GAY-BASH HOMILY DIDN'T HAVE EGAN BLESSING

New York Post ^ | 4/23/02 | DAN MANGAN

[Fethiye]

Having said that, the inescapable truth that is emerging from the scandal involving priests who prey on minors is that actively homosexual priests are much more likely to prey on minors than actively heterosexual priests. To me, acknowledging this truth is no more slanderous of men who are merely tempted to homosexual acts than acknowledging the truth that the men who hijacked the planes on 9/11 were predominantly Muslim is slanderous of all Muslims.

I don't have a problem with anyone's pointing out that the crimes involved in the current scandal appear to have predominantly been committed against boys.

My problem is with those who would use an inference from that observation as a rationale for purging the priesthood of persons who, though homosexual by inclination, have not molested anybody.

And with those who would use the current scandal to "prove" that homosexuals (in general, not just homosexual priests) are more likely than heterosexuals to molest minors.

Heavens knows, it's not a good idea to generalize about human sexual behavior based on an observance of priests!

[Fethiye]

I apologize for doubting you, Boris. This story, if true, is appalling. (In truth, I'm still not totally convinced by your reference to a story in the Washington Times, not exactly the newspaper of record.)

But at any rate, your original point, that tolerance of homosexuals would inevitably lead to tolerance of pedophiles is disproved by your citation to Amherst's nondiscrimination policy -- which, if it ever did include nondiscrimination against pedophiles, does not include that now. So while tolerance of homosexuals appears to be all the rage, tolerance of pedophiles appears to be an idea whose time has come and gone.

[Fethiye]

Please ignore my post 182. It's in the wrong thread.

[Quila]

The problem in the increasing diaspora of homosexuality in the American seminaries and priestly ranks

This was going on long before the recent gay movement, it was just better hushed back then. This is an endemic problem finally coming to light (previously always hushed with payoffs and transfers), not a new problem caused by more scum in the priesthood.

Otherwise, I can pretty much agree with your assessment.

[Quila]

The difference is that in the case of the priests is that the criminal holds a sacred office, and that it maybe that there was a criminal conspiracy to conceal, attended by blackmail. So in many case, these slimeballs are doubly guilty: first of the crime and then in concealment of their crime.

And the church is guilty because it assists in, or directs, the coverup.

You got caught abusing your position, with children, boys, men or women? Defrock the scum at least, but I prefer excommunication for abuse of a holy and trusted position and for tainting the name of the church.

[Quila]

The priest may be letting down God and his parish but the woman is in many cases violating her wedding vows and hurting husband and children.

I'm sure that happens, in which case we can't call it really abuse of trust, just indiscretion, breaking of vows, adultry. However, I have heard of women who were having hard times and went to the priest for advise or consolation, only to be taken advantage of. These are the ones I'm talking about.

[RobbyS]

The priests are protected by canon law. The authority to defrock should perhaps be given to the ordinary. What concerns me is not the "dance of the lemons" which is usual to most organizations, but the possibility that some of these priests might have protected themselves through networking/by blackmailing. The way that the American cardinals has danced away from Buship Gregory's hard-line alarms me. The number of gay priests may be as large as we have feared.

[eastsider]

My problem is with those who ... would use the current scandal to "prove" that homosexuals (in general, not just homosexual priests) are more likely than heterosexuals to molest minors. Heavens knows, it's not a good idea to generalize about human sexual behavior based on an observance of priests!

I quite agree. Considering that the population of homosexual priests at least had the benefit of knowing what they were doing was wrong, I would expect that among the general population of homosexuals who have no such compunction that the problem would be even worse!

[Quila]

The priests are protected by canon law.

That's another problem I have with this. Why are none of these priests going to be charged with statutory rape? I'm sure it's because it's the church and the state won't interfere with internal church workings. That's BS favoritism, because other religions are being denied illegal drug use, and their adherents get prosecuted. These priests should be in jail.

[wattsmag2]

Yes, it is germane to the discussion. Bring an abomination to the altat and reap the rewards.

[Quila]

Yes, it is germane to the discussion. Bring an abomination to the altat and reap the rewards.

Good point. That they are doing something outside of the established ethical rules of their organization is grounds for dismissal at any company. I do think the breach of trust is the more important charge though.