In 2000 this book appeared:
http://www.amazon.com/Changing-Face-Priesthood-Reflection-Priests/dp/0814625045/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261108661&sr=8-1
Written by the director of a major seminary, Cozzens estimated the percentage of homosexuals among American clergy at 50%. Judging by my very considerable experience, even that figure is low, and I would guess represents only those who are more or less open about their orientation.
And as I made clear above, beyond that figure are men who may not be homosexual but who have some other sort of personality disorder.
Your experience with the American Catholic clergy must be radically different from my own. My experience with American priests is that they are overwhelmingly homosexual, and/or emotionally underdeveloped to a dangerous degree, and/or suffer from alcoholism (very common, it would seem) or drug addiction. They are, again based on my own experience, as a group wholly unfit to lead the local bridge club much less to shepherd the souls of the faithful to Heaven.
As to celibacy, you understood me correctly, I think. I am indeed for removing all priests with homosexual orientation from the priesthood immediately, regardless of any misbehavior on their part. They might be the most saintly men in the world, but if they're gay that have no business playing "Father" to Catholic families. I am for recruiting a whole new generation of Catholic married men who understand the basics of theology. Our problem right now isn't lack of knowledge it's rather so many sick and untrustworthy men in positions of extreme trust. So yes, I'd say that we should purge the ranks of the clergy of all gays immediately, jettison priestly celibacy for parish priests and replace them with married men as soon as possible.
Question: do you agree that we need to defrock all priests with homosexual orientations immediately. If not, why not?
“It's not calumny if it's the truth.”
Well, since it's not the truth, it's calumny. Repent.
“And the fact that JPII, not to mention Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, allowed men like Mahoney and Law to continue on for a couple of decades covering up for evil and sick men who destroyed thousands of lives - among the victims family and friends - proves criminal negligence at best and active complicity at worst. Which do you choose - criminal negligence or active complicity?”
Neither. It's focusing on bringing the problems of nearly 200 dioceses in the US under control (and God knows what else around the world) while dealing with the more general problems of another 3000 dioceses around the world. It's not knowing until it's a little late in the game that you've been lied to and deceived.
And in the case of Cardinal Law, it's trying to figure out how to deal both mercifully and justly with a man who inherited the problem from predecessors and struggled to address it properly.
“Written by the director of a major seminary, Cozzens estimated the percentage of homosexuals among American clergy at 50%.”
Fr. Cozzens has given a few different estimates over the years. The previous high estimate I'd seen of his was 40%. 50% is at the high end. He is also sympathetic to homosexual priests, and from what I can tell, exaggerates the problem.
“And as I made clear above, beyond that figure are men who may not be homosexual but who have some other sort of personality disorder.”
Which was a shift on your part in the middle of the conversation, to back up your false assertion that the “vast majority” of priests are homosexual. You changed to essentially, the “vast majority” of priests are either homosexual and/or have other personality disorders, to cover up the fact that you couldn't support your false assertion.
“Your experience with the American Catholic clergy must be radically different from my own.”
Indeed. My experience is limited to two major archdioceses, surrounding suffragan dioceses, and the priests who come from all over the United States to go to the Catholic University of America. My contact is regular and routine. I have a working relationship with some priests that isn't quite daily, but often more than weekly.
In my youth, I considered a vocation to the priesthood very seriously, and was actively recruited by several orders as well as the Archdiocese of Washington. This was during the worst years of the sex abuse crisis.
I often traveled ALONE with individual priests, on short trips and interstate trips. I often spent time with them in their private rooms. Heck, I went to an all-boys Catholic school run by an order of priests. We had their monastery on campus and I was in and out of the monastery all the time. I knew these priests were out to get me. I knew they were after me. But not to abuse or to molest me! But to become a priest!
And the personal devotion, even holiness of these men almost persuaded me to become a priest.
Eventually, I chose not to go into the priesthood. But not because these priests were anything less than good men, devout priests of God.
But in case you haven't noticed, I love our priests. I'm not enamored of every individual priest I've ever met - some of them were dorks and jerks. Some of them have been bad people. But most are good and wonderful men, flawed to be sure (I haven't met many perfect people). I love my pastor. I loved my last pastor. I loved my pastor before that. I loved the priest who performed my wedding. I loved the priest who spent a good part of my adolescence trying to keep me on the path of righteousness (and trying to get me to become a diocesan priest). I love many of the priests who taught me in school. I love the priest who was only a lowly brother when he taught me 10th grade English and is now the head guy for his entire order in the United States.
I love all the priests that I met through the Charismatic Renewal in the Catholic Church. I love all the priests that I met in Steuvenville, Ohio when I was a teen.
I love all the priests with whom I'm privileged to associate as a member and Past Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus.
Every one of these men is a sinner. But few might be homosexuals, and few beyond those suffer from any serious personality disorders.
What's really sad is how all of the events of the last years have changed what we consider acceptable behavior. I spent a lot of private time with a lot of priests. Never got the slightest inclination whatsoever that any of them wanted more than to offer me spiritual direction and talk me into entering the seminary. If they'd have made the slightest untoward hint or move, I'd have fled immediately.
But today, a priest who behaved thusly would be suspected of evil things. And heck, it's throughout our society. As an employer, I never meet behind closed doors with anyone unless there is a trusted third party present. Even for personnel matters, which years ago, I didn't hesitate to do behind closed doors, one-on-one. Is this because I'm a potential rapist? Of course not. But because a there are a few bad folks, we've all learned to be more cautious. That doesn't mean that I have to prove my innocence anymore than the popes have to prove theirs.
Yes, my experiences are radically different from yours. I readily admit that there are dioceses where the problems have been much worse than my own. I'm sympathetic to folks who have suffered under bad diocesan rule, in dioceses rife with homosexuals, with abusers, with clown priests and clown Masses, with heretical catechesis.
But this stuff isn't unversal by a stretch.
Consider that perhaps dioceses differ one from the other, and sometimes dramatically so. In looking at the internal numbers of the John Jay study, one can see the differences statistically. The overall percentage of abuser priests was about 4%. But some dioceses had rates close to 0%. and some dioceses had rates over 10%. Consider that your limited experiences may not be quite universal. Consider that looking from the bottom up, you see in the wider church only what you see at your own level, but that may not universally apply.
And consider how it looks from the top down. You become pope. It comes to your attention that there is this terrible hidden problem across many dioceses in the United States. Keeping in mind that you, as pope, are NOT the CEO of a corporation, keeping in mind that individual bishops have prerogatives and rights within their sees, you take steps to start to fix the problem.
Time goes on. Not everyone cooperates with you, even after repeated attempts. But things get radically better in many places. Things DID get radically better in many places. And the overall incidence of abuse DID fall 90%.
As pope, you might not have made all the right choices, you might not have made the best decision at every turn, but who does? As pope, though, you implemented decisions that radically reduced the incidence of abuse by priests of children in the United States.
And that was the right goal to begin with.
“So yes, I'd say that we should purge the ranks of the clergy of all gays immediately, jettison priestly celibacy for parish priests and replace them with married men as soon as possible.”
That's not at all what you initially said. You initially said that ALL new priests would be REQUIRED to be married. You appear to now be saying that ALL new diocesan priests would be REQUIRED to be married? Is that what you're saying? That's quite a dramatic change, in that you just exempted nearly 40% of priests from your first rule.
Do you now wish to retract your first assertion? That ALL new priests would be REQUIRED to be married?
Then let's deal with your modified rule: You do realize that even in Catholic Churches (the “eastern rites”) no one FORCES parish priests to be married men. Neither do the Orthodox FORCE their parish priests to be married men. This is an absurdity. You're going to FORCE men to marry?
Do you realize that before homosexuality became less of a personal stigma, lots and lots of homosexual men married? You think requiring men to be married is going to keep homosexuals out of the priesthood? Ever heard of Vicki Gene Robinson??
“Question: do you agree that we need to defrock all priests with homosexual orientations immediately. If not, why not?”
What does that have to do with your false assertions and absurd ideas? What does that have to do with the false assertion that the “vast majority of priests” are homosexual? What does that have to with with FORCING men to marry to become priests?
FORCING men to marry to become priests is such an UNCATHOLIC, such a thoroughly UNAPOSTOLIC idea, that I'm forced to re-ask my question - are you really a Catholic, or just pretending? In what way do you consider yourself a Catholic? Because you were baptized Catholic? Do you assist at Mass every Sunday and Holyday (except when legitimately excused)? Observe fasts and penances? Do you accept all the binding teachings of the Church?
These ideas and assertions of yours are what I'd expect to hear from a non-Catholic Christian, someone with limited or no experience or knowledge of Catholic faith and history, or maybe from some pseudo-Catholic from Call to Action or Catholics for Free Choice, or some other pretend-Catholic outfit.
sitetest