Skip to comments.Documents Show Gay Priest Concerns
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.
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.
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.
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."
I can't imagine myself letting one of those filthy old dudes mess with me as a teenager!
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.
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.
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?
Richard McBrien actually said something rational? Or maybe it's a different McBrien...
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.
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.