Replies

The Celibacy-Homosexual link is there, IMHO, but in a strange way.

In the late 50's and 60's vocations to the priesthood began to drop drastically. Perhaps the cause was the new emphasis on sexuality that began to dominate popular culture. Up until then, seminary applicants who showed the "tendency" were rather preemptorily discouraged.

But, then, a very weird thought crept in. I.E., if priests were required to be celibate, it was thought by some, that
What they were celibate from didn't much matter!
"After all," they argued, "since all sex outside of marriage is sinful, all the homosexuals had to do to be good priests is not have sex!"

Common sense did not rule the day. Tough-talking Tony, Archbishop of Philly, put it best: "Giving up the normal, i.e., the wife and family, is a heroic sacrifice. Giving up the sinful, is not." (I paraphrase)

This stupid decision, contrary to years of Church tradition, let open the floodgates to the point that many homosexuals flocked (good word) to the seminaries. So many, in fact, that it discouraged normal men from applying!

Now it's a real problem, because many priests one meets nowadays are, IMHO, if not sexually active homosexuals, at least very very light in the loafers! The new namby-pamby liturgy in the hands of these simpering clymers is enough to gag a maggot. Sermons delivered by window dressers and hair stylists? I don't think so. IMHO, of course.

I believe there is a problem with homosexuality in the priesthood, but it's not the only reason for the scandal today. Indeed, there has been abuse on girls too (granted not as much but still).

All in all, I'm glad to hear about this John Jay study. It sounds like a step in the right direction. It should provide some good groundwork for addressing this (apparently and sadly) old problem. At the very least, one can't say that the Church is involved in a "coverup", as some more rabid anti-Catholics claim, even today.

Did not know that. It makes sense.

Another problem, is that during Viet Nam War, many seminaries (of various denominations) threw open their doors to leftists and cowards who were trying to escape the draft because in 1968 the Selective Service closed 2S deferments for most graduate students, with the exception of Divinity Students. When the war ended they stayed and cluttered up the churches.

Also, until the society decided homosexuality was what you were, it was simply a sin. There were interlocking mores which enforced sexual morality. Those are gone. It is much easier to 'act out' homosexual acts now without guilt.

"What they were celibate from didn't matter."

I think you have hit the nail on the head, and I would like to go a bit further. It seems to me that once there are a few homosexuals in an organization, they seem to attract and select more homosexuals to join. A well-known example of this is the New York Times editorial and reporting ranks.

I have also been struck by the increasing numbers of gays serving as aides in Congress.

Another example is the Episopal Church, which is not only increasingly filled with gay clergy but has even elevated a practicing homosexual to a high position.

What I do not know is whether this is simply an instinctive discrimination in favor of gays by those who prefer to be with people who think as they do, or whether it is an actual plot by the gays and the left, weird as that seems. The increased pressure for recognizing same-sex marriages and such in the mainline Protestant denominations certainly makes me wonder.

At any rate, I am interested in this investigation, and think it money well spent. If the investigation can identify seminaries that are screening out straight men, groups of homosexuals who are working from within the Church for their own ends, or poor practices in reviewing seminary applicants, it will be a good thing.