Rorate Caeli

The "homosexualization" of the clergy in Latin America

Colombian weekly Semana publishes in this week's edition an interview granted by Father Germán Robledo, former president of the Archdiocesan Tribunal of Cali - the third largest diocese of Colombia. Will the great wall of silence which covers the fast and unimpeded homosexualization of the clergy in Latin America be brought down at last? When will other priests in other Latin American dioceses come forward?

SEMANA: Why are you writing a book on the sex scandals of the Archdiocese of Cali?

Germán Robledo: Two years ago, I presented some very serious accusations to Archbishop Juan Francisco Sarasty, regarding most grievous acts of ecclesiastic indiscipline, and which have increased during his tenure due to the lack of control and vigilance. All these accusations went nowhere.

SEMANA: Isn't the title of your book, 'Towards a gay clergy' [Hacia un clero Gay] very harsh and unfair?

G.R.: It is harsh, but real. What it does is to denounce a tendency which is presenting itself within the Catholic Church. My experience of 45 years of priestly life gives me moral authority to make this analysis.

SEMANA: What kind of accusations do you compile in your book?

G.R. Of homosexuality, of pedophilia; priests with children, with demands presented before the ICBF [Children's Council] for alimony; corruption... that is, all kinds of direct violations of celibacy.

SEMANA: Why do you say that your book is an "Anti-History of a Centennial"?

G.R.: Because we will celebrate the first centennial of the Church in Cali in 2010, and I will make use of this event to tell how, in the past 30 years, the Church has leaned towards priests with profiles with effeminate traces, sweet, obedient, submissive, uncritical, and who always accept the authoritarian role of the bishop and of the other superiors.

SEMANA: How grave is the matter of homosexuality in the Archdiocese of Cali?

G.R.: 30 % of its 120 priests are homosexuals.

SEMANA: How was it that some priests used donations to pay for homosexual favors?

G.R.: I describe in the book, without names, these episodes which took place in the Cathedral. There were priests, for instance, who asked for money for the poor, and then gave it to those who joined them in their homosexual tendencies.

SEMANA: Do you believe that celibacy is the root of the problem?

G.R.: No. Being a priest is attractive for homosexuals because they can lead a double life. It is the refuge of those who do not dare face their families. The Catholic Church is the closet of gays.


SEMANA: What do you think of homosexuality?

G.R.: I have no problem with homosexuals, on the contrary, I believe that they have full rights, and, as a priest, I have received them. But they are in the wrong place when in the clerical state.

SEMANA: What is your situation within the Catholic Church?

G.R.: When I turned 65, I declared myself a priest emeritus, with no parish responsibilities. Even though here in Colombia only bishops have the right to be emeriti.
__________________
Tip: Le Forum Catholique

72 comments:

Paul Haley said...

30 % of its 120 priests are homosexuals. Need I say it? Yet another item to add to the list of reasons for the state of necessity.

Anonymous said...

"G.R.: No. Being a priest is attractive for homosexuals because they can lead a double life. It is the refuge of those who do not dare face their families. The Catholic Church is the closet of gays."

Where is the discipline to get rid of these sinners that will lead countless souls to hell? Our Catholic Church is not a refuge for closet gays.

God protect our seminarians, clergy and laity. St. Joseph father of the Church protect us.

State of necessity - dido.

P

Pablo said...

...the Church has leaned towards priests with profiles with effeminate traces, sweet, obedient, submissive, uncritical, and who always accept the authoritarian role of the bishop and of the other superiors...

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Reverend Father, Holy Mother Church never leans towards sin. This and several other statements in your interview may be in need of a good Confession on your part.

Always accepted Homosexuals, with their full rights?

The only rights sinners have is to God's forgiveness, after repentance.

Pray for the Holy Father, and your fellow Priests, good or bad.

Us laypeople with storm Heaven with our prayers on your behalf, and that of your brother Priests and Nuns.

Please don't forget the Nuns, living and deceased.

Santa Maria de Guadalupe, ora por nosotros!

*

Irenaeus of New York said...

The church abuse scandal in the USA was a homosexual scourge. The facts prove it, but the media will purposely ignore it or intimidate those who bring light to this through labels such as homophobe etc...

Link to full post on this subject....

Anonymous said...

He is a brave man, who will probably expose a grave scandal and bring down this Archbishop of Cali and others. Whis is as they deserve.

If the Pope has a backbone, he will act quickly to put an end to this corruption.

New Catholic said...

Pablo, I believe he means his Particular Church - its administrators in the past decades.

Anonymous said...

No, Mr. Haley, every evil in NewChurch does not create a state of necessity. The question, again, is whether or not the S.S.P.X could have operated safely under the Pope, while being 100% independent of the local bishops under an apostolic administration. I judge the answer to be affirmative. But whether it is or not is not affected by this other situation, bad as it is.

P.K.T.P.

Pablo said...

“PETER HAS SPOKEN BY LEO!”

Six hundred and thirty-six bishops of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon cried out when Pope Leo’s famous letter setting forth the true doctrine of the Incarnation was read to them. “That is the Faith of the Fathers! That is the Faith of the Apostles!

PETER HAS SPOKEN BY LEO!”

Saint Leo’s Tome is one of the most precious documents of the Church. When Pope Leo had finished it, he placed it on the tomb of Saint Peter, imploring the Chief of the Apostles on whom the Church was founded to correct it with his own hand. He then fasted and prayed for forty days and forty nights, after which he returned to the tomb for the letter. To his joy, he found that Saint Peter had answered the prayer of his humble successor; the Prince of the Apostles had edited the Tome of Leo. The dogmatic letter of Saint Leo is an answer to all the attacks on the Sacred Divinity and Humanity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Divine Maternity of Mary which grew out of the heresy of Arius.
Pray that

“PETER HAS SPOKEN BY BENEDICT!”

be heard throughout the world.

Pray and do penance for Priests and Nuns.

Pray and do penance for the Holy Father.

Pray for the sinners who missed salvation because of these wayward Priests.

I entrust this whole matter in the hands of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, “Mother of the Priest par excellence, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and through Him, of all priests in whom she forms her Son”.
*

Anonymous said...

I suggest that, while the Pope's new seminary document clearly did not cause this problem, it worsens it. Under the 1961 rules, there was a least a theoretical ban on all of these inverts, one which could have been enforced had there been a will to do so. Now we must admit people known to have had inverted sexual experiences as long as they have been good little boys for three consecutive years. It's a farce and, for once, perhaps Mr. Haley *almost* has a point, although, under the new rules, the S.S.P.X can still have its absolute ban.

What is needed is an absolute ban on any man who has had any homerastic tendencies or experiences, and the use of polygraph and psychological testing to root out the problem at the seminary entrance stage.

Yes, yes, I know, such testing methods are imperfect. So what? The priesthood is NOT a right. At one time, men with withered hands could not be ordained.

A priest stands in persona Christi and must therefore be whole as a man. Any apperance to the contrary is a grave sacrilege because of what it might suggest about our Lord, who is not only perfect God but also perfect man. That is the primary reason for barring them entirely.

Secondly, it is a grave offence against children to risk putting homerastic priests in direct contact with them. We have a firm duty to protect children, whose angels are always in the presence of the Father. And consider the damage to the Church when her own priests destroy children's lives forever.

Lastly, it is a grave offence against charity to put men with such tendencies in the exclusive company of other men. This is like putting alcoholics in charge of a liquor shop. We must avoid not only sin but its near occasion, and it is gravely sinful to put others in situations in which they might be tempted: Deliver us from temptation!

So, for all these reasons, only an absolute ban will do, staring with seminary entrance requirements.

Given the enormity of this problem, I do not suggest testing all the currently-ordained priests. Not possible. Let's start by keeping this sort out of the seminary. The cleansing will take time but it's better to do it late than not to do it at all. That's where we are now: no effective action is being taken and a homerastic leftist lobby is taking over the clergy and turning it into a pervert club. Imagine the effect this will have over the next century if not righted NOW.
P.K.T.P.

alban said...

Fr Robledo not only mentions homosexual clergy but "priests with children, with demands presented before the ICBF [Children's Council] for alimony"

Yet, the heading in this blog is the "Homosexualization of the clergy in Latin America". Why focus on one issue whilst ignoring the rest, especially when mothers and innocent children are involved? If a priest maintains his celibacy in a holy, loving and generous spirit, it matters not whether he is heterosexual or homosexual.

Fr Robledo is also dismissive of those who are "...obedient, submissive, uncritical, and who always accept the authoritarian role of the bishop and of the other superiors." Surely the problem is DISobedient and NONsubmissive priests.

I am all for dealing with the issue of non-celibate clergy (as well as those who abuse their position financially or otherwise) If, as Fr Robledo says, his bishop had not acted on the allegations presented, there are appropriate eccesiastical channels to follow. Instead, Robledo has taken things to the media. It is apparent that he has a problem with obedience and has an axe to grind against his bishop. This serves only to harm the Body of Christ and cannot be from God.

Snow said...

There is no need to speculate on the origin of the problem. The history of the homosexualization of the priesthood and hierarchy is thoroughly documented in Randy Engel's book, 1,282 pages researched, written, and meticulously footnoted over 17 years. "The Rite of Sodomy." As a bonus, in the introductory chapters, she debunks the homosexual myths of Greek and Roman acceptance of homosexuality and pederasty.

http://www.riteofsodomy.com

Her website also offers St. Peter Damian's "Book of Gomorrah" for only a single dollar, a bargain!

Joe B said...

And who will enforce the ban? The same bishops who want these types in the priesthood? Who recruited them? Are you suggesting the bishops are naive about it? These bishops don't have any problem ruthlessly rooting out traditional-minded seminarians, so their failure to root out homosexuals is a choice, not naivete. And as for supporting yet another piece of papal paper they disagree with, get real.

The Holy Father would have to have a church-wide inquisition of ruthless means, something he won't do because, for one reason, the general population won't support it once it gets vilified by the press, and if the general population doesn't vocally support the Holy Father, the local bishops won't even waste their time stalling on it. Straight into the trash. If you think Bishop Williamson picked the wrong group to enrage, just wait till you see what the homosexual community does. And of course, the bishops, as noted above, agree with them. And the Holy Father believes in collegiality.

I'm not aware of any historical solution to this particular problem on local levels except for either a wholesale replacement of the hierarchy (not going to happen) or some form of the wrath of God taking care of things.

Steve K. said...

Kyrie eleison.

PKTP - perhaps I am mistaken but the Pope's guidance on seminary admissions were not to admit anyone with a long history of disordered desires, regardless of any period of inverted behavior. This is to differentiate but someone who may have had a perverse indiscretion here or there but has repented of it, and someone whose desires are so disordered that it marks the dominant tendency of sexual desires.

Anonymous said...

What will those who say that the problems in the Church are only a North American/European problem have to say? The crisis in the Church is deep and it is worldwide.

Anonymous said...

I hate to say this, because trads always recoil from the suggestion, but the problem may just be institutionalized celibacy as a whole.

Most priests are still heterosexual. But somewhere around 50% of priests break their vow of celibacy with another person. A number around there seems to show up in most anonymous scientific surveys of priests, and many bishops have said they "have no reason to question" such a figure.

There is no evidence that homosexuals break it at a significantly larger rate than heterosexual priests.

Now, clearly homosexuals are disproportionately represented in the clergy, and that's a self-perpetuating problem. And clearly all of this is scandalous.

But when 50% of priests break celibacy and live secret lives...you have to question the institutional logic of the whole thing.

I'm not questioning the holiness of celibacy in an individual. I'm not even saying drawing our priests only from celibates isnt "more ideal" IF we have enough, and IF the men actually are psychosexually mature and follow it. However, now there is a shortage, and evidence suggests that much of the "celibacy" is a facade among gay AND straight priests.

Encouraging celibacy as the higher path is a noble goal. But you can't artificially bolster the numbers of men truly called to it by "bootstrapping" it to what is really a separate vocation (the diocesan priesthood). That's a demographic sham, like applying a price-floor in economics.

This sort of hypocrisy covered up with secrecy...is destroying the church. The psychosexual dynamics of the current policy of mandatory celibacy...is a conversation we need to have, but which they absolutely refuse to have, supported by the very Catholics who should be calling them out on it.

Just think about it this way: they destroyed the Old Rite without any qualms, as if they could just trash it and it wasnt even an issue. But they havent even come close to seriously considering loosening institutionalized celibacy for diocesan priests. Seems to me their priorities are backwards. The Old Rite was more ancient and more essential to Western spirituality than celibate secular priests...but they got rid of the former but wont even discuss the latter. That says something disturbing about their intra-institutional sociology.

Hebdomadary said...

"Surely the problem is DISobedient and NONsubmissive priests."

Yes, I rather agree. I noticed the elephant in the living-room of his argument as well. The book and interview are all about homosexuality, yet he cites instances of priests with families, in alimony court. That's not a homosexual problem, it's a problem of excessive sexuality at the root, but then that's a problem that has always been present, nothing new there.

I think it's a generally mistake to look for more perfection in a priest than in another person. They are human, and subject to the same temptations as others. And for those who advocate married clergy, it should be pointed out that given our clergy pederasty, pederasts and pedophiles are two different things. We already have a pederasty problem - sexual acts by grown men with teenagers, but 90% of all pedophiles - those who commit sexual acts against pre-pubescent children - are married men with children. So further sexualizing the clergy only increases the opportunity for incidence of scandal. (And with no intention to malign their ministry, I believe that this argument portends ill as a result of married deacons as well.)

But I would also point out, that all human beings have a sexual orientation, but one cannot be either "straight" or "gay" without being active. One can be effeminate or masculine without sexual activity, nor is either characteristic intrinsically sinful. But terms such as "straight" and "gay" imply an actively lived sexual orientation, and neither is appropriate to the clerical state. The clerical state is for dedication to God and neighbor.

The answer for all clergy is celibacy. Plain and simple, otherwise we are just placing weapons in the hands of the enemies of the church. The rest can be chalked up to human weakness.

Gideon Ertner said...

I have no reason to doubt the observations of the good priest, but - what does that last sentence mean? That he's gone AWOL? If a priest quits his ministry because he is actually harassed by his Bishop, that is one thing, but if he does it because he is not 'listened to' or merely perceives injustices, it is quite another.

Oliver said...

What better refuge for such people within the priesthood! Being paid for their physical affectations on the altar, a plentiful supply of altar boys to sodomise and the company of like-minded perverts is surely one of the more colourful swan songs of the Christian era.

Gideon Ertner said...

PKTP,

It is my impression that a considerable number of people of both sexes experience transient episodes of sexual emotions toward their own sex during adolescence. As is the case with much sexual emotion towards the opposite sex during that thoroughly confused phase of one's life, I don't think such emotions are a good predictor of patterns of sexual emotion or behaviour in adulthood.

As for the Instruction you are referring to (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html), it states that a person who has experienced homosexual emotions during his life must have "clearly overcome" them within three years of diaconal ordination. I'll give you that this statment is somewhat fuzzy and ought to be clarified as meaning that there may not have been any form of sexual emotions towards the male sex for three straight years - in which case I would consider it obvious that the person in question cannot in any meaningful way be described as a homosexual.

(On a further note, though, in my opinion, those three years ought to be relative to admittance to seminary, and not to ordination.)

Stéphane said...

Anonymous: Isee what you mean but have ever noted that most pedophiles are heterosexual - and usually married - men? In other words, ordaining married men to the priesthood would hardly change anything. The problem is the scourge.

Gideon Ertner said...

Anonymous @ 03:06

No, the problem is not celibacy. Celibacy has always been difficult for individual priests to live and for the Church to enforce, but the Church (the Western part at least) has always felt that it was worth the while.

The priesthood cannot escape being influenced by the general state of society. When public moral standards are low, priestly moral standards will tend to be low as well. But the converse is true as well: society is also influenced by the priesthood, and thus a priesthood with high moral standards can actually heighten public moral standards. So the answer is not to give up and lower standards for priests (which will anyway lead them to decline further downward to the level of general public morality, with widespread adultery, contraception, etc.), but to heighten standards and make the priests a vanguard for a new blossoming of the virtue of chastity in the general society.

In other words: the faithful, as a whole, will only be so good as their Pastors, and frequently a good deal worse. If we want to be holy, we should strive for ever-holier Pastors.

LeonG said...

This undoubtedly demonstrates that the current pontificate is doing absolutely nothing to halt the inexorable slide of the modernist presbyterate into sodomy & eventual oblivion. This is well known in any case among those of us who study such trends. With Niderauer, Levada and Wuerl, among others, as favoured papal appointees what else can one expect. Couple this with toothless documents about sodomy in NO seminaries and the hermeneutic of rupture with the pre-conciliar church is validated yet further.

Another factor is certain too. The post-conciliar papacies all share the similar abysmal record for liberal policies where this abomination is concerned. The fatal risk to the public mental and physical health is unquestionable scientifically. Spriritually, Sacred Scriptures give adequate warnings.

When will the post-conciliar papacy wake up from its studied somnolence on such a devastating plague?

beng said...

Pablo, may I ask what is the source for the story of St. Leo's letter being edited supernaturally upon placing it on the tomb of St. Peter?

Dan Hunter said...

It is very simple.

If Christ was celibate than the "Alter Christus" should be celibate.

It is similar to the marriage vow, but celibate and very possible, since, "all things are possible with God."

J:G: Rathkaj said...

I have observed the this scandalous infiltration of the sodomites already in the late 1950ies in Brazilian seminaries but also in some Roman colleges later in the 1960ies. I have not seen one of them beeing dismissed. The officials of course smothered this fact. So long the Holy See holds up this shameful policy of keeping secret this and does not ultimately take serious steps beside some ridicolous alibi-actions against this decade long sheer insanity the Roman See still becomes an accessory to the crimes of this evil perverts against children. Today things are so worse in numerous dioceses that I would strongly dissuade young men to enter a seminary which is anyway a anachronistic way to educate future priests and now also a popular place for "gay-culture") or to serve at the altar.

Gus said...

Alban and Hebdomadary,
Thank you for pointing out the elephant in the room: that in this priest's all too public denunciation of the violation of celibacy (and possibly having left public ministry without permission)he is in violation of obedience. Furthermore, he actually seems to be condeming priests with a homosexual orientation for being too obedient!
IMO the great problem with the post-Vat II implementation of the Conciliar decrees was the wholesale disobedience to what the Magisterium had actually taught at the Council.
Disobedience, and the arrogance from which it comes, is the first sin; it is the giving in to temptation of the devil.
I much rather have a priest who is obedient (and celibate, of course), whether he is homosexual or not, than one who is not obedient, whether he is heterosexual or not.
Additionally, there have always been priests with a homosexual orientation but who have excelled in holiness by being obedient, celibate, and poor. An example of this may well be Fr. Mychel Judge, OFM, (the first recorded victim of 9/11) who was a chaplain to the NY city's firefighters, a celibate homosexual, and a holy priest.
The sex abuse scandal is just about that: sex abuse, not homosexuality.
Ephebophilia (sex with post-adolescents minors) and pedophilia (sex with pre-adolescent minors) is not about homosexuality or heterosexuality whether the child victim is male or female. Its about an emotionally immature and uncosciounable adult who preys on children. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation but rather with a paraphilia and psychopathy.
Evidence for this lack of connection between the sex abuse scandal and homosexuality can be seen that in that no more than an estimated 3-4% of priests have engaged in this abomination (similar prevalence rate to what is found in the general population) while at least 30% of priests are reportedly homosexual (whether celibate or not).
It seems to me then that the problem in humanity and the Church comes from the giving in to the temptations of the devil, the world, and the flesh and why we need holy priests and Religious who live out the Gospel values of obedience, poverty, and celibacy.
IMO disobedience and lack of celibacy, by either homosexuals or heterosexuals, cannot be tolerated but priests who are obedient and celibate homosexuals are fine.

Pax et Bonum

Jordanes said...

have ever noted that most pedophiles are heterosexual - and usually married - men?

That's because almost all humans are "heterosexual" (sexually oriented to or attracted to the opposite sex). But have you ever noticed that almost all pedophile priests are sodomites? And have you noticed that the overwhelming majority of victims of priestly sexual deviancy were teenage or prepubescent boys rather than girls?

In other words, ordaining married men to the priesthood would hardly change anything.

Yes, married priests is not the solution to homosexual pederasty in the priesthood, because the kind of men who prey on boys are usually "not the marrying kind" anyway.

Jordanes said...

Ephebophilia (sex with post-adolescents minors) and pedophilia (sex with pre-adolescent minors) is not about homosexuality or heterosexuality whether the child victim is male or female. Its about an emotionally immature and uncosciounable adult who preys on children. This has nothing to do with sexual orientation but rather with a paraphilia and psychopathy.

Rubbish. Most pedophiles prey on either boys or girls, not both -- and in the Catholic priesthood almost all pedophiles have preyed on boys, most usually teenage boys. That is, they were homosexuals attracted to youth, much as normal men tend to be attracted to youth and beauty in young women. There is clearly a strong component of "sexual orientation" (as it is called) in pedophilia. It's also the case that same-sex attraction disorder frequently goes hand-in-hand with emotional immaturity.

Gus said...

Gideon Ertner and Dan Hunter,
I agree completely. I used to support optional celibacy for the Western clergy until I realized that first and foremost we need priests (and consecrated Sisters and Brothers) who live out fully the Gospel values of obedience, poverty, and celibacy/chastity in order to draw all the faithful to resist, in the way appropriate to their own state in life, the temptations of the devil, the world, and the flesh. I also realized that the Lord, in His compassion and generosity is not going to deny the grace of celibacy to those He calls to the priesthood and Consecrated life. Finally, I for one don't believe the Church would be edified by any more radical changes such as the abrogation of celibacy would represent. Any more radical changes at this time would keep those committed to the "spirit of Vat II" continuing to agitate for even greater changes such as women's ordination. IMO the Church needs a period of stability to integrate the many changes of these past 40 some years and to make corrections as needed to changes made in violation of Vat II. We are exhausted and need to recuperate. Hopefully when we do we'll be focused on an authentic agiornamiento that will revitalize the Church's mission to evangelize non-Catholics and re-catechize/catechize nominal ones.

Pax et Bonum

Gus said...

Jordanes,
While it is true that the line between a 17 year old and an 18 year old is somewhat arbitrary and so sexual attraction to a 17 year minor may be understandable, the fact remains that child sex abuse is not about a transient sexual attraction to an almost adult adolescent but rather about the deliberate, predatory behavior to seduce, manipulate, coerce, or force that minor into sexual activity. Ephebophiles/pedophiles don't have that transient sexual attraction rather they have a permanent sexual obsession with the perversion of minors. Furthermore, their behavior is as clear an example of psychopathy as one can find, i.e., lack of conscious for violating the rights of others either through sexual or violent means. This has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality whether the victim is a male or a female. Ephebophiles/pedophiles are predatory in (and lack remorse for) sexually abusing children. A true homosexual/heterosexual is an adult who is sexually attracted to other adults of the same/different gender and is mature enough to resist any transient sexual attraction to a minor of either gender.

Pax et Bonum

Joe B said...

Tell you what ... why don't you homosexuals and enablers start your own religion and we'll continue with our celibacy requirement, and we'll see who is viable after about 3 years.

You won't because you know you're dead wrong.

Paul Haley said...

Dear P.K.T.P.,

With all due respect if 30% of diocesan priests are homosexuals and they have canonical status and faculties while the SSPX and many independents do not, this is a state of necessity in my opinion.

You and I both know that traditional priestly formation is far different and imposes far more strict rules of behavior for priests and priest-candidates than that in the NO seminaries.

You and I disagree on this; I will not convince you and you will not convince me. Canon Law states "a person who acted with due moderation against an unjust aggressor for the sake of legitimate self defense or defense of another" is not liable for a penalty because the state of necessity voids the penalty. The self-defense in this case can be either physical or spiritual.

The SSPX would be acting in defense of those being seduced by the effeminate queers and sexual perverts. I perceive the necessity. Canon 1323, subparas 5 & 7. There is also the horrendous problem of confessing one's sins to these predators, all the while thinking they are legitimate, while in actual fact they are plotting one's spiritual demise. Would I as a traditional priest want to have anything to do with such monsters? No, I would not.

The question, again, is whether or not the S.S.P.X could have operated safely under the Pope, while being 100% independent of the local bishops under an apostolic administration.

How can the SSPX and the other independents "operate safely under the Pope", when the Pope and the bishops provide canonical status and faculties to the homos and predators while refusing same to the SSPX and the independents? And don't bring up the AA in Brazil as an example since that is only a microcosm of the Church at large.

Theoretically, it is possible but in actual fact it presents two different churches and two different concepts of moral theology. Or, should I say one moral theology and one immoral theology.

No, I don't recommend union with such people until they at least clean up their act. If His Holiness were to take resolute action against these unjust aggressors to the spiritual welfare of the Faithful then I might change my mind. If he were to insist on proper priestly formation in NO seminaries, then I might change my mind. If he were to remove the recalcitrant bishops who undermine the MP, I might change my mind. But, as I said before, it's not up to me; it's up to the SSPX and the independents.

Mark said...

Homosexuals and their enablers express much pride that "most pedophiles are heterosexual." What this factoid obscures is that nearly, but not quite 50% of pedophile assaults are perpetrated by the 1 to 2% of the population that are homosexual.

That means that, on average, a homosexual is nearly 50 times more dangerous to children than any random heterosexual.

Mark said...

@ Gideon Ertner

The Catholic Medical Association did a one year study of ALL the extant research on homosexuality. Their conclusions can be found here:

http://www.narth.com/docs/hope.html

I believe this is a fair summary of their salient findings:

Despite decades of education, homosexuals still tend to be promiscuous and to engage in high rates of high risk and often anonymous sex practices (including fisting, torture, sodomy, coprophagy, vampirism, and other paraphilias) that result in the exchange of blood, urine, feces, and semen yielding much higher rates of deadly disease than in the normal population. The medical consequences of acts common among homosexuals and the disproportionately increased rates of violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and psychopathology among homosexuals cause homosexuals to die decades younger than normal people. Despite the protestations of homosexual activists to the contrary, about one-third of adult homosexuals engage in sex with minors, putting teens and children at risk from their sick predatory practices.

Homosexuals are not “born that way.” There is no “gay gene.” God did not “make them that way.” Trauma, wrongful education, and sin disrupt normal heterosexual development, causing a disproportion of violent and predatory behavior by homosexuals, especially against minors.

Too, the claim of a “gay gene” is just an illogical diversion, a “red herring.” Don’t doctors treat diseases like diabetes with a genetic component??? Even if homosexuality were genetic, doctors—and priests—should treat the disease! In fact, homosexuality was removed from the diagnostic listing of mental illnesses in a late night, poorly attended session of the American Psychiatric Association following years of violent protests by homosexual activists.

Same-sex Attraction Disorderis a Preventable and curable CHOICE!

S.A.D. is a symptom of abnormal development, not the proper essence of a person's identity. If the emotional and developmental needs of children are properly met by family and peers, same sex attraction is very unlikely. Early recognition of Gender Identity Disorder and Chronic Juvenile Unmasculinity allows early intervention. Catholics can call upon a heavenly treasure of graces. Freedom from all homosexual behavior, fantasy, or attraction is attainable for many.

Sodomy causes early death of the body and, if unrepented, eternal death of the soul, so there is nothing "gay" about S.A.D.

Paul Haley said...

First of all, let me address the matter of a supposedly homosexual, celibate, "obedient" priest. How do we know he is homosexual? By his effeminate traits or by some public display or admission of his inclination? Usually, we know it because the individual(s) proclaim it publicly. And in the case of a priest hearing the most secret sins and faults of others in the confessional, that is an opportunity for scandal we must seek to avoid, it seems, at all cost.

Look, priests are supposed to be role models for young boys who may one day aspire to the priesthood. And, for that very reason we would want, I presume, the priest to be manly, virile and dedicated to his vocation in much the same way as the father of a family is dedicated to his.

Does this preclude those with a so-called homosexual orientation from being ordained? No, if they can keep this orientation under control and there is the rub. Most homosexuals that I hear of are unable and unwilling to keep their orientation under control and, instead, insist on proclaiming to the world their "orientation" as if it were some badge of courage.

There are many occupations that homosexuals can engage in that do not provide such opportunity for scandal. One would hope that they would be led to such occupations rather than to the priesthood. At least that's my view for what it's worth.dyes

Anonymous said...

I also endorse Randy Engel's book. I am in the process of reading for the seventh time. It's an eye opener.

Another excellent book is "The Faithful Departed" by Phil Lawler. Also, "AmChurch Comes Out" by Paul Likoudis.

Avoid Jason Berry's book unless you think that the cure for homosexual priests is a non-celibate priesthood. I wonder if the people that propose this ludicrous solution, like Anonymous, ever think things through. I'm not a fan of Fr. Benedict Groeschel by any means, but he did once say that if the key to happiness was contained in marriage, there would be no divorce.

These homosexual priests are destroying souls. They should be tossed out immediately. And anyone showing the slightest tendency in that direction should never be not only ordained but allowed entrance to seminary.

The fact that we are not absolutely enraged shows how desensitized we have become to evil.


The Vatican has known about this for decades and done...nothing!! Why?

Delphina

Jordanes said...

child sex abuse is not about a transient sexual attraction to an almost adult adolescent but rather about the deliberate, predatory behavior to seduce, manipulate, coerce, or force that minor into sexual activity.

No, it's often about both. . . and often the sexual attraction is not transient.

Ephebophiles/pedophiles don't have that transient sexual attraction rather they have a permanent sexual obsession with the perversion of minors.

No, they have both. . . and often their sexual attraction is not at all transient, which is how they come to have a sexual obsession with the perversion of minors.

Furthermore, their behavior is as clear an example of psychopathy as one can find, i.e., lack of conscious for violating the rights of others either through sexual or violent means.

I disagree. Many of them can feel guilt about what they do and are not at all lacking a conscience. Others are psychopathic.

This has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality whether the victim is a male or a female.

If that were true, pedophiles/ephebophiles wouldn't tend to exclusively choose their victims from just one gender or the other.

Ephebophiles/pedophiles are predatory in (and lack remorse for) sexually abusing children.

No, it's got nothing to do with whether or not they feel remorse for what they do.

A true homosexual/heterosexual is an adult who is sexually attracted to other adults of the same/different gender and is mature enough to resist any transient sexual attraction to a minor of either gender.

You talk as if there is no moral qualitative distinction between homosexuals and those with a normal, natural sexual orientation. Anyway the idea that male sodomites who seduce boys, or female sodomites who seduce girls, aren't "true" homosexuals, is risible balderdash. Homosexuality has to do with aberrent, perverse sexual and psychological attraction and orientation towards persons of the same gender -- the age of the victim or partner is an independent factor.

Eugene said...

And what will Rome do about this situation? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, you can bet your money on it. You can rant and rave about it, but nothing will change, as usual.

Jordanes said...

More evidence that a married, non-celibate priesthood won't solve the problem of homosexuality and pederasty in the priesthood:

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=3732

QuantaCura01 said...

Pope St. Pius X was correct. If you let them into the seminary look what becomes of the Church. This book could represent many diocese in the United States. In the diocese of Fresno, Ca., Bishop Steinbock has not problem ordaining and even promoting sodomites.

Pablo said...

Dear Mr. Beng,

Salutations.

Pope Saint Leo the Great was one of two Popes that were also Doctors of the Church. The other was Pope Saint Gregory the Great.

This humble servant is of Mexican descent; as with Saint Juan Diego, I am a nobody.

When I comment on issues of the Faith, I go to the writings of the Popes, the Saints, Priests and Nuns for that of which I speak.

In my comment on the manner in which a Holy Father should use to resolve problems within the Church, my comment was created from the writing of a Nun: Sr. Catherine Goddard Clark, M.I.C.M.

It is my policy to never question the teaching of anyone with an St., Fr., Sr., or His Holiness before their name.

Our Priests are falling because of our lack of Faith, and penance. It is my hope, Mr. Beng, that you would join us in at least one Hail Mary a day for our Priests and Nuns.

I hope you enjoy the article written by the good Sister.

http://faculty.saintleo.edu/reynolds/personal/Saint%20Leo.htm

Attila the Hun part of her story is my favorite part.

God be with you.

pablo

*

Anonymous said...

"Homosexuals and their enablers express much pride that "most pedophiles are heterosexual." What this factoid obscures is that nearly, but not quite 50% of pedophile assaults are perpetrated by the 1 to 2% of the population that are homosexual."

But in a priesthood where 30% of men are homosexual, the higher numbers of abuse of boys is less disproportional. Dont get me wrong, it's still disproportional by something like 2:1 or 3:1, most of the abuse WAS of boys...but it isnt 50:1 in the priesthood, because you're starting with a much higher number of homosexuals in the priesthood to begin with than in the general population.

I will again point out, however, that while they're more like to be the abusers...child abuse was only a tiny percent of the number of priests breaking celibacy. Most do it with adults, and in that case, homosexuals are not breaking it any more often than heterosexuals.

My main point, as some people have brought up, is that this is not a "pedophile crisis" it's not an "ephebophile crisis" it's not a "gay crisis"...it's a crisis with priests breaking celibacy in general. The greatest number of whom are doing it with adult women! Which begs the question of the viability and integrity of the system as a whole.

Anonymous said...

"The answer for all clergy is celibacy. Plain and simple, otherwise we are just placing weapons in the hands of the enemies of the church. The rest can be chalked up to human weakness."

That's explaining-away the problem, not explaining it.

Yes, it would be great if human beings could just be chaste no-problem, and all sorts of men who felt called to serve the church could just embrace it with no qualms about what they will be missing and no darker psychosexual motives.

The question, and the reason I bring up ending institutionalized celibacy, is how to deal with humanity in a world where we are fallen and priests clearly ARENT being celibate (and never were).

And historically, they havent been. Mandatory celibacy for diocesan priests has been a huge facade since it started. In our day, half of priests arent really celibate. In more faithful (or more repressed) times, perhaps only a quarter werent. But those numbers are still laughably high.

People who say "changing the system isnt necessary, we just need to actually follow the current one" are like people who say communism could be okay and just "was never really tried historically" but that it "does work, on paper".

The fact is there are systematic problems with communism which mitigate against it ever "really being tried" in practice. And there are psycho-social dynamics in play that mitigate against mandatory celibacy among diocesan priests ever not containing a huge dose of hypocrisy and psychosexual immaturity.

If men are truly called to celibacy...they will be called to it whether or not it is bootstrapped to the separate vocation of the secular priesthood. That's the point of a vocation. It isnt an institutional creation, it's from God.

Trying to artificial inflate the number seemingly called to celibacy by tying the two together does more harm than good. It's like a spiritual price-floor placed above the market-determined price.

Sure, it might encourage true celibacy in a few men who, if it werent required, would have become married priests, but the requirement is used by God's providence as the occasion for them reaching for the higher ideal.

But generally I think a vocation is something given by God that you would follow even if it wasnt institutionalized.

And the problems the "higher standard" causes are much more than whatever good the artificial inflation of the numbers is doing: the priesthood comes to attract psychosexually immature men, there is all sorts of secrecy, priests get trapped in addictive cycles of guilt, repentence, abstinence, followed by another fall, there are huge potentials for mutual blackmail, and for priests to adopt liberal sexual morality in the end to justify themselves to themselves because the cognitive dissonance is too much.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And one thing that would have to mean is the end of the facade of "priest-on-a-pedestal" institutionalized celibacy.

Let's remember Christ's words on the matter: "He who IS ABLE to receive this, let him receive it".

Clearly, over half of priests arent able. Which suggests a systematic problem with the whole idea of institutionalizing something that is supposed to be a personal vocation.

Anonymous said...

What a corruption! Thank you Paul VI, JPII and Benedict XVI. You have certainly secured a place in history.

Anonymous said...

"Celibacy has always been difficult for individual priests to live and for the Church to enforce, but the Church (the Western part at least) has always felt that it was worth the while."

THAT'S the whole problem. Not the idea of celibacy for an individual, but the idea of "enforcing" celibacy institutionally. That's just such a wrong approach to it, and frankly rather creepy.

The Church has not "always" felt it worth the while. There was a long history of development in that direction in the West, but it really only became fully institutionalized in 1076.

As for the benefits, the motives are not all pure. First we must remember that the men maintaining mandatory celibacy are ones who have been formed under it's regime. An "old boys club" is going to feel threatened by a change to it's social fabric.

Furthermore, having a putatively celibate clergy lends gravitas to the church's sexual teachings which then make lay Catholics who struggle with keeping them feel more guilty (since all these priests "apparently" [but only apparently] have no problem with it), and traps them in a cycle of guilt and repentance, giving the hierarchy psychological power over them.

Dont misinterpret me. I'm not questioning the truth of the church's sexual morality at all. But manipulating those teachings into a tool for POWER instead of love, is a serious problem that has existed in the Church for a long time.

Anonymous said...

"So the answer is not to give up and lower standards for priests (which will anyway lead them to decline further downward to the level of general public morality, with widespread adultery, contraception, etc.), but to heighten standards and make the priests a vanguard for a new blossoming of the virtue of chastity in the general society."

Again, great on paper. The problem is you cant make people chaste simply by institutionalizing it externally.

If people are going to be truly chaste and/or celibate, it's going to come FROM WITHIN ("he who is able to receive this...") And at that point...the external requirement wouldnt be needed.

The external requirement is a CRUTCH for sexual morality, that supports personal weakness behind an institutional wall of illusion.

"I used to support optional celibacy for the Western clergy until I realized that first and foremost we need priests (and consecrated Sisters and Brothers) who live out fully the Gospel values of obedience, poverty, and celibacy/chastity in order to draw all the faithful to resist, in the way appropriate to their own state in life, the temptations of the devil, the world, and the flesh."

Yes, renewal starts with the consecrated religious and the clergy.

But again, it's only ever going to work if it comes from within. You cant coerce it, and trying to institutionalize the appearance of it externally...just leads to more scandal when people realize just how much of a facade it is in practice.

"Anonymous: I see what you mean but have ever noted that most pedophiles are heterosexual - and usually married - men? In other words, ordaining married men to the priesthood would hardly change anything. The problem is the scourge."

"Most pedophiles" are heterosexual and married simply because most men in general are. PROPORTIONATELY, they are much less likely to abuse. Married men are, demographically, much more psychosexually mature than even many faithful celibate priests.

Simply ordaining married men, of course, wouldnt solve all the problems. Married men can still be problematic and unfaithful, and they obviously would stop problems in the optionally celibate men.

However, opening the priesthood to married men would help to start deconstructing the facade of hypocrisy and secrecy when it comes to celibacy in the priesthood.

If a married man cheats on his wife, she'll find out soon enough and the guy will be publicly exposed.

"Scandal!" some of you will cry, and yes. But avoiding scandal is not supposed to be about covering up sin. The fact that unmarried priests breaking celibacy are less likely to get caught or be exposed...doesnt make that situation any better!

It would also help "ground" the priesthood out of it's own self-contained little world by having more men (the married ones) with support networks outside the priesthood, and which contain women and children.

Most priests come to very much live in the ivory tower of the priesthood, with less and less un-superficial relationships outside it.

Furthermore, having more normal and openly heterosexual guys attending seminaries (they'd live at home, I assume) with their wives and kids around...would probably SCARE AWAY a good chunk of the bitter homosexuals and repressed psychosexually-stunted types who are using the institutionally celibate priesthood merely as an escape or manifestation of their own pathology.

Gus said...

Jordanes,
I don't think you understand the distiction between sexual orientation and paraphilia.
The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, among others, make a distiction between sexual orientation (heterosexuality, bisexuality, homosexuality) and paraphilia (pedophilia, ephebophilia, sadism, masochism, transvestism).
Sexual orientation is predicated of an adult based on her or his attraction to other adults. Sexual orientation cannot properly be used to refer to minors nor to those attracted to minors. Please see the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Pax et Bonum

P.S. I most certainly am not equating homosexuality with heterosexuality but I am challenging those who equate homosexuality with ephebophilia via the child sex abuse scandal.
The fact that most children abused were adolescent males probably had more to do with the access that these priest predators had to that population than to any other single factor. It was customary for parents to allow their teenage boys to go off on overnight trips with priests eventhough they would never have allowed the same thing with their teenage daughters. Opportunity along with the paraphilia gave rise to the abuse. Most priests, of course, in fact, the overwhelming majority of priests, whether homosexual or heterosexual, never engaged in this abuse. But the tiny minority that did has unfairly tarnished the priesthood and become one more unfortunate point of contention between Church liberals and conservatives in the ongoing culture wars; liberals blaming the abuse on mandatory celibacy and conservatives blaming it on homosexual clergy. Both characterizations are inaccurate. It is neither celibacy nor homosexuality that leads to ephebophilia but rather psychopathy.

P.P.S. I disagree that ephephophiles/pedophiles are not by definition psychopaths. The detailed stories of the victims of this abominable abuse tell tales that reveal monsters that preyed on children. To sexualize a child involves by necessity premeditated seduction, manipulation, coercion, and force that evidently excludes remorse; this is psychopathy. To say that ephebophiles/pedophiles are not psychopaths is like saying that rapists aren't antisocial.

dcs said...

With all due respect if 30% of diocesan priests are homosexuals and they have canonical status and faculties while the SSPX and many independents do not, this is a state of necessity in my opinion.

It's not a state of necessity if the SSPX does not have faculties through their own fault (according to Bp. Fellay, they were offered an apostolic administration and rejected it).

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

Anecdotal evidence isnt evidence at all.

Furthermore, as I said, it is silly to frame this in the context of merely the "abusers".

Yes, married protestant ministers are more likely to abuse a child; namely, their OWN daughter or son. But that's comparing apples and oranges since celibate Catholic priests DONT HAVE their own children (generally).

Furthermore, if we are looking merely at the "abusers" we are forgetting that constitutes only small percent of the larger problem...which is that half of allegedly "celibate" priests...arent celibate!

Protestants dont have this scandal, because they dont claim to be celibate in the first place. And when it comes to adultery and such, there's much less secrecy. Sure, the adulterous pastor may be disgraced...but at least he is disgraced and thus can be taken out of ministry! The secrecy of mandatory celibacy allows for no such natural purging mechanism.

Anonymous said...

I'd rather have a handful of chaste and holy priests than what we have today.

Did it come as a surpirse to these men when they learned they were expected to live a celibate life? No one forced them to become priests. And as for the silly argument that they're going to do it anyway so...

Can't anyone elevate themselves out of the gutter today? Why is almost everyone so carnal minded? There is no doubt that if priests spent more time before the Blessed Sacrament and staying close to Our Lady they would have no problem. Perhaps a little fasting would help too.

Face it - a married priesthood would solve nothing and only create more problems. Who would support them financially? You? Some of us can't even make ends meet as it is, and we're going to support a priest, his wife, and children on top of our own families? What if things don't work out and his wife runs off with the parish council president? Or youth minister? What if his daughter comes home pregnant? Has an abortion? What if his son decides one day to declare himself a homosexual? Or his daughter a lesbian? The list of possible scenarios is endless!

If anything looks "great on paper" it's the absurd pro-married priesthood apologia. You are saying that man is not capable of elevating himself? Too bad you weren't around to advise St. Augustine.

Jordanes said...

Someone said: THAT'S the whole problem. Not the idea of celibacy for an individual, but the idea of "enforcing" celibacy institutionally. That's just such a wrong approach to it, and frankly rather creepy. ***

You have a warped understanding of the Latin Church's decision to ordain only men who are called to celibacy as priests. You talk about "enforcing" celibacy institutionally, as if the Church intends to ordain men who are not called to celibacy and then force them to be celibate against their will. The problem isn't celibacy, "institutionalised" or not. The problem, as ever, is infidelity.

As if there is any alternative to "institutionalised" celibacy in a religious institution besides married and/or unchaste priests. . . .

I will again point out, however, that while they're more like to be the abusers...child abuse was only a tiny percent of the number of priests breaking celibacy.

Unless you're talking about places like Africa or Latin America, by far most of the sexual misconduct has been homosexual abuse of boys and young men.

Most do it with adults, and in that case, homosexuals are not breaking it any more often than heterosexuals. ***

There is a distinction between a sodomite who should never have been ordained at all, and a man who may or may not have been called to celibacy breaking a vow of celibacy.

Furthermore, having a putatively celibate clergy lends gravitas to the church's sexual teachings which then make lay Catholics who struggle with keeping them feel more guilty (since all these priests "apparently" [but only apparently] have no problem with it), and traps them in a cycle of guilt and repentance, giving the hierarchy psychological power over them.

I'd doubt I'm very far off in detecting this as the underlying motive for your opposition to the Latin Church's decision to seek and retain priests only among the celibate. Guilt for sexual sin.

Jordanes said...

Gus said: I don't think you understand the distiction between sexual orientation and paraphilia.
The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association


Neither of which liberal political organisations masquerading as scientific fraternities have much if any credibility, as they no longer recognise homosexuality as aberrent.

That said, I recognise the distinction between homosexual perversion in general and the various kinds of homosexual perversions. Many if not most homosexuals don't seduce minors after they have reached adulthood, but quite a lot of them are "chicken hawks."

Sexual orientation cannot properly be used to refer to minors nor to those attracted to minors.

Sure it can, and it's erroneous not to.

Please see the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

No thanks. That manual is prepared by the same people who want us to believe homosexuality isn't a perversion and sodomy isn't a vice.

I most certainly am not equating homosexuality with heterosexuality but I am challenging those who equate homosexuality with ephebophilia via the child sex abuse scandal.


And yet it is still the case that most the abusers were homosexuals seducing teenage boys.

The fact that most children abused were adolescent males probably had more to do with the access that these priest predators had to that population than to any other single factor.

Oh sure, there's a role for opportunity and access, but nevertheless those who practice sodomy are sodomites. They victimised teenage boys because they were homosexual deviants.

Most priests, of course, in fact, the overwhelming majority of priests, whether homosexual or heterosexual, never engaged in this abuse.

Heterosexual priests, however, were much, much, much less to likely to sodomise boys than the homosexual priests.

liberals blaming the abuse on mandatory celibacy and conservatives blaming it on homosexual clergy. Both characterizations are inaccurate.

But the conservative view, as you present it (an oversimplification) is far closer to the truth than the liberal view.

It is neither celibacy nor homosexuality that leads to ephebophilia but rather psychopathy.

Rubbish. Not every adult who seeks teenagers for sex (or sex-like behaviors) is devoid of a moral conscience.

I disagree that ephephophiles/pedophiles are not by definition psychopaths.

Noted. You're wrong, though. Many of them are psychopathic, but the presence of guilt doesn't mean someone isn't a pedophile or ephebophile.

Someone said: Anecdotal evidence isnt evidence at all.

Then why do you call it anecdotal evidence? You're confused. And you didn't read that news report very closely (if at all), did you? It's about a married CATHOLIC priest, not a married Protestant minister.

Paul Haley said...

dcs said...

"It's not a state of necessity if the SSPX does not have faculties through their own fault (according to Bp. Fellay, they were offered an apostolic administration and rejected it)".

They believe evidently that it is not possible at this time to unify with the very hierarchs who are responsible for the crisis, or state of necessity, or whatever you want to call it. Unity means more than just an agreement to agree to disagree.

It means practicing the Faith in unison in all essential facets including liturgy and belief. They are engaged in trying to reach the common ground doctrinally and we'll just have to see what results from that. Considering, however, that the CDF is headed by Levada, I'm not optimistic.

Considering what has happened in the Church lately, I am not hopeful that a quick resolution will be achieved. Every perverse action in the church that inhibits such discussions, IMO, is an impediment to reaching that common ground.

Show me strong and resolute action by Rome to eliminate such actions and the perpetrators and the discussions will be more fruitful.

Don't keep blaming the SSPX and independents for sticking to the firm belief that doctrinal problems must be resolved before true union can be achieved. They don't want to paper over differences and I agree with that approach.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous priest psychologist states,
"But generally I think a vocation is something given by God that you would follow even if it wasnt institutionalized."

My comment:
Follow how?
In the lax spirit of V2?

It has been said that it is very difficult for a religious to be saved unless he/she realizes his/her vocation. Some religious prefer to remain out of new church to save their souls.

In centuries past those that could not enter an order could join a Third Order and do penance, fast, pray do good works. The Third Orders of today are not the same (I know I am in one).

Being a hermit in the world can suffice and lacks community.

Anonymous priest psychologist goes on to say, "Clearly, over half of priests arent able. Which suggests a systematic problem with the whole idea of institutionalizing something that is supposed to be a personal vocation."

My Comment: I think you are 'horizontializing' the vocation and sacrament. I would like to hear what the faithful traditional Catholic religious and priests have to say on the matter.


Disgruntled layman

Mark said...

History of the deletion of homosexuality from the psychiatric disease nomenclature (DSM-IV) shows that politics prevailed over science. Here is a detailed history available in Google Books:

http://tinyurl.com/m9xvfg


PS I had to check my compass today. Because I found myself agreeing with Jordanes for the first time, I considered the possibility that the magnetic poles had shifted. :-)

Mark said...

Gus' attempt to segregate pedophilia from homosexuality denies the fact that there is enormous overlap between the disorders.

Regarding the politics of psychiatric nomeclature, a shorter version than the book excerpt linked above:

http://www.narth.com/docs/apavote.html

An executive summary piercing many of the false claims of homosexualists:

http://www.narth.com/docs/journalsummary.html

The full journal article is available here:

http://www.narth.com/menus/journal.html


Pedophilia and the APA:

http://www.narth.com/docs/pedcrisis.html


As a Catholic I have decried the largely ammoral nature of psychiatry and psychotherapy. Because of that, I find NARTH's assessment quite poignant:

"...The very fact that APA admitted to holding a moral viewpoint on a psychological issue ought to have opened up a broad new challenge to psychology's authority and its moral presumptions as our culture's new secular priesthood. Indeed, the time would was then ripe for moral philosophers to issue a fruitful challenge to the entire concept of psychological health--its inherent limitations, its value-laden nature, and its utter meaningless without dependence on an underlying social-moral philosophy."

Amen to that assessment.

Gus said...

Jordanes,
You think I'm wrong. Noted.
Obviously, I think that you are the one that is very wrong on blaming the clergy sex abuse scandal on homosexual priests instead of on ephebophile and psychopathic ones.
I'm tiring of the going round and round so let's cut to the chase: I think you are using the scandal to advance your agenda of opposition to homosexual priests whether they are child abusers or not, whether they are celibate or not, whether they are holy or not.
I ask you: Do you believe that a homoexual man who lives out faithfully the promises of obedience and celibacy could be a holy priest?
If you answer no, then there is nothing further for us to discuss. If you answer yes then please clarify the conditions and who knows maybe there is some common ground between us.

Pax et Bonum

Anonymous said...

"Did it come as a surpirse to these men when they learned they were expected to live a celibate life? No one forced them to become priests."

No, of course not. But that doesnt stop the fact that the celibacy is institutional for many of these men as opposed to individual.

"Can't anyone elevate themselves out of the gutter today? Why is almost everyone so carnal minded? There is no doubt that if priests spent more time before the Blessed Sacrament and staying close to Our Lady they would have no problem. Perhaps a little fasting would help too."

You are living under the assumptions of a psychosexually healthy person, which is only natural if you yourself are normal.

You are assuming that these priests are psychologically mature, truly called to celibacy even independent of it being tied to the priesthood, and are merely having a moral weakness giving into temptation. And if that were the case, your solution might work just fine.

But in reality, many of these men are psychosexually underdeveloped, were perhaps not called to celibacy in the first place (or even the priesthood at all...but they're desperate and will frankly take almost ANYONE willing to be "celibate"), and live in a clerical culture that is more about maintaining the appearance of celibacy than about actually practicing it.

"Who would support them financially? You? Some of us can't even make ends meet as it is, and we're going to support a priest, his wife, and children on top of our own families?"

Who says we'd have to? Permanent deacons work on a volunteer basis. I imagine that the married priests would have no more time commitment than our current married deacons.

It could be more like the East. We'd have much smaller parishes, perhaps eventually 10-20 chapels for every current parish, with Mass (and Office) on Sunday and Solemnities, but not daily.

The priest would otherwise be a working man like any other (I mean...everyone's going to be at church during that time anyway, so he's not giving up much extra time).

The optionally celibate men could then still run the "archparishes" (ie, our current parishes) providing daily Mass, spiritual direction, funerals and weddings, etc. Only these celibates would be full-time salaried employees of the diocese. But they would have to work in close concert with the priests in the little parishes.

You have to use a little imagination. You're still imagining the Big Bureaucratic Institution model of the priesthood. When I suggest married priests...I'm simply not imagining it would still work like that.

Anonymous said...

"What if things don't work out and his wife runs off with the parish council president? Or youth minister? What if his daughter comes home pregnant? Has an abortion? What if his son decides one day to declare himself a homosexual? Or his daughter a lesbian? The list of possible scenarios is endless!"

So?? So what if any of this happens?

To me, these examples prove to me that a lot of people supporting celibacy are really supporting mainly the APPEARANCE of celibacy. They dont really care if it is followed as long as no one finds out. Well, I've got good news for you: what you want exists today already.

But seriously, avoiding scandal is not about covering up sin or hiding it away from sight. I think you misunderstand what Scandal is. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on scandal clarifies: "Still less can that be considered scandal, which only arouses comment, indignation, horror etc; it is true that the act arouses indignation and in common parlance it is often called scandalous, but this way of speaking is inaccurate, and in strictly theological terminology it is not the sin of scandal."

Scandal is leading another into sin. It is not merely arousing comment, indignation, horror, etc, by your sin. While one should be discrete and not flaunt such things casually, obviously, there is no particular virtue in keeping sin hidden. That's the whole point of confession, which used to be Public, mind you.

The fact that 50% of priests are breaking celibacy IN SECRET makes their actions no less scandalous than the "out in the open" scenarios you propose. There is no greater merit just because the facade of institutional celibacy let's priests sins be kept private, covered-up!!

Frankly, having stuff like that out in the open is healthier, and rather than providing a priest-on-a-pedestal "ideal"...could be teaching moments for showing how Catholic men should handle such things in their families, because trust me, they are having to do so all the time, and very often met with clueless, out of touch priests when it comes to handling it.

"You are saying that man is not capable of elevating himself? Too bad you weren't around to advise St. Augustine."

A man is incapable of elevating himself. Only God can elevate a man. Not everyone is called to celibacy. It is a personal, individual vocation. It cannot be artificially created institutionally by bootstrapping it to another vocation. "He who is able" should receive it. It implies some men arent.

"You have a warped understanding of the Latin Church's decision to ordain only men who are called to celibacy as priests."

Again, if that's what it really was, I'd have no problems. That's a nice ideal. IF there were enough, and IF they were really following celibacy, it makes perfect sense for that pool of men to be our "first resort" for drawing our priests from.

However, you're letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. There is a shortage of priests. And HALF the men we do have...dont even follow the celibacy. At that point, the question has to be asked.

Anonymous said...

"You talk about "enforcing" celibacy institutionally, as if the Church intends to ordain men who are not called to celibacy and then force them to be celibate against their will. The problem isn't celibacy, "institutionalised" or not. The problem, as ever, is infidelity."

The problem is that not as many men are actually called to celibacy personally as the Church needs to be priests, so they ordain lots of men without asking too many questions, who are psychosexually stunted and prone to breaking celibacy, as long as they are willing to maintain the appearances of celibacy. And then put a lot of energy into covering things up and maintaining the facade.

Again, if there were enough men truly internally called to celibacy in the first place...then why the external requirement? If all sorts of men allegedly would have been celibate ANYWAY (as we can assume they would if its a true vocation), regardless of the external requirement, then why the need for the external requirement?

The fact is, you can't enforce virtue. You can provide a more or less conducive environment, but in the end you cannot socially engineer virtue into existence. Institutionalized celibacy attempts to artificially socially engineer a greater number of celibate vocations. You cant do that. The proof is in the pudding.

"As if there is any alternative to "institutionalised" celibacy in a religious institution besides married and/or unchaste priests"

Married priests, yes. Also emphasizing the personal, individual nature of the celibate vocation (as opposed to it being just an institutional pre-requisite) for those called to it.

"Unless you're talking about places like Africa or Latin America, by far most of the sexual misconduct has been homosexual abuse of boys and young men."

Hahaha! Are you serious?? The statistics are out there, and not even denied by the bishops. Right here in the USA and Western Europe...only like 2-3% of priests were involved in illegal abuse of minors. Compared to something like 33% involved with adult women and 17% with adult men at some point in the previous 3 years.

"I'd doubt I'm very far off in detecting this as the underlying motive for your opposition to the Latin Church's decision to seek and retain priests only among the celibate. Guilt for sexual sin."

Not at all. I personally do feel called to celibacy. Whether I will live that out simply as a single person or in some ecclesiastical setting remains to be seen. But it is a vocation independent of any other I may have, let me tell you.

My motive is twofold. First, being creeped out by a lot of priests and seminarians I have met. There is something psychosexually stunted and institutionalized feeling about a lot of them. A shallowness of affect. A repression when it comes to authentic sexuality. An adolescent personality.

Secondly, my shock and indignation at finding out that around 50% of priests have broken celibacy with another person in the previous 3 years. And that no one within the hierarchy really even disputes that! I was baffled. I tried to look for alternate explanations for a long time. But eventually I put 2 and 2 together.

Any other extrapolations are from my own investigations into how sex is used at the service of Power within the clergy.

Garrett said...

Dan Hunter,

The Church disagrees with you concerning the idea that because Christ was celibate, therefore all priests must be as well (think of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and Roman priests who are converts from Anglicanism).

Anonymous said...

To Paul Haley and Jordanes:
You are a great twosome for this site. I learn quite a lot from you, and how you take on your adversaries in a polemic of a delicate issue such as this.
Again, congratulations to both.
Charles

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous (priest or seminarian):
I commend your purpose to bring into the open much that is hidden inside the clergy but it is not up to laity to do this job. It belongs to the hierarchy, which is ok with the status quo.
I disagree however with your viewpoint that celibacy is "institutionalized" by the Church on candidates seeking the priesthood, and the impression that it is forced upon those persons. It is a requisite that they have to grip with, but it is not "forced" as you seem to imply. Besides, nobody is required to live a chaste life if it proves to be beyond his capabilities, regardless of whether he is already ordained or not. In such a case, he would rather leave the ministry in lieu of leading a double life, be he heterosexual or otherwise. What is intolerable is that a religious use his priesthood as a refuge to commit great sins against his parishioners.
The solution of this problem is very complex, and I do not think that the various remedies, such as married clergy, is the correct one. The fact that celibacy was "institutionalized" in the first place, was that the priest at the time that had a wife, were not faithful to her, but had a number of concubines. In any event I think that the problem would demand a General Council of the Church to come to grips with this and other problems, but I do not think that the situation now allows this, infected as the bishopry is by liberals and homosexuals.
Charles.

Anonymous said...

How long, O lord, how long will the wicked exult?... They crush your people, O lord...

Anonymous said...

"Garrett said...

Dear Hunter,

The Church disagrees with you concerning the idea that because Christ was celibate, therefore all priests must be as well (think of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and Roman priests who are converts from Anglicanism)."

NO it does not. Eastern Catholic priests have other traditions and those comming from Anglicanism have been given a dispensation. The Catholic still mantains, defends and advocates celibacy because of very powerful reasons.

The breakdown in celibacy is the failure of the conciliar church to live like Christ. In fact the model of the conciliar church is not Christ, anymore but the world. The problem is the secularization which has filled the Church since the II Vatican Council. The remedy is not to remove celibacy, because this will only open the gate to more corruption and sin in the Church, but for the Church to live like Christ and cast away those putrid members of the Church who are ruling the church.

In addition the topic of celibacy has nothing to do with homosexuality in the clergy. Homosexual clerics are so because they are homosexuals, not because they are celibate, which in fact they are not.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ertner:

Look, perhaps you are right about transient states of sexuality and perhaps you are wrong. Frankly, I think that this idea of transient sexual attraction is rare or non-existent. But it doesn't matter. There should be no deliberate risk taken in such cases, and that means an absolute ban on anyone who has ever had such attractions. We don't want to risk bringing such people in, especially in light of what has happened everywhere. The fact that many of them may be harmless is beside the point. There is no reason to take that risk.

Moreover, such attractions are unnatural and a priest must represent Christ as perfect man. There must be no suggestion of a connexion between such tendencies and our Lord.

I am confident that we can find MILLIONS of young men out there who do not have these tendencies and have never had them. We can choose the candidates from among them.

The priesthood is not a right and anyone who has ever had such attractions has no place representing God to us or us to God. The fact that many men who have these tendencies MIGHT get over them and go on to be perfectly normal in adulthood is entirely beside the point. This is about reducing risks. When you hear that 30% of the priests in Colombia might be queer, you don't take half measures.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Steve K.

His seminary document lets in those who have had disordered desires as long as the are not caught engaging in such behaviour for three consecutive years before ordination. In other words, there might be minor indications from before then, indications of some much larger problem not known about. But as long as there are no such indications for three years, in they go.

This is not an appropriate response to the buggering of tens of thousands of children.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

This entire discussion is an embarrassment. All the baseless, cowardly innuendo (use your real name if you're going to commit slander), unsupported statistics (serious people cite the academic study where they got their numbers from, which of course they can't do because they're invented for malicious reasons), and ludicrous suggestions (have a private investigator trail your priest???) are absolutely incredible.

Why is it that the nutters are always the ones to occupy the comment boxes on traditionalist blogs? It makes us all look bad.

Some of you people need to shut the heck up and do some serious penance.

- Paul

Jordanes said...

Gus said: Obviously, I think that you are the one that is very wrong on blaming the clergy sex abuse scandal on homosexual priests instead of on ephebophile and psychopathic ones.

You're not paying attention. I do not blame the clergy sex abuse scandal on homosexual priests, though it's blazingly obvious that that's one of the most significant causes.

I'm tiring of the going round and round so let's cut to the chase: I think you are using the scandal to advance your agenda of opposition to homosexual priests whether they are child abusers or not, whether they are celibate or not, whether they are holy or not.

What a disturbingly weird comment. Gus, I'm not "using the scandal" at all, just noticing that the overwhelming majority of the abusers were men engaging in sodomy with persons of the same sex, usually teenage boys and young men. Granted, orthodox Catholicism and homosexuality in the priesthood are like oil and water (oil and sewage, in fact), but your talk of me trying to "advance my agenda of opposition to homosexual priests," etc., is just crazy stuff.

But as long as you've brought it up . . .

I ask you: Do you believe that a homoexual man who lives out faithfully the promises of obedience and celibacy could be a holy priest?

No, it's clear that a homosexual man can't be a holy priest, just as a murderer can't be a holy priest. If he were a homosexual, then by definition he would not faithfully live out the promises of obedience and celibacy.

A repentant murderer, on the other hand, can become a holy priest and apostle to the Gentiles, founder of numerous churches and author of most of the books of the New Testament, and a repentant, former homosexual can become a holy priest. Given the nature of the homosexual disorder, however, the Church would be lacking in wisdom and charity not to screen out homosexuals before ordination.

Jordanes said...

Someone claimed: the celibacy is institutional for many of these men as opposed to individual.

It's not at all apparent how any celibacy in the Catholic Church could be individual without being simultaneously institutional.

Who says we'd have to [support married priests and their wives and families]?

St. Paul, for one.

It could be more like the East. We'd have much smaller parishes, perhaps eventually 10-20 chapels for every current parish, with Mass (and Office) on Sunday and Solemnities, but not daily.

The East does what it does because Christianity in those Muslim countries is a minority religion subject to grave restrictions. No Catholic should aspire to have the whole Church labor under the grievous burdens and limitations of Muslim dhimmis.

The priest would otherwise be a working man like any other

Priests aren't working men like any other, and priesthood isn't a part-time job.

I have to say, I seriously have to wonder if it would be wise to ordain someone with your oddball attitudes and opinions about the vocations of priesthood and celibacy.

So?? So what if any of this happens?

Those scenarios may not trouble you that much, but any Catholic worth his salt would be scandalised.

To me, these examples prove to me that a lot of people supporting celibacy are really supporting mainly the APPEARANCE of celibacy. They dont really care if it is followed as long as no one finds out.

Who are these people you're referring to, Anonymous. Names please.

Jordanes said...

The fact that 50% of priests are breaking celibacy IN SECRET makes their actions no less scandalous than the "out in the open" scenarios you propose.

To steal a line I read recently online, I suspect that the source of this statistic is the same as the source of many of your other facts: thin air.

I have to wonder how you were able to discover that half of all priests are secretly breaking their celibacy vows. What did you do, place cameras in their rectory bedrooms and then sit down and view each videotape?

"You have a warped understanding of the Latin Church's decision to ordain only men who are called to celibacy as priests." Again, if that's what it really was, I'd have no problems.

That's what it really is. I can't say what your problem really is, but whatever it is, you're going to have to deal with it if you are really being called to ordination in the Latin Rite.

The problem is that not as many men are actually called to celibacy personally as the Church needs to be priests

It is God, not you or any other man, who determines how many men the Church needs to be priests. Who do you make yourself out to be, sir?

Right here in the USA and Western Europe...only like 2-3% of priests were involved in illegal abuse of minors. Compared to something like 33% involved with adult women and 17% with adult men at some point in the previous 3 years.

Figures can lie, and liars can figure. Assuming you haven't misstated these figures, as I recall those "2-3%" of priests (or however many there really wear) produced immensely more victims than the "33%" who fornicated with women and "17%" who engaged in sodomy with adult men. That doesn't help your campaign to stop the Church from choosing to ordain only men called to celibacy, though, so I'm not surprised you covered that up.

First, being creeped out by a lot of priests and seminarians I have met. There is something psychosexually stunted and institutionalized feeling about a lot of them.

Your personal experiences may or may not be valid. Extrapolating from them is dangerous. After all, what reason do you or anyone else have to trust your feelings and intuitions?

Anonymous priest psychologist states, "But generally I think a vocation is something given by God that you would follow even if it wasnt institutionalized."

He is obviously wrong. If he were right, there wouldn't be a need for the Church at all, no need to discern a vocation, no need to pray, to practice self-mortification, to avail oneself of the sacraments to sustain the vocation.

Jordanes said...

Paul has offered some good advice. It's disturbing that someone (apparently self-identified as a seminarian) has chosen to hijack a blog post about the problem of homosexuality in the priesthood in order to argue in favor of married priests and optional celibacy, as if that will stop bishops from choosing to ordain homosexuals contrary to Church law. This thread evidently has outlived its usefulness.