Wednesday, August 8, 2018


I was reading an article in the National Catholic Reporter on how best to deal with sexual misconduct of bishops. There were some good points but I fear there is an overeaction occurring and a bit of hysteria that might compromise sound solutions.

At any rate, this is what some on the original review board for priests commissioned by the NCCB said which reflects why the actual problem in the seminary and priesthood isn't being addressed properly and it is because of "political correctness":

The original National Review Board's report concluded that homosexuality was not a cause of sexual abuse of minors, but rather that boys were more available as victims to predator priests. Sexuality immaturity of priest offenders also might been a contributing factor, (one review board member ) recalled.

Nor do former board members believe it is the main issue now. "To characterize it as problem of our clergy being gay isn't quite right," said (another review board member). "Normal gay people do not force themselves on other gay people."

Herein lies the problem. In the Catholic priesthood and seminary formation since the early 1970's at least, winks and nods about homosexuality began to develop. When I was in the seminary between 1976 - 1980, our rector allowed "Dignity" a Catholic homosexual support group to speak to the entire seminary. They wanted homosexuality as well as active sex with men/women to be accepted by the Church. I was dumbfounded that they were allow to speak to us and I was even more dumbfounded that so many seminarians and faculty agreed with them from a "social justice" point of view--but maybe because they completely disagreed with the Church's teachings on sexual morality also.

 Most of the problems in the Catholic priesthood aren't heterosexual abuse but homosexual abuse and a culture that accepts unchastity in this regard and multiple partners and even orgies. 

The cases concerning McCarrick need to be looked at individually when it comes to adults. Yes, some adults who are immature or seeking affirmation from authority figures love when a bishop or a cardinal showers attention on them. And yes, if one is naive and touching and grooming is taking place, one might not know that the person in authority wants sex or sexual contact. To take advantage of that is very serious.

Others adult homosexual men, though, are active homosexuals and think nothing of having sex with a bishop or cardinal and see it as an achievement. We have to acknowledge this side too as it pertains to a homosexual culture in the seminary and priesthood. 

But most importantly, we need to appropriately discipline any clergy member who violates his promises/vows of celibate chastity. I don't think there is a one size fits all in this and because of that sobriety is needed for any reforms/rules/laws that are necessary.  


John Nolan said...

'Normal gay people do not force themselves on other gay people'. Apart from the fact that a normal gay person is a contradiction in terms, since classical times homosexual relations between an older man and a boy have been a recurring feature - the Romans, who in some ways were more fastidious about sex than we are, tolerated it.

They would not have tolerated relations between two adult men (an adult citizen could not allow himself to be sodomized) and would have thought the idea of same-sex marriage absurd.

Come to think of it, so would we a mere 25 years ago.

The reason why those who have sex with under-age partners are commonly and erroneously referred to as 'paedophiles' is because the gay lobby can say, with justification, 'most paedophiles are heterosexual'. This diverts attention away from the inconvenient truth that heterosexual men are not attracted to adolescent boys and young men.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

In America at least, the left-wing press (95% of the media) are obsessed with gays and LOVE them. They were truly conflicted when their primary nemesis, the Roman Catholic Church, was caught with its pants down, and the young men who were definitely NOT under the age of 12 were being molested by gay priests. Notwithstanding this they made up the fiction that these priests were pedophiles, notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of the youths being abused were NOT under the age of 12. Is the British press equally craven?

ByzRus said...

What are the intended resulting actions of these review boards? I have never gotten the sense that there are any or, any that will be materially impactful. If the aggregate problems can be attributed to social immaturity, sexual immaturity and homosexuality, for the good of the institution, shouldn't there be some effort to weed this out? Why are those with such proclivities allowed to study, be ordained and function? There certainly must be a way to identify such candidates and avoid giving them access within the structure of the Church to those who should be protected from being victimized. What I am trying to say is this posting has that familiar reactionary feel to it that leaves me as laity feeling hopeless as, at the end, it does not seem that yet another study or added level of review will do much to advance the cause of eliminating these problems.

TJM said...

John Nolan, notice who has not responded to our comments and I don’t mean MT