a person’s psychology, including any profound problems a person may have, religion still does not have, by a long shot, the knowledge that is available through psychological investigation and treatment for mental illness or disorders. Religion acts more on a moral and ideological level, and it can also act on an interpersonal level. So religion can act more on underlying causes for homosexuality that relate to these last mentioned spheres, but do less for other more profound or unconscious causes. (So this needs better articulation, but I have no time now).