Not being familiar with Church policy during the first half of the 20th Century, I would ask that you explain or provide references for those statements. What would lesbian tendencies have to do with the priesthood? And if there was a policy change, did it occur BECAUSE of Vatican II or was it coincidental? And any screening that occured was likely ineffective, since there are records of abuse and pedophilia in the 50’s and even earlier (the Irish report indicates evidence going back to the 30’s). Also, the emphasis on homosexual priests disregards heterosexual priests who preyed on girls or who had relationships with women. Controlling for sexual orientation does not totally eliminate the problem. The document you quoted talks about “deep seated tendencies”, which can be found in any sexual orientation. Recent stories about politicians and sports personalities are examples of that.
My concern is that Benedict should be facing the issue squarely, rather than trying to deflect scrutiny or find spurious explanations. Others have said the same in this thread. The attempts by the Church to reduce the damage by refusing to face reality just makes it worse, as it appears to indicate there is a lot more being hidden. The way it is being handled, we are likely to see one or two headlines per week for the next few months as more revelations and accusations occur.
Buckle up; it will be a bumpy ride.
The Pope is facing it square on. 80 - 83% of the sexual assaults where on adolescent boys post pubescent meaning they were homosexual assaults. If you do everything possible to keep those with homosexual tendencies away from the near occasion of sin it should significantly reduce the frequency of occurrence.
Check this:
PUSH FOR CELIBACY IMPLIES GAY GUILT
March 23, 2010
Catholic League president Bill Donohue addresses the spate of articles on priestly celibacy:
Reports in Ireland and Germany of decades-old cases of priestly sexual abuse have triggered an array of articles, surveys and talk-show discussions on the need for the Catholic Church to end the celibacy requirement. The implication, of course, is that more heterosexuals, and less homosexuals, would therefore be drawn to the priesthood, thus alleviating the problem.
The reasoning is sound: as we have seen from several studies—including the one just released by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops—80 percent of the victims are male. Just as important, the majority of the victims are post-pubescent. In other words, we are talking about homosexuality, not pedophilia.
Those who fancy themselves progressive would never, of course, say there is a homosexual link to priestly sexual abuse. But they know it to be true in their heart of hearts. For example, no one seriously believes that pedophiles would be inclined to marry if celibacy were lifted—they are not interested in adults. But surely homosexuals would find the seminaries and parishes less attractive if most of the men were married.
So as not to be misunderstood, it is nonsense to say that homosexuality causes sexual abuse. Moreover, it is both untrue, and unfair, to say that most gay priests are molesters. They are not. But it is also true that most of the molesters are gay. Is this not the unstated predicate of progressives pushing for an end to celibacy? Why else recommend doing away with it?
In short, the only difference between most progressives and most conservatives on this issue is that the latter are not afraid to identify the elephant in the room.
