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
I will take your word that it still exits. But, I often see it written that the group takes part in "gay pride" parades. I don't think that is the case.
Because he's not defending NAMBLA, like you seem to be.
Where I grew up, that would be standard proceedure.
If you're a queer and go after a 12 year-old boy, you are a pedophile.
If you're a queer priest and not touching under-aged kids you're just a faggot priest.
Tell me, yendu bwam, how do you know if a man or woman is a queer unless they tell you? You can't.
Go to the Castro District in San Francisco and see if you can't tell who's queer and who's not.
Active homosexuals in the church are the same as married men lying their way into the priesthood. It's the lie, the cover-up.
It's the moral equivalent of robbers being able to keep the money they steal or illegal immigrant becoming citizens while immigrants who following the rules can't become citizens. It's cheating.
It's the "clinton way" -- the cheat, the lie. To opposite of spiritual.
Catholics can change the celibate standing of their priest. But celibate for heterosexuals and not for homosexuals? Too bizarre.
"... The homosexual movement has a history of trying to claw its way into places its agenda doesn’t belong, not for the betterment of mankind, but simply to legitimize and normalize perverse behavior. This is apparent in the all-too-common need of homosexuals to declare their sexuality rather than simply do the job they sign on to do.
This is extremely detrimental—first, it creates conflict with others as most believe homosexuality to be wrong, and it shows that the full efforts of the employed homosexual are not going towards performing the task at hand but largely to declaring their lifestyle. When it comes to serious concerns such as the Church, schools, and the Boy Scouts that involve our children, we can’t take the risk of giving them this power to destroy the values we as parents try to instill, nor can we put our country’s welfare at stake by turning these pivotal foundational institutions and our military into homosexual social experiments.
The homosexual movement is marked by two major tendencies: the tendency to continually infiltrate all good aspects of society; and once they have achieved that, the tendency to destroy this good. Public education, the Boy Scouts, the military, and now the Catholic Church have been targeted, and all have been hurt by the effects of homosexuality. The media and the Church must break its silence towards this enemy. If they do not, the people themselves must rise up and expose it..."
Yeah, you're partly right on the first point, johnny7. My sons know exactly what to do in such a situation (and they are black belts in karate as well). But here's what happens in a lot of cases - and this is exactly what happened in my sons' Catholic elementary school - about 10 years ago. A homosexual priest got to know the parents of six teenage boys really well - to the point where the parents considered him a good friend. He had the boys spend a lot of time with him at the rectory, where they formed a little club. The parents, who were overjoyed at the priest's attention, told the boys to respect and obey the priest. The priest taught them to respect and obey him as well. He told the boys (who didn't know much about sex) that he had been put in charge of teaching them about sex, and helping them on into manhood. He showed them homosexual pornographic films. He got them to masturbate with him. The priest told them that this was completely normal, and that their fathers were proud of them, but that they should never talk about this stuff. They proceeded on into other depraved sexual activities until the priest was anally raping them about every other week for over six years. All the while, the boys believed this was normal and/or required. - You can see how insidious this was. The abuser often spend months and years setting up teenage boys to become their sex playthings - using them like rags. - Finally, I'd note that for parents who are too naive to warn their boys about such, some organizations, like the Boy Scouts, have kids watch films about the dangers of homosexual molestation. The difference is, the Boy Scouts put kids first. My Church puts kids last.
True, but a heck of a lot of faggot priests have sexual attractions to teenage boys. I don't want my sons in the presence of priests who have a sexual attraction for them (whether acted on or not). I don't want my sons taught about Catholic sexual morality by priests who have a serious sexual disorder. I want normal men for priests with whom we can have trust when they are around our sons.
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.