With the pope against the homoheresy

[buffalo]

WITH THE POPE AGAINST THE HOMOHERESY

For several weeks now Poland has witnessed a heated
discussion on the “huge homosexual underground in the
Church”, provoked by the most recent book by Fr. Tadeusz
Isakowicz-Zaleski entitled Chodzi mi tylko o prawdę[1](Truth Is
All That Matters). Some deny any such underground exists, and
put forward theses profoundly inconsistent with the teaching of the
Church, both being at odds with truth[2]. The problem is serious to
the extent I feel I must join in the discussion as well, because I also
care about truth, and first of all about good, the fundamental wellbeing
of man and of the Church – the basic community in which he
lives.

Any discussion should have as its starting point the basic,
axiomatic assumption that any one of us can know with certainty
only a part, and that part is likely to be partially wrong. That
should result in any opinions being presented with humility, and
the arguments of partners or opponents being listened to with
attention. That way we may best benefit from the parts of
knowledge each of us has, and correct them. They will always
remain only parts, but they will be bigger and purified from errors
to a greater extent. That is the blessing of an honest dialogue, and it
is in this spirit that I want to proceed.
My feeling of duty to take a stance results from my
involvement in the philosophical criticism of homosexual ideology
and homosexual propaganda (abbreviated to homoideology and
1
homopropaganda), which I have dealt with for several years now
to the order and with encouragement from many cardinals and
bishops.[3] In doing that, I have accumulated what is probably the
biggest Polish collection of writings on the topic, one of the largest
collections of data. This has been accomplished with the help of
many friends and allies, both lay people and clergymen, university
professors and practicing physicians, as well as a large number of
people I had not known before, but who, encouraged by the
opinions I have expressed and having read my articles, wished to
add to and correct my knowledge. Thus, I have received news,
results of scientific studies, and official documents from both
around Poland and various regions of the world, particularly the
United States, Great Britain, Ireland, Germany, Austria, Holland
and Italy, and, first of all, from the Holy See. I began my work as a
struggle against a deadly, external threat to Christianity, but then
gradually discovered that the division is not that simple. The
enemy is not only outside the Church, but within it as well,
sometimes perfectly camouflaged, like the Trojan Horse. We are
dealing not only with the problem of a homoideology and a
homolobby outside the Church, but with an analogous problem
within it as well, where homoideology takes the form of a
homoheresy. One does not even need to study the archives of the
Institute of National Remembrance, which is only one of many
sources. These facts are self-evident also in those countries which
have not heard of any such Institute at all. It is enough to collect
reliable information from lay and Catholic media concerning the
recent years, and add to it the knowledge of human nature, some
logical thinking, put two and two together and study documents
which present the Church’s response to these facts.

more…

 

[TarkanAttila]

It’s at times like these that I think of bringing out a copy of the Liber Gomorrhianus.

 

[BTNYC]

Prepare for a storm of mindlessly indignant posts from allegedly Catholic sodomy apologists.

Lamentably, they are legion.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Prepare for a storm of mindlessly indignant posts from allegedly Catholic sodomy apologists.

Lamentably, they are legion.

Anyone interested should catch Friday Feb. 22’ 2013 episode of The Vortex where Michael Voris discusses this very subject.

 

[DexUK]

Having read that document, all I can say is that I have concluded that I shouldn’t place much store by hysterical conspiracy theories.

If the Church is ‘riddled’ with powerful homosexual officials who quietly and effectively conspire to subvert the running of the organisation, how then can it be that the Church repeatedly makes public statements attacking that which this vast homosexual conspiracy would supposedly hold dear? You would think that the opposition to homosexual legal unions/marriage would have been muted at best, with only individual bishops coming out against it. But no, the entire Church organisation does so.

Secondly, how did the conspiracy, should it exist at all, get to be so large? How did this minority sexual proclivity (let’s leave aside all other arguments about why homosexuality exists, since it clearly does exist) get to hold so much sway in the higher echelons of the Church? Is the author of this paper genuinely saying that there has been a giant coordinated attempt at swamping the Church with homosexuals? Not every priest becomes a bishop. In fact practically none of them do, so how come so many clerics in positions of power made it there whilst also happening to be homosexual - and how were they not identified earlier? If this one particular author is so good at finding conspiracies and it is so obvious to him, then why not to anyone else who was already in power in the Church?

The whole piece is a series of insinuations and suppositions. It draws from individual cases of accepted fact and applies conclusions of supposed conspiracy across the wider Church. With made-up words like “homoideology”, “homolobby”, “homoclique” and, best of all, “homomafia”, one has to take this entire report as the work of someone who is blowing something out of all proportion with reality. Just because the author of the report is a priest does not protect him from overblown rhetoric and over-reaction.

Yes, there clearly are homosexuals in the Church. There are in every walk of life. It’s a basic fact of life. Homosexuals do jobs just like everyone else does and there have been some very good and holy priests who have also happened to be homosexual (one of which, indeed, to my certain knowledge has had a Cause for Sainthood proposed by many people).

While some people have political instincts that make them seek publicity for a cause that is important to them, such as the homosexual rights ‘lobby’, that’s no different from, say, the animal rights lobby, or the religious rights lobby. To leap to a judgement that because there are some homosexual priests (and that some of them are bad priests) then there is a concerted conspiracy by this ‘lobby’ to infiltrate the Church and that this has actually been successful is a bold and completely unsupportable claim. The author even goes so far as to blame “neuroses, heart diseases and other complaints” in priests who aren’t homosexual on the homosexual lobby! Talk about far fetched!

The author is right to worry about immoral priests just as he is right to worry about people being immoral elsewhere in life, but to go so far as to make the claims that there is an organised or de-facto “homomafia” in the Church is alarmist nonsense.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Recomended reading: “Goodbye Good Men” By Michael S. Rose
It provides more evidence along these lines including testimony from fairly notable priests such as Fr.John Trigilio.

 

[Crescentinus]

Brace yourselves, the homosexualists are coming with their umbrage!

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Having read that document, all I can say is that I have concluded that I shouldn’t place much store by hysterical conspiracy theories.

If the Church is ‘riddled’ with powerful homosexual officials who quietly and effectively conspire to subvert the running of the organisation, how then can it be that the Church repeatedly makes public statements attacking that which this vast homosexual conspiracy would supposedly hold dear? You would think that the opposition to homosexual legal unions/marriage would have been muted at best, with only individual bishops coming out against it. But no, the entire Church organisation does so.

Secondly, how did the conspiracy, should it exist at all, get to be so large? How did this minority sexual proclivity (let’s leave aside all other arguments about why homosexuality exists, since it clearly does exist) get to hold so much sway in the higher echelons of the Church? Is the author of this paper genuinely saying that there has been a giant coordinated attempt at swamping the Church with homosexuals? Not every priest becomes a bishop. In fact practically none of them do, so how come so many clerics in positions of power made it there whilst also happening to be homosexual - and how were they not identified earlier? If this one particular author is so good at finding conspiracies and it is so obvious to him, then why not to anyone else who was already in power in the Church?

The whole piece is a series of insinuations and suppositions. It draws from individual cases of accepted fact and applies conclusions of supposed conspiracy across the wider Church. With made-up words like “homoideology”, “homolobby”, “homoclique” and, best of all, “homomafia”, one has to take this entire report as the work of someone who is blowing something out of all proportion with reality. Just because the author of the report is a priest does not protect him from overblown rhetoric and over-reaction.

Yes, there clearly are homosexuals in the Church. There are in every walk of life. It’s a basic fact of life. Homosexuals do jobs just like everyone else does and there have been some very good and holy priests who have also happened to be homosexual (one of which, indeed, to my certain knowledge has had a Cause for Sainthood proposed by many people).

While some people have political instincts that make them seek publicity for a cause that is important to them, such as the homosexual rights ‘lobby’, that’s no different from, say, the animal rights lobby, or the religious rights lobby. To leap to a judgement that because there are some homosexual priests (and that some of them are bad priests) then there is a concerted conspiracy by this ‘lobby’ to infiltrate the Church and that this has actually been successful is a bold and completely unsupportable claim. The author even goes so far as to blame “neuroses, heart diseases and other complaints” in priests who aren’t homosexual on the homosexual lobby! Talk about far fetched!

The author is right to worry about immoral priests just as he is right to worry about people being immoral elsewhere in life, but to go so far as to make the claims that there is an organised or de-facto “homomafia” in the Church is alarmist nonsense.

You aren’t very old are you? The 70’s 80’s and 90’s were very dark days for the Church. By God’s strength we have been, and are being, rescued from the moral corruption that had taken root in the priesthood. What is surprising is not that there are homosexual factions remaining in power in the Church, but that they have lost so much ground so quickly.
One case that got some national attention in the 90’s would be that of John Bollard. It is important to remember, though, that while there is corruption within the Church, the Church itself is incorruptible and will always be the holy and immaculate bride of Christ.

PS: I have found a Google Books Preview of “Goodbye Good Men” here.

 

[DexUK]

You aren’t very old are you? The 70’s 80’s and 90’s were very dark days for the Church. By God’s strength we have been, and are being, rescued from the moral corruption that had taken root in the priesthood. What is surprising is not that there are homosexual factions remaining in power in the Church, but that they have lost so much ground so quickly.
One case that got some national attention in the 90’s would be that of John Bollard. It is important to remember, though, that while there is corruption within the Church, the Church itself is incorruptible and will always be the holy and immaculate bride of Christ.

PS: I have found a Google Books Preview of “Goodbye Good Men” here.

What has my age got to do with my understanding? Good grief, that’s a bit impertinent don’t you think?!

As it happens I’m not young any more, more’s the pity!

But you actually make my point for me with respect to the 1970s onwards… The gay ‘lobby’ only really began to make its presence felt in the mid to late 60s. That would simply not be enough time to indoctrinate a large number of priests of whom a number would go on to become bishops in time for the time-period you reference. That’s why I object to these conspiracy theories since they take no account of the practicality of what they propose!

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

What has my age got to do with my understanding? Good grief, that’s a bit impertinent don’t you think?!

As it happens I’m not young any more, more’s the pity!

But you actually make my point for me with respect to the 1970s onwards… The gay ‘lobby’ only really began to make its presence felt in the mid to late 60s. That would simply not be enough time to indoctrinate a large number of priests of whom a number would go on to become bishops in time for the time-period you reference. That’s why I object to these conspiracy theories since they take no account of the practicality of what they propose!

A lot can happen in forty years and make no mistake. At least promise you’ll give the book I linked to a look through will ya?

 

[rossum]

WITH THE POPE AGAINST THE HOMOHERESY

For several weeks now Poland has witnessed a heated
discussion on the “huge homosexual underground in the
Church”, provoked by the most recent book by Fr. Tadeusz
Isakowicz-Zaleski entitled Chodzi mi tylko o prawdę[1](Truth Is
All That Matters). Some deny any such underground exists, and
put forward theses profoundly inconsistent with the teaching of the
Church, both being at odds with truth[2]. The problem is serious to
the extent I feel I must join in the discussion as well, because I also
care about truth, and first of all about good, the fundamental wellbeing
of man and of the Church – the basic community in which he
lives.

And Bishop Joseph McCarthy was quoted as saying, “The State Department is infested with -]communists/-]homosexuals. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the -]Communist Party/-]Homintern and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”

rossum

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

And Bishop Joseph McCarthy was quoted as saying, “The State Department is infested with -]communists/-]homosexuals. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the -]Communist Party/-]Homintern and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.”

rossum

So funny I forgot to laugh.

 

[NeedImprovement]

It’s definitely not the world’s shortest article to read , but the gist , the thesis, is well supported by the weight of the evidence cited.

I would, however, take exception by noting that presentation of some of the evidence is mixed with certain inaccuracies for which I have less of a preference. I researched a chunk of what was cited revolving around some individuals portrayed and just found the brush to be a little too broad in the author’s endeavor to categorize.

Writing/compiling an article like this requires a generous amount of time and reflection, and can be emotionally draining. The research involved was exhaustive , judging by the bibliography. Still, I believe the wrong coloured paint may have inadvertently gotten on some of the human subjects - not a question at all of whether guilt is implicated , but rather a question of precisely which improprieties said guilt pertains to in some of the individuals mentioned.

I have the links here, but I’m presently reticent on posting a pile of links to scandal-based articles just to prove the point (maybe later if the thread progresses).

---

There are several other not-so-accurate areas which can be illustrated without mentioning any individuals. I’ll submit one here. This quote is taken from the top of page 3 of the article (highlights mine) :

They keep talking about paedophilia among clergymen, while it is most often the case that the problem is ephebophilia, which is a perversion consisting in adult homosexual men being attracted not to children, but to pubescent and adolescent boys. It is a typical deviation related to homosexuality.

Ephebophilia is a relatively new word for me (thanks buffalo ,) but when I poked around to verify the article’s definition as presented, it would appear the accepted definition is , in a sense, 50% broader .

According to this definition from medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ephebophilia , ephebophilia also comprises -

Sexual preference by an older person—usually understood to be an older man—for a girl in mid-to-late adolescence—the consummation of which is illegal in most jurisdictions

Although the Oxford dictionary at this link oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ephebophile states the etymology of ephebophile to be

“Origin :1960s: from Greek ephēbos ‘adolescent boy’ (see ephebe) + -phile” , the actual definition it gives is more comprehensive:

ephebophilia :
noun
an adult who is sexually attracted to adolescents.

Another from the Collins dictionary

Ephebophilia
noun

the sexual attraction to adolescents by adults

collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ephebophilia

So homosexuality and ephebophilia are not synonymous ; neither would they appear to be related in a manner which would preclude male to female and female to male attraction.

The notes say that this article was also published in German and that the english version appears to be

Translated by Ma gorzata Wójcik - adapted, where necessary, by ł Rorate Caeli]

.

Since this is an English-speaking forum, what I’m suggesting (only my own limited opinion) is that the English version could use a little tidy-up .In order to avoid confusion we need to try and keep things as precise as possible in these matters.

 

[buffalo]

It’s definitely not the world’s shortest article to read , but the gist , the thesis, is well supported by the weight of the evidence cited.

I would, however, take exception by noting that presentation of some of the evidence is mixed with certain inaccuracies for which I have less of a preference. I researched a chunk of what was cited revolving around some individuals portrayed and just found the brush to be a little too broad in the author’s endeavor to categorize.

Writing/compiling an article like this requires a generous amount of time and reflection, and can be emotionally draining. The research involved was exhaustive , judging by the bibliography. Still, I believe the wrong coloured paint may have inadvertently gotten on some of the human subjects - not a question at all of whether guilt is implicated , but rather a question of precisely which improprieties said guilt pertains to in some of the individuals mentioned.

I have the links here, but I’m presently reticent on posting a pile of links to scandal-based articles just to prove the point (maybe later if the thread progresses).

---

There are several other not-so-accurate areas which can be illustrated without mentioning any individuals. I’ll submit one here. This quote is taken from the top of page 3 of the article (highlights mine) :

Ephebophilia is a relatively new word for me (thanks buffalo ,) but when I poked around to verify the article’s definition as presented, it would appear the accepted definition is , in a sense, 50% broader .

According to this definition from medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ephebophilia , ephebophilia also comprises -

Although the Oxford dictionary at this link oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ephebophile states the etymology of ephebophile to be

“Origin :1960s: from Greek ephēbos ‘adolescent boy’ (see ephebe) + -phile” , the actual definition it gives is more comprehensive:

Another from the Collins dictionary

So homosexuality and ephebophilia are not synonymous ; neither would they appear to be related in a manner which would preclude male to female and female to male attraction.

The notes say that this article was also published in German and that the english version appears to be .

Since this is an English-speaking forum, what I’m suggesting (only my own limited opinion) is that the English version could use a little tidy-up .In order to avoid confusion we need to try and keep things as precise as possible in these matters.

Most often it is acted out on the same sex. The point is an adult male predating on a post pubescent male is a homosexual act.

I don’t think they gathered any stats at all on adult males and adult males.

 

[buffalo]

Vatican dismisses reports linking pope’s resignation to gay conclave discovery

	 					Pope Benedict talks of 'evil, suffering and corruption' in the world in remarks to Vatican Curia as he prepares to vacate papacy

Vatican blasts ‘false’ pre-conclave reporting

 

[NeedImprovement]

Most often it is acted out on the same sex. The point is an adult male predating on a post pubescent male is a homosexual act.

. . .

( Okay, but I think you mean to say, “preying” on a post-pubescent male).

As to the mystery of why people find a term as crucial as ephebophilia to be largely medically undefined in our present day : The militant gay lobby intimidated the APA into removing “homosexuality” from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders : Homosexual Activists Intimidate American Psychiatric Association into Removing Homosexuality from List of Disorders .

Subsequently, any exploitative acts of a homosexual nature - in this case , offenses/crimes of male homosexual ephebophilia , would enjoy a certain degree of ambiguity or subterfuge each time it should have been identified from an analytical or medical perspective.

Professor of Christian Ethics, Germain Grisez was aware of the situation over 10 years ago, and offered an enlightening explanation in his article Assessing Responsibility for the Scandal :

EXCERPT

. . . As Rossetti says, pedophilia is a clinical term. The sexual disorder it refers to is listed among the paraphilias—that is, sexual deviations—in the American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994), 522-32. According to the Manual (527) the pedophile’s deviant focus “involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger).”

With pedophiles, Rossetti contrasts ephebophiles: “There are others who are ephebophiles, i.e. sexually attracted to postpubescent children.” (67) He often speaks of pedophiles and** ephebophiles** in the chapter of his book (64-79) where he articulates his professional opinions about the best ways to assess both candidates for ministry and adults charged with “child sexual abuse.” The reader is likely to be led to believe that ephebophilia, like pedophilia, is some sort of arcane mental disorder.

Understanding ephebophilia

However, if one tries to look up ephebophilia in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, one will not find it. Several years ago that Association decided that a homosexual orientation is not a disorder. Officially, homosexual behavior is no longer deviant but a healthy alternative to heterosexual behavior. Thus ephebophilia, being a kind of homosexuality, has no place in the Association’s catalog of mental disorders.

 

[NeedImprovement]

What is even more disturbing is how all of this relates on a global scale. Homosexuals don’t want anyone talking about ephebophilia or defining its parameters because this is the area they are presently exploiting – to the moral detriment of society in general.

Their objective is to lower the age of consent as far as possible (and then some – a few would argue) – the consequences of which will include, the conclusion that exploitative acts of ephebophilia will no longer be called a crime (technically , anyway). A common reason given, is that “if two people really love each other ,age doesn’t matter.” - GMAB .

Another more recent argument given is that whatever the age of consent is currently fixed at, anyone below that age somehow has has no sexual “rights” http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk157/dyedinthewool/Smilies/nuts.gif (With such progressively depraved arguments, it really is a wonder, that, at the very least , the general public hasn’t lobbied to have homosexuality reinstated back into the APA’sDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders complete with asterisks and bold type !)

Look what’s been happening in Britain:
In the year 2000 the gay lobby succeeded in having the government lower the gay age of consent to 16.
guardian.co.uk/politics/2000/feb/11/uk.politicalnews1

Now, the gay activists want to lower the age of consent for everyone to 14 .

Britain’s Leading Gay Activist Calls for Lowering of Age of Consent to 14
. . . OutRage! has long lobbied for the lowering of the age of consent in Britain, which was already lowered for homosexual acts from age 21 in 1994 and again in 2000 to 16, after heavy lobbying by homosexualist activists.
lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/sep/10090110

mercatornet.com/family_edge/view/7848
‘Lower age of consent’ says gay rights campaigner

A high profile British homosexual activist wants the age of sexual consent lowered to 14, on the basis that currently underage sex “is mostly consenting, safe and fun”

. . . By a tortured logic Tatchell claims that a lower age of consent is “the best way” to protect young people from abuse. His arguments boil down to three:

• The kids are doing it anyway.
• Current laws criminalise teenagers.
• Young people under 16 have the right to decide when to have sex.

Actually, in making the last claim Tatchell puts no lower age limit. This fits with his recipe for protecting kids from peer pressure and paedophiles: “giving them frank, high quality sex and relationship education from an early age”. As we have noted elsewhere on this site recently, for some people that means nursery school.

In the end, his case seems to rest on a view of sex as the driving force and highest achievement of human life – from “an early age”. It is a view that some adults may find convenient but which common sense rejects as contrary to the good of children and society. Thus the editors of Big Think conclude:

Why We Should Reject This

Of course there will always be underage people who have sex, but that doesn’t mean the law should condone it. Sex is a very complicated part of human behavior that is too nuanced for young people to understand. In fact, studies have shown that people, especially girls, who have sex at a young age often regret it. One study in New Zealand found that 70% of girls who had sex before the age of 16 wished they hadn’t done so. In a column for Telegraph, writer David Lindsay argues, “sex is for people who can cope with the consequences, physical and otherwise. In a word, adults.”

 

[Bob_the_Chef]

It’s definitely not the world’s shortest article to read , but the gist , the thesis, is well supported by the weight of the evidence cited.

I would, however, take exception by noting that presentation of some of the evidence is mixed with certain inaccuracies for which I have less of a preference. I researched a chunk of what was cited revolving around some individuals portrayed and just found the brush to be a little too broad in the author’s endeavor to categorize.

Writing/compiling an article like this requires a generous amount of time and reflection, and can be emotionally draining. The research involved was exhaustive , judging by the bibliography. Still, I believe the wrong coloured paint may have inadvertently gotten on some of the human subjects - not a question at all of whether guilt is implicated , but rather a question of precisely which improprieties said guilt pertains to in some of the individuals mentioned.

I have the links here, but I’m presently reticent on posting a pile of links to scandal-based articles just to prove the point (maybe later if the thread progresses).

---

There are several other not-so-accurate areas which can be illustrated without mentioning any individuals. I’ll submit one here. This quote is taken from the top of page 3 of the article (highlights mine) :

Ephebophilia is a relatively new word for me (thanks buffalo ,) but when I poked around to verify the article’s definition as presented, it would appear the accepted definition is , in a sense, 50% broader .

According to this definition from medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ephebophilia , ephebophilia also comprises -

Although the Oxford dictionary at this link oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ephebophile states the etymology of ephebophile to be

“Origin :1960s: from Greek ephēbos ‘adolescent boy’ (see ephebe) + -phile” , the actual definition it gives is more comprehensive:

Another from the Collins dictionary

So homosexuality and ephebophilia are not synonymous ; neither would they appear to be related in a manner which would preclude male to female and female to male attraction.

The notes say that this article was also published in German and that the english version appears to be .

Since this is an English-speaking forum, what I’m suggesting (only my own limited opinion) is that the English version could use a little tidy-up .In order to avoid confusion we need to try and keep things as precise as possible in these matters.

I agree that the translation is bad, and that we should be as precise as possible because the first thing sophists do is nitpick in order to effectively philibuster the debate and discredit the opposition in the eyes of weak intellects. But I would avoid hairsplitting as well. As you say, ephebophilia is a bit broader than what’s been suggested in the above wording, although it still is ephebophilia albiet of a homosexual species. The message remains intact.

 

[CopticChristian]

Having read that document, all I can say is that I have concluded that I shouldn’t place much store by hysterical conspiracy theories.

If the Church is ‘riddled’ with powerful homosexual officials who quietly and effectively conspire to subvert the running of the organisation, how then can it be that the Church repeatedly makes public statements attacking that which this vast homosexual conspiracy would supposedly hold dear? You would think that the opposition to homosexual legal unions/marriage would have been muted at best, with only individual bishops coming out against it. But no, the entire Church organisation does so.

Secondly, how did the conspiracy, should it exist at all, get to be so large? How did this minority sexual proclivity (let’s leave aside all other arguments about why homosexuality exists, since it clearly does exist) get to hold so much sway in the higher echelons of the Church? Is the author of this paper genuinely saying that there has been a giant coordinated attempt at swamping the Church with homosexuals? Not every priest becomes a bishop. In fact practically none of them do, so how come so many clerics in positions of power made it there whilst also happening to be homosexual - and how were they not identified earlier? If this one particular author is so good at finding conspiracies and it is so obvious to him, then why not to anyone else who was already in power in the Church?

The whole piece is a series of insinuations and suppositions. It draws from individual cases of accepted fact and applies conclusions of supposed conspiracy across the wider Church. With made-up words like “homoideology”, “homolobby”, “homoclique” and, best of all, “homomafia”, one has to take this entire report as the work of someone who is blowing something out of all proportion with reality. Just because the author of the report is a priest does not protect him from overblown rhetoric and over-reaction.

Yes, there clearly are homosexuals in the Church. There are in every walk of life.While some people have political instincts that make them seek publicity for a cause that is important to them, such as the homosexual rights ‘lobby’, that’s no different from, say, the animal rights lobby, or the religious rights lobby. To leap to a judgement that because there are some homosexual priests (and that some of them are bad priests) then there is a concerted conspiracy by this ‘lobby’ to infiltrate the Church and that this has actually been successful is a bold and completely unsupportable claim. The author even goes so far as to blame “neuroses, heart diseases and other complaints” in priests who aren’t homosexual on the homosexual lobby! Talk about far fetched!

The author is right to worry about immoral priests just as he is right to worry about people being immoral elsewhere in life, but to go so far as to make the claims that there is an organised or de-facto “homomafia” in the Church is alarmist nonsense.

Dex,

It’s a basic fact of life. Homosexuals do jobs just like everyone else does and there have been some very good and holy priests who have also happened to be homosexual (one of which, indeed, to my certain knowledge has had a Cause for Sainthood proposed by many people).

Who is it you believe is homosexual and being considered for sainthood…and if you say John Henry Newman…please provide proof of his homosexuality…

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Dex,

Who is it you believe is homosexual and being considered for sainthood…and if you say John Henry Newman…please provide proof of his homosexuality…

Oh my! Have the Homosexual historical revisionists gotten to Cardinal Newman too?