Posted on 04/14/2010 6:49:02 AM PDT by NYer
Gay rights groups have condemned the Vatican's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, for claiming that the Catholic church's sexual abuse crisis was linked to homosexuality and paedophilia and not celibacy among priests.
Bertone, who is considered Pope Benedict's number two, sparked the controversy on a visit to Chile when he suggested gay sexuality was to blame for the church's child abuse scandals.
Homosexual associations in Italy reacted with anger and indignation. The biggest group, Arcigay, called the cardinal's words "shocking and irresponsible". The president of the gay media service, Gaynet, said if senior church officials "feel constrained to dump the blame on homosexuals, it says a lot about the current state of desperation in the Vatican".
Gay rights advocates in Chile also waded in. "Neither Bertone nor the Vatican has the moral authority to give lessons on sexuality," Rolando Jiménez, president of the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation in Chile, told AP.
No reputable study exists to support the cardinal's claims, said Jiménez added. "This is a perverse strategy by the Vatican to shirk its own ethical and legal responsibility by making a spurious and disgusting connection."
The cardinal, who is known for his blunt and sometimes tactless manner, made the remarks at a televised press conference in Chile's capital Santiago.
He said: "Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and paedophilia but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and paedophilia. This pathology is one that touches all categories of people, and priests to a lesser degree in percentage terms. The behaviour of the priests in this case, the negative behaviour, is very serious, is scandalous."
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Yes, they can have it both ways, and isn't that the crux of perverted sexuality?
It sure sounds like an excuse. And the news seems to report it as an excuse. In public relations, perception is reality. We aren’t supposed to win the public relations game, we are supposed to preach God’s word and follow his commands.
The thought of describing homosexual sex acts in detail makes me feel ill. (And I’m not pregnant right now, either ;-). It’s important to have men like you and dear Mr. Heston who have more intestinal fortitude than I do!
“80% of the incidents are with boys”
Yeah, but what’s the connection between having sex with males and homosexuality? (/s)
They didn't "infiltrate", like they were spies. These are men who went through training, and were ordained into positions by other men who supposedly were inspired by God to make those decisions.
And does the Catholic Church have a prohibition on Priests who confess to having homosexual urges? I didn't think so.
As to the celibacy issue, the statements made that prompted this article sure sound like giving a worldly reason for not abandoning celibacy. If you are selling celibacy as biblical, what difference does it make if having celibate priests meant you had to work harder to keep them from sexual impropriety?
Put another way, suppose hypothetically it was proven that celibate people were twice as likely to molest children. Would that mean the Church should stop ordaining celibate people? Not if the celibacy is commanded by God. So why bring it up?
We've read several time in the past month posts citing officials of the Catholic church arguing that the Catholic Priests aren't any more likely to abuse kids than Protestants, and this one had a quote from an official church source saying that priests aren't "any more likely" to be abusers than the general population. That certainly comes across as applying worldly standards as opposed to Godly ones, even if it is accompanied by contrition and statements to do better.
“Supposedly ‘heterosexual’ men are mainly responsible for male on male pedophilia sex according to gay groups”
The common-sense response to this, of course, is why would heterosexual men want to have sex with males? To which there is no answer, except that boys don’t count as males. I guess humans are unisex until the age of 16.
They would be welcome to refute the association with empirical data.
Oh, yeah, empirical data supports the Vatican’s assertion.
[quote]And does the Catholic Church have a prohibition on Priests who confess to having homosexual urges? I didn’t think so.[/quote]
Actually, the Church used to have a policy of throwing out men who even had the appearance of homosexuality. There was zero tolerance for limp wrists, lisps, effeminacy, etc.These policies were liberalized in the “sensitive sixties”.
And don’t forget that a lot of the men who were closet homosexuals didn’t have consciences-they entered the Church for a purpose, to have access to young men. Why would someone who has this motive in mind bother to confess his sins? He would conceal them in the confessional because he didn’t give a crap about the Faith.
By the way, this is not to denigrate the men who are priests who do struggle with these temptations and want to do the right thing. They should have never been ordained, but they are not in the same league as those who have no conscience and became priests for base motives(much the same way bad people want to be in politics, or teach public school girls to have access to them, or whatever).
Well, there's your problem right there.
You're wrong.
Sorry, but it's that simple.
Saboteurs would be a better analogy, though, than spies.
And does the Catholic Church have a prohibition on Priests who confess to having homosexual urges? I didn't think so.
Well, guess what?
You're wrong, again! In fact, that prohibition is not new and has been restated several times.
So why bring it [clerical celibacy] up?
Because people both inside and outside the Church are using the homosexuals' hideous misdeeds as a club with which to beat up the longstanding discipline of clerical celibacy. IOW, we didn't bring it up, our enemies did.
That certainly comes across as applying worldly standards as opposed to Godly ones, even if it is accompanied by contrition and statements to do better.
OK, that's how you see it. I see it as a reminder of that business about beams and splinters in folks' eyes. Remember that? It's in the Bible.
My oldest son mentioned that he didn’t see what was wrong with homosexual marriage. I explained to him about the free-exercise issues and so on ... and then asked my husband to explain in detail what “gay” really means, that it’s not something like “brown-eyed” or “Chinese.”
No it's not, which is why it was originally called Gay Cancer. You know to demonstrate that it's not.
For statistical data, see the 2004 U.S. Department of Education study titled Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature, http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/index.html. Page 36 of the study reports “Percent Same-Sex Misconduct as Percent of All Misconduct Reported” in the four major studies cited as 28.3, 17.8, 7.5, 27. These numbers correlate very closely with FBI statistics from the 1960s and 1970s that 30% of all molestation of minors occurs at the hands of homosexuals. This latter data is almost impossible to locate online now, given government political correctness these days.
If homosexuals, who only make up 0.7% of the population, a statistic universally accepted prior to the political correctness that infiltrated the twin APAs in the 1970s, account for 30% of abuse of minors, then homosexuals are 40 times more likely to molest than their heterosexual counterparts.This is the reason that the CDF, in SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOL.HTM stated:
II. Applications
10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
13. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person’s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
14. The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be “either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing” (cf. No. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to “manipulate the church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws” (cf. No. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that “any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people … are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (cf. No. 9).
In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law.
15. Since in the assessment of proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. No. 17), strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they affect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the) homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which could include such things as “family” participation in the health benefits given to employees (cf. No. 9)?
16. Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. No. 17).
Everyone needs to review RELIGIOSORUM INSTITUTIO, Instruction on the Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders, by the Sacred Congregation For Religious, February 2, 1961, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23religios.htm
D) The Required Chastity
29. Importance Of This Point; Young Persons Are To Be Properly Instructed And Warned Of Its Dangers
Among the proofs and signs of a divine vocation the virtue of chastity is regarded as absolutely necessary “because it is largely for this reason that candidates for the ranks of the clergy choose this type of life for themselves and persevere in it.” Consequently:
a) “Watchful and diligent care is to be taken that candidates for the clergy should have a high esteem and love for chastity, and should safeguard it in their souls.
b) “Not only, therefore, are clerics to be informed in due time on the nature of priestly celibacy, the chastity which they are to observe (cf. can. 132), and the demands of this obligation, but they are likewise to be warned of the dangers into which they can fall on this account. Consequently, candidates for Sacred Orders are to be exhorted to protect themselves from dangers from their earliest years.”28
c) Although virginity embraced for the kingdom of heaven is more excellent than matrimony, nevertheless, candidates for Sacred Orders should not be unaware of the nobility of married life as exemplified in Christian marriage established by the plan of God. Therefore, let them be so instructed that, with a clear understanding of the advantages of Christian matrimony, they may deliberately and freely embrace the greater good of priestly and religious chastity.
d) But should superiors find a candidate unable to observe ecclesiastical celibacy and practice priestly chastity, then, completely ignoring any other outstanding qualities, they should bar him from the religious life and the priesthood (cf. Stat. Gen., art. 34, S 2, 4 ), conforming to the following directives and using all prudence and discretion in the application of the same, namely:
30. Those To Be Excluded; Practical Directives
1. A candidate who shows himself certainly unable to observe religious and priestly chastity, either because of frequent sins against chastity or because of a sexual bent of mind or excessive weakness of will, is not to be admitted to the minor seminary and, much less, to the novitiate or to profession. If he has already been accepted but is not yet perpetually professed, then he should be sent away immediately or advised to withdraw, according to individual cases, no matter what point in his formation he has already reached. Should he be perpetually professed, he is to be barred absolutely and permanently from tonsure and the reception of any Order, especially Sacred Orders. If circumstances should so demand, he shall be dismissed from the community, with due observance of the prescriptions of canon law.
2. Consequently, any candidate who has a habit of solitary sins and who has not given well-founded hope that he can break this habit within a period of time to be determined prudently, is not to be admitted to the novitiate. Nor can a candidate be admitted to first profession or to renewal of vows unless he has really amended his ways. But if a novice or a temporarily professed religious gives evidence of a firm purpose of amendment with good grounds for hope of success, his probation can be extended as provided for in canon law (canons 571, S2; 574, S2; 973, S 3; Stat. Gen., art. 34, S 2, 3 ).
Well-grounded hope of amendment can be provided by those youths who are physically and psychically normal or endowed with good bodily and mental health, who are noted for solid piety and the other virtues intimately connected with chastity, and who sincerely desire the religious and priestly life.
3. A much stricter policy must be followed in admission to perpetual profession and advancement to Sacred Orders. No one should be admitted to perpetual vows or promoted to Sacred Orders unless he has acquired a firm habit of continency and has given in every case consistent proof of habitual chastity over a period of at least one year. If within this year prior to perpetual profession or ordination to Sacred Orders doubt should arise because of new falls, the candidate is to be barred from perpetual profession or Sacred Orders (cf. above, no. 16) unless, as far as profession is concerned, time is available either by common law or by special indult to extend the period for testing chastity and there be question of a candidate who, as was stated above (no. 30, 2) affords good prospects of amendment.
4. If a student in a minor seminary has sinned gravely against the sixth commandment with a person of the same or the other sex, or has been the occasion of grave scandal in the matter of chastity, he is to be dismissed immediately as stipulated in canon 1371, except if prudent consideration of the act and of the situation of the student by the superiors or confessors should counsel a different policy in an individual case, sc., in the case of a boy who has been seduced and who is gifted with excellent qualities and is truly penitent, or when the sin was an objectively imperfect act.
If a novice or a professed religious who has not yet made perpetual vows should be guilty of the same offense, he is to be sent away from the community or, should the circumstances so demand, he is to be dismissed with due observance of canon 647, S 2, 1 . If a perpetually professed religious is found guilty of any such sin, he is to be perpetually excluded from tonsure and the reception of any further Order. If the case belongs to the external forum, he is to receive a canonical warning unless, as provided for in canons 653 and 668, there be grounds for sending him back to the world (cf. Stat. Gen., art. 34, S 2, 4 ).
Lastly, should he be a subdeacon or deacon, then, without prejudice to the above-mentioned directives and if the case should so demand, the superiors should take up with the Holy See the question of his reduction to the lay state.
For these reasons, clerics who in their diocese or religious who in another community have sinned gravely against chastity with another person are not to be admitted with a view to the priesthood, even on a trial basis, unless there be clear evidence of excusing causes or of circumstances which can at least notably diminish responsibility in conscience (Circular Letter of S. C. of the Sacraments, n. 16; Canon Law Digest, 4, p. 314).
Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
5. Very special investigation is needed for those students who, although they have hitherto been free of formal sins against chastity, nevertheless suffer from morbid or abnormal sexuality, especially sexual hyperesthesia or an erotic bent of nature, to whom religious celibacy would be a continual act of heroism and a trying martyrdom. For chastity, in so far as it implies abstinence from sexual pleasure, not only becomes very difficult for many people but the very state of celibacy and the consequent loneliness and separation from one’s family becomes so difficult for certain individuals gifted with excessive sensitivity and tenderness, that they are not fit subjects for the religious life. This question should perhaps receive more careful attention from novice masters and superiors of scholasticates than from confessors since such natural tendencies do not come out so clearly in confession as in the common life and daily contact.
What the Vatican said is true. Back in the 1980s, I knew a priest who could not wait to retire because he was so distraught about how the Church allowed many homos to become priests. He said the seminaries were full of them.
You should be questioning why our Congress allowed a rapist President to remain in office when he was impeached.
“Supposedly “heterosexual” men are mainly responsible for male on male pedophilia sex according to gay groups.”
Thats always a chuckle to hear that. They don’t even seem to realize that the things they say are being done by “heterosexual” men, are the very DEFINITION of homosexuality. Male on male pedophilia? Thats as gay as it comes.
Id like to see a man caught buggering a teenage boy explain to me how he is actually hetero.
The prohibition, expressed in many links from the sites you referenced, always include the modifier "deep-seated", when discussing homosexual desire as a prohibitor.
It was my belief after reading about why so many Preists were homosexual that people who had homosexual thoughts, but renounced them, were accepted into seminary, and the links you provided seem to support that possibility.
I support the church's view on Homosexuality, I brought it up because of the original comments I was responding to, which suggested there was no way for homosexuals to become priests.
Obviously homosexuals become priests, as the point of this article is the argument that it was homosexuality in the Priesthood that caused a lot of the problems. Since the Priesthood is made up of men who have been ordained by others acting under the define inspiration of God, it seems there must have been some measure of acceptance for properly repentant homosexuals, in order for so many to be Priests.
There was a very interesting sentence in one letter, which pointed out that being "chaste" is not the same as being "celibate", and that homosexuals lack the capacity to freely sacrifice marriage for God's service, since they do not have the desire for traditional marriage.
How did an Infallible priesthood get infiltrated? It has to be the fault of the men who ordained them. We know that men can be evil, that is why the Church has a structure in place that puts the ordination in the hands of others who are led by God.
This isn’t like some pickup softball game. You have a heirachical structure that strictly controls who serves the offices of the Church. The Priests didn’t choose themselves, according to Canon God chose them, through God’s already chosen leaders, chosen by others of God’s chosen.
Obviously at some point that broke down, but you can’t simply blame the bad Priests for infiltrating — that’s what bad people do, the blame is on the good people that were supposed to STOP the bad people from infiltrating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.