Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FEMINISTS Defend The Gay Priests Crimes: "It's Almost Natural..."
Toogood Reports: Conservative Commentary And Philosophy ^ | Unknown | Isaiah Flair

Posted on 05/10/2002 10:08:20 PM PDT by Dr. Good Will Hunting

Egads.

I was aware that mainstream Feminists, such as the members of the National Organization for Women, NARAL, and Voters For Choice enjoyed defending filicide and abortion. Whether it's a baby being drowned, a la Andrea Yates, or Planned Parenthood dismembering prenatal innocents, Feminists are really into the whole killer mom motif. They like it, it thrills them.

Thankfully, there are millions of good women like those at the extraordinary Concerned Women for America, whom I adore, who are better than that.

 But the nihilistic Feminist crowd still obsessively plunges into degeneracy.

Just recently, their deified icon, Gloria "I Hate All Men" Steinem, decided to speak. That, of course, meant that something stupid was about to be recorded for posterity.

Sure enough.

Steinem decided to defend Gay Priests.

Now personally, I believe that the Catholic Church should ordain/hire/retain only married priests.

Marriage is a good thing when between good people, and thus wedded priests could set an example for their congregations.

Saint Peter was married.

That said, the absence of marital status is no excuse for criminal conduct.

Gloria contends that it is.

She bashed the Catholic Church, faulting it for the priest's conduct and saying, "it's almost natural that some of them will then seek control over people lower down in the power structure."

By "them" she means the Gay Priests.

By "people" she means the boys who were the victims of the Gay Priests.

But there is nothing "natural" about what the Gay Priests ("them") did to the boys (the "people") they horribly attacked over the decades.

Nothing.

Children should have nothing to do with anything illicit. Their innocence should be respected and protected.

However, like with abortion, filicide, custody, etc, Feminists prefer the ideologically-lesbian perspective (and it's current realization in law) over the actual best interests of children.

Thus Steinem's interest in siding with the Gay Priests. According to her theory, the "patriarchal" Catholic Church 'controlled' the Gay Priests, and the Gay Priests resented it and thus sought to control others.

There are some flaws with her theory.

Firstly, the problem would have been stopped a lot sooner if certain high-ranking Church officials had exercised some control and kicked the Gay Priests to the curb early on, rather than doing what they did, which was to simply execute a series of transfer orders. They shifted the problem around, when what they needed to do was excommunicate the problem and take appropriate legal steps way back when. In sum, the Church exercised too little control, not too much. And some major house-cleaning has to occur because of that.

However, it is important to note that the majority of Catholic priests are non-offending decent people. They were a part of the same Church Steinem dismisses as "patriarchal". Yet they were not party to illicit conduct at all.

Thus, the fault lies not with the overall church, but with the particular offenders and with those who transferred the offenders around instead of kicking them out.

So why is Steinem, who very clearly regards logic itself to be a patriarchal construct, defending the offenders?

Because they are, indeed, Gay Priests. And because the victims were boys.

A decent person condemns criminal conduct regardless of the victim's gender.

Not Feminists. Whenever boys are victims, they treat the crime much as a white racist treats a crime against Black Americans: as though it were of lesser importance.

And that's just wrong.

All victims, regardless of gender or race, deserve equal justice, and respect, and protection.

But back to Steinem.

She'll defend anyone who is gay, no matter what their crime. This is the same mentality that buried the horror visited on Jesse Dirkhising.

Because they're gay.

Why do Feminists see gayness as something to defend?

In short, feminism is Marxism.

It's secondary goal is to sublimate motherhood to the collectivist "it takes a village to raise a child" motif.

It's primary goal is to deconstruct the essentiality of fatherhood, and the active, equal involvement of fathers in the raising of their children.

Under the Marxism of feminism, "patriarchy" is the societal structure under which fathers' rights to be equally involved parents, and the corresponding rights of their sons and daughters to have their fathers present in the home and in their lives, are legally recognized and sanctioned.

These rights lead to the nuclear family: a tight, independent unit of the kids, dad, mom, and often in-laws.

The independence of the nuclear family in turn leads to a desire on the part of that family to own their own home, and land, and to support themselves without having to depend on government largesse (in modern parlance, "welfare").

And these private-property-owning nuclear families are the core of civilized societies.

Such civilized societies, such "patriarchies", are what the very politically influential Feminists want to deconstruct.

Anyone looking at the astronomical increase in pre-and-post-marital fatherless homes over the last 30+ years has to acknowledge that the Feminists have succeeded in writing their views into law, and into case law.

In order to deconstruct fatherhood, the nuclear family in which both parents spend a lot of positive time with their kids, and civilized society in general, Feminists have to attack something very basic: Men being attracted to women.

Of course, men will be attracted to women, and women to men, no matter what Feminists do. However, the basic paradigm of men being attracted to women is something that Feminists can and do still undermine in various ways.

And one of those ways is by devaluing the masculinity which tends to be a part of hetero men.

Masculinity is NOT a role. It's a quality. That's a critical difference.

A quality which Feminists eternally deride.

However, in order to deride a thing, it's opposite must be endorsed. Point, counterpoint, that sort of thing.

So in order to undermine the greatness of men being attracted to women (which leads to marriage, which leads to children and the nuclear family, which leads to an embrace of private property, concrete values, and independence), Feminists have to push the opposite.

And the opposite is gay men.

When gay men are normalized, even idealized, straight men, the ones who are attracted to women (with all the anti-collectivism that brings) are coerced into being effeminized.

Which is exactly what is happening in our society.

We see it in guys who are afraid to say, "Hey, nice necklace!" to female co-workers for fear of being sued for harassment.

We see it in guys who capitulate in custody cases, for fear of standing up against their ex-wives.

We see it in "sensitivity training", which many middle management men sign onto in their workplaces, hoping, whipped beyond measure, that if they feed the Feminist Crocodile, It will eat them last.

We see it in the portrayal of TV fathers as milquetoast goofballs, clown-ized out of the rugged, fearless masculinity that is every real man's birthright.

And all of that, and more, is what the Feminist movement wanted.

And that, in a Marxist, whipped nutshell, is why deified Feminist icon Gloria Steinem defends Gay Priests.

And really, why I bother to write a column each week.

Feminism/Marxism is evil.

It's worth stopping.

How do we stop it?

Four ways.

#1: Go give your kids a hug. Right now. Read #2 thru #4 later. Especially fathers. And then read them a story, and teach them to sing along with your favorite C.D.s; if they think you're silly, they'll love you for it all the same. Repeat tomorrow, and every day. All of life begins there.

#2. Talk with your friends, and your church, about what can be done to restore a better America, like the kind Norman Rockwell painted. Go to a church council meeting with 10 things the church could do to help; be prepared to lead your top 3 yourself, and recruit friends to help you. Second to shoring up the family, we have to reclaim the churches. Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, et al. It's time to socially engineer family values. Churches have passively allowed too much garbage for too long. Speak up. And never shut up. Never.

#3. Get politically involved. Send $20 to a non-RINO, legitimate conservative candidate. And then get your money's worth and talk their ear off til they effect real change. Pass around petitions. Doing so takes very little time, and is surprisingly effective.

#4. Drop me an e-mail line, and let me know that people in other states are working to reverse the trend of Feminist-Marxist sociocultural degeneration.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholic; church; feminism; feminist; feminists; filicide; gloriasteinem; liberalism; liberals; looneytunes; moralrelativity; priests; scandal

1 posted on 05/10/2002 10:08:20 PM PDT by Dr. Good Will Hunting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dr. Good Will Hunting
Saint Peter was married.

St.Peter practiced the discipline of lex continentiae, total continence.

From St. Clement of Alexandrias', ~150-220 AD, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter XI: 'They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, "Remember thou the Lord." Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.

Thus also the apostle says, "that he who marries should be as though he married not," and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord.'

2 posted on 05/11/2002 8:14:54 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
Where, exactly, does Clement say that Peter practiced "perfect continence?" Remember, Peter believed that Jesus was coming back in his lifetime.

Jesus calls all of us to "leave all things and follow Him," yet he didn't intend for all of His disciples to be unmarried.

And, for those who were unmarried, it was their CHOICE, as He said "Let him accept it who can accept it."

3 posted on 05/11/2002 8:27:21 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
You guys keep posting these arguments to bolster your theory that celibacy was a discipline of the Church from apostolic times, when there is all kinds of clear evidence that it was not.

But, the minute somebody says something to the contrary, you rush out, like some ecclesiastical fire department, to throw the cloak of Pope Siricius over the discussion.

I think you're trying to convince yourselves. Everybody else knows better.

4 posted on 05/11/2002 8:30:35 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Where, exactly, does Clement say that Peter practiced "perfect continence?"

"that he who marries should be as though he married not,"

Seems fairly obvious. Where exactly is it written that Peter and his wife had conjugal relations after he became an Apostle?

Jesus calls all of us to "leave all things and follow Him," yet he didn't intend for all of His disciples to be unmarried.

While all of the Apostles were disciples, not all disciples were Apostles.

5 posted on 05/11/2002 10:03:06 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
You guys keep posting these arguments to bolster your theory that celibacy was a discipline of the Church from apostolic times, when there is all kinds of clear evidence that it was not.

More than a theory and you know it and there's plenty of clear evidence to indicate that it was.

But, the minute somebody says something to the contrary, you rush out, like some ecclesiastical fire department, to throw the cloak of Pope Siricius over the discussion.

Those giving their two cents about the discipline of celibacy and the priesthood, especially advocates of allowing priests to marry, always bring up that Peter was married. Yet they never point out that he and his fellow Apostles gave up everything, including wives, to follow Christ. They never mention The Stromata and what St. Clement wrote. They never mention Scripture, the Council of Elvira, or the Council of Nicea which predate the "cloak of Pope Siricius" by 60+ years. Rather disingenuous.

I think you're trying to convince yourselves. Everybody else knows better.

I think you should either get yourself ordained in the Eastern Rite or become a Protestant. Everybody knows what your agenda is.

6 posted on 05/11/2002 10:17:24 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
I think you should either get yourself ordained in the Eastern Rite or become a Protestant. Everybody knows what your agenda is.

I have no interest in the Eastern Rite, especially when there are so few here in the United States and it takes a dispensation from the Pope to change rites. And, as goofy as the Church's rules are today about this sort of thing, they wouldn't let me in anyway.

And I would no more become a Protestant than you would.

Try as you might,you are NOT going to shut down discussion of optional celibacy for priests.

7 posted on 05/11/2002 11:59:50 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"Try as you might,you are NOT going to shut down discussion of optional celibacy for priests."

The discussion is healthy. I just don't understand why those who are having the discussion want to change the minds of those who have already made a decision based on the discussion.

Jesus the Christ IS a Jew. The Jewish church did not accept that He IS the Messiah. - Those members of the Jewish church who did then founded His church, the Christian church of which ALL 'true' Christian churches are descendants.

Peter, the Rock, was the first leader of the Catholic Christian church. Those who teachings were different became other denominations, one of which was Eastern Orthodox, and another Russian Orthodox.

Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic monk who spent a good deal of his life trying to convince the Catholic orthodoxy to revisit some of their positions. They remained steadfast in their rituals, and Martin Luther(and his Protestants) began the Lutheran Christian Church, or Reformed Catholic Christian church as he would have preferred it.

Time goes on, the discussions continue, and 'Popes' come and go. I don't doubt that someday there will be a pope willing to alter the celibacy policy from the Vatican(probably when the branches bear no fruit). Until then, the alternatives are clear---live with what is, work within the framework to change what is, or leave what is-for something else or something new. If one believes the Pope has the power to cut them off from God; then one also has to believe the Pope understands God's definition of 'celibut' as it pertains to mind and body.

Same option we have as conservatives in the Republican Party.

8 posted on 05/11/2002 6:49:51 PM PDT by d14truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: d14truth
correction - celibate, not celibut, or sellabutt
9 posted on 05/11/2002 7:02:45 PM PDT by d14truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Try as you might,you are NOT going to shut down discussion of optional celibacy for priests.

Try as you might, you are NOT going to get the Church to change the discipline of celibacy. You can attempt to rewrite history to make your argument, but when all is said and done you'll only have tired hands and a blue face.

10 posted on 05/12/2002 5:56:44 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
Try as you might, you are NOT going to get the Church to change the discipline of celibacy.

It has changed already.

In the last 20 years, the number of married deacons has increased worldwide dramatically, and the Anglican-Lutheran dispensation has brought married men into the priesthood. Both of these were done out of necessity.

Practicality always wins, even in the Catholic Church.

11 posted on 05/12/2002 8:18:15 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson