I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, progressive Catholicism symbolized by the most read progressive Catholic newspaper, The National Catholic Reporter, has contributed the most to the homosexual scandal, especially against teenagers, that is destroying the Catholic Church.
In a breathtaking article printed on December 7th, the author castigates Pope Francis, once the darling of the homosexual clerical cabal in the Church, like Jesuit James Martin, by calling His Holiness’ thinking muddled and homophobic.
In today’s world being labeled homophobic is a highly charged manipulative tactic, similar to the 1970’s progressive cabal calling someone so pre-Vatican II. Name calling in order to manipulate, shame and then change is a hallmark of modern liberalism be it religious or political. Pope Francis does it with the vague accusations of being doctors of the law, rigid, neo pelagians and neo Gnostics among other insults the pope has used against faithful Catholics.
Here is an excerpt from the NCR article. Below it is the title to the article which you can press for the full eye opening article:
A number of progressive Catholics have rushed to Francis' defense. Some argue that he is only opposed to priests and religious who break their vows of celibacy. Others insist that he did not include heterosexuals in his condemnation of celibacy-breakers because the interviewer's question was specifically about gay priests and gay and lesbian religious.
But to apologize for Francis in these ways is to deny what he has said previously about homosexuality and about admitting gay men to the priesthood.
In December 2016, Francis signed a rather homophobic document called "The Gift of the Priestly Vocation."
That document quoted a 2005 instruction signed by Pope Benedict XVI that said, "The Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.' "
This statement clarifies Francis' obtuse words in his recent interview. It states clearly that even if a priest is not breaking his vow of celibacy, if his "homosexual tendencies" are "deep-seated," he loses his chance to be a priest.
In May 2018, Francis also weighed in on the issue during a closed session with the Italian Episcopal Conference. As La Stampa reported, Francis expressed his concern about admitting seminarians with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, telling the clergymen, "If you have even the slightest doubt, it is better not to let them in."
I assume "priests" like Martin are practicing homosexuals, hence their commitment to the gay mafia cause. If the average Catholic parishioner were aware of their views, the Churches will become even emptier than they already are.
In an interview an actor whose work I admire stated that, yes, he was a homosexual but that did not define him. That made me wonder why, then, he felt compelled to discuss it? I think it is possible that a young or very inexperienced person can be led to experiment with homosexual acts, but that is almost always part of a recruitinting phase. The average healthy person senses that something is amiss and resists the advance with varying degrees of success. Yet the homosexual persists in the advance and will move on reluctantly often taking retribution on the victim. When this is done by a heterosexual we understand it to be disordered. The fact that we accept this sort of behavior as part of homosexuallity is a nonverbal admission that homosexuality is disordered but also publicly denied in response to social pressure.
So I am not sure what repeated and self initiated homosexual behavior can be other than deep seated.
I think part of, a large part of the sex abuse scandal revolves around the laity's presumption that all priests were celibate and heterosexual.
Thus parents and others were quite confident that could entrust their boys, especially teenagers, to the care of a priest, allow them to go on trips with them and other unsupervised activities. The homosexual priests betrayed the trust of these laity and took advantage of it thinking they could get away with it. Complicit bishops enabled their bad, immoral, perverted behavior with minors.
But my main point is that no matter how healthy a truly celibate heterosexual priest is or was, no lay parent would entrust their teenage girls to them because they didn't want to tempt the priest to do something immoral and illegal.
I doubt that many parents my parents age (now deceased) would have thought of a priest having sex with a teenage girl to be perverted as they would with a teenage boy, although they would have been aghast at even the thought of it because of the immorality of it.
Well into the 70's this would have been the mentality of most of the nation about adult men and teenage girls. And in some places the age of consent was 13, like in South Carolina.
Today most parents would know better than to entrust a teenage boy or girl to any priest for anything unsupervised and hopefully the priests knows better too!
That TJM would think and write such a scurrilous accusations does not surprise me.
That you, Allan, would post his slander is very surprising and, I suggest, wrong.
I completely agree with your summary, FrAJM. I recall my mother disapproving that my fiancé went to gatherings with my friends while I was away in the military. In my mind, who better could I trust her with, beside my own brothers? In fact, not only did I trust her completely, but I expected my friends to support her fidelity with their lives and honor. Enforced, of course, with the threat of the Red Neck’s Return. I cannot imagine what would have happened to a priest who betrayed his flock in our county. It may have happened without my hearing of it, but it seems unlikely.
I think, Michael, that you don't realize how homophobic of you to state that it is a scurrilous accusation to say that a homosexual is an active homosexual. Fr. Martin seem quite active in promoting the homosexual agenda in the Church and for him and other homosexuals and heterosexuals this is a good thing. Only homophobes would think otherwise either about the orientation or activity.
Allan, TJM states, "I assume "priests" like Martin are practicing homosexuals..."
This means he is sexually active contrary to his vows.
Where's the proof?
Defending this baseless accusation is defending slander.
Cry me a river. Martin is out promoting the saying of an LGBT "inspired"rosary to get us to accept homosexual couples. Sounds like an apologia pro vita sua to me. And practicing homosexuality is now so "mainstream" according to progressives, ergo, how could it be slander? It might be viewed as a high compliment!!!!
TJM is making a presumption based upon Jame’s rhetoric. In this day and age given the number of unfaithful priests whose names have been published by dioceses, I think we are free to presume the worse. In our own diocese dead priests are named with no other description but a credible accusation and lumped with a well known and convicted serial rapist priest of multiple minors in our diocese and elsewhere which leads me to think the worst of my deceased childhood pastor also listed along with him. At least James can defend himself against presumptions the Church is now promoting!
No, TJM is making an accusation against Fr. Martin.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with your disquietude over the release of the names of priests who served in our diocese who were credibly accused.
Defending an accusation that has no proof is defending slander.
TJM states quite plainly that he is ASSUMING something about Fr. Martin. This isn't exactly stating something as a FACT! Doesn't exactly rise to the level of slander in my opinion.
Certainly nothing to get hysterical about.
I think that Dan's observation is the sound one here, so I'll go with his observation and yet Michael, you continue a duplicitous argument in which you can't have it both ways as it concerns slander of the living or dead, or let's be specific, libel.
TJM is assuming - as he says.
"Assume - suppose to be the cause - without proof." He can assume till the cows come home. Making the statement publicly - "I assume "priests" like Martin are practicing homosexuals.." is a slanderous accusation. Defending it is wrong.
Allan, the release of the names of those credibly accused - that means there is proof and you are miffed that that proof isn't shared with you - has nothing to do with TJM's slander against Fr. Martin. If you want the proof, go to the bishop and demand it.
But stop supporting slander.
I presume you are illiterate because you use slander when in one might presume it is libel. But is it libel? One is free to assume either it is or it isn't.
In other words, you wrongly use the word slander which is something spoken whereas what is written is called libel.
can't understand why Kavanaugh is upset. Gayness is something to embrace, be cherished, just another equally valid lifestyle according to Martin. He has even developed an LGBT Rosary to be prayed so we accept homosexual couples.
The old Doctor Pepper jingle comes to mind:
I'm a homo, you're a homo, he's a homo, she's a homo
don't you want to be a homo too!!!
We should assume the best of people, but lustful and predatory priests take advantage of this assumption. By now we should all see clearly enough what many priests and bishops have been up to in secret with boys. Priests who sexually harass and assault young men will never be revealed, because neither the criminal courts nor the ecclesiastical tribunals are concerned with such behavior. And, fully consensual encounters involving priests are secured in secrecy. So, given the depths of clerical depravity, only the very worst of which is even partially revealed, I think we can be forgiven for making assumptions about a priest who publicly advocates the very behavior of which we suspect him.
Fr. Kavanaugh said.....
"This means he is sexually active contrary to his vows."
But isn't homosexuality incompatible with the priesthood whether one is chaste or unchaste?
I thank God I don’t live on Wilmington Island.
Saint John XXIII would agree with your statement.
Post a Comment