However the Church of England with married clergy , male and female, is engulfed in clergy homosexual abuse of minors too, putting to rest the old celibacy canard.
However what the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who by the way would do well to trim his wild hair and beard, has to say about the authorities in the Anglican Church certainly has parallels in the Catholic Church in terms of winks and nods towards immoral homosexual acts destructive of their victims.
What is implied in William's remarks is a complete ignorance of the damage done to victims or that the authorities at the time, wanting to be like Pope Francis in his remark, "who am I to judge?" actually thought the abuse in fact was consensual, between older and younger homosexuals. In other words, as indicated by his lack of remarks about victims, there was no concern for them, only the immoral priests and making them feel good. It is the typical liberal or progressive approach to presumed injustices, a bleeding heart for the perpetrator.
Thus the homosexual acting out was normal in a society repenting of repressive attitudes toward homosexual acts:
Williams: church's old views on gay clergy led to desire not to judge sexual activities
Former archbishop tells child sexual abuse inquiry ‘there was perhaps overcompensation’ for repressive views
The Church of England may have “overcompensated” for earlier repressive attitudes to gay clergy with a reluctance to deal rigorously with priests who sexually abused children, Rowan Williams, the former archbishop of Canterbury, has said.
Giving evidence to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, Williams said an “awkwardness” about the church’s views on homosexuality 30 or 40 years ago may have led to a desire not to be “judgmental about people’s sexual activities”.
In recent years, “more and more people [are] coming out of the closet. The question of clergy sexuality has been more openly discussed. The change in climate has been quite striking … I think there has been a sea change.”
He went on: “At a time when people were beginning to feel awkward about traditional closeted attitudes, there was perhaps an overcompensation, [people] saying, ‘Well, we don’t want to be to be judgmental about people’s sexual activities … We must therefore give people a second chance and understand the pressures,’ and so on.”
He suggested that “a rather paradoxical consequence of the traditional view of homosexuality within the church [is that] you want to overcompensate a bit for it.”
The inquiry is holding three weeks of hearings on how the C of E handled cases and allegations of clerical sexual abuse, taking the diocese of Chichester as a case study. It earlier heard the diocese was “engulfed” with allegations in the first decade of this century and that at least 15 priests had been jailed for sex crimes.
Among them was Peter Ball, the former bishop of Lewes, who was sent to prisonin October 2015. An independent review commissioned by the C of E concluded that there had been collusion by senior figures to protect the church.
The current bishop of Chichester, Martin Warner, told the inquiry on Wednesday that the diocese was described to him as a “basket case” when he was appointed in 2010. He said: “It is clear to me there had been a historic bias in the diocese in favour of adults in positions of power and authority. This has led to an unwillingness to take allegations of sexual abuse made by children or by adults sufficiently seriously.
“It reflects a wider social attitude of deference, a culture of deferring unduly to those in power and a culture of deference and defensiveness … We are still going through the process of culture change, and for many people, I’m sorry to say, the requirement to take a DBS [police] check is interpreted as ‘Are you accusing me of abusing children?’”
He depicted the diocese at the time he took up his post as dysfunctional, with competing centres of power and a lack of professional administration.
Williams, archbishop of Canterbury from 2002 to 2012, told the hearing there was a “mindset” in the diocese in which the authority of ordained ministry was seen as beyond criticism.
Chichester also had a reputation of being a diocese with a high degree of opposition to the ordination of women. The voices of those belonging to the Anglo-Catholic and conservative evangelical wings of the church were “firmest and loudest”.
10 comments:
If I’m correct statistics prove that the majority of pedophilia crimes are committed by married white men.
It isn’t priests living a celibate life that is the problem it’s priests who are not living celibacy that is the problem.
It’s the same with the Church. It isn’t the doctrines and dogmas being taught and lived that has driven people away it’s the lack of belief and teaching and love of those truths revealed by Christ to His Church that is the problem. For the droning on that AL does about accompanying people who don’t live up to the “ideal”, there is an easy solution. Believe that the Ten Commandments are from God and live them. Stop sinning and believe in the gospel. Go to confession and communion, pray the rosary, ask Our Lady’s help and St. Joseph and the saints and amend your/our lives. It’s not that hard. God through his Church has told us what is right and wrong. Do the right thing. If priests don’t or can’t live as they freely choose to live then they shouldn’t be priests.
Why should the Church change ancient traditional practices that have been proven to be helpful towards salvations just because sinful people refuse to amend their lives and acknowledge that they are the problem and not the teachings of the Church.
All you have to say is true. The only problem is classifying the homosexual abuse of teenagers with the sexual abuse of prepubescent children, some as babies, toddlers and elementary school age. Pedophilia in Christian Churches, including the Catholic and Anglican branches is minuscule compared to the homosexual exploitation of teenage boys and girls.
Pedophilia is a serious mental derangement and there is no cure short of imprisonment or physical or chemical castration.
Ephebophilia is usually associated with "arrested development" sexually speaking. It is a grotesque form of sexual immaturity. Often, a homosexual represses his feelings and does not go through the normal "dating" that a heterosexual teenager would with its maturing effects. Thus an adult, be he married, single or a priest, who is sexually underdeveloped in terms of maturity can act out with those he missed out on when he was a teenager. He thinks and acts as a teenager and sees his "courtship" and sexual aggression as normal.
This kind of abuser can be treated and can mature--but should not be allowed to remain in active ministry.
"Celibacy" simply means a commitment not to marry, which is irrelevant to homosexuality or child molestation. It's better to say that celibate priests should remain "chaste".
As for homosexuals, their desire to sow fruitless seeds into each others bowels or stomachs is already contrary to nature, and the desire of some of them to do this to children is an even greater contradiction. Child molestation, unlike bank robbery or murder, is not merely wrong, but incomprehensible to those with normal temptations. Consequently, no normal person will know how to reconcile a homosexual to a Christian community, and much less so how to reconcile a child molester.
While I'm prepared to accept that capital punishment is immoral, I do think we should be open to a discussion of banishing active homosexuals and child molesters to humane but guarded colonies of some sort. Child molestation is obviously the greater of the two evils, but a homosexual is already inclined to perversions of nature, and so should not be trusted around children.
"While I'm prepared to accept that capital punishment is immoral, I do think we should be open to a discussion of banishing active homosexuals and child molesters to humane but guarded colonies of some sort. Child molestation is obviously the greater of the two evils, but a homosexual is already inclined to perversions of nature, and so should not be trusted around children."
Celibacy does include chastity. "Celibacy is the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades." (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Just as celibacy does not cause sexual abuse of minors, neither does homosexuality. It is not necessary to lock all gay men and lesbian women away in order to protect minors from potential abuse by them. Millions of gay men and lesbian women have no inclination whatsoever to engage in sexual relations with minors.
Depriving someone of his/her God-given freedom is simply unjust; a sin against the God who created freedom. There is nothing "humane" about locking someone away because he/she is homosexual. Sadly, is it reminiscent of the thinking of despotic and murderous regimes such as Nazism. No one has a right to punish anyone else because he/she MIGHT commit some terrible act. This principle is enshrined in both civil law and the Church's own teaching.
Under no circumstances should we be "open" to considering what is unjust and unnecessary.
I do not believe that diagnosing the individual actually helps or even gives us a course of action. In fact, I think it greatly confuses everyone. When I was a child it was popular to remind people that someone involved in an alcohol related problem was an alcoholic. This seemed to be considered an excuse for the behavior. So taking away someone’s drivers privileges was considered excessive. In this case we refrain from the admitting the obvious: that someone has an impaired understanding of the sex act. They cannot discern its proper role and either repeatedly succumb to or actively pursue this perversion. We don’t neccesarily need to roll a big rock over them and squash them, but we don’t need to pretend our cowardice is holy tolerance and Charity. Not everyone needs access to everything. Holy Orders is not a job.
They should call him "Harry"
'Beware the Anglo-Catholics - they're all sodomites with unpleasant accents.' Thus cousin Jasper's advice to Charles Ryder, newly up at Oxford. That faction in the Church of England once called the 'London, Brighton and South Coast Religion' does seem to attract a disproportionate number of men with homosexual tendencies.
The same may be true of the Roman Church. And if a man is not interested in women, celibacy is not too great a sacrifice. However, I suspect that most of the sexual delicts of Catholic clergy involve women. In the Austrian diocese of Linz most priests have concubines and no-one seems to bother.
What has changed since the 1970s is that homosexual acts are not merely tolerated, but actively promoted to the extent that moral criticism of them is effectively prohibited. When the British Overseas Territory of Bermuda voted to overturn a court ruling permitting 'gay marriage', Theresa May (a clergyman's daughter) said she was 'disappointed' although she resisted the strident demands of the 'gay lobby' that she intervene.
Since most Anglicans (and not a few Catholics) see no problem with the Church conforming to secular mores, as evidenced by the fact that the current Archbishop of Canterbury will shortly solemnize matrimony between Prince Harry and a divorcee, then Williams is being somewhat disingenuous when he suggests that the CofE is merely overcompensating for past 'sins'.
But before we get too complacent, Pope Francis acknowledged the existence of a 'gay mafia' in the Vatican five years ago, and has yet done nothing about it.
There seems to be more concern about Catholic priests’ sexual infidelities ie, concubines, than with married clergy ‘s unfaithfulness to their marriage vows, ie, adultery.
The modern Catholic Church is tolerant of homosexual activities (and in some cases like Apostate Cardinal Kasper) and seem to promote them. It is obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense is that these clerics are trying to justify their own sinful practices.
John Nolan raises an excellent point. Pope Francis has known about the gay mafia in the Vatican since the beginning of his pontificate and has done what about it? It appears nothing. There was a story in the news about a Vatican monsignor carrying on cocaine/gay sex orgies next to St. Peter's Basilica and it appears he is still there, last I heard. I guess just like government, rules are for the little people. No wonder the Church continues to shed members.
I agree with TJM. I just wanted to state that:, I agree with TJM.
Post a Comment