Skip to comments.Jesuit Official Rips Expected Ban on Gays
Posted on 09/30/2005 11:20:25 AM PDT by NormB
click here to read article
I most certainly was not suggesting that there is. However in modern times the whole Jesuit order for the most part has abandoned the faith.
"I wisxh you were right. But a few nights ago on Catholic radio (EWTN), a caller phoned in with a question about how many seminarians are gay and the priest answering questions had to admit to 25-50%. So those are the church's own figures."
One priest, on a call-in, isn't necessarily giving the "church's own figures." And, I may still be right.
Very clever. Very pointed. It really speaks for itself, doesn't it?
But I thought you had to be at least 18 to post on FR. Welcome, young feller! You're really snarky.
Note this author's obsession with prestigious degrees and titles, and with fancy social connections. What the devil does any of that have to do with being a good priest or a good Catholic? Jesus was a carpenter. This woman's shallow values make her the condign person to praise a priest who obviously wasn't true to his vows.
The rules of the Roman Catholic Church on earth are largely made by the popes as Christ's Vicars on earth, whether enemies of the Roman Catholic Church like it or not. We are NOT subject to rules construed into "existence" by every or any "reformed" Tom, Dick and Harriet with a Bible and a few reading lessons.
If you actually have swallowed the lying piece of propaganda that 10% of the population is homosexual (now admitted by its propounders to be a lie) you really should study up.
It's all here at this link, categorized for your reading pleasure:
He certainly doesn't love everything everyone says or does. He makes that explicity clear.
It was actually written shortly before the current sexual abuse problems erupted. The subtitle is: How Liberalism Bought Corruption Into the Catholic Church. As usual, you can usually find liberalism at the root cause of most of the problems in our culture. I believe it was in this book that he described the pristhood as bascially evolving in recent decades into a "gay profession," much like male flight attendants. In many seminaries, "straight" candidtates are actually weeded out.
Here are a couple reviews of the book from Amazon. It was a real eyeopener for me, and I'd highly recommend it:
"Written shortly before the current scandal broke upon the Roman Catholic Church, Rose's book seems almost prophetic as he documents the systematic rejection of pious, orthodox seminary applicants in many dioceses and the encouragement of questionable attitudes and agendas. Rose, who was editor of St. Catherine Review for seven years, is the author of numerous articles, essays, and books that question the wisdom of contemporary liberal Catholicism. Here, he discusses the causes of the chronic priest shortage, including the misuse of psychological screening and what appears to be blatant discrimination against the kind of young men who were once considered ideal candidates for the vocation. He gives a disturbing glimpse behind the scenes that may go far in explaining the church's present difficulties. Based primarily on interviews, the book is carefully footnoted and contains a bibliography of sources cited and consulted. Highly recommended for anyone interested in this prominent topic, and for public and academic libraries." C. Robert Nixon, MLS, Lafayette, IN Copyright 2002 Cahners Business Information, Inc.
Book Description: "Goodbye, Good Men provides the real story behind the sex scandal currently rocking the Catholic church. Investigative reporter Michael Rose has conducted countless interviews and exhaustive research to uncover several out-of-control seminaries as the root cause of the scandal. While most pundits and critics are calling for liberalization of the Church in the wake of these scandals, Rose presents compelling evidence that liberal influence is the very cause of the crisis. The revelations in Goodbye, Good Men will shock the nation and ignite a firestorm of debate on the subject."
The book is available on Amazon.com
No...if I am right, the samplings are worthless. That doesn't give the wrong results a sudden, meaningless, exponential jump. Jeesh.
Let's rephrase that, shall we?
Does anyone know if the Jesuits are still worth a damn?
Well, yes, there are a few.
Like Fr. Fessio, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Fr. Spitzer in Gonzaga, and there MUST be a few others...
Thanks for the ping! I will ping this out later.
(Good to see you, friend!)
The letter your post made several assertions which do not reflect objective truth. Here are just a couple:
"The God I pray to created all human beings. I believe he made some of them gay."
There is zero evidence that anyone is born "gay". Even homosexual activist researchers who have tried for years to prove that there is a "gay" gene, that people are born "gay", have had to admit they haven't found the evidence they're looking for. Here's a link that give a lot of information about the actual causes of homosexuality. I suggest you give it a read:
Root Causes, Homosexual Consequences
"But homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia."
Consider this: roughly one third of all child molestation is same sex. Homosexuals are about 2% of the population, yet one third of child molestation is same sex. That should tell you something. If you read the article and info on the thread linked above, you'll find more information about homosexuality and child and adolescent molestation. A much higher percentage of homosexuals were sexually molested when young, and continue the practice as adults. Not all, not most - but a MUCH higher percentage than the general population. (Actually, a huge percentage of homosexuals were molested when young. It is definitely one of the most pervasive factors contributing to homosexuality.)
Before supporting homosexuality in the priesthood any more, you owe it to yourself and those reading this forum to educate yourself.
Man that is some nasty reading.
I recommend it highly to anyone, especially Catholics.
I wish Jesus would appear and comment on their use of His name. I'd like to hear Our Lord's opinion of that.
Who we decide to ordain and what standards for ordination we decide to enforce for our clergy is our business, not yours.
Right now we are trying to correct laxities that have led to atrocities, and we've adopted the reasonable position that if you exclude persons inclined to sodomy from positions of authority, then persons in authority will no longer sodomize people.
If you want to be pastored by a sodomy fan or participant, there are many religious organizations which would be more than happy to accomodate you.
It's neither a mental disease, nor does it require physical engagement. As I said before it's a noun and is the same sex version of the noun and opposite sex word heterosexual. John O doesn't get to define words.
I thought the act was a sin?
"If someone never commits the act of homosexual behavior then they are not a 'homosexual'. Only the act gives definition to the disease"
Yes it does.
Well, sure He does. Absolutely and completely.
But, He certainly does not like the sins which we mere mortals commit. It keeps us away from a full relationship with Him.
Have you ever heard the saying, "Hate the sin, Love the sinner."
I thought so...
Having gone to Jebbie schools, I can't say I'm surprised. Many "friends of Dorothy" in the Ignatian order.
I've known a lot of effeminate priests in my short life. Not that there's anything wrong with it. ;-)
Conservative; meaning what?..
Theologian; meaning what?..
Both terms are nebulous..
Scary isn't it?
Scary isn't it?
You're not serious, are you? "The priest answering questions" (whose qualifications in sociometrics or whatever they are call it are --? ) pinpoints it at "25-50%", which you conclude represent "the church's own figures."
Estimates on this have been all over the place (Most -- but not all -- do fall within 25-50%). My own guess would be that the percentage varies widely among various dioceses/orders, and people giving estimates discuss those they're acquainted with. If anyone had any reliable figures (which they don't), the estimates couldn't possibly vary as much as they do.
"If anyone had any reliable figures (which they don't), the estimates couldn't possibly vary as much as they do."
Apparently you are under the impression that prospective seminarians do not need recommendations when applying.
In fact judging from your notes on the subject it is 'protectors' like you who helped facilitate the abuse that was going on because you chose to look the other way.
That's a pretty strong personal accusation and I know you have no facts to back it up.
To quote Bishop Galante, Bishop of Camden and close to JPII, "these priest defenders have betrayed the good priest, they have betrayed The Church and the have betrayed God."
Says the bishop who defended two priests from his previous diocese that were involved in the "St. Sebastian's Angels" gay porn website.
Face facts: sodomites in the priesthood need to be zeroed out, period.
I checked my comments and read this comment to me, and your freepmail.
You posted a letter supporting homosexuals in the priesthood, without any comment by yourself, so anyone would assume that is your position. If you hold a different position, now's your chance to state it. If you don't support homosexuals in the priesthood, great! Join the club, so to speak. My position is clear, but I'm not sure about yours. If you are similarly opposed to homosexuals serving as priests, I publically apologize for wrongfully assuming that you did support them in the priesthood.
What is your position, then?
These guys are predators. The church leadership covered up for them. sickening.
Worst of all I only got about 1 10th the way through the document, I am not sure if I want to read the whole thing.
Me too. The secret is, of course, that they don't believe that He exists, so they are free to attribute to Him any feelings that appeal to them. Won't they be surprised...
Initially, at the beginning of the homosexualization of the clergy and religious orders, the Franciscans had the highest percentage of AIDS deaths. Now that honor belongs to the Jesuits...
I have carefully re-read the letter you posted, all your comments and freepmails to me. I do indeed apologize for assuming that the editorial was a reflection of your viewpoint. Since I am not familiar with your comments, and you made no personal comment, I assumed wrongly that you posted the editorial in agreement with your viewpoint.
If I had read the entire thread, and seen your comment about "Goodbye Good Men" I would not have assumed you supported homosexuals in the priesthood.
[But you made that comment after so that wouldn't have helped.]
Anyway, I am sincerely sorry for my mistaken assumption, but surely you can see why I thought that, since you didn't state your own position. I see plenty of odd viewpoints on some of these threads.
No, that's not true.
Gays tend to congregate in urban areas. It makes it easier to find other gays
Celibacy is all about denial of the natural appetites, how can it serve celibacy to characterize its dimensions?
I am not a Catholic-basher.
The difference between the 1-2% of actual gays in the population and the 10% often quotes comes, if I remember, from the fact that the sampling which resulted in the 10% figure was taken from a group of male prison inmates and dealt with whether they had ever had a homosexual relationship (Kinsey study? Masters & Johnson?). If anything, the 10% figure was probably low for male inmates.
We don't know the methodology of the studies identifed in Post 21, nor the agenda, if any, of the researchers. However, unless the studies were focused on a particular sampling that was guaranteed to skew the results (like inmates did for Kinsey's study), the percentage of homosexual priests is high -- probably 25% at the bottom end and quite likely higher than that. Thsse studies (particularly the one with a 75% response rate) are probably closer to the mark than Kinsey's study.
In the old days, it may really have been as simple as being a homosexual Cathololic and picking an occupation (for them, not necessary a calling) where you didn't have to justify not being married.
Once you had any meaningful percentage of homosexual priests and no strict control over it? Well, look at high school drama clubs, male Broadway dancers, male florists, male interior decorators, male fashion designers/critics, etc. Unless there IS a gay gene and it is tied to some kind of aesthetic taste and dancing ability, homosexuals seek out the safe harbor of other homosexuals. Wouldn't you?
Next, offer a situation where over at least the past thirty years, pedophilia has been hushed up by the Church and if not commonplace, just far too frequent to make anyone comfortable (just look at the size of the "deprogramming" center in New Mexico or Arizona).
The problems are anti-Catholics who use this to bash Catholics, and Catholic apolgists (I'm certainly not calling you one; I'm talking about those with whom I work) who refuse to believe there are more than one or two homosexual priests in the whole state.
In my volunteer position, I meet priests with some frequency for brief periods of time. It could be that delicate, sensitive men select the priesthood -- they are more focused on the spiritual than the earthly. On the other hand, if these men were not wearing the collar and I met them at work, I'd peg a large percentage of them as being gay. A significantly larger percentage of them than the LDS, Methodist and other religious leaders I meet (not than many Baptist churches run Scouting programs, so my cross-section of Baptist preachers with whom I have the same kind of brief, first-impression experience is much lower).
I've met three men who claimed to have dropped out of the seminary (sorry, don't remember what the Catholic church calls it, if not a seminary) because of the high number of homosexual men there. It could be just an excuse.
On the other hand, the Catholic clergy -- not the Catholic Church, not the Holy Father, not the wonderful Catholic men, women, and especially Scouts I deal with on a frequent basis -- may have developed into a significant "sanctuary" for homosexuals in the United States over the last 30 years.
Suppress the Jesuits (again).
However, I know one celebate homosexual (by inclination or "orientation") pastor who is completely orthodox, even to the point of calling "gay" sex a sin and actively opposing the entire gaysbian agenda. He does not consider himself "gay", and culurally or in terms of his acting on his homosexual desires, he is not.
As for the Roman Catholic Church, we have all read testimonies of heterosexual priests and seminarians who feel shut out by a "gay mafia". Then there is the "sex scandal", which overwhelmingly involves rogue priests preying on male teenagers or children. To say that this has noting to do with "gays" is a big lie!!!!
No orthodox catholic church body should have gaysbian clergy, whether celebate or not!!! However, there needs to be some way, if possible, to make room for the few homosexual clergy who are truly orthodox. And in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, there may well be the need to make up for the lost numbers by ordaining married men, starting with married deacons. This should be part of an effort to recover the heritage of the undivided orthodox catholic church, not a purely "practical" matter of numbers of priests.
I notice that he didn't mention most of these deaths were likely from AIDS.
The Jebbies have been hit hard with HIV/AIDS during the last 15-20 years because they were the first to go off the deep end and push the "if I think it's all right, then it's not a sin" idea. Their numbers have been dwindling, and many of the surviving priests and brothers are OLD. I'm hopeful that newer Jesuits will change the order to what it USED to be before the scourge of liberalism entered into its ranks.
I've yet to see proof that the numbers of homosexual priests are that high. I'd think, with as many places I've lived and parishes that I've attended that I'd have met a bunch of them by now, and I haven't. I'm sure that there are plenty of them, because of the liberal push of the Vocations Boards over the last 20 years or so, but not in those numbers.
That's a lot of estimates; I still haven't seen any proof. It is notable, too, that some of these estimates are coming from people who are psychotherapists or counselors, who may have a distorted idea of the numbers because of the patients that they see.
My brother-in-law went through the Seminary in the mid to late 60's and was ordained in 1970. This would have been about the same time as many of the priests who have been accused or convicted of abuse. While he was still in the Seminary, the whole idea of celibacy began to be discarded among the liberals and feminists who were beginning to be appointed to the Vocations Boards and Seminary administrations.
Prior to that time, celibacy WAS discussed and the young men had the chance to talk about the difficulties of their choice, and they all knew what they were choosing. In the very late 60's the attitudes began to change, and the young men were no longer taught how to live the celibate life. The idea began to be floated that the Church was going to change the rules so they wouldn't have to deal with that 'outdated notion' anymore. My b-i-l and the men in his class tried to tell the younger men that those new notions were a load of frap, but the young men didn't want to listen. As a result, there were too many men in the 70's who were ordained under false pretenses. They believed, because they were told by the teachers and leaders in the Seminaries, that they would not have to abide by that vow of celibacy that they would be taking; that things would be changing.
How many of those priests who had sex with young men did so because of that notion that they were free to do what they wanted? There were some men who DID leave the Seminaries, and even the Priesthood when it became clear that they had believed a lie perpetrated by the liberals in the Seminaries. I wish the others who had no intention of ever remaining celibate had done the same.
Well there's a nice slap in the face to the thousands of men who are serving as priests, faithfully, as we speak.
As for your comment that there are MASSIVE numbers of homosexual priests, where is your proof? I've seen some statistics bandied about on this thread, but as Mark Twain once said, "There's lies, there's DAMN lies, and then there's STATISTICS.
>>No. Otherwise hetero sexuality is an action, a verb. They are nouns.
Yeah, well what about this line from the cited article: "even among men preparing for the priesthood, an ambiguity both about the Church's teaching with regard to homosexuality and even whether some homosexual activity could be compatible with celibacy" [emphasis added]
..and all of them in the U.S.
Have you conveniently overlooked the problems of pedophilia by the Catholic clergy in Canada, Ireland, and Australia?
Are you conveniently ignoring the fact that there are more homosexuals-per-square-foot in the Vatican City than in any other country in the world?