Historically, what happened was that, previous to the late 1960s, if a candidate for the priesthood seemed effeminate, they simply wouldn't take him. That was considered an automatic disqualification. Abuse by ordained priests was extremely rare, and would have been nearly impossible to conceal, unlike now. This was in a world where people lived in the same place most of their lives, kept conservative habits, and knew all their neighbors' business.
Then in the Western countries, as drugs and sex blew up society among the laity, the seminary system got very lax, with less screening of candidates, a less disciplined life, and lowered requirements for subjects like theology. There definitely were men in there who didn't belong in the priesthood. Many of them left, but unfortunately, some of them stayed. By now, most of that trash has been taken out, but there still some bad eggs still hanging on, nearing retirement. Can't come soon enough.
John Paul II began tightening everything up again, with Cardinal Ratzinger as his whip-hand. They instituted psychological screening and tightened discipline and academic requirements. At the same time, indifferent Catholics didn't tend to wander into the seminary life—it was too demanding, especially compared to the sexual playground outside. Nowadays, if you meet young priests and nuns, 95 percent of them or more are conservative, solid, and very savvy. And seminaries and convents are starting to fill up again, after falling off drastically during the lax era. It's like the Marines: A life of courageous sacrifice is attractive to young people if you're will to offer it.
“Nowadays, if you meet young priests and nuns, 95 percent of them or more are conservative, solid, and very savvy. And seminaries and convents are starting to fill up again, after falling off drastically during the lax era. It’s like the Marines: A life of courageous sacrifice is attractive to young people if you’re will to offer it.”
Completely agree.
All I’m saying is that if homosexuals were hiding in the Church as celibate priests, it was from the broader culture. Now, they don’t need to hide anywhere, they can get married in 13 states with several others recognizing those marriages as well as many aspects of the federal gubberment, in many areas it is against the law to ‘discriminate’ against them.
A lower % of homosexual men becoming priests means less instances of abuse, as homosexual men abuse at a higher %. I bet the trend started in the 60’s and only manifested in the lowering of abuse instances 10 years later, as the homosexual priests died and weren’t replaced by other homosexual men who wanted to become priests. They had other options, and by then it was clear that the Church wasn’t going to change on things like bc within marriage, celibacy, priestesses or divorce and remarriage. There wasn’t any way the Church would ever accept/celebrate ‘gay relationships’ if they still didn’t accept those other things first, in my opinion.
Freegards