Posted on 04/18/2008 6:38:50 PM PDT by kellynla
I can understand why nearly three-quarters of U.S. Catholics say they approve of their new Pope, Benedict XVI. He is a deep thinking Pontiff who, like John Paul II before him, holds fast to refreshingly strong moral convictions. When he said he was ashamed of the existence of pedophile priests and their subsequent abuse of young boys, unlike the scoffers, I believe him.
It’s true that many Catholic leaders, to their disgrace, ignored early reports and initiated a cover-up. If financial retribution can ever repay such betrayal, many archdioceses have been bankrupted by the scandal. The church, however slow, has made attempts to purge themselves of this sexual deviance with one notable—and perhaps fatal—flaw.
“We will rid the church of pedophile priests,” said Pope Benedict on his flight to America. That’s good news except for one thing: the root problem among the priests was homosexuality, not pedophilia. Pedophilia is the attraction by adults to children, both boys and girls and the priest scandals have been, with few exceptions, man to boy.
Man/Boy “Love” has been a staple in homosexual practice since the time of the ancient Greeks, famous for taking young boys as students and bonding with them sexually. Modern gay magazines have regularly advertised for “Chickens,” defined by Bruce Rogers in “Gay-Talk: A Dictionary of Gay Slang” as “any boy under the age of consent … heterosexual … fair of face and unfamiliar with homosexuality.”
Until recently, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) marched in gay pride parades nationally. But once homosexual activists realized the obstacle this posed to advancing their acceptance, NAMBLA was forced to take a low profile—at least for now.
In his book “Good-bye, Good Men,” author Michael Rose reports that many Catholic seminaries have gradually become conclaves for homosexual men, often leading to the exclusion of the “faithful,” who take seriously the teachings of Scripture on sexual behavior.
It is a disservice to shift the focus of the Catholic Church disgrace to pedophilia in order to soft pedal the larger danger of homosexual behavior to an ever-increasingly, gay-sympathetic public. Denying the correlation of homosexuality and priest-abusers of young boys further enforces the persuasive myth of activists that it is “just another lifestyle.” It will be difficult to oppose the cultural shift AND the homosexual clergy with the truth, but I believe Pope Benedict has the moral fortitude to do it.
The moral law established by our Creator brings clarity. Human sexuality, arguably the most beautiful gift of God to mankind, has been made ugly and perverse by all of us who think we can ignore those standards and practice any kind of sex outside of marriage without restraint.
Sexual perversion destroys lives, undermines civilization and ultimately wounds us all. The problem that unfolded in the Roman Catholic Church has its roots in homosexuality, not pedophilia. It is an important distinction. If Pope Benedict XVI can’t bring moral clarity on this issue to a world rapidly descending into homosexual acceptance, then who can?
That’s the biggest load of Catholic revisionism with absolutely NO evidence to support it I’ve ever heard. If you are getting your ideas of Foxe from the catholic church and their fellow agitators you are sadly misled.
Long before I was a Catholic, I was an honors graduate in history, with a specialty in military history and particularly the American and English Civil Wars. I read extensively in the 16th and 17th century English writers as part of my studies.
What moderns have a hard time understanding is that the Protestant/Catholic conflict in England (and hence our heritage in that regard) was first, political; second, cultural; and only third a religious conflict.
You also have to bear in mind the tradition of English polemics in the 16th and 17th centuries. I'm re-reading right now C.S. Lewis's admirable survey of 16th c. English literature (excluding drama) which is part of the Oxford History of English Literature series. He goes over in great detail the tradition of 'flyting' or abuse in print of ones political opponents. It's fair to say that exaggeration, personal attacks, scurrilous abuse, and outright lies were the order of the day. St. Thomas More, for example, was as guilty of this practice as anybody else when he launched on political opponents.
You cannot read Foxe (or for that matter any of the Catholic polemicists of the same time) as straight history. It will lead you far astray.
I was in my early teens before I realized that not all priests spoke with an Irish accent.;o) I think the Diocese of Jackson MS was considered mission territory for Carlow College. We still have quite a few Irish priests in MS. We call them ‘FBI’ (foreign born Irish) You can expect them to be gone for at least a month during the summer, going home to visit when it’s hot in MS.
Our rector is a St. Patrick’s College man. “FBI” indeed!
Okay, name ONE case where this Pope did not remove a homosexual he knew about. Come on, name just one.
Now you are strongly vocal on this issue and the Pope. You are sounding almost traumatized. Did you personally happen to have an bad experience with a homosexual priest?
If you did I am sorry for your situation. Peace brother, prayers for you.
The Pope doesn’t need to “address” it, he only has to do concrete things to make sure it doesn’t happen in the future, which he’s already done. Actually John Paul II started working on that before his death. Have you heard about any cases of sexual abuse that occurred in the last 10 years? All the cases that made the news were from 15 to 30 years ago, when the American Church was still in thrall of the feminist nuns and psychologists on Seminary boards, passing judgement on the ‘maturity’ of possible candidates for ordination, and weeding out those who showed any inclination toward actually accepting Church teachings, especially on celibacy.
You just make this stuff up as you go.
Foxe was a liar.
Of course he does not "need" to address the homosexual assaults, but there will be consequences for his lack of candor. Some of us who would prefer to maintain a favorable opinion of the pope will now find it harder to do so.
As for the lack of new cases, I wonder if that is not more a consequence of the publicity than of changes instituted by the church. After the public wised up, the source of fresh new boys dried up.
I'm thinking that the victims of abuse don't care if he rails against homosexuals, either. The ones who met with the Pope were satisfied with what they discussed.
Unfortunately, there will always be boys available for men who want to abuse them. The men tend to find them. What the Pope is working to do is to make sure that the men who are ordained to the priesthood do not have that proclivity.
Your personal views aside, what the pope says is important, and what he does not say is important, to millions of people, Catholics and non-Catholics. His words may be as important as his actions.
I'm thinking that the victims of abuse don't care if he rails against homosexuals
What on earth are you talking about? Obviously, not all homosexuals are child rapists. There was no indication whatever for the pope to rail against homosexuals as a group. There was a need, however, for him to address the scandal with candor and seriousness and accuracy, and from what I have read, he did not do it.
Only a very few victims actually met with the pope. I think that a man who as an adolescent had been raped by a priest might well feel disappointment or anger that the crime committed against him was apparently not worthy of mention. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the pope did address the issue. If not, he certainly should have.
And just what good do you think would have come of the Pope pointing out that the vast majority of the abuse was done by men to post-pubescent boys? How do you think the media would have handled that? The message of the Pope would have been lost in the cacophony of the cries of homophobia. It would have been useless for him to do such a thing, and I think he was wise not to give homosexual activists an excuse for what would have been a well-publicized pity party.
You must not have been paying attention; the Pope mentioned the abuse several times, most notably on the plane flying over. He told the press that he was ashamed that these children and young people had suffered the abuse at the hands of priests who were supposed to be caring for them, not exploiting them. He mentioned it meetings with the Bishops, and also in his homily at St. Patrick's Cathedral yesterday.
nothing personal but most of we non Catholics worry about how the church acted (and still does) about homosexual pederasty in their midst....same as I would hope decent Catholics do
for you to constantly drag out equivocations to pass the smear around doesn’t help much.
I like this pope.....I don’t know much about him and I don’t share Catholic sentiments about the role of flesh and blood preachers as a conduit but if y’all like that then fine
Nice post.
maybe where you live but here in Dixie, preachers who speak out against moral equivalency, relativism and secularism are more common than not...at least amongst whites.
Not to take anything away from the Pope....I like him too.
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.