Does the Catholic Church Have a Homosexual Problem?

Christian Post ^ | 08/22/2018 | Michael Brown

[SeekAndFind]

Due to the sensitive nature of this article, it's important that I make some preliminary statements. There will be enough controversy if my words are rightly understood, let alone misunderstood.

First, I am not a Catholic basher. Second, I am not claiming that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on sexual scandals. Third, I believe the vast majority of homosexual men stand with me in denouncing pedophilia and "man-boy love." Fourth, as we focus on predatory priests, we must not forget their victims. Some of the abused have lost faith for life. Others bear their scars in different, significant ways. They must not be forgotten in the midst of our outrage and grief.

The question, then, is simple: Does the Catholic Church have a homosexual problem?

According to Cardinal Raymond Burke, "It was clear after the studies following the 2002 sexual abuse crisis that most of the acts of abuse were in fact homosexual acts committed with adolescent young men.

There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this. Now it seems clear in light of these recent terrible scandals that indeed there is a homosexual culture, not only among the clergy but even within the hierarchy, which needs to be purified at the root. It is of course a tendency that is disordered."

If you're surprised to hear this candid admission, you're not alone. As Cardinal Burke observed, "There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this."

Yes, it was fine to talk about Catholicism's problem with pedophilia. It was fine to discuss sexual scandals in broad terms. But it was basically forbidden to connect them directly to homosexuality. Is it true that homosexual pedophiles are more likely to abuse boys then heterosexual pedophiles are likely to abuse girls?

According to a 2007 Mayo Clinic study, "The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9 per cent to 40 per cent, which is approximately four to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2 per cent to 4 per cent). . . . This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children."

But even if this study is accurate (I have seen other evidence to support this), I don't believe that pedophilia (in terms of men abusing prepubescent children) is the primary issue within the Catholic sex scandals.

This is confirmed by Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. (Donohue holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from New York University; in his 11-page report, he seeks to debunk the notion of widespread sexual sin among the clergy.) Pointing to a 2004 study, Donohue notes, "The John Jay study found that 81 percent of the victims were male, 78 percent of whom were postpubescent. Now if 100 percent of the victimizers are male, and most of the victims are postpubescent males, that is a problem called homosexuality. There is no getting around it.

"How many were pedophiles? Less than five percent. That is what the John Jay study found. Studies done in subsequent years—I have read them all—report approximately the same ratio. It's been a homosexual scandal all along."

In the words of blogger Matt Walsh, "the real problem in the Catholic Church isn't pedophilia but gay priests. As the statistics clearly show, the vast majority of predators in the clergy were homosexual and the vast majority were not pedophiles."

What, then, should we conclude from this? That homosexuals are far worse sinners than heterosexuals? Actually, there has been a flood of scandals involving heterosexual female teachers and their underage, heterosexual male students. What does this prove? The vast majority of pornography that is produced is for heterosexual use (since the vast majority of people are heterosexual). What does this prove?

It proves that sexual sin is everywhere. And all of it is ugly, especially when it takes advantage of others. So, my point here is not that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals (even though there is evidence to support this). And my point is not that homosexuals are more prone to pedophilia than heterosexuals (although here too, as noted, there is evidence to support that).

My point is simply that the vast majority of devout, heterosexual Catholic men will not want to give up marriage for the priesthood. However, a devout Catholic man who is attracted to the same-sex would be more likely to give up marriage for the priesthood, since he cannot "marry" a same-sex partner and be faithful to Catholicism.

And what do you expect to happen when you have thousands of homosexual men who are single for life, some of whom are fairly young, and who are in intimate environments with teenage men? Read the horrific reports about sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. That's exactly what you would expect.

As Ross Benes explained, "While doing research for my book The Sex Effect, I came across many scholars who suggested that preventing priests from marrying altered the makeup of the priesthood over time, unintentionally providing a shelter for some devout gay men to hide their sexual orientation. By continuing to disqualify women and married men, the priesthood attracts men who desire to forgo sex for the rest of their lives in an attempt to get closer to God. Because the church denounces all gay sex, some devout gay men pursue the celibate priesthood as a self-incentive to avoid sex with men, which can help them circumvent perceived damnation."

This, in turn, has produced what some claim is a gay subculture within the Catholic Church, from the local parish to the seminary and beyond. The sordid results that follow are utterly unsurprising.

From my perspective as a non-Catholic, the clergy should be allowed to marry, while those with the gift of celibacy should refrain from marriage. As for priests (or potential priests) who are same-sex attracted, they should seek out help for their sexual conflicts, not being allowed to serve until they have a clear and persistent track record of holy, disciplined living.

To do anything else is to be unfair to them and, far, far worse, to be unfair to their potential victims.

[NorthMountain]

Or the Eastern Orthodox CATHOLICS.

The Eastern Rite Catholics are as "Catholic" as I am. I have worshiped with them in the past, and may likely do so in the future. Thanks for the reminder. Technically, they're different Churches within The Church.

The Eastern Orthodox are in schism with us, and there are some theological problems associated with that schism.

[metmom]

And Jesus never told Peter that on *YOU* (meaning Peter) He would build his church.

Peter himself says that Christ is the rock and Paul also clearly states that. Matthew 16:18 - http://bible.cc/matthew/16-18.htm

Jesus said that Peter was *petros*(masculine) and that on this *petra*(feminine) He would build His church.

Greek: 4074 Pétros (a masculine noun) – properly, a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros (”small stone”) then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra (”cliff, boulder,” Abbott-Smith).

“4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff” (TDNT, 3, 100). “4074 (Pétros) always means a stone . . . such as a man may throw, . . . versus 4073 (pétra), a projecting rock, cliff” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

4073 pétra (a feminine noun) – “a mass of connected rock,” which is distinct from 4074 (Pétros) which is “a detached stone or boulder” (A-S). 4073 (pétra) is a “solid or native rock, rising up through the earth” (Souter) – a huge mass of rock (a boulder), such as a projecting cliff.

4073 (petra) is “a projecting rock, cliff (feminine noun) . . . 4074 (petros, the masculine form) however is a stone . . . such as a man might throw” (S. Zodhiates, Dict).

It’s also a strange way to word the sentence that He would call Peter a rock and say that on this I will build my church instead of *on you* as would be grammatically correct in talking to a person.

There is no support from the original Greek that Peter was to be the rock on which Jesus said he would build His church. The nouns are not the same, one being masculine and the other being feminine. They denote different objects.

Also, here, Paul identifies who petra is, and that is Christ. This link takes you to the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm

1 Corinthians 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock (petra) that followed them, and the Rock (petra) was Christ.

http://biblehub.com/text/romans/9-33.htm

Romans 9:30-33 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

http://biblehub.com/text/1_peter/2-8.htm

1 Peter 2:1-8 So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation— if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,”

and

“A stone of stumbling, and a rock (petra) of offense.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

All occurrences of *petra* in the Greek.

http://biblehub.com/greek/strongs_4073.htm

[NorthMountain]

One is ill advised to take advice from one’s enemies.

[metmom]

And they have married clergy and it works out for them.

[metmom]

Don’t hold your breath.

[x]

Any perv going after young teens would do kids in a heartbeat given the opportunity.

Well, no.

It was pretty common years ago for male comics to make jokes about whether the girls they liked were over the age of consent or not. Very few of them were into 8 years olds or 5 year olds.

"Ephebophilia" sounds like a made up word. You can call priests who prey on teenagers pedophiles, but I wouldn't automatically assume that all of them would go after pre-teen children, given the opportunity.

But maybe you should take this up with Woody Allen's remaining fans.

[NorthMountain]

Some enemies are full of advice. I ignore it.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Wow.

[Mom MD]

We have been over this before and will never see eye to eye. Nothing will prevail against the saints let’s leave it there

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Church has three major divisions:

• The Church Militant (on Earth)
• The Church Suffering (in Purgatory)
• The Church Triumphant (in Heaven)

The Church Triumphant is the most stable division in the Church, in that the state of the Blessed is unchanging (as time-bound people understand "change".) They have been purified and perfected by the Lord, and their condition is pure, uninterrupted and certain bliss of union with God.

The Church Suffering is the second-most stable. These souls are saved and therefore dwell in hope. They are being purified and perfected by Christ our God, and they condition will change: they will be led in joy to Heaven by their triumphant Lord.

The Church Militant is the most un-stable or changeable state. These souls are undergoing the trials, temptations and vicissitudes of life on Earth. It is a state of battle (which is why we are called "militant")--- and the struggle is constantly shifting between confusion and clarity, loss and gain, defeat and victory.

Jesus says this is the way it will go for the Church on Earth: (Matthew 24:12-14)

"Because of the multiplication of wickedness,
the love of many will grow cold.
But the one who perseveres to the end
will be saved.
And this gospel of the kingdom
will be preached in all the world
as a testimony to all nations,
and then the end will come."

In Matthew 10:22, Jesus says: "You will be hated by everyone on account of My name, but the one who perseveres to the end will be saved."

And in Luke 21:19, He says: "By your patient endurance, you will gain your souls."

Yes, this has been going on in the Church for over 2,000 years. The Lord says those who persevere to the end will be saved.

[Delta 21]

I think they thought they had it swept under the rug last century but it seems to be back with a vengeance.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don't think Albion Wilde was saying it was "better" if it's a matter of teens. In fact, that probably means it's a lot more widespread when the victims are teens, as homosexual perps are far more numerous than clinically-defined pedos. It may be even more widespread if the victims are young adults over 18 (and thus, technically, street-legal) like college-age seminarians.

Though legal, it's not "better." It's an abominable sin gratifying to the demons in hell and, if un-repented, merits their same eternal destiny.

[Mrs. Don-o]

They have been purged in some places. Back in 2005, near the beginning of Benedict XVI's pontificate, he appointed Edwin O’Brien, Archbishop for Military Services, to lead the “visitation” of seminaries in the United States.

All I remember is that the seminary in St. Louis was the first to get a visitation from a team of American bishops. The gay publications at the time were calling it an "inquisition" because it included meetings with each and every candidate for ordination as well as with faculty and staff.

How many seminaries they visited and how it all worked out I do not know. I remember there was openly what I would call passive-aggressive resistance. One seminary head said (in print) something like, "Oh yes, we'll receive the 'visitation team' in the front parlor, but that doesn't mean we give them the run of the house."

[Mrs. Don-o]

A distinction without a difference. That Jesus changed Simon Bar-Jonah's name to "Peter" was not to signify, "and you are NOT a Rock"!

That the Church was built "on Peter" (as Jesus said) is the same as to say it was built on Peter's faith. It was certainly not built on his bones and brain, and neither was it built upon his errors: within the paragraph, Jesus was saying (prompted by Peter's errors) "Get behind me, Satan!"

[metmom]

Moral defamation against a billion-plus people. You usually manifest a more exacting judgment and a greater regard for truth that that, metmom.

Not so.

First off, there's no way to verify that number as I am sure that once one is a baptized Catholic, they count you in that figure whether you like it or not, even when you have left the church, which people are doing in droves.

Then you have to consider that the vast number of professing Catholics are liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, democrat voting Catholics in good standing.

Then there's the sordid history of your church. There's this.

St. Peter Damian's Book of Gomorrah: Homosexual Situation Graver than Damian's Time

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/929551/posts

Then there's this list of bad popes, which don't even agree for the top 10.

Top 10 Most Wicked Popes

http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/

1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]

Top 10 Worst Popes in History

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php

1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)

There's the Inquisition besmirching Catholic history.

There's this....

YOUR pope kissing the koran. Fits right in with YOUR Catechism of the Catholic church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

And last but not least, this current crisis.

I can count on one hand LITERALLY, the number of conservative Catholics I have met in my entire life.

You are going to have an awfully hard time convincing anyone of the moral integrity of that alleged 1 billion plus Catholics.

[metmom]

A distinction WITH a difference. Different words that denote different objects. The Greek shows it plainly and clearly.

The church is built on CHRIST.

If your church isn’t, it’s not the body of Christ. It’s the body of Peter.

[Mrs. Don-o]

There was also Archbishop Charles Chaput, who was tasked by Pope Benedict to investigate the scandal-plagued Legion of Christ, and it was scoured.

But will there be a thoroughgoing "scouring" everywhere?

Safe bet: the good ones will do it. The bad ones won't.

One really stupid suggestion (a petition with a couple thousand stupid people's signatures) was that the entire USCCB should turn in their resignations --- as did the bishops in Chile --- as an acknowledgement of collective guilt.

Stupid, because that leaves it to Pope Francis to accept the resignations of the ones he already doesn't like (that would be good guys like Chaput) and turn down the resignations of the ones he does like (like Joseph Tobin, Blaise Cupich, etc.)

It would give The Francis carte blanche to re-make the U.S. bishops in his own image and likeness.

Not a good idea.

[Boomer]

Thank you and I agree with your assessment for the most part except I believe anyone over 18 having sex with anyone under 18 is committing pedophilia except under very exclusive circumstances such as childhood sweethearts with one being a year or two older but were together when they were both underage.

Maybe the law describes it different but kids can’t think right with their still developing brains. In truth I don’t believe most kids are truly adults mentally until around the age of 25. Boys just want to hump and girls are all emotional and mixed up. Well, so are the boys I guess, but boys generally think about 2 things; food and sex. If you offer him a sammich and he declines; you know what is on his mind.

Back to the RC; it will survive this. Damaged, hurt, bruised, and maybe even crippled; but it will survive. I wonder if the priests in Europe are the same way. I’ve been to Vatican. A truly wondrous place with a lot of power which is probably why certain factions want to take it down a notch. They may have even played the long game making the homo/pedo thing flourish and mature until there would be no way the church could deny it.

These days I put nothing past the evil ones behind the scenes. Nothing. They want pure global control. Not just as back seat drivers, movers, and shakers; but likely a more public look at some point. Conspiracy theories abound but in my experience there’s usually some truth to the more plausible ones.

[metmom]

Now, the $64 dollar question is, what do you do about it in a culture where increasingly anyone who even mildly criticizes anything gay gets charged with a hate crime?

Do you think the Church is going to purge them and then withstand the withering Twitterstorm and assault by Liberal government at all levels looking to punish them?

Personally I don’t.

Why not?

If the body of Christ does not take the stand, just who will?

[Mrs. Don-o]

The Church is built on Christ the living Stone, the Cornerstone. He has the indisputable authority to make "living stones" and "foundation stones" out of those whom He chooses.

Ephesians 2:20
[The Lord's household]"... is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone."

1 Peter 2:4-5 "As you come to Him, the living Stone --- rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to Him --- you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Revelation 12:14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

This last image from Revelation shows there were twelve large stones forming the basement of the wall of the New Jerusalem, the names of the Apostles were inscribed on these. The whole Old and New Testament Church is represented in the appearance of the city, but the work of the Apostles receives its special recognition. It is on their teaching and witness for Christ that the great spiritual Jerusalem is built.

There is beautiful harmony of thought here between St. Peter, St. Paul and St. John. St. Paul described the Church as built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone (Ephesians 2:20). We may compare the same illustration used by our Lord (Matthew 16:18) and afterwards by St. Peter (1 Peter 2:4-6).

So as the whole thing is built upon Christ, you can see from the context why Christ would designate Simon as "Peter" --- Cephas --- a word which means neither the Chief Cornerstone (Christ) not a bit of pebble or gravel, but a building stone (like all of the 12 referenced in Revelation), made particularly characteristic for Simon because "Rock" (Cephas) is bestowed upon him as his given name.

Whether "petra" or "petros" is used is not important by the time of Koine Greek. You do realize we're talking about Koine Greek, right?

There was some Attic (ancient) Greek poetry, a half-millennium before the time of Christ, in which a distinction was made between "rock" on the one hand and "pebble" on the other (Anacreon, c. 570 BC), but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek.

The distinction is only found in Attic Greek, but the NT was written in Koine Greek, in which both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone in Koine Greek, lithos would have been used.

So as regards the NT, it's a distinction without a difference. From the context itself, we can tell it means foundational building materials for the Church and for the New Jerusalem, not a river-gravel footpath.

Any possible doubts are settled by the Biblical Aramaic.

In Paul’s epistles--- eight timesin Galatians in 1 Corinthians---we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. Kepha. In our English Bibles, Cephas.

"And what does Kepha mean? It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble. It means Rock. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: 'You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.'

From the context itself, we know it is applied as an ongoing identity, for Peter (Cephas), because it's a name-change. It's just as significant for Simon --> Peter as for Abram --> Abraham or Jacob --> Israel. It's a defining change. It's how he's referred to in the NT.

---

I am happy to go this far into the very enlightening subject of language, because the topic here is the Church. And this is the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul.

Which is to say, the Church founded by Christ.