What is a "homosexual network" in the context of the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RealisticCatholic

Guest
I seem to only notice the term from more conservative sources. On the one hand, they seem glad to point out “homosexual behavior” and “homosexual networks” and “homosexual scandal” — all the while insisting that we never call anyone “homosexual” but instead “same-sex attracted.”

I’m just wondering if these more conservative sites have certain intents or motives when they point out the “homosexual” part over and over again.

Articles like this for example.

They just seem to give a vibe that there is more to it than a certain % of priests/seminarians who have same-sex attraction and resort to unchastity. It’s as if they’re trying to say all these men entered the priesthood with bad motives from the outset, and we can’t trust anyone with SSA. If that’s not what it means, then someone please explain.

(Note the above article, for example, is happy to point out the past Vatican requirements regarding ordination of SSA men.)

It’s as if the so-called “network” (“networks” plural?) itself has a single personality, and all of the same-sex attracted me become part of this singular entity. Again, if that’s not the implication, then someone please explain.
 
Last edited:
In other words, what’s the difference between “homosexual networks” that some Catholics sources like to emphasize, on the one hand, and seminarians/priests with general same-sex attraction on the other hand — and, to differentiate further, even those seminarians/priests with SSA who struggle with chastity but are not part of a so-called “network”??

I’m just really confused. It smells of unkind motives.
 
It smells of unkind motives because that is exactly what it is.

There is a certain subgroup of the Church who feels very strongly that homosexuality is the root of all that is wrong in the Church, and sadly, they are very, very, vocal.
 
Yes, and I am just wondering if this means there is also a “heterosexual network” within the church.
🤔

And maybe there IS a certain problem with certain (not all) SSA priests who resort to unchastity or worse. But it just seems a favorite go-to phrase of certain Catholic sources to highlight the “homosexual network” over and over again.

Case in point:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
I think it is used to set one group against the other, much like what we see in American politics.

Do a search of Fr. James Martin on this forum. You will find all sorts of vile stuff written about him and especially his latest book. Just because he is not beating everyone with the Catechism with regards to Church teaching on same sex relationships, he is condoning them.

It’s a vile technique used to dehumanize those with which we disagree and, in my humble opinion, has no place in the Church.
 
But, OP, in answer to your question, those homosexual networks are groups of clergy who (apparently) engage in all sorts of homosexual activity with other priests.
(apparently, reportedly, etc)
 
It seems pretty obvious (and apparently some bishops agree based on their public comments), that there was a network that actively protected the likes of McCarrick enabling decades of sexual exploitation of seminarians and even minors…
The debate seems to be over the nature of this “network”. Are the McCarricks of the Church protected by a group of predatory homosexuals for the sake of being predatory homosexuals, as many “conservative” voices (e.g. +Vigano, Fr. Z, etc.) insist… or are they protected by clericalist prelates who insist on special treatment for prelates for the sake of being entitled prelates (as the Holy Father and others have suggested)?
 
From the article in the OP:
Other disturbing findings included evidence indicating that “select seminarians” from the Diocese of Paterson and the Archdiocese of Hartford had “engaged in various evening and late-night parties at a local church rectory in Connecticut where sexual encounters between seminarians and priests would occur”; that select seminarians were “meeting former seminarians for intimate encounters; these former seminarians were expelled from a U.S. seminary for unacceptable behavior/homosexual activity”

The report also stated that the seminarians under investigation “had their diocesan personnel files altered or sanitized, resulting in the lack of full disclosure or transparency of a seminarian’s background, thus causing that seminarian to be misrepresented to other people,” and that “certain members of the clergy (i.e., vocation directors) coached or prompted select seminarians to give misleading responses to questions in advance of their interview with the Holy Apostles College & Seminary investigation team.”

And, according to the report, “select seminarians and certain priests have facilitated the recruitment and placement of other seminarians sharing in a similar alternative lifestyle within some U.S. dioceses.”

…

“The evidence at Holy Apostles led us to a very systemic homosexual network of individuals, not only covering for each other, but actively sanitizing files, moving people around, engaging in all sorts of negative activity,” Father Lavers told the Register last month.

“That effort represented a large network involving several dioceses, including Paterson, Newark, Hartford and Buffalo — this last of which is coming out in the news now,” he added, referencing the recent allegations that the Diocese of Buffalo, New York, has sought to downplay the extent of clergy sexual abuse there.
Click to expand...
In this short piece of text, there is hard evidence that:
  • Priests are organizing homosexual parties and activities (this is also far from the only allegation of this type of occurrence)
  • It goes across dioceses, not just localized in one area
  • Other priests in these dioceses are covering for the homosexual activity of other priests and seminarians
  • Priests are actively seeking out others with the same sexual inclinations as themselves
So yes, there is a problem in many dioceses with homosexuality, and there is some kind of an informal “network” of priests that try to perpetrate this behavior. These outlets are reporting this news because it is a grave scandal that calls into question the fitness of priests involved, their orthodoxy, and their willingness to teach and uphold the Catholic faith.

This is also not just some outlier, or isolated occurrence. Just in the last year, there has been reports of widespread homosexual activity in seminaries and dioceses in Boston, Nebraska, Newark, Honduras, etc. I think the real problem that people have with outlets reporting this type of news is that they don’t want to acknowledge how widespread and serious the problem really is.
 
It’s more of a conspiracy if anything. Sure, there may be a large number of homosexual clergy, but I doubt there’s a whole network dedicated to making the Church look bad. How would they even plan?
 
Not all…but the current sex abuse crisis. And why not ? Acting out on an intrinsically disordered act is not going to give good fruit .

And then you have bishops and priests who have covered it up and now try to promote ssm within the church itself.
 
If they can keep the sex abuse scandal and cover up hidden for so long. Then why not this. Why is mccarrick still not locked up ?

The only conspiracy is the one to silence the good laity and the handful of clergy who dare to speak out.
 
RealisticCatholic said:
Yes, and I am just wondering if this means there is also a “heterosexual network” within the church.
🤔
Click to expand...
The abuse is about 80% male on male. So the problem is predominately homosexual in nature. Not exclusively, but predominately , AND , in a proven organized fashion where people of a like mind are recruited, promoted, etc…victims are passed around like punching bags.
So, we have to deal with reality as it is, not as we would like to suit our sensitivities.

Abuse of any kind is intolerable. And there are multiple factors.
Rotten secular culture
Clerical power
and sexual component
(btw, the Church would be foolish not consider the celibacy requirement very seriously…if you don’t consider all options, you don’t have all answers to a problem, and that’s just dumb. )
 
Taking the term in its most favorable light, I think “homosexual network” refers to priests who completely ignore their vows behind closed doors, engage in gay affairs, and cover for one another. Contrast that with priests who might experience same sex attraction but take their vows seriously and do their best to remain celibate.
 
BoomBoomMancini said:
Taking the term in its most favorable light, I think “homosexual network” refers to priests who completely ignore their vows behind closed doors, engage in gay affairs, and cover for one another. Contrast that with priests who might experience same sex attraction but take their vows seriously and do their best to remain celibate.
Click to expand...
I think it also refers to using power in the promotion of like minded people, from top to bottom. Forming social networks from altar server up to cardinal based on participation in a certain lifestyle.
For those who scoff, this is well documented in parishes, dioceses and seminaries, and easily searchable. It is not talked about in much of mainstream press because it grates against the gay agenda that has garnered so much cultural protection.
It’s very inconvenient for the ABC news types. They prefer to talk about pedophile priests rather than gay and pederast priests, which is the predominant manifestation of abuse.
 
I’ve heard this, “Those poor Traditionalist bishops being silenced by the evil modernist hierarchy.” narrative a lot. Is there any really proof that they’re being “silenced” for being traditionalist? 🤔
 
Probably fair. I just think we have to be careful to note that we’re not talking about all same sex attracted priests.
 
Then maybe we all ought to step back and ask: Why are such persons attracted to the priesthood? Is there a reason why a same-sex attracted Catholic youth would feel called or cornered into the priesthood?

The trouble I have with “network” is that it smells of conspiracy theory — as if all these incidents are related to a single over-arching network with intent to destroy the church.

It just cannot be that simple, even if that is perhaps a factor — though maybe one among many, and one that does not affect every occurrence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top