Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Documents Show Gay Priest Concerns
AP Religion Writer | APRIL 08, 2002 | RACHEL ZOLL

Posted on 04/09/2002 9:11:52 AM PDT by Slyfox

Court documents released Monday in the case of a Massachusetts priest accused of sex abuse provide rare insight into the early efforts of the Archdiocese of Boston to keep gays from entering the priesthood.

In a 1979 letter to the Vatican, the late Cardinal Humberto Medeiros expressed alarm at the burgeoning gay rights movement and disclosed he had spent five years weeding out homosexuals from area seminaries.

``The danger in seminaries, your eminence, is obvious,'' Medeiros wrote to Cardinal Franjo Seper in Rome. ``Where large numbers of homosexuals are present in a seminary, other homosexuals are quickly attracted. Other healthier young men tend to be repelled.''

Medeiros noted that some priests had publicly revealed they were gay and were asserting that ``homosexual acts'' may not be sinful. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that engaging in gay sex is wrong.

The cardinal, who died in 1983, wrote that he had encouraged seminary spiritual directors to ``exercise their influence to remove from the path to the priesthood young men who are homosexuals.'' The cardinal proclaimed the effort a success.

``We have a seminary which has now - within a five-year period - become almost fully transformed into a community of healthy, well-balanced young men,'' Medeiros said. ``Our numbers are much smaller but now we will attract more young men who will be the right kind of candidates.''

The issue of gays in the priesthood remains a pressing concern among Catholics.

Estimates of the number of gays currently among seminarians and the more than 45,000 Catholic clergy in the United States vary dramatically, from 10 percent to 50 percent.

``The atmosphere of seminaries is so gay that the few heterosexuals entering the seminary feel the culture and environment of the seminary is alienating,'' the Rev. Richard McBrien, a theologian at the University of Notre Dame, said in a recent interview.

``It is an extraordinarily convenient occupation for someone who will never marry. It gives respectability to the unmarried state.''

Medeiros' letter was written in response to Vatican questions about the Rev. Paul Shanley, who is accused of repeatedly raping a boy in the 1980s. The Boston Archdiocese knew Shanley had spoken in favor of sex between men and boys at a 1979 meeting that apparently led to the founding of a national group advocating the practice, according to court documents.

Medeiros lamented that some of the men he rejected for the priesthood in Massachusetts had been accepted in seminaries elsewhere. The cardinal said he was working with U.S. bishops to ensure seminaries nationwide were aware of the problem.

Seper congratulated Medeiros for his attention to the issue.

``Your perceptive analysis would seem to indicate the need for specific measures on the part of the American hierarchy, especially those in urban centers similar to your own,'' Seper wrote.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

1 posted on 04/09/2002 9:11:52 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
I would assume that besides just finding priest life to be comforting, its seems that it's mostly gays who are compasionate enough to dedicate their life to God's work.

Also, a common misconception is the idea that these church pedophiles are homosexual. This is demonstrably wrong. The VAST majority of pedophiles have been demonstrated to be completely heterosexual in all other activities.

2 posted on 04/09/2002 9:27:34 AM PDT by KnowYourEnemy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KnowYourEnemy
Also, a common misconception is the idea that these church pedophiles are homosexual

A worse misconception is to call these homosexual predators pedophiles.
Over 95% of the reported cases in the recent weeks were about priests and teenage boys.

3 posted on 04/09/2002 9:30:31 AM PDT by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KnowYourEnemy
Wrong!!!

Most of these cases have involved POST PUBESCENT TEENAGE YOUNG MEN!

When you are molesting 8 year olds, it is pedophilia. When you do as most of the scandal priest have done and seduced 15 and 16 year olds, that isn't pedophilia, its "chicken hawking."

4 posted on 04/09/2002 9:32:05 AM PDT by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
In Seminaries, New Ways for a New Generation
5 posted on 04/09/2002 9:33:07 AM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
Well thanks for clearing that up, but it is true in the case of young children.

I can't imagine myself letting one of those filthy old dudes mess with me as a teenager!

6 posted on 04/09/2002 9:37:47 AM PDT by KnowYourEnemy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KnowYourEnemy
I can't imagine myself letting one of those filthy old dudes mess with me as a teenager!

Agreed.

I actually lived in a rectory for a summer and was never approached or heard any hanky panky through its thin walls. I guess I was lucky.

7 posted on 04/09/2002 9:43:23 AM PDT by Clemenza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: KnowYourEnemy
I would assume that besides just finding priest life to be comforting, its seems that it's mostly gays who are compasionate enough to dedicate their life to God's work.

What a pathetically tendentious statement. If "God's work" is doing one day of work a week, having closets full of fashionable street clothes, going out to eat every night and allowing parish life to fall in desuetude, then sodomites are indeed perfect candidates.

If imitating Christ and teaching others to do so through proclamation and personal example is God's work however, then sodomites are singularly ill-suited to the job.

Also, a common misconception is the idea that these church pedophiles are homosexual.

It's not a misconception - it's an accurate analysis. All of the perverts exposed in the past few weeks have been accused of having sex with 16 and 17 year old boys - targets way too old for pedophiles.

This is demonstrably wrong.

If it's demonstrably wrong, then demonstrate it with facts. The facts are actually against you. If desiring and pursuing sex with teenage boys is pedophilia, then all homosexuals are by definition pedophiles.

The VAST majority of pedophiles have been demonstrated to be completely heterosexual in all other activities.

Not really. First of all, many pedophiles don't have any other sexual activity. There was the case of the "happily married" youth group leader who was a pedophile. His wife later pointed out that he had never consummated their marriage and that she believed him to be asexual.

Of the ones who do, the pedophiles who target boys are homosexuals. And boys are the majority of molestation victims in cases that are not incestuous. Virtually every adult who targets prepubescent children for victimization is a homosexual.

Why is this? Because homosexuals and pedophiles are deeply linked - they have separated sexuality entirely from procreation in their minds. Their goal is self-gratification, not the creation of new life. Both forms of perversion are marked by a profound sterility.

8 posted on 04/09/2002 9:45:07 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KnowYourEnemy
Also, a common misconception is the idea that these church pedophiles are homosexual. This is demonstrably wrong. The VAST majority of pedophiles have been demonstrated to be completely heterosexual in all other activities.

Well, let's unpack that a little.

1. What do you mean by the statement that pedophiles are "completely heterosexual in all other activities?" What other activities matter? Don't sexual activites define sexual orientation? Do you mean to say that men who enjoy molesting young boys also have sex with women? What about priests whose sole sexual activities are with young boys?

2. While we're on the topic of "the VAST majority of pedophiles" being otherwise heterosexual, what relevance do these statistics have to the current crisis in the Catholic Church? Isn't it more relevant to examine the victims and criminals there? If most men are shorter than 6'0 tall, does that mean a taller man isn't a man?

3. You say that "the idea that these church pedophiles are homosexual" is "demonstrably wrong." Aren't most of these victims boys? Aren't all of these priests men? Doesn't "homosexual" mean one who is attracted to members of the same gender?

9 posted on 04/09/2002 9:46:19 AM PDT by Bohemund
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
Well we know where God stands on this issue, about these perverts.
10 posted on 04/09/2002 9:51:48 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KnowYourEnemy
Except sex!!
11 posted on 04/09/2002 10:03:05 AM PDT by thirdbasecoach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I thought the article was very interesting in the fact that it shows that the good Cardinals and Bishops have been trying to take care of this pervasive problem for some time. The Pope has been aware of it has counseled his bishops on what to do. JPII will be the first to say that not all of his bishops listen to him. Cardinal Medeiros is one of those who chose to listen to the Pope, and worked very hard to eliminate the problem.
12 posted on 04/09/2002 10:09:02 AM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
Sounds to me like the Church should put the Boy Scouts in charge of their recruitment operations!
13 posted on 04/09/2002 10:26:43 AM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
``The atmosphere of seminaries is so gay that the few heterosexuals entering the seminary feel the culture and environment of the seminary is alienating,'' the Rev. Richard McBrien..said..

Richard McBrien actually said something rational? Or maybe it's a different McBrien...

14 posted on 04/09/2002 10:30:36 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
it shows that the good Cardinals and Bishops have been trying to take care of this pervasive problem for some time

Interestingly, of the documents which the Boston Globe put on its website today, the first is a letter Cdl Medeiros wrote to Franco Cardinal Seper, then prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated Feb 12 1979.

I can't swipe and paste from the web pages, but the documents begin here.

One of the issues Cdl Medeiros discusses in his letter is the problem in restricting the seminary population to heterosexuals. His Eminence claims that the seminary 'has been transformed' by dropping candidates, avoiding what would have been 'a large number of active homosexual men being ordained.'
15 posted on 04/09/2002 10:34:17 AM PDT by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: AlexanderTheGreat
Oh . . . a link from the Psychology Department at UC Davis - the place where the nonsense word "homophobia" was coined?

I'll pass. I prefer to use logic: the pleasure inherent in sex exists to encourage the fundamental purpose of sex: procreation. Both homosexuals and pedophiles believe that sex is primarily for pleasure and that procreation is irrelevant. Therefore they share a deep bond, whether or not the gay rights activists in the Davis pysch department want to admit it. And whether or not you want to admit it.

17 posted on 04/09/2002 10:48:32 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Both homosexuals and pedophiles believe that sex is primarily for pleasure and that procreation is irrelevant. Unfortunately, this is also the commonality that many priests seem to have with both groups, which is why you see the high correlation of these behaviors in the priesthood. This is what leads many to believe that the celibate priesthood is a disasater in the making.
18 posted on 04/09/2002 11:03:07 AM PDT by Cu Roi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: Cu Roi
If a celibate clergy is a "disaster in the making" it took about nineteen centuries to become a disaster.

Homosexuals and homosexual pedophiles enter the Protestant ministry and the rabbinate as well. They take jobs as coaches, daycare workers, teachers, even ride operators at Disneyworld.

They will do anything to get near children. Many, many homosexuals and homosexual pedophiles are married.

Your argument seems to be that if priests are allowed to marry, then pedophiles will no longer be attracted to the priesthood. Wrong. As long as priests have access to children then homosexuals and homosexual pedophiles will try to sneak into the priesthood.

Before 1963, these problems were almost unheard of. There is a good reason for this. In those days, authority for selection of candidates was given to vocation masters who were themselves priests. They would evaluate candidates and reject anyone whom they thought was "funny".

This process was eliminated by liberals after 1963. Now evaluation is left to a secular psychologist instead of novice masters. The American Psychological Association has promoted sodomy and sexual license for decades and has lately gotten into the business of justifying pedophilia.

It is no wonder that so many APA-approved priests have such serious moral defects.

In short - Freud is wrong, not St. Paul.

20 posted on 04/09/2002 11:26:29 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AlexanderTheGreat
Homosexuality and Hope. A Report of the Catholic Medical Association
21 posted on 04/09/2002 11:27:09 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
I've got to get my eyes checked, I could have sworn it said-

Demmocrats Show Gay Priest Concerns

I figured they would be protesting that there were not enough of them !

22 posted on 04/09/2002 11:30:08 AM PDT by RS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox; father_elijah; patent; claud; notwithstanding; Dr Brian Kopp
Medeiros lamented that some of the men he rejected for the priesthood in Massachusetts had been accepted in seminaries elsewhere. The cardinal said he was working with U.S. bishops to ensure seminaries nationwide were aware of the problem.

This was over 20 years ago. If only they had made the scandal public then, we would have been 20 years farther down the road to recovery, rather than starting from scratch right now. Keeping the problem secret only made it worse.

It seems very clear that homosexuals will continue to attempt to infiltrate the seminaries and we must be forever vigilant to weed them out and make sure they can't get into another one somewhere. May the Lord send us shepherds who are virtuous and strong!
23 posted on 04/09/2002 11:36:33 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlexanderTheGreat
Oh, I've read it. Greg Herek, when he isn't sodomizing his boyfriend, is all over the op-ed pages promoting his "research". This is about the fifth time I've read his take on this phenomenon.

While you were championing his analysis, did you notice that his entire argument is predicated on one study, done 24 years ago, on a sample of only 175 Massachusetts men? Boy, that's rigorous and scholarly. Kind of like Kinsey's statement that 10% of men are sodomites because 9.3% of the 181 prison inmates he interviewed in one Indiana facility engaged in sodomy.

Have you read Dr. Paul Vitz of NYU? Oh, of course you haven't, because Dr. Vitz challenges the homosexualist orthodoxy of modern liberal psychology.

He isn't invited on NPR either, even though he's done serious clinical research, unlike Herek.

Your inability to refute my argument stands. Not surprising from someone who gets his political ideology from Larry Flynt.

24 posted on 04/09/2002 11:38:33 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AlexanderTheGreat
You do that. Don't even read it. I'm sure you know more about sexuality than some stuffed shirt who makes the study of such matters their life work, anyway.

Why re-invent the wheel? We know what the purpose of sex is. Procreation. That is what we believe as Catholics. You have a different view and are welcome to it. However, don't expect us to embrace your error.

Regardless of what some 'expert' in human sexuality says, any sexual relationship outside of marriage is inherently wrong. Will you go along with the 'experts' when they declare that 'interegenerational sex' is pefectly all right? That pronouncement is coming...
25 posted on 04/09/2002 11:41:48 AM PDT by Antoninus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: KnowYourEnemy
The vast majority of abused young people in thiese church cases are not little children but young men past puberty -- and indeed the target of any and all homosexuals.
26 posted on 04/09/2002 11:45:44 AM PDT by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
If a celibate clergy is a "disaster in the making" it took about nineteen centuries to become a disaster.

In the past there were more surplus men who knew they wouldn't have the financial prospects to raise children. Many of them were orphans who were raised in the church. They didn't enter the priesthood for the most noble of reasons, but were generally good people who wouldn't stand for one of their colleages banging the altarboys. This kind of institutional priesthood has disappeared with affluence.

The other thing is that the celebate priesthood hasn't been around for nineteen centuries. The celebacy requirement came about in response to an earlier nepotism crisis. And later on still, pedophelia in the priesthood wasn't much of a problem when it was generally assumed that priests would have mistresses from time to time.

Homosexuals and homosexual pedophiles enter the Protestant ministry and the rabbinate as well. They take jobs as coaches, daycare workers, teachers, even ride operators at Disneyworld.

There are clerics from all religions who abuse their positions in order to get sex. But this still doesn't explain the peculiar tendency towards homosexual abuse in the Catholic Church that is not evident in other religions. When Baptist ministers or rabbis seduce a young teen, it is usually a female.

Before 1963, these problems were almost unheard of. There is a good reason for this.

These problems were heard of, just not spoken of. We are now hearing of grown men who were molested back in the '40s and '50s who are coming forward. When I was younger my dad warned me he heard stories about these kinds of things when he was growing up.

In short - Freud is wrong, not St. Paul.

Indeed, Paul is not wrong. In fact, he stated in one of his epistles that church leaders should have only one wife, which clearly supports the idea of a non-celebate clergy.

27 posted on 04/09/2002 11:53:46 AM PDT by Cu Roi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
Bump
28 posted on 04/09/2002 11:56:21 AM PDT by EdReform
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake;Clint N. Suhks
Bump
29 posted on 04/09/2002 12:00:53 PM PDT by EdReform
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cu Roi
St. Paul also wrote:

For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

1 Corinthians 7:7-8

He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

1 Corinthians 7:32-33.

Which tells us that St. Paul recommended celibacy, and that the noncelibate clergy represented a compromise, a legitimate nod to human weakness.

In any event, there are hundreds of married Catholic priests who are loyal to the Pope and in good standing with him.

They just aren't part of the Latin Rite, which is only one of the eleven Rites that comprise the Catholic Church.

30 posted on 04/09/2002 12:04:31 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
In any event, there are hundreds of married Catholic priests who are loyal to the Pope and in good standing with him.

They just aren't part of the Latin Rite, which is only one of the eleven Rites that comprise the Catholic Church.

This is something I have been wondering about. What are the prospects for Eastern Rite priests in the United States? I mean, I assume that there are no seminaries for them here, but if a married Catholic layman wanted to go the Ukraine and study and then come back and become a priest, would that be permissable?

31 posted on 04/09/2002 12:09:57 PM PDT by Cu Roi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: victim soul
All I'm trying to say is just because someone is homosexual, it doesn't make them a perv. Vice versa, just cause someone is straight doesn't make them Not a perv.
32 posted on 04/09/2002 12:10:49 PM PDT by KnowYourEnemy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: KnowYourEnemy; xzins; fortheDeclaration; ShadowAce; Wrigley; CCWoody; Jerry_M; RnMomof7...
...its seems that it's mostly gays who are compasionate enough to dedicate their life to God's work.

Excuse me?

Do you think Eric Liddle (Chariots of Fire) who died in prison in China wasn't compassionate? (never mind that the actor who portrayed him died of AIDS)

Do you think Jim Elliott who was speared to death by the Auca Indians wasn't compassionate? When he was 22 he wrote in his journal "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep for what he cannot lose."

Do you think Stuart Royster who died from a poisoness snake bite in the jungles of Columbia wasn't compassionate?

Giving yourself in a life of service to the God of the Ages is one of the most masculine things a man can do.

35 posted on 04/09/2002 12:40:12 PM PDT by Ward Smythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AlexanderTheGreat
There is one study cited regarding the orientation of persons convicted of molestation - 175 persons from the Massachusetts prison system.

There is one study from a Denver emergency room - 269 persons and no data on whether "orientation" was self-reported or not.

Finally there is one study cited where persons who self-reported their own orientation were shown or listened to child porn. People who volunteer to participate in sex surveys, especially ones with such a disturbing premise, are an extremely skewed group to begin with.

He admits that both the latter (possibly due to their highly self-selecting nature) are unable to establish his position "scientifically". Therefore he is clearly depending on the first study as his proof. It comes down to one study with a sample size of 175.

36 posted on 04/09/2002 12:41:12 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AlexanderTheGreat
Well that's it, then. You have religion. I have science.

If science is defined as shaky data taken from tiny samples and evaluated by biased researchers in such a notoriously "soft-science" field as psychology, then sure.

If by science you mean data externally verifiable and repeatable by experiment or instrumental observation, then you have neither religion nor science - just random opinions.

37 posted on 04/09/2002 12:44:39 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: Slyfox
I have heard that 2 Papal Nuncio's,who are the Vatican's representatives,were homosexuals and members of secret societies.They were Jadot and Pio Laghti,this would explain some of the selection of bishops appointed by John PaulII and why they seem to have problems being Catholic,they aren't,they were placed specifically to destroy the Church from within.

Please notice,I said that I have heard,can anyone confirm or shed any light on things. Also does anyone know which Congregation is responsible for assigning the Nuncios,it would seem that person and his "friends" have had a lot of influence on this mess if my information is correct. It would certainly help us in figuring out which bishops are lying. The "enemy" finds nothing wrong with lies after all his patron is the "father of lies" and Jesus warned us about him.

39 posted on 04/09/2002 1:05:20 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
This was over 20 years ago. If only they had made the scandal public then, we would have been 20 years farther down the road to recovery, rather than starting from scratch right now.

I am a regular reader of The Wanderer, probably the most conservative Catholic newspaper in the nation. I read quite frequently about all this stuff throughout the 1980's. Just because the major media decides to cover it doesn't mean it's been hidden away. Alot of this stuff started fomenting after Vatican II when the lid was pulled off the discipline in many orders and seminaries. Pope Paul VI called it 'the smoke of Satan entering the sanctuary', and JPII is on record warning his bishops to get their houses in order. What needs to be remembered is that it has been foisted on us by the radical liberals, the very same ones who call Bill and Hillary their best bud's.

40 posted on 04/09/2002 1:09:46 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RS
Demmocrats Show Gay Priest Concerns

I did a double take also when I first read it. I do have on videotape a liberal priest and nun at the 1993 White House Inaugural recieving line when the Clinton's were letting the masses come to worship them. These two liberal religious could not have been more fawning.

41 posted on 04/09/2002 1:14:51 PM PDT by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cu Roi
With respect to your last sentence re Paul and the Bishops, that can be argued. Unfortunately,or fortunately,as far as I am concerned,there are at least 20 other scriptural references that demonstrate the contrary,including the life of Jesus Christ Himself.
42 posted on 04/09/2002 1:18:22 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #43 Removed by Moderator

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: TLBSHOW
Well we know where God stands on this issue, about these perverts.

Yes we do. And we know where He stands on adultery, pre-marital sex, birthcontrol, masturbation and a whole lot of other sins against the 6th commandment. Don't see many people getting upset about this kind of behavior. Sex with 16 and 17 year old young men could easily have been stopped. All the young men would have to do is say "no". They were old enough to do so. Same way with drugs. Just say "no."

46 posted on 04/09/2002 2:01:34 PM PDT by Renatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Renatus
Yes we do. And we know where He stands on adultery, pre-marital sex, birthcontrol, masturbation and a whole lot of other sins against the 6th commandment. Don't see many people getting upset about this kind of behavior. Sex with 16 and 17 year old young men could easily have been stopped. All the young men would have to do is say "no". They were old enough to do so. Same way with drugs. Just say "no."

Of course, all the bishops had to do was say "no" as well. Instead they said nothing at all or at most sent the abusers somewhere else. But its God's will those bishops were there and who are we to question him, right? One can't expect the Pope to get involved, either- he's too busy worrying about important things like people using condoms or a few hundred murderers being given the death penalty.

And no, these boys weren't all 16 or 17; many were 13 or 14 and kids that age are generally completely sexually inexperienced and very impressionable. I'd say a 30 or 40 y.o. priest who is in the position of authority has the greater responsibility to behave himself.

Finally, to put masturbation, pre-marital sex, and birth control in the same category as statuatory rape is completely absurd. Adultery is a darker shade of grey but at least the participants are adults and know what the stakes are.

47 posted on 04/09/2002 2:18:55 PM PDT by Cu Roi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Cu Roi
Finally, to put masturbation, pre-marital sex, and birth control in the same category as statuatory rape is completely absurd. Adultery is a darker shade of grey but at least the participants are adults and know what the stakes are.

It's all mortally sinful i.e. cuts us off from God's grace. Both the priest and the teen ager is cut off from grace. Both need to confess their sins. It's all about grace. Everything is grace.

48 posted on 04/09/2002 3:33:12 PM PDT by Renatus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ward Smythe
I didn't want to have to get into the issue, but I was refering to the fact that a vaster percentage of gays wish to dedicate their lives to God than heteros. Just meant to point this out, so people might think of them as Good men, not corrupt or sick, as a whole.

Although off topic, I don't think those missionaries where not compassionate, however I do believe putting themselves unecessarly in harms way, to convert peoples who obviously don't want to be converted was less than noble.

Once again I don't want to start anything, so don't give me any "You don't think dying for God is noble", plz.

49 posted on 04/09/2002 8:30:05 PM PDT by KnowYourEnemy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: KnowYourEnemy
I didn't want to have to get into the issue, but I was refering to the fact that a vaster percentage of gays wish to dedicate their lives to God than heteros.

Perhaps you are are speaking exclusively of the Catholic Church.

I don't think those missionaries where not compassionate, however I do believe putting themselves unecessarly in harms way, to convert peoples who obviously don't want to be converted was less than noble.

They weren't trying to be "noble" they were trying to bring people to the saving grace of the gospel.

As for them not wanting to be converted, how will they know unless we tell them?

50 posted on 04/09/2002 8:46:49 PM PDT by Ward Smythe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson