A married priesthood won't work, as the numerous but rarely reported cases in the Episcopal church proves. Indeed, since some liberal church seminaries have thirty to fifty percent gay students, one wonders where the reports are in those churches? But of course, those churches don't oppose abortion or the pc agenda.
As for Law, he is a moral weakling. "let's all get along".
Yet I can't help but think that there's a flip side to the scandal. When I look at how weak the Church's response has been to those lay persons who defy its teachings on matters sexual (the Kennedys come to mind), I wonder if the supposedly "pastoral" approach taken by churchmen like Cardinal Law has really stemmed from a guilty conscience--or a fear of exposure of the Church's own misdeeds. If so, all the publicity may actually result in a very beneficial purging of the Church's current leadership.
At the risk of poor taste, this is wrong on several fronts. Within Catholicism, sexuality is required to be within a married relationship, exclusive as to both partners, open to procreation and thereby serving both unitive (love) and procreative purposes. If the idea, as suggested by Fr. Mullins is to achieve orgasm by whatever means possible, with due repest, Fr. Mullins is in the wrong Church and the wrong business.
If you believe that sexuality justifies orgasm by any old means at all, with whomever or whatever, and by whatever means, you think that man is just an intelligent animal (not too intelligent, but never mind). In practice, as our liberal friends have pointed out, most men have "preferences, the overwhelming majority of them have a "preference" which is exclusively heterosexual.
A normal heterosexual male, deprived by his occupation and vows such as priests, who are weak and determined to violate those vows will not lack for consenting adult female cooperation (often in very skilled and seductive form). Although it may be a major surprise to the Boston Globe, some remarkably attractive women, married and single, have been hitting on priests and vice versa, for a very long number of centuries.
Does anyone here know any really normal heterosexual men who, deprived of such comforts as those to which they have become accustomed with wife or female paramour will turn to the neighborhood ten-year old boy for what he may be persuaded or forced to offer? Neither do I.
This current campaign exposing the homosexual pederasts in the clergy, while meritorious in that they must be removed from the priesthood and enough sunshine will do the trick, may yet backfire on those promoters of the campaign who may be motivated by a desire to tear down Church authority by somehow painting the Roman Catholic Church as a lavender institution. A thoroughgoing purge of the lavenders togather with an investigation of seminary practices that PURPOSEFULLY turned away straight men in favor of homosexuals and child molesters, will not help the liberal termites in middle management.
This is about the liberals attacking the church; which is why the remarks about married priests is important. You see, if we allow married priests, then the liberals in the church hirarchy can take over (and allow abortion, gay marriage, divorce, women priests etc). Ironically, it is the same liberals in the middle management who (according to Andrew Greeley and Andrew Sullivan) allowed gay priests to be ordained and serve during the 1970's and 80s. Most of these incidents occured then, when some gay priests hit on older teenagers. (pedophiles are usually pre teen sexual predators; many of the accusations, if you use the math, are from kids who were over 13 or 14: where most gays become sexually active). A married priesthood won't work, as the numerous but rarely reported cases in the Episcopal church proves. Indeed, since some liberal church seminaries have thirty to fifty percent gay students, one wonders where the reports are in those churches? But of course, those churches don't oppose abortion or the pc agenda.