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 didn’t 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."
That’s another sex scandal? Since the homosexual lifestyle is frowned upon by church teaching, why would that be controversial? It’s only controversial if you’re 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. That’s a high number. But Sipe didn’t 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 doesn’t 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, and it's mainly due to the church prefering to cover up abuse rather than get these monsters put away for good. All of their PR spin will result in people leaving the church or avoiding it altogether.
Kinsey reported that those who engaged in homosexuality were exceptionally sexually flexible, intensely sexualized, and highly venturesome. Kinsey's published data reveal that homosexuals are much more willing to "try it" with an animal, a child, a man, many women, or for that matter "something completely different."
That's exactly what happened in the Catholic Church.
Actually, the so-called "gay rights" movement would love to rid itself of the association with the above mentioned group. They certainly are not welcomed.
I know a lot of good and holy Catholic people who cannot bear to go to Church right now - and who are ashamed, shocked and horrified at the homosexual abuse of so many teenage boys.
There are many, many Christians who protest the sexualization of children at all ages. I am one of them. But the scandal in the Catholic Church is virtually all homosexual.
Homosexuals are not of one mind
HOMOSEXUALITY: A POLITICAL MASK FOR PROMISCUITY: A PSYCHIATRIST REVIEWS THE DATA
|
He presented a retired priest and psychotherapist named Richard Sipe, who estimated that 30 percent of Catholic priests are gay. That’s a high number. But Sipe didn’t 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 doesn’t 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. |
Courage, an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church, ministers to those with same-sex attractions and their loved ones. We have been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family.
Can you blame them? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/12/60II/main511967.shtml
Homosexuality and child molestation: the link, the likelihood, the lasting effects
"... Furthermore, some suggest that public disavowal of NAMBLA by homosexual groups is a smokescreen. David Thorstad, a founding member of NAMBLA and former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance, says homosexual activists have supressed pedophilia in order “to sanitize the image of homosexuality to facilitate its entrance into the social mainstream.”..."
The Overhauling of Straight America
"... (2) Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined be reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seem as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our “gay pride” publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia -- “They are all around us!” -- on the other.
A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep a very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentation, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability, such as NAMBLA, must play no part at all in such a campaign; suspected child-molesters will never look like victims).
Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: “As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn’t willfully contrary -- it’s only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!”..."
(Also see: What Homosexuals Say About Homosexuals - Is This Gay Behavior Sick?)
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.