Gay Anglican Bishop Lectures Pope on Abuse Scandal

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soutane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Soutane

Guest
Gay Anglican Bishop Lectures Pope on Abuse Scandal

May 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Bishop Gene Robinson, the openly gay Episcopal bishop whose 2003 ordination threatened to tear apart the Global Anglican Communion, has published an open letter to Pope Benedict XVI, in which he advises the pope regarding how to reform the Church and denies any connection between homosexuality and the Church abuse crisis.

In his letter Robinson recalls how the Episcopal Church became aware of the sexual abuse of minors in its ranks twenty years ago in the United States, and relates in detail how his Church dealt with the problem. “Rather than refusing to acknowledge our transgressions,” he says, “we sought to change our church’s culture.”

Nevertheless, he also says, “I would not presume to instruct you. That would be arrogant. Nor would I impose upon you advice you’ve not sought.”

Robinson commends the pope’s letter to the faithful in Ireland and his meeting with victims of abuse in Malta as “a good start.” But he also goes on to make the more controversial point that it is merely a “thoroughly debunked myth” that connects homosexuality with pedophilia and child abuse.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10050303.html
 
A Christian laymen attempting to instruct the Holy Father, that gave me a chuckle.
 
Gay Anglican Bishop Lectures Pope on Abuse Scandal

The Pope then responded “LOL.”
 
The bishop is surely right to raise the subject and to point out the nonsense and spin which attempts to link homosexuality and paedophilia. As Catholics, we need to listen to all this criticism with humility and to seek to learn from other organisations’ own experience of dealing with abuse. We should not forget that while these offences occur in every organisation, the crimes committed by our priests far outweigh and outnumber those of any other religion. Our job is to look at why this great betrayal took place and I look forward to a world-wide no holds barred enquiry by the Church which looks at all possible reasons which include over-centralisation, excessive deference, clericalism, celibacy and lack of democratic structures.
 
Mistakes were made in the past coddling the renegade priests that chose to violate the vows that they took before God and abused children. They were sent from one place to another with an uncurable disease that has no relationship to homosexuality.
The Church must learn from what has happened and not tolorate the renegades any further. If you violate your vows with an adult, that is one thing, but to abuse a child either male of remale is a repugnent thing to do which should have permanent consequences for the violators. Forgive,yes 70 times 7…they can pray and do pennance from their jail cells. But to place them in a position where they can offend again and then protect them from the police, never again. **THE CHURCH HAS TO LEARN THIS AND ACT ON IT FROM THIS DAY FORWARD. **

That being said, there is no way that a gay Anglican should dare to give any advice to the Holy Father. I know nothing of this gay bishop so I don’t know if he engages in the full spectrum of gay life (I.e.a male “husband” and the bedroom antics that this would entale) but his lifestyle precludes him from giving any meaningful advice to a man such as the Holy Father who has maintained his celibacy his whole life in honor of the vows he took as a priest.

I thinK Bishop Robinson should do the right thing and mind his own business. He has hurt his denomination and has caused splits in their unity. He would do the world a favor if he just shut up and stopped being an instrument of satan. (Harsh words!)
 
gallowglass said:
The bishop is surely right to raise the subject and to point out the nonsense and spin which attempts to link homosexuality and paedophilia. As Catholics, we need to listen to all this criticism with humility and to seek to learn from other organisations’ own experience of dealing with abuse. We should not forget that while these offences occur in every organisation, the crimes committed by our priests far outweigh and outnumber those of any other religion. Our job is to look at why this great betrayal took place and I look forward to a world-wide no holds barred enquiry by the Church which looks at all possible reasons which include over-centralisation, excessive deference, clericalism, celibacy and lack of democratic structures.
Click to expand...
" the crimes committed by our priests far outweigh and outnumber those of any other religion"

Proof and citation please.All you have to do is peruse Baptistwatch,JWwatch plus a host of others…

"to point out the nonsense and spin which attempts to link homosexuality and paedophilia.’

80% of the victims are pubescent boys and young men and you and he think there’s no connection to homosexual hebephelia???Paedophelia is a DELIBERATE misnomer to obfuscate that this is primarily a homosexual problem-homosexuals who suffer from hebephelia.I am sure that MOST homosexuals are attracted to others their own age,and revile as we do those who seek out young,naiive,innocent boys and young men-NOT TODDLERS AND BABIES,as those who insist opn the deliberate misuse of the word paedophilia would have us believe.I am not accusing you of this but you appear to have swallowed this ruse hook,line, and sinker…
 
gallowglass said:
The bishop is surely right to raise the subject and to point out the nonsense and spin which attempts to link homosexuality and paedophilia. As Catholics, we need to listen to all this criticism with humility and to seek to learn from other organisations’ own experience of dealing with abuse. We should not forget that while these offences occur in every organisation, the crimes committed by our priests far outweigh and outnumber those of any other religion. Our job is to look at why this great betrayal took place and I look forward to a world-wide no holds barred enquiry by the Church which looks at all possible reasons which include over-centralisation, excessive deference, clericalism, celibacy and lack of democratic structures.
Click to expand...
Your claims lack supporting references. They also include common misconceptions.

Celibacy has nothing to do with anything. It is, however, a complaint that goes back to the 1960s in the soon-to-be-radical Sexual Revolution time period.

Please cite a reference to what you call overcentraliztion.

Democracy is not applicable to the Church.

The Church has spoken with clarity, the media has produced what is known as spin, or to be more clear, distortions of the facts.

Your plea is to rank and file Catholics that cannot implement anything.

God bless,
Ed
 
gallowglass said:
The bishop is surely right to raise the subject and to point out the nonsense and spin which attempts to link homosexuality and paedophilia. As Catholics, we need to listen to all this criticism with humility and to seek to learn from other organisations’ own experience of dealing with abuse. We should not forget that while these offences occur in every organisation, the crimes committed by our priests far outweigh and outnumber those of any other religion. Our job is to look at why this great betrayal took place and I look forward to a world-wide no holds barred enquiry by the Church which looks at all possible reasons which include over-centralisation, excessive deference, clericalism, celibacy and lack of democratic structures.
Click to expand...
Reality has been suspended, as the surreal becomes more and more commonplace within these threads, and as the responses to them grow more and more absurd. Since we are obliged by the site code of conduct to be charitable in our posts, I must therefore state that the above post leaves me speechless and safely leave it at that…a mute protest.
 
gallowglass said:
The bishop is surely right to raise the subject and to point out the nonsense and spin which attempts to link homosexuality and paedophilia. As Catholics, we need to listen to all this criticism with humility and to seek to learn from other organisations’ own experience of dealing with abuse. We should not forget that while these offences occur in every organisation, the crimes committed by our priests far outweigh and outnumber those of any other religion. Our job is to look at why this great betrayal took place and I look forward to a world-wide no holds barred enquiry by the Church which looks at all possible reasons which include over-centralisation, excessive deference, clericalism, celibacy and lack of democratic structures.
Click to expand...
Friend, you don’t know what your talking about. You need to do a much better job of educating yourself in regards to your catholic faith. Not to mention the events we are discussing here.
 
Well, thanks Mickey, if you don’t mind I’ll ignore that bluster.

On the main subject, I think the bishop has every right to voice his opinion as does every other free man and woman. As regards his lifestyle, that is a matter between him, his partner and God but at the very worst the 2 men involved have hurt only each other.

For Catholics, the excuses made in the above do not stand up. There is a point where blind loyalty is misguided and indeed sinful. The crimes were horrendous and no shameful attempts to shift the blame on to homosexuality or other factors should be allowed to obscure the fact that a Church which claims to ordain its priests in direct succession from the Apostles appointed a cadre of men who violated youths, boys and girls in Church situations where they should have been safest of all. And let us not forget the horrendous cases of pure physical violence against defenceless children committed by Catholic religious, both men and women. None of that was due to homosexuality.

In these circumstances, we are well advised to listen to informed criticism from whichever direction it comes and that goes for the Pope as well as for the rest of us. Bishop Robinson may have a mote in his eye but we are the ones who have the major disability.
 
A male having sexual contact with another male constitutes homosexual activity.

Stop the sugar coating already. :rolleyes:
 
gallowglass said:
. Bishop Robinson may have a mote in his eye but we are the ones who have the major disability.
Click to expand...
Teachers in the public school system have molested far more children than all the priests since the 1950s.

1% of 6.2 million teachers are molesters. That’s 62,000 vs 1,750 for priests since 1950

Between 6 and 10 percent of all school children enrolled in class today will be molested by graduation time.

You think the CC has the biggest problem?

I wouldn’t listen to a faux bishop who is an unrepentant mortal sinner.
 
gallowglass said:
Well, thanks Mickey, if you don’t mind I’ll ignore that bluster.

On the main subject, I think the bishop has every right to voice his opinion as does every other free man and woman. As regards his lifestyle, that is a matter between him, his partner and God but at the very worst the 2 men involved have hurt only each other.

For Catholics, the excuses made in the above do not stand up. There is a point where blind loyalty is misguided and indeed sinful. The crimes were horrendous and no shameful attempts to shift the blame on to homosexuality or other factors should be allowed to obscure the fact that a Church which claims to ordain its priests in direct succession from the Apostles appointed a cadre of men who violated youths, boys and girls in Church situations where they should have been safest of all. And let us not forget the horrendous cases of pure physical violence against defenceless children committed by Catholic religious, both men and women. None of that was due to homosexuality.

In these circumstances, we are well advised to listen to informed criticism from whichever direction it comes and that goes for the Pope as well as for the rest of us. Bishop Robinson may have a mote in his eye but we are the ones who have the major disability.
Click to expand...
“None of that was due to homosexuality”, was your statement, I believe. Replace the word “none” with the percentage 80% (just for that nagging little item called acuracy) , and then restart the lecture. As for the homosexual lifestyle being this banal, personal phenomenon concerning only the partners and God, nothing could be further from the truth.

Homosexuality is a politically significant cause celebre which has moved to the center of the cultural war being waged against religion and societal traditionalism. This fact is illustrated by their organization as a bloc, and by their persistent radical activism. This is hardly the “two guys conjoined in the darkness with God as sole arbiter” concept which forms the basis of your fallacy.

This complex group, with its complex motives and desires, is right there on the first page once you open the book of this crisis. At the beginning, in the very nature of the acts of sexual abuse, you find, in the majority of cases, homosexuality present and active. To turn away from this truth is to then engage in fiction, which you are doing.

Lastly, no one here is blind to the pain of those victimized by abuse, nor is anyone blind to the web of lies and slanders which now encase the entire issue. Distortion of facts is malicious; ignorance of them is…dangerous and tragic.
 
gallowglass said:
Well, thanks Mickey, if you don’t mind I’ll ignore that bluster.

On the main subject, I think the bishop has every right to voice his opinion as does every other free man and woman. As regards his lifestyle, that is a matter between him, his partner and God but at the very worst the 2 men involved have hurt only each other
Click to expand...
Bluster? But, you are right in this next part. We are in fact free. Free to be saved or free to ruin ourselves. But, how foolish is it. To choose ruin, and, carry on. As if everything is fine, Thats the path of your anglican Bishop. Better he should look to his own house. Happy with the Devil though he may be.

ATB
 
I’ve gone on record many times here agreeing that we must NOT use homosexuality as a scapegoat for the priest abuse scandal. It’s weasly and the bishops and pope have actually done a marvelous job of avoiding that temptation overall.

It’s a temptation due to the facts. 80% of priest abuse victims are not accurately classifiable as pedophilia at all! Pedophilia is the sexual molestation of young children well before the age of puberty. Pedophiles are not picky about the sex of thier victims because they prey upon children so young that their bodies are nearly androgenous: no pubic hair, no breast or hip development in girls, no significant masculine muscle development in the boys, etc.

80% of priest abuse victims are POST pubescent boys (per the exhaustive John Jay College study of priest abusers - look it up). Some of this is attributable to the fact that boys were historically more readily available to priests. But these boys are already starting to have masculine traits. Molesting them is historically called pederasty, not pedophilia. And even more notably, there is NO statistical difference between the percentage of pubescent boy victims versus girl victims between the 1950’s (when there were NO girl altar servers) and the 1980’s (when girls became at least HALF the altar servers in my experience). If the 80% statistic were all about availability, there would have been a change in the victim selection ratio when the potential victim pool changed radically. But there WAS no such change. The abuser priests mostly PREFER pubescent boys. Wave your hands all you want, there is a homosexual component to this.

Does this mean homosexuals are more likely to abuse children? No! Non Sequitor. For whatever reason, the priesthood seems to have attracted a disproportionate number of men afflicted by a homosexual orientation AND a predeliction for pederasty. It does not follow that these men are an indicator class of gays outside of the priesthood. And the bishops have been extremely reluctant to publicly discuss the homosexual factor of this crisis simply because it IS so easy to jump to conclusions about gays in general.

Mr. Robinson is within his rights to decry the apparent existence of a culture of the priesthood covering each other’s backs FIRST and the wellfare of the laity be danged. But I think that sin on the part of the hierarchy has been pretty well addressed, so I don’t think he’s really adding anything new or valuable. As for his claims about how TEC doesn’t have this problem, there is a lack of honesty there. TEC has never sponsored an exhaustive look at sexual abuse like the catholic bishops’ John Jay study to the best of my knowledge. It’s apples and oranges if you don’t have similar quality data to compare.
 
This denial about ANY link between homosexuality and hebephelia mystifies me.Not all homosexuals are so afflicted,obviously a minority. ;and we just happen to have some in the priesthood.I am certain that we have priests who suffer SSA but maintain their chastity and are equally revulsed and shamed by the homosexual chickenhawks in their ranks.We are not saying that all homosexuals are hebepheliacs-that would be the equivalent to all heterosexuals having a predeliction to pedophilia.The homosexual community has to come clean and ADMIT there is a problem with homosexual predators.Anyone heard of NAMBLA?A university professor at Ryerson(RY HIGH-to grads) in Toronto who teaches creative writing years ago wrote a paper entitled,“Men Loving Boys Loving Men”.Advocacy for lowering the age of consent to EIGHT YEARS OLD.
This isn’t ancient Greece-This is a CRIME-within and without the Church.Deniers are making themselves look foolish and are not at all credible.Homosexuals are TERRIFIED they will be blamed for this-Well SOME ARE to blame for this-The Hebephiliacs amongst their numbers.As a heterosexual I admit that pedophiles exist amongst those of my sexual orientation and feel that millstones are too good for them…Homosexuals should be responsible and admit that there IS a problem.By the way "Chickenhawk"was coined by the homosexual community.
You can stamp your feet and shut your ears but the fact remains that 80% of the victims are young men and post-pubescent boys.It IS a homosexual problem.To suggest otherwise is to be a willing participant at the Mad Hatter’s tea party.
 
manualman said:
I’ve gone on record many times here agreeing that we must NOT use homosexuality as a scapegoat for the priest abuse scandal. It’s weasly and the bishops and pope have actually done a marvelous job of avoiding that temptation overall.

It’s a temptation due to the facts. 80% of priest abuse victims are not accurately classifiable as pedophilia at all! Pedophilia is the sexual molestation of young children well before the age of puberty. Pedophiles are not picky about the sex of thier victims because they prey upon children so young that their bodies are nearly androgenous: no pubic hair, no breast or hip development in girls, no significant masculine muscle development in the boys, etc.

80% of priest abuse victims are POST pubescent boys (per the exhaustive John Jay College study of priest abusers - look it up). Some of this is attributable to the fact that boys were historically more readily available to priests. But these boys are already starting to have masculine traits. Molesting them is historically called pederasty, not pedophilia. And even more notably, there is NO statistical difference between the percentage of pubescent boy victims versus girl victims between the 1950’s (when there were NO girl altar servers) and the 1980’s (when girls became at least HALF the altar servers in my experience). If the 80% statistic were all about availability, there would have been a change in the victim selection ratio when the potential victim pool changed radically. But there WAS no such change. The abuser priests mostly PREFER pubescent boys. Wave your hands all you want, there is a homosexual component to this.

Does this mean homosexuals are more likely to abuse children? No! Non Sequitor. For whatever reason, the priesthood seems to have attracted a disproportionate number of men afflicted by a homosexual orientation AND a predeliction for pederasty. It does not follow that these men are an indicator class of gays outside of the priesthood. And the bishops have been extremely reluctant to publicly discuss the homosexual factor of this crisis simply because it IS so easy to jump to conclusions about gays in general.

Mr. Robinson is within his rights to decry the apparent existence of a culture of the priesthood covering each other’s backs FIRST and the wellfare of the laity be danged. But I think that sin on the part of the hierarchy has been pretty well addressed, so I don’t think he’s really adding anything new or valuable. As for his claims about how TEC doesn’t have this problem, there is a lack of honesty there. TEC has never sponsored an exhaustive look at sexual abuse like the catholic bishops’ John Jay study to the best of my knowledge. It’s apples and oranges if you don’t have similar quality data to compare.
Click to expand...
All desire has its own specific object, and to suggest some sort of ambiguity regarding the sex of the victims in the selection process is patently absurd.

As a reverse approach to this question, let us hypothetically remove homosexuals entirely from the clerical abuse scandal, and then, of course, remove the sum total of abuse victims for whom this group was responsible. The scant number of abuse cases remaining after such an exercise, though still abhorrent and unacceptable in number, hardly amounts to a dire global crisis and scandal. In fact, the vacuous space left by the removal of the homosexual element from the equation validates the objective view that homosexuality within the priesthood was the central causative agent which precipitated the magnitude and scale of this grim situation.
 
Catholics and the Church ARE facing up to the crises and want this to be uprooted from the body of Christ.The deeper we dig the more shocking and obvious the truth IS.This all reminds me of the little boy and the "Emperors New Clothes"Everyone was cowed into SAYING that these new "invisible"clothes were quite beautiful except for one little boy who cried “The Emperor has no Clothes”!And the populace which was cowed responded in laughter and recognition of the Truth.The Emperor has no clothes!!!
This IS a homosexual problem albeit homosexuals who suffer from hebephilia.The media started calling it pedophilia because they didn’t want the latest "Sacred Cow"to be blamed.
You can fool some of the people all of the people all of the time,you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can’t fool ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME.
The Truth is FINALLY coming out and look at the apologists scramble.
The first place to start is the seminaries and clear out the Lavender Mafia that is preying on these young men who want to give their lives to Christ.
 
“I’ve gone on record many times here agreeing that we must NOT use homosexuality as a scapegoat for the priest abuse scandal. It’s weasely and the bishops and pope have actually done a marvelous job of avoiding that temptation overall.”

Ageeing with whom-you’ve made an agreement with YOURSELF and a thoroughly spurious arguement.No one is blaming ALL homosexuals but just those in the priesthood that are attracted to post-pubescent boys and young men.

As not every heterosexual is a pedophile.Not every homosexual is a hebephile.But certain occupations attract them because of victim access-Sports coaches(male AND female) a friend of mine had his 16 year old son molested and raped by his Karate coach;Scout masters,Big Brothers,and apparently the Catholic priesthood.The debate is NO LONGER about pedohiliac priests but hebephiliac priests and all it will take is ONE brave mainsteam journalist to print the truth and the floodgates will open.The Truth will MAKE US FREE.To any homosexuals or homosexual priests who read this I am sorry that you have been smeared by your sick confreres just as I feel horrible when I smile at a baby or toddler and the mother glares at me.
“The rain will fall on the just and the unjust”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top