Let me ask you something.
If you were a very Catholic young man who was attracted to males (and not to females, at all), how would you handle that?
Remember, you are a very Catholic young man in the 1920s (or 1930s, or 1940s, or, for that matter, the 1840s) whose mama expects him to marry and have children. The only thing that would please mama more would be for her fine young very Catholic son to enter the seminary.
And, if you entered the seminary, nobody would ask you why you weren't married, since you couldn't marry.
We are reading news stories today, in 2005, of teachers, scout masters, youth ministers in Protestant churces, who are ephebophiles.
Is it your contention that homosexuals seeking a haven in the helping professions (including the Catholic priesthood and Protestant ministry) is something that sprang, full flower, from the 1960s?
I cannot speak for another poster, but I have no doubt that men with a homosexual orientation have always been found among the Catholic clergy. The difference is that, before Vatican II, Catholic culture was one that frowned on sexual expression, but after Vatican II sexual expression was encouraged, even among the clergy, by crack-brained psychologists like Eugene Kennedy who felt that one needed to be sexually active to be "mature."
And if that priest remained celibate his whole life, never buggered any boys or slept with other men, I guess then yes, there probably were such men in the priesthood prior to the 1950s who slipped through the vigilance of the seminary and prescreening.
But we aren't talking about priests who remained celibate their whole life, never buggered any boys or slept with other men, are we? We are talking about sexually active homosexuals who buggered boys and engaged in homosexual behavior.
Of the latter type, you have no proof of their "systemic" existence within the ranks of the priesthood prior to the 1950s, except in small numbers, miniscule numbers compared to post 1950.
try to be honest, now.
"If you were a very Catholic young man who was attracted to males (and not to females, at all)...in the 1920s (or 1930s, or 1940s, or, for that matter, the 1840s"
There's a LOT more of that now, because there are a LOT more predators with easier access to pre-adult males. That means that SSAD is being transmitted with greater frequency now than in earlier decades.
Even Camile Paglia admits that you'd have to be blind not to see that there are a LOT more SSAD sufferers today than before.
>> If you were a very Catholic young man who was attracted to males (and not to females, at all), how would you handle that?
Remember, you are a very Catholic young man in the 1920s (or 1930s, or 1940s, or, for that matter, the 1840s) whose mama expects him to marry and have children. The only thing that would please mama more would be for her fine young very Catholic son to enter the seminary. <<
While I don't believe the priesthood is necessarily an inherently gay profession, I do concur with this.
>> If you were a very Catholic young man who was attracted to males (and not to females, at all), how would you handle that?
Remember, you are a very Catholic young man in the 1920s (or 1930s, or 1940s, or, for that matter, the 1840s) whose mama expects him to marry and have children. The only thing that would please mama more would be for her fine young very Catholic son to enter the seminary. <<
While I don't believe the priesthood is necessarily an inherently gay profession, I do concur with this.