Gay cover-up must end

[Catherine_S]

Editorial By John-Henry Westen
April 7, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The near-constant** battering of the Catholic Church** during the past month over the sexual abuse scandal has most Catholics reeling and much of the media in a feeding frenzy, seeing the scandals as an opportunity to bring down the archenemy of the sexual revolution. This latest cycle of the sexual abuse scandal** is different** from that which took place in Canada and Boston years ago. It involves new and disastrous revelations daily and from all over Europe and North America, with sustained coverage in the media.
For over 35 years Pope Benedict XVI has predicted a** smaller**, more **faithful church. The 1970 book Glaube und Zukunft, based on five lectures by then-Fr. Joseph Ratzinger given in 1969 at radio stations in Baviera and Hessen, is the first recorded mentioning of this prediction. **
In those lectures the future pope said, "From today’s crisis, a Church will emerge tomorrow that will have lost a great deal. She will be small and, to a large extent, will have to start from the beginning. She will no longer be able to fill many of the buildings created in her period of great splendour. Because of the smaller number of her followers, she will lose many of her privileges in society."
In discussing the matter with my colleagues the consensus is that this crisis is definitely part of that long-predicted purification. Unfortunately, however, it comes in a very confusing package. It would be easier to see truth in an obvious conflict between good and evil: where, for instance, some in the church were advocating for abortion or at least ‘choice,’ versus those who maintained the defense of the sanctity of human life.
But the murkiness of this crisis has the influence of evil written all over it.
Complete article…
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040711.html

 

[Darryl1958]

This has puzzled me from the outset. The abuse was primarily homosexual predation upon young boys, and yet this is hardly ever mentioned. We’ve never seen headlines about a pederasty crisis or a homosexual molestation crisis. Even the Virtus training plays down the actual numbers or never mentions them, ignoring the elephant in the room.

What the priests were doing is very much a part of the homosexual culture. By accepting and even encouraging homosexuality in our society, the left is in effect feeding the monster that is consuming the Church.

 

[Catherine_S]

What the priests were doing is very much a part of the homosexual culture. By accepting and even encouraging homosexuality in our society, the left is in effect feeding the monster that is consuming the Church.

• Not** just*** the left :nope:!!
  **
  The famed author of the prophetic novel Father Elijah said: “It has been* ever** thus with the Church. Satan sifts us like wheat.”*
  “In a generation (if we should be granted that much more time in history), the aging self-deceived liberalism of the Churches in the West* will be gone**, as** dead wood** that has dropped from the tree. At the** same** time, the** internal rot** that** has disguised itself** as orthodoxy will have been** burned away** by trial and** tribulation**, indeed by persecution.”*
  http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040711.html

 

[markeverett49]

The Church is in a curious position here: if homosexuality (or, active homosexual acts) are an impediment to orders, then THOUSANDS of functioning priests (-some now bishops) were invalidly ordained. It makes little sense to say “no MORE gay priests, though the tens of thousands we have are no problem.”

Also, I’ve read nothing that suggests that those who abuse children are more likely to be liberal theologically than to be conservative. I don’t think any link between sexual abuse and theology has been found.

 

[Maria65]

IF the problem is gay priests and bishops, then the Vatican has MORE to answer for than if it is simply a problem of a small number of predator priests (and a large number of their non-predator enablers) because there are tens of thousands of gay priests. The bishop who accepted me into the Church when I converted was gay (Symons, who soon after resigned in disgrace), the bishop who sent me to seminary (O’Connell) was gay (-and he too resigned in disgrace); my first and second vocation directors were gay and sexually active (with other priests too, which disturbed me greatly) but so far as I know, they never molested anyone. Most of the priests I was housed with on pastoral assignments were gay. About half the guys in my seminary were gay. If it is a mistake to ordain gay men to the priesthood, then the Vatican has a lot to answer for becasuse this has been going on for a long time, and as some of the abuse cases go back a long way, it can’t be blamed on “Vatican II liberalization,” either.

When you say they were gay, do you mean they were acting on it? Or that they were telling everybody? If they simply had same-sex attraction, but did not act on it, who would know - unless they went around announcing it?

 

[Maria65]

There have been girl altar servers in some U.S. dioceses since 1983, and almost everywhere since 1994

They’ve been around longer than that. I was one of the first altar girls in my parish in Alabama around 1975-76. (And people think Alabama is so behind - sheesh). LOL

 

[markeverett49]

When you say they were gay, do you mean they were acting on it? Or that they were telling everybody? If they simply had same-sex attraction, but did not act on it, who would know - unless they went around announcing it?

My first and second vocation directors were gay and sexually involved with other priests. (One shared a home with two other gay priests and rarely passed a night in a rectory.) While in seminary, dozens of men told me they were gay, and many are now priests, so I think it safe to assume they are still gay. The bishop who accepted me into the Church as a convert (Keith Symons) and the one who sent me to seminary (Anthony O’Connell) both resigned in disgrace for sexual acts with minor males. Though both admitted the charges, neither was defrocked. Both, indeed, are still referred to as “Bishop” though they are not diocesan ordinaries.

I’ve had several priests tell me that they are gay. I’m not but as part of my psychological profile before entering seminary, I was found to be ‘exceedingly open,’ which (I guess) makes people feel comfortable telling me things. I’m not easily shocked, though this doesn’t mean I approve of the things people tell me they do!

 

[manualman]

The Church is in a curious position here: if homosexuality (or, active homosexual acts) are an impediment to orders, then THOUSANDS of functioning priests (-some now bishops) were invalidly ordained. It makes little sense to say “no MORE gay priests, though the tens of thousands we have are no problem.”

Also, I’ve read nothing that suggests that those who abuse children are more likely to be liberal theologically than to be conservative. I don’t think any link between sexual abuse and theology has been found.

Well you’d be right if you didn’t start with a false premise. Nobody has said that a man with an SSA is invalid matter to be a priest. The recent Vatican guidance on the matter handles it as a prudential judgement decision. Basically they appear to be saying “it’s not a good idea to ordain homosexuals to the priesthood based on what we’ve learned from the scandals.” That’s extremely different than saying that gay men theologically cannot be ordained. Think of it like married men and the priesthood. It’s not that there is an absolute barrier to ordaining married men, just that its been discerned that a celibate priesthood is preferable.

I agree totally withyour second paragraph. Abuse potential has NOTHING to do with whether you are liberal or conservative. It has to do with whether you are FAITHFUL or unfaithful.

 

[markeverett49]

. Nobody has said that a man with an SSA is invalid matter to be a priest.

I agree in the sense that the VATICAN has not said this–at least not seriously; the line was trotted out once during the Boston scandal by someone at the Vatican but quickly walked back home—I was in seminary then and read everything I could about the scandal and the Vatican’s response. But many ‘defenders of the Church’ have decided to treat this as ‘a homosexual problem’ rather than ‘a pedophile problem.’ My point was simply that if it is a problem for gay men to be ordained, the Vatican has made many more mistakes than if it simply let a few predators slip through.

I happen to live in a Diocese (Palm Beach) where the number of gay priests seems unusually high and the percentage working in the chancery is very high by any measure. I suppose it has to be that way somewhere. I don’t think any of these men would abuse a child, though I do believe most would cover up for such a priest ‘for the good of the Church’. And I know some heterosexual priests who feel the same way becasue they have told me they would. (I was a seminarian for several years and heard a lot of things from priests that I never would have unless they thought I would soon join them on the short side of that altar. Frankly, they’re the reason I didn’t!

 

[manualman]

…I was a seminarian for several years and heard a lot of things from priests that I never would have unless they thought I would soon join them on the short side of that altar. Frankly, they’re the reason I didn’t!

Off topic, but have you ever looked beyond your home diocese? If indeed the major barrier you see to priestly vocation is the abuses and (apparently) apalling spirituality of the priests in your diocese, perhaps an order or another diocese is where you are called? Would be a shame to say no to Jesus because of Judas!

And in response to the first part of your question, YES! ‘Zealous Defenders’ of the church can be just as wrong as her attackers.

 

[markeverett49]

Off topic, but have you ever looked beyond your home diocese?

Yes, three in fact. But I never got an interview with any of them. Two directors of vocations told me that my files had been tampered with (–laudatory documents were missing and damning ones were generated and added after I left formation) but that they wouldn’t say anything formally about it because that might embarrass the priest who treated my files unjustly. Outrageous as that sounds, it is typical behavior.

Another example, also true. I asked for time off after five years of formation. (I was never dismissed by the Diocese of Palm Beach or my seminary.) When I said I wanted to go forward, the director of vocations said I would have to repeat pastoral year so that he could decide whether I belong in a monastery. I thought that was ****. I offered to spend a year in a monastery but he said no, only HE could discern this. (This is nonsense.) I appealed to Bishop Barbarito, who responded, “All Palm Beach seminarians do this.” Which also is nonsense. I even wrote to the Canon Law Society of the US and was told that such a thing had never been heard of, period.

I complained to the tribunal in Palm Beach but have never received a reply. Ditto for the vicar general, ditto for the chancellor.

Cardinal O’Malley in Boston–who was briefly bishop of Palm Beach–has been much more responsive to my cause than my own bishop. Unfortunately, there is nothing Cardinal O’Malley can do.

 

[manualman]

Sounds awful! It sounds like you are saying that once you enter seminary studies in one diocese, that particular diocese holds you hostage and nobody else will even talk to you??

I’ve no personal experience because I whimped out of ever seriously discerning a priestly vocation many years ago. But if I were in your shoes today, I’d probably write to Fr. Corapi to ask for advice and/or help and try the guys at www.vocationboom.com to see if they can help.

May God bless you and give you enduring courage.

 

[JFunk]

Being a homosexual is NOT a sin. How can something you are born with be a sin. The only argument that makes sense is to say that homosexual acts are sinful- i.e. acting on your homosexual nature (even though I disagree with this). So there is no reason to throw homosexuals out of the Church.

The idea that it is the homosexuals who are the basis of the rape and molestation of children is completely absurd. Homosexuals are no more likely to be sexual criminals than are heterosexuals.

I think this is well put, even the Church itself has come to the conclusion that being gay in and of itself isn’t a sin. Does it really make sense to bar gay men, who by church standards, are called to a life of celibacy for God from becoming priests? No, it doesn’t follow logically.

Although we love to hold priests to a higher moral standard, percentage wise they follow the same trend as the secular population and 2-5% of people are said to predate on people who are underage. Unfortunately the percentage is same for those in the religious vocation of priesthood and secular society, but fortunately it is not higher.

 

[Prof_K]

I think this is well put, even the Church itself has come to the conclusion that being gay in and of itself isn’t a sin. Does it really make sense to bar gay men, who by church standards, are called to a life of celibacy for God from becoming priests? No, it doesn’t follow logically.

Although we love to hold priests to a higher moral standard, percentage wise they follow the same trend as the secular population and 2-5% of people are said to predate on people who are underage. Unfortunately the percentage is same for those in the religious vocation of priesthood and secular society, but fortunately it is not higher.

It would be helpful if we distinguish between a homosexual orientation, which is the predilection one has (whether inborn or not is debatable), from the gay lifestyle. The Church agrees that that inclination is not sinful. However, the “gay lifestlye” which is the decision to not only act on this inclination, but to praise and seek to legitimize what the Church calls “inherently disordered” is sinful.

That said, the original statement that pedophilia is no more common among those with a homosexual orientation than those with a heterosexual orientation is politically correct, but not necessarily good science. While less than a third of child abuse cases involve homosexual acts, because the percentage of homosexuals in the US population is only 2-3%, it is logical to conclude that if a minuscule percentage of the population is committing a high percentage of the acts, then someone of a homosexual orientation may indeed be more likely, statistically, to commit such an act. (It is really difficult to get good data on these issues).

Whether that means it is wise to exclude all those with a homosexual orientation from the priesthood, or not, is a judgment call. But the judgment should be made on realistic evidence not the blanket, unproven PC swill that is taught in our schools with little interest in the evidence, as incomplete as it may be.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

IWhether that means it is wise to exclude all those with a homosexual orientation from the priesthood, or not, is a judgment call. But the judgment should be made on realistic evidence not the blanket, unproven PC swill that is taught in our schools with little interest in the evidence, as incomplete as it may be.

“McHugh, after all, is the man whose report to the court in one case stated that a defendant’s harassing phone calls were not obscene — including the call that detailed a fantasy of a 4-year-old sex slave locked in a dog cage and fed human waste. At least eight men have been convicted of sexually abusing Maryland children while under treatment at the “sex disorders” clinic McHugh runs at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine — abuse the doctors did not report, citing client confidentiality. When Maryland law was changed to require that doctors report child molestation, the clinic fought it and advised patients on how to get around the law.

Dr Paul McHugh was until recently the advisor on sexual matters to the Vatican.

McHugh is also known for his work defending Catholic priests against sex abuse charges. He was a founder and board member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, and he was named to a lay panel assembled by the Roman Catholic Church in 2002 to look into sexual abuse by priests, which led to protests from victims’ rights groups.

“Realistic Evidence” has never been a part of the Vatican’s take on this matter. The Church made a good-faith attempt to get the best scientific advice possible, from a highly conservative, reputable and theologically sound source. Who happened to be a crackpot.

The future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually molesting children, citing concerns including ‘‘the good of the universal church,’’ according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.

in this particular case, the pedophile priest molested a young girl in his Truckee home in 1995 and was sentenced to six years in state prison.

‘‘He admitted molesting many children and bragged that he was the Pied Piper and said he tried to molest every child that sat on his lap,’’ said Lewis VanBlois, an attorney for six Kiesle victims who interviewed the former priest in prison. ‘‘When asked how many children he had molested over the years, he said ‘tons.’’’

Pedophiles molest children. Girls,. boys, doesn’t matter. The spin that it’s “all the fault of the Gays” is about as credible as the spin that it’s all the fault of the Jewish-owned Newspapers, or the Masons, or the Illuminati - all theories that have been advanced by “highly placed Catholic sources” and quoted on this site.

 

[markeverett49]

The case of Fr. Maciel is especially revealing in this light—he molested many boys but fathered children by (at least two) different women.

 

[buffalo]

The media want to avoid revealing the homosexual predation. They have an agenda which is to advance homosexuality. They always portray homosexuals as victims of an unjust society, a society that denies them their deviant acts.

Here is how we can have some impact:

Share the info in forums
Write the editor in your local paper
Add your reader’s comments to newspaper articles
Make sure all your friends and family know
Make sure your Congressmen know.
Blog
Ask your Pastor to publish the facts in the bulletin
Send emails to friends and family together with the links

 

[mexilad]

I strongly agree. I was raised in San Francisco and got a closer view of these scandels than some others. I a tired of being called homophobic or accused of suppresing some hidden homosexual urge, because I believe in Church teaching on sexuality.

I believe we should, and do, hate the sin, but love the sinner. I also believe that homosexuality is a mental health problem that requires help, and can be helped. I support groups like COURAGE, but I know of no such groups in San Francisco, where it is so desperately needed.

 

[JimG]

Citing the actual numbers of cases is not spin, just fact. Read the John Jay study as to the types of abuse that occurred. 80% was same-sex abuse. The study doesn’t draw the obvious conclusion, apparently unwilling to tread too heavily on political correctness.

But the numbers speak for themselves.

Read the book “Goodbye, Good Men,” for a description of the state of some seminaries in those days. Keep in mind that we are talking of priests generally who came out of seminary some 20 to 40 years ago. The seminaries have, hopefully, been reformed by now.

 

[buffalo]

Citing the actual numbers of cases is not spin, just fact. Read the John Jay study as to the types of abuse that occurred. 80% was same-sex abuse. The study doesn’t draw the obvious conclusion, apparently unwilling to tread too heavily on political correctness.

But the numbers speak for themselves.

Read the book “Goodbye, Good Men,” for a description of the state of some seminaries in those days. Keep in mind that we are talking of priests generally who came out of seminary some 20 to 40 years ago. The seminaries have, hopefully, been reformed by now.

If it walks like a duck…

Both are excellent resources.

In addition the Church to her credit went back 50 years - well beyond the statutes. I wonder how many other organizations would have done so?