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
I had not considered this aspect... Very good point.
Wittingly or unwittingly, I believe you have just put your finger on the heart of the whole problem of homosexuality (properly called heterophobia), pedophilia, and the plague of these within the Catholic Church.
All of these result from the irrational and evil belief that what one is attracted to is justification for what one chooses to do. Desires and attractions are non-cognitive, and never morally or rationally justify what one chooses to do.
So long as the evil principle that what one is attracted or drawn to is justification for one's moral choices, the problems of homosexuality and pedophilia will only become worse. Until we insist that moral choices are determined by what is true and right, and that each of us have the moral character to choose according to objective truth, no matter what one desires or is, "drawn to," there can be no solution to the problem if the victimization of innocent children and the self-destructive behavior of homosexuals.
Hank
You said: My Church puts kids last.
My question, why is it your Church if this is true? Doesn't that, in a way, make you an accomplice? If you support that which protects such evil, what is it you are supporting, and why?
Hank
Hey Hank, I'll be glad to answer your question - though the whole subject makes me greatly sad as well. I don't know if you're Catholic or not - but Catholics believe in the sanctity of their Church - that is, that the institution itself is protected by the Holy Spirit, that it will always prevail over time in truth and goodness, and will stay true to Christ's teachings and will - even if it goes through periodic cycles of corruption at the hands of evil and sinful leaders (and I pray that we are at a low in that cycle now). Catholics believe that the institution - while able to be attacked by Satan and his minions, will always prevail against the forces of evil. So believing that (as I do), I must remain faithful to my Church and its divine mission. However, I FULLY recognize the horrendous and disgusting evil which has infiltrated it, and not wishing to be an accomplice to that, I stand ready to fight that evil with all the energy and ability I have. And I am further energized in the knowledge that the evil in the Church has turned toward children - one of the most horrendous forms of evil there is. In short, I believe it is far better to fight Satan with faith and truth than to turn tail and run.
The Church WIll grow dramatically once it returns to faithfulness in its own beliefs and message.
Thank you for your long and sincere answer.
I am not Catholic. I do not, therefore, share you conviction that the Catholic Church (or any organization for that matter) can be infected by and even protect evil without itself being evil. This is not meant as an argument against your position, only as a statement of mine.
I fully sympathize with your consternation at what is currently going on in some Catholic churches, and in that, at least we can agree. I also commend you on not glossing over the fact that what has happened is evil, as some have seemed to do.
I cannot agree with you in your convictions regarding the Catholic church, but I am in total agreement with you that ultimately, the truth will prevail, but only if those who believe in the truth will stand and defend it.
Hank
Why, because you a homosexual, or the HRC a homosexual activists group says so? After I stop laughing again, can anyone say HYPOCRITE? Hes written a rather convincing research paper, unlike what the APA committee did by voting, thats supported by proper research from many pro-homosexual researchers. Funny how conclusions can be political but DATA doesnt lie. All youve got is OPINION and Dr. Groth fails to support any of his.
Thank you for PROVING ME RIGHT once again, oh predictable one: (blah, blah, blah, A review of that website will show that it has not been updated for more than two years.) Sometimes this is just TOO easy.
Youre right it is TOO east, almost embarrassingly. Post#128
sell their totally unsupported theories as a product to a gullible public. So much for NARTH.
Theories??? Its called well supported HISTORY and it wasnt from NARTH. But if you want it to be Ill be happy to wear that hat. Can you cite ANY reseach that debunks any research from NARTH. Anything? Ill give you some time and you get back to me, OK?
See my above re: Doctor Daileys complete lack of qualifications to conduct ANY such study.
Sorry, where exactly has Dr. Dailey failed to follow scientific method? Should you have some research that debunks his findings let me know. Otherwise well have to assume your unsupported biased opinion is just that, OPINION.
NARTHs wacky theories may APPEAL to those with an 8yos mentality.
Ummm its Freunds research DATA that an 8-year old can objectively understand, do you have reading comprehension problems?
blah, blah, blah, you can also believe that a tiny, outré, group of therapists with outdated, radical theories are correct; and the overwhelming mounds of evidence that prove them wrong (including millions of people on a daily basis) simply dont exist.
overwhelming mounds of evidence, what evidence proves homosexuality is NOT a disorder? What???
including millions of people on a daily basis, hehehe its just like you to use public opinion in place of science. I guess your Santa Clause theory has some legs.
Youve got that backwards, bub. YOU are the one inferring that NAMBLA is viable by leading us to a stagnant website. The burden of proof is on you. Youre looking at a years-old photograph and claiming that something is still alive, even though you havent got a shred of evidence to support that claim. Who is REALLY engaging in the hopeful wishing? For that matter, why do you so desperately want to believe that NAMBLA is STILL alive?
A web site is a pretty good indication for starters, then theres the resource information like Membership New and Noteworthy Boys Speak Out What People Are Saying The Prisoner Program What Can Science Tell Us? Publications Selected Readings, and of course theres the CONTACT INFORMATION! But you can pretend it doesnt exist, Id be in denial too if I had a pathology that made me more likely to commit such behavior. As for wanting it here, I want it destroyed!
C'mon, madg. You're raising a completely different issue than the one I did. It's a nice (but shallow) try. Most people know that putting homosexual men in close quarters with other people's teenage boys is BAD news. And it is - as several thousand molested teenage boys in the Catholic Church can attest to. What's backfiring is the steady desire of homosexual organizations to insinuate homosexual men into position of authority over and close quarters to teenage boys - as well as the constant attempts to lower the age of consent for man/boy sex. As I say - I have no problem with homosexuals leading their own lives as they see fit. But I do NOT agree with them on issues of sexual morality. I do NOT want them teaching my kids things I don't believe are true. And I do NOT want my sons in close quarters with homosexual men. I believe most Americans would be in my camp on those things. Here's a test - go to any representative meeting of American parents with teenage boys - and tell them that you as a homosexual man want to be their sons' mentor, and that you want to take their sons out for the day. In most places, as you well know, you wouldn't get very far. And THAT is not because parents are bigots. It's because they're prudent.
Are those the "real" people mad "gay" was refering to?
No, in madg's world, people are stumbling over themselves to find homosexual mentors, coaches, Boy Scout scoutmasters, Big Brothers, priests, etc. etc. to take a special personal interest in their teenage sons. (NOT!)
The obvious answer is that Knight did NOT know, and was just indiscriminately applying the term for the sole purpose of inflammatory rhetoric.
Robert Knight said no such thing. Peter LaBarbera did say this:
I could find no independent information about whether or not the killer -- Nicholas Gutierrez -- was an activist of any stripe. You couldn't find anything indicating that he wasn't. But it really doesn't matter, because stating that the killer was an activist doesn't qualify as "inflammatory rhetoric." This is yet another example of your penchant for accusatory language when referring to your opponents.
"This woman, Mary Stachowicz, was killed evidently because she was sharing the truth about homosexuality to a gay activist," LaBarbera said. "We will be waiting to see, now, if the media treats this case like it treated the Matthew Shepard case."
Even heterosexual parents of gay children get branded as "gay activists" simply for doing what ANY parent should do for their children.
That's clear as mud.
So, no, I am not the "imbecile." The "imbeciles" are those that use a term that has been misused for years whilst expecting someone else to know exactly what they're talking about.
It is to laugh. I wasn't "misusing" a term, you suggested that the term itself had no clear meaning. I made a reference to "gay activists" and you replied, "First, Im not sure what you mean by 'gay activists'..."
And? What's your point? "Pitiful caricature." "The far end of a spectrum." That hardly suggests that he represents the mainstream, Knight's rather obvious self-victimization notwithstanding.
You think you're clever, don't you, quoting someone other than the gay activist in the article. Well, that's why the stuff Cathy Renna said was in red font -- so you wouldn't miss it.
Let's review, shall we?
madg: 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.Cathy Renna, GLAAD attack dog: "If you scratch away at the compassionate ex-gay campaign, you're going to find out all these flowers came from the same seeds... Homophobia is homophobia is homophobia."
That's the Renna quote I used. Here's the one I didn't, just in case you suggested that Renna wasn't "[using Phelps] in an organized attempt at 'Christian-bashing'":
In a nutshell, what Renna and other rabid gay activists are saying is, 'When you see Phelps, you've seen them all,' which is one of the larger of the Gay-stapo's big lies.
Conservative Christians, she believes, are capitalizing on Phelps to promote their agenda. As she put it, "They can point to him and say, 'He's a bad guy. We're compassionate.' "
When I pointed out that Renna urged journalists not to be fair to people who disagree with them, you said:
Well, duh, GLAAD is a media watchdog. Thats their job, its why they exist.
What a steaming pile that is. Media watchdogs are not for stifling the speech of others -- which is just what Robert Knight accurately accused Renna and GLAAD of doing -- they are for making sure that one side is heard clearly and reported about fairly. The Anti-Defamation League nor Accuracy in Media nor Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting nor the American Family Association nor the Media Resource Center or any number of left, right, and center watchdogs have ever suggested that their viewpoint should be the only one considered in news stories.
Do words have the power to influence actions in other yes or no?
Absolutely, words have power. Absolutely, words can influence action. No one understands this better than the Gay-stapo does.
If words didn't have power, the radical gay activists wouldn't find it necessary to get their pro-homo textbooks, novels, and curricula into grade school. They wouldn't be trying to convince children who have only the vaguest idea about sex that there isn't something abnormal about having attraction to the same gender. They wouldn't be trying to get youngsters to sing songs and write romantic stories about two men or two women.
The homosexual lobby is heavily invested in furthering the notion that every word spoken that is not in its favor is contributing to an atmosphere of hatred. Not only is such a stance slanderous, it is insulting to the intelligence. Fred Phelps and his tiny church are just, at most, a few dozen abhorrent individuals, and the vast majority of people who oppose the endless promotion of homosexuality to children agree. If people like Cathy Renna think that people like Phelps are everywhere, maybe someone should begin an investigation to see if homosexuality and paranoia have a link!
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.