(link to the Free Republic thread)
Posted on 09/26/2013 6:10:03 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
The City Council in Topeka last week was considering a law rather like one that worked recently to punish photographers who refuse to take photos at same-sex weddings. One councilman, pushing this measure, announced that he was Catholic and gay – and that the pope was on his side. And when NARAL takes out an ad in the New York Times thanking the pope, that is another sign.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecatholicthing.org ...
(link to the Free Republic thread)
Just more examples of vulgarly trying the shoehorn the Pope to endorse their sinful abominations and iniquitous behavior.
Either the Pope rids the clergy of homosexuals and makes celibacy optional or the vile molestations of boys will continue and people will be alienated from the Church. To be politically correct and “tolerant” is to be delusional. Homosexuals are simply sick and dangerous to young boys.
Celibacy has nothing to do with the molestation of boys.
Protestant ministers and rabbis molest boys with equal or greater frequency as Catholic priests.
Agreed, but homosexuality certainly does and that’s where it all starts.
You have confused cause and effect. Celibacy does not cause the molestation of boys. On the contrary, the sexual abuse of children has grown since our social and legal authorities started pretending that sex in all directions—both normal and perverted—were uncontrollable, "normal," and no big deal.
Celibacy, like chastity, demonstrates that we can control our natural impulses. The Church is hated for pointing this out and living by it. That is probably why offenses by Catholic priests in all matters sexual, which are statistically less common than those by public school teachers, coaches, Protestant clergy, rabbis, camp counselors, psychologists, or any other comparable group, are considered more scandalous.
I agree that sexual misdeeds by priests are more scandalous than those by others, because the priest represents much greater moral authority. And I agree that cadres of same-sex deviants should be purged from the priesthood—and from other institutions. But it would be absurd to suggest that the very teaching that opposes the abuse of sex should be purged at the same time.
Isn’t it Greg Burke’s job to explain to the Holy Father how the game is played?
I am looking very hard for reasons to like this pope, but he makes it hard. He has no filter and an ego the size of JPII’s. He has sentimental tendencies that lead him into liberal quicksand, whether he intends it or not. He may think he’s playing a canny Jesuit game of Softly Softly Catchee Monkey — but the dangerous possibility is that he’s the monkey.
“On the contrary, the sexual abuse of children has grown since our social and legal authorities started pretending that sex in all directions—both normal and perverted—were uncontrollable, “normal,” and no big deal.”
That’s why I think the instances of abuse peaked in the late 70s/early 80s, gays quit becoming priests as it became more acceptable in the broader culture. Why join an organization where you have to hide what you do and that is never going to accept it, especially when there are plenty of different religious faiths that will not only openly accept you, but also celebrate your ‘relationships?’
Freegards
Historically, what happened was that, previous to the late 1960s, if a candidate for the priesthood seemed effeminate, they simply wouldn't take him. That was considered an automatic disqualification. Abuse by ordained priests was extremely rare, and would have been nearly impossible to conceal, unlike now. This was in a world where people lived in the same place most of their lives, kept conservative habits, and knew all their neighbors' business.
Then in the Western countries, as drugs and sex blew up society among the laity, the seminary system got very lax, with less screening of candidates, a less disciplined life, and lowered requirements for subjects like theology. There definitely were men in there who didn't belong in the priesthood. Many of them left, but unfortunately, some of them stayed. By now, most of that trash has been taken out, but there still some bad eggs still hanging on, nearing retirement. Can't come soon enough.
John Paul II began tightening everything up again, with Cardinal Ratzinger as his whip-hand. They instituted psychological screening and tightened discipline and academic requirements. At the same time, indifferent Catholics didn't tend to wander into the seminary life—it was too demanding, especially compared to the sexual playground outside. Nowadays, if you meet young priests and nuns, 95 percent of them or more are conservative, solid, and very savvy. And seminaries and convents are starting to fill up again, after falling off drastically during the lax era. It's like the Marines: A life of courageous sacrifice is attractive to young people if you're will to offer it.
“Nowadays, if you meet young priests and nuns, 95 percent of them or more are conservative, solid, and very savvy. And seminaries and convents are starting to fill up again, after falling off drastically during the lax era. It’s like the Marines: A life of courageous sacrifice is attractive to young people if you’re will to offer it.”
Completely agree.
All I’m saying is that if homosexuals were hiding in the Church as celibate priests, it was from the broader culture. Now, they don’t need to hide anywhere, they can get married in 13 states with several others recognizing those marriages as well as many aspects of the federal gubberment, in many areas it is against the law to ‘discriminate’ against them.
A lower % of homosexual men becoming priests means less instances of abuse, as homosexual men abuse at a higher %. I bet the trend started in the 60’s and only manifested in the lowering of abuse instances 10 years later, as the homosexual priests died and weren’t replaced by other homosexual men who wanted to become priests. They had other options, and by then it was clear that the Church wasn’t going to change on things like bc within marriage, celibacy, priestesses or divorce and remarriage. There wasn’t any way the Church would ever accept/celebrate ‘gay relationships’ if they still didn’t accept those other things first, in my opinion.
Freegards
I’m not sure I have any disagreement with what you said. I don’t believe (as many liberals long to believe) that the priesthood had a lot of secret poofters prior to the late 1960s. I’ve never seen evidence for it, and maybe more important, popular prejudices, which are hard to fool, have never had the poofy priest as a stock character—unlike, say, poofy decorators, hairdressers, artists, etc., which have been icons of popular culture for a century and more.
“I don’t believe (as many liberals long to believe) that the priesthood had a lot of secret poofters prior to the late 1960s.”
Well, if they did or didn’t one would tend to think that a priest with homosexual inclinations would be more likely to abuse/violate their celibacy vow after the sexual revolution hit the broader culture, in my opinion.
Freegards
Fer sher. There was a general unravelling, inside and out. When the psychobabble lunacy hit the religious orders, I think in the late 1960s, there were some who left to get married, too. In the course of business a couple of decades ago, I met a former nun who had been married (for a time) to a former priest. As a hubby, he proved to be a pretentious opportunist, unsurprisingly.
Incredible! A posting that’s not about sex abuse!
Shocking but true.
Hang in there, Father.
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.