Posted on 08/22/2018 9:56:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Due to the sensitive nature of this article, it's important that I make some preliminary statements. There will be enough controversy if my words are rightly understood, let alone misunderstood.
First, I am not a Catholic basher. Second, I am not claiming that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on sexual scandals. Third, I believe the vast majority of homosexual men stand with me in denouncing pedophilia and "man-boy love." Fourth, as we focus on predatory priests, we must not forget their victims. Some of the abused have lost faith for life. Others bear their scars in different, significant ways. They must not be forgotten in the midst of our outrage and grief.
The question, then, is simple: Does the Catholic Church have a homosexual problem?
According to Cardinal Raymond Burke, "It was clear after the studies following the 2002 sexual abuse crisis that most of the acts of abuse were in fact homosexual acts committed with adolescent young men.
There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this. Now it seems clear in light of these recent terrible scandals that indeed there is a homosexual culture, not only among the clergy but even within the hierarchy, which needs to be purified at the root. It is of course a tendency that is disordered."
If you're surprised to hear this candid admission, you're not alone. As Cardinal Burke observed, "There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this."
Yes, it was fine to talk about Catholicism's problem with pedophilia. It was fine to discuss sexual scandals in broad terms. But it was basically forbidden to connect them directly to homosexuality. Is it true that homosexual pedophiles are more likely to abuse boys then heterosexual pedophiles are likely to abuse girls?
According to a 2007 Mayo Clinic study, "The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9 per cent to 40 per cent, which is approximately four to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2 per cent to 4 per cent). . . . This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children."
But even if this study is accurate (I have seen other evidence to support this), I don't believe that pedophilia (in terms of men abusing prepubescent children) is the primary issue within the Catholic sex scandals.
This is confirmed by Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. (Donohue holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from New York University; in his 11-page report, he seeks to debunk the notion of widespread sexual sin among the clergy.) Pointing to a 2004 study, Donohue notes, "The John Jay study found that 81 percent of the victims were male, 78 percent of whom were postpubescent. Now if 100 percent of the victimizers are male, and most of the victims are postpubescent males, that is a problem called homosexuality. There is no getting around it.
"How many were pedophiles? Less than five percent. That is what the John Jay study found. Studies done in subsequent years—I have read them all—report approximately the same ratio. It's been a homosexual scandal all along."
In the words of blogger Matt Walsh, "the real problem in the Catholic Church isn't pedophilia but gay priests. As the statistics clearly show, the vast majority of predators in the clergy were homosexual and the vast majority were not pedophiles."
What, then, should we conclude from this? That homosexuals are far worse sinners than heterosexuals? Actually, there has been a flood of scandals involving heterosexual female teachers and their underage, heterosexual male students. What does this prove? The vast majority of pornography that is produced is for heterosexual use (since the vast majority of people are heterosexual). What does this prove?
It proves that sexual sin is everywhere. And all of it is ugly, especially when it takes advantage of others. So, my point here is not that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals (even though there is evidence to support this). And my point is not that homosexuals are more prone to pedophilia than heterosexuals (although here too, as noted, there is evidence to support that).
My point is simply that the vast majority of devout, heterosexual Catholic men will not want to give up marriage for the priesthood. However, a devout Catholic man who is attracted to the same-sex would be more likely to give up marriage for the priesthood, since he cannot "marry" a same-sex partner and be faithful to Catholicism.
And what do you expect to happen when you have thousands of homosexual men who are single for life, some of whom are fairly young, and who are in intimate environments with teenage men? Read the horrific reports about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. That's exactly what you would expect.
As Ross Benes explained, "While doing research for my book The Sex Effect, I came across many scholars who suggested that preventing priests from marrying altered the makeup of the priesthood over time, unintentionally providing a shelter for some devout gay men to hide their sexual orientation. By continuing to disqualify women and married men, the priesthood attracts men who desire to forgo sex for the rest of their lives in an attempt to get closer to God. Because the church denounces all gay sex, some devout gay men pursue the celibate priesthood as a self-incentive to avoid sex with men, which can help them circumvent perceived damnation."
This, in turn, has produced what some claim is a gay subculture within the Catholic Church, from the local parish to the seminary and beyond. The sordid results that follow are utterly unsurprising.
From my perspective as a non-Catholic, the clergy should be allowed to marry, while those with the gift of celibacy should refrain from marriage. As for priests (or potential priests) who are same-sex attracted, they should seek out help for their sexual conflicts, not being allowed to serve until they have a clear and persistent track record of holy, disciplined living.
To do anything else is to be unfair to them and, far, far worse, to be unfair to their potential victims.
“Does every church have a homosexual problem?”
Not to any significant degree.
His church that He built. Not the RCC sect built on peter.
If you got rid of all the queer priests, bishops and cardinals, there wouldn't be nearly enough clergy to keep your religion in operation...
That may not be a valid question...
Men who rape children are criminals. The rapists should have been turned over to the police as soon as the first victim came forward.
It's just as easy for the Pope to forgive a man in prison as to forgive a man in a rectory. And prison is where these so-called priests belonged.
Does the American Federation of Teachers?
Does the Dept. of Parks and Rec?
Do the Olympic Figure Skaters?
Does the Modern Language Association?
Do the Boy Scouts?
Does the National Education Association?
Yeah. Gay Clericalism.
We started off with eleven (because one of the twelve was a traitor). We'll be fine.
Agreed. Quality over quantity every last time.
Pius XI advised this strongly in his encyclical on priestly formation. Too bad no one seems to have remembered that.
As the article pointed out, the problem is not primarily pedophilia, which is sex with children before the age of puberty. Their studies have shown that the great majority of those molested were post-puberty, which means the problem is not pedophilia but homosexuality. Many of the victims were young men attempting to become priests, and were pressured to have gay sex or lose their place in the seminary. One report I read said that the seminary, if it dismisses someone, that young person has to repay the expenses of his education; and that many vulnerable young men from poor backgrounds submitted to the pressure rather than burden their families.
In my experience as an older person who grew up in an America when homosexuality was overwhelmingly regarded as an unfortunate, unwelcome and/or sinful behavior, there were decades in which I struggled to come to terms with the political pressures in favor of it—decades in which I, and most other people, simply could not form dispassionate language or objective comments about it—the understanding of homosexuality as an abomination in God's eyes had been deeply impressed upon most Christians. It took actual grad school study of the history of constitutional law regarding family for me to be able to discuss the matter objectively, even though I worked in the arts for 40 years and had many gay friends and colleagues.
So I think this deep abhorrence for acts that Catholic teachings regard as unholy and offensive to God has retarded the Catholic church's recognition or appropriate action about this crisis. And now it simply can't be swept under the rug any more—it's become so deeply institutionalized that wiping it out threatens to destroy, economically and reputationally, the entire RC church. By extension, all of Christianity will suffer.
According to biblical commentators, ancient Israelite cities were encircled by defensive walls, and their gates were the locations of the markets and public gathering spots, where the elders, judges, and king held court. So the "gates" were not just the physical doors, but also the powers of a city.
So the "gates of hell" means the "powers of hell." The powers of hell want to destruction of the Church. So the passage means that the powers of Hell will not succeed in destroying the Church.
I do not think this means the Church is entirely invincible in every situation. History shows that this not so. But in the final instance, there will always be a remnant of the Church. It will not be finally and totally wiped out.
Or the Eastern Orthodox CATHOLICS.
Looked it up. Peter is the guy Jesus was talking to.
The problem is a hierarchy who watched the door while the abuse was going on and enabled every bit of it.
Jesus started with Twelve.
The Catholic church has become the gates of hell.
They long ago forfeited the right to call themselves Christian or a church with their sordid history of corruption and immorality.
You’ve had 2,000 years to try.
It hasn’t happened yet. You are not fine now and tyou never were.
And you’re not going to be.
Any perv going after young teens would do kids in a heartbeat given the opportunity.
It's not better because it was teens and not kids younger. It was probably just a matter of access.
Now, the $64 dollar question is, what do you do about it in a culture where increasingly anyone who even mildly criticizes anything gay gets charged with a hate crime?
Do you think the Church is going to purge them and then withstand the withering Twitterstorm and assault by Liberal government at all levels looking to punish them?
Personally I don’t.
Moral defamation against a billion-plus people. You usually manifest a more exacting judgment and a greater regard for truth that that, metmom.
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.