G
GloriaPatri4
Guest
New Oxford Notes…
Cruxnews.com
22 October, 2003
The face of “gay” clericalism
Actively homosexual priests have gotten off scot-free in the wake of the priestly sex scandals, with the exception of pederasts (who constitute the vast majority of priestly pedophilia cases).
But in at least one diocese, Altooona-Johnstown (Penn.), homosexual priests are apparently feeling some pressure.
Twenty-six priests of that Diocese have secretly formed the Priests Federation of Altoona-Johnstown. They issued a press release (May 15) wherein they note that they are “sworn to complete secrecy to avert the very real threat of retaliation by our diocesan bishop.”
We got the press release over the Internet, and it was titled “Gay Priests of Diocese A-J in Revolt; Demand Bishop Conceal Molesters, Sue Catholic Activists.” Surely that was not the title of the original press release, but that these 26 priests are “gay” or at least “gay-friendly” — or a mixture of the two — is quite obvious from the release.
The release says: “Whereas our bishop insists on publicly defending lawsuits against this diocese and thus increasing the threat that more names of our priests be exposed in the media, we demand that our bishop cease and desist his public defense of any and all lawsuits concerning alleged priestly misconduct and instead settle these cases out of court so as to protect the reputation and well being of those priests so named and others that may be revealed in the course of any trial. Whereas our bishop threatens and harasses homosexual priests into fearing for their office, we demand that our bishop cease and desist any and all harassment of homosexual clergy and instead work to protect the reputation and well being of clergy of all sexual orientations.” As with Msgr. Campion (see the above New Oxford Note), you notice the great — the excessive and ridiculous — concern with protecting the “reputation” of suspect priests.
You also see that the 26 priests are demanding that the bishop conceal the identity of those priests accused of homosexual molestation or rape. In other words, continue the old, failed policy of paying out hush money and reassigning the offender elsewhere, maybe after a little vacation time at one of those sex therapy clinics (some of which are known as “pedophile pipelines”), which have been such notorious failures in curing or successfully treating pedophilia.
And what’s this about harassment of homosexual clergy? Harassed for what? For having a homosexual (dis)orientation or for committing homosexual acts?
Read article in its entirety:
cruxnews.com/NORNotes/nor-22oct03.html
Cruxnews.com
22 October, 2003
The face of “gay” clericalism
Actively homosexual priests have gotten off scot-free in the wake of the priestly sex scandals, with the exception of pederasts (who constitute the vast majority of priestly pedophilia cases).
But in at least one diocese, Altooona-Johnstown (Penn.), homosexual priests are apparently feeling some pressure.
Twenty-six priests of that Diocese have secretly formed the Priests Federation of Altoona-Johnstown. They issued a press release (May 15) wherein they note that they are “sworn to complete secrecy to avert the very real threat of retaliation by our diocesan bishop.”
We got the press release over the Internet, and it was titled “Gay Priests of Diocese A-J in Revolt; Demand Bishop Conceal Molesters, Sue Catholic Activists.” Surely that was not the title of the original press release, but that these 26 priests are “gay” or at least “gay-friendly” — or a mixture of the two — is quite obvious from the release.
The release says: “Whereas our bishop insists on publicly defending lawsuits against this diocese and thus increasing the threat that more names of our priests be exposed in the media, we demand that our bishop cease and desist his public defense of any and all lawsuits concerning alleged priestly misconduct and instead settle these cases out of court so as to protect the reputation and well being of those priests so named and others that may be revealed in the course of any trial. Whereas our bishop threatens and harasses homosexual priests into fearing for their office, we demand that our bishop cease and desist any and all harassment of homosexual clergy and instead work to protect the reputation and well being of clergy of all sexual orientations.” As with Msgr. Campion (see the above New Oxford Note), you notice the great — the excessive and ridiculous — concern with protecting the “reputation” of suspect priests.
You also see that the 26 priests are demanding that the bishop conceal the identity of those priests accused of homosexual molestation or rape. In other words, continue the old, failed policy of paying out hush money and reassigning the offender elsewhere, maybe after a little vacation time at one of those sex therapy clinics (some of which are known as “pedophile pipelines”), which have been such notorious failures in curing or successfully treating pedophilia.
And what’s this about harassment of homosexual clergy? Harassed for what? For having a homosexual (dis)orientation or for committing homosexual acts?
Read article in its entirety:
cruxnews.com/NORNotes/nor-22oct03.html