Posted on 12/18/2002 11:00:51 AM PST by zingzang
The Catholic Bishops made two big mistakes in their handling of the sex scandal hitting the church. One, they didnt get rid of priests who sexually abused children. A new policy of no tolerance may fix that. But the other, more basic, problem, is that too many homosexuals became priests in the liberal climate of the 1960s and 70s. The Vatican may fix that problem, and this is what has some in the media worried. On the CBS Evening News, reporter Byron Pitts said, "While the church tries to close the door on one sex scandal, another is brewing. The Vatican is now drafting a document that could ban homosexuals from the priest hood."
Thats another sex scandal? Since the homosexual lifestyle is frowned upon by church teaching, why would that be controversial? Its only controversial if youre a homosexual or if you try to maintain the fiction that there is no link between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children. This is what Byron Pitts tried to say in his one-sided treatment of this very serious matter.
He presented a retired priest and psychotherapist named Richard Sipe, who estimated that 30 percent of Catholic priests are gay. Thats a high number. But Sipe didnt want them kicked out. In fact, he told Pitts that a ban on homosexuals in the priesthood would be "like a gay bar refusing to serve homosexual patrons. It doesnt make any sense." This has got to be one of the strangest analogies ever offered in defense of homosexuals as priests. His rationale is that since gay bars serve gays, the church should keep its homosexual priests. But the church is not supposed to be an arm of the homosexual movement.
Pitts presented the Reverend Jim Morris of a homosexual Catholic group called "Dignity," who assured the audience that homosexual priests are not prone to abuse kids. As Pitts reported, "Homosexuality and pedophilia, he says, are not related." A homosexual activist was supposed to be an objective source of information.
The expert who was missing from the CBS News report was Dr. Timothy Daily of the Family Research Council, who has written about a definite link between homosexuality and child abuse. He says, "Despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners."
Daily notes that the homosexual movement accepts pedophilia. The North American Man-Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, has been a proud member of the so-called "gay rights" movement, and pedophile themes abound in gay literature. Dailey notes that the late "beat" poet Allen Ginsberg was a pedophile, whose poetry contained explicit references to man-boy sex. Ginsberg was a member of NAMBLA. When Ginsberg died in 1997, journalists praised him as a cultural icon. Some mentioned he was a homosexual, but they concealed his perverted sexual preference for boys.
Reed Irvine can be reached at ri@aim.org
True. But it is greatly troubling to many that NAMBLA representatives march in gay rights parades, along with our politicians. Does no one (normal or homosexual) have the moral fiber to say no?
You bet. The New York Times is a prominent example of journalists who refuse to print the whole truth. A daily article on the Catholic scandal with almost never a mention of the fact that almost all of the predators are homosexual. The New York Times is a master of obfuscation in this area - using convenient terms like 'pedophile priests', 'abusers', 'molestors' - every word in the dictionary except homosexual. Bill O'Reilly, just last night, finally had the cojones to admit on the air that most of the Catholic priest molestors are homosexual (and that most of the victims are teenage boys) - it only took him a year to do so.
You just dont get it do you. Its not about NARTH, its about every person with common sense who reads Freunds DATA can objectively see the connection. Even an 8-year-old can see it.
It makes me sick every time I find it. It does move every now and then, I guess the homosexuals there are afraid of getting caught.
Theres the Butterfly Kisses lesbian pedophile site too, Ill see if its still around.
How do you know, did you channel that through the HRC? And if that were true why would a lack of updating be conclusive evidence that theyre not in existence, hopeful wish? Someone is paying for it to be on the web or they have their own server.
You make it sound like that's a bad thing. </ smirk>
Documented here:
and here:
Recommended Reading for Teenagers? A Closer Look at P-FLAG
And see:
Are you telling me you don't have the preceptive powers to tell? Then I guess you are admitting you are an imbecile.
Your practice of clear accusatory language when referring to your opponents and obfuscating when describing your compadres is a good strategic debating tool. But it doesn't fool me.
But even among those that can genuinely be called gay activists, I dont see any orchestrated attempt to imply that Phelps is representative of anyone aside from himself. So if youre suggesting that Phelps is used in an organized attempt at Christian-bashing, then I must say no. I dont think that mainstream gay activists do that.
Read on and learn.
The aforementioned Cathy Renna is the GLAAD attack dog who urged her fellow Gay-stapo members to pressure journalists not to seek comments in the name of "balance" from people opposed to their agenda.
For conservative Christians, Phelps is a pitiful caricature of the believer who fosters negative stereotypes of Christians who oppose the homosexual lifestyle.To gay activists, he is the far end of a spectrum of conservative Christians who fuel hate crimes with their anti-gay rhetoric.
"If you scratch away at the compassionate ex-gay campaign, you're going to find out all these flowers came from the same seeds," says Cathy Renna, director of community relations for the Washington-based Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. "Homophobia is homophobia is homophobia."
(snip)
[Robert] Knight [author of the overwhelmingly approved Definition of Marriage Amendment in California] complains, the media use Phelps as "a shorthand description of conservative Christians, which is unfair."
Renna agrees with Christian conservatives that Phelps is unique, but only because he expresses the hatred other groups couch in less incendiary language.
Even milder attacks on homosexuality, gay rights groups charge, can foment violence against the gay community, a suggestion that incenses Knight.
"It's an outrageous falsehood," he says, "that's been the same plan from day one of the Matthew Shepard tragedy: to say that any opposition to homosexual activity or any restatement of Biblical beliefs is a form of hate-filled bigotry that can lead directly to crimes of this type."
Such equations, he says, "are an attempt to restrict the free speech of conservative Christians. The gays are in effect saying we're going to shut you up by falsely blaming this murder on you."
You want more? Here's LGNY's Troy Masters (seriously), who slyly suggested that if Dr. Laura's TV show were allowed on the air, we might see more brutal homophobic killings.
Look up the word "vernacular," and call me in the morning.
Doesn't good grammar mandate that sentences start with an upper case letter and end with a period? Plus, where are the quotation marks around the phrases you suggest the subject of your criticism use en lieu of "like"?
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.