Posted on 03/20/2002 5:21:46 PM PST by Pokey78
Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view – adopted by the Boy Scouts – is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)
It is a fact that the vast majority of the abuser priests – more than 90 percent – are accused of molesting teen-age boys. Indeed, the overwhelmingly homosexual nature of the abuse prompted The New York Times to engage in its classic "Where's Waldo" reporting style, in which the sex of the victims is studiedly hidden amid a torrent of genderless words, such as the "teen-ager," the "former student," the "victim" and the "accuser."
Meanwhile, no spate of sex scandals is engulfing the Boy Scouts of America. Inasmuch as the Boy Scouts were not taking risk-assessment advice from Norman Mineta, they decided to eliminate a whole category of potential problems by refusing to allow gay men to be scout leaders. Perhaps gay scout leaders just really liked camping. But it was also possible that gay men who wanted to lead troops of adolescent boys into the woods were up to no good.
For their politically incorrect risk-assessment technique, the Boy Scouts were denounced as troglodyte bigots in all outlets of appropriate liberal opinion. Cities and states across the country dropped their support for the scouts. The United Way, Chase Manhattan Bank and Textron withdrew millions of dollars in contributions.
And Hell hath no fury like a New York Times editor spurned. The Times denounced the Supreme Court decision merely permitting the Boy Scouts to refuse gay scoutmasters as one of the court's "lowest moments." The Times "ethicist" advised readers that pulling their sons out of the Boy Scouts was "the ethical thing to do."
Since liberals categorically reject the notion that homosexual conduct is often correlated with homosexuality, they have responded to the gay sex-abuse crisis in the priesthood by blaming Catholicism. In particular, liberals have identified the church's celibacy requirement as the root of the problem.
There is absolutely no logic to this theory. It is nothing more than liberals reacting to the concept of sexual restraint like "The Exorcist's" Linda Blair did to holy water. If they had succeeded in turning the Boy Scouts into a gay-rights re-education camp, we'd be reading that camping causes sodomy now.
Even in the midst of the Catholic Church's current scandals – including decades-old cases – the Catholic clergy has about the same percentage of perverts as the Yale faculty. There are more than 45,000 priests in America and, so far, 55 exposed abusers. There are 836 tenured professors at Yale, and one proved child molester – convicted just last month.
That's still a higher percentage than the Boy Scouts, but the point is: It's not going to be easy to blame celibacy.
Moreover, when did celibacy become a gay-magnet? It may lack the Boy Scouts' direct approach, but the church isn't exactly passing out Liza Minnelli posters by demanding sexual abstinence.
Most stunningly, if celibacy is to blame, this is a show-stopping, Nobel Prize-winning discovery overturning years of liberal claptrap. In all other circumstances, it is punishable by death to suggest that sexual behavior is not determined at birth or that gays can be "cured." Now liberals are hawking the idea that gay priests could have been cured by marriage!
It's nice to see liberals becoming such big marriage-boosters. Too bad their newfound respect for marriage – an eminently dissolvable agreement, rescindable by either party without cause or notice – is limited to gays and priests.
Blaming celibacy is not only contrary to various liberal dogmas, but contrary to all known evidence about any vice. Total avoidance, not limited temptation, is the only hope for controlling weakness. Alcoholics cannot have a drop of alcohol. Former smokers cannot have just one cigarette. Problem gamblers must avoid the racetrack.
Only in the case of sex do liberals refuse to countenance abstinence. Small doses of sex are supposed to provide a needed "release." The "release" theory is disproved every time a child molester's home is searched, invariably unearthing enormous stockpiles of child pornography. None of this ever gives liberals pause. Celibacy is always bad, sex is always good.
The Catholic sex scandals have also prompted liberals to drop their demand that no discussion of a crime occur until there has been a final conviction proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt after a full trial. We had witnesses, gifts, phone records, White House logs and taped evidence on Bill Clinton. But still NBC's Matt Lauer shouted "Allegedly! Allegedly!" at any suggestion that Clinton had, in fact, had sexual relations with "that woman."
Indeed, most of the allegations against the priests do not even constitute "sexual relations" on the Democratic Party's definition.
At least we finally have The New York Times on record opposing sexual activity between men and boys. Evidently the only men the Times thinks should not be fondling teen-agers are those who purport to believe in God.
LOL! Ann nails another issue.
Interesting. Only 10% molest girls.
Could it be that the majority of men willing to take vows of celibacy and face the prospect of never being able to marry, are less attracted to women to begin with?
And not so much their willingness to make a personal sacrifice for the priesthood?
You can't trust him, but...
..you CAN trust her.
And not so much their willingness to make a personal sacrifice for the priesthood?
I don't agree. The rationale I have heard is that there is a gay sub-culture within certain seminaries that attracts gay men. Another theory is that gays who enter the priesthood (those unaware of this subculture) may be trying to run from their sexual orientation; that is, they believe that celibacy is their only salvation from their deviant thinking and desires.
My own take on this gay priest situation is based on a gut feeling...it was not uncommon in many Catholic families years ago for one son to be selected for the priesthood...I'd bet that the priesthood was considered a viable solution for families who had to 'save' their homosexual sons from leading a life of sin...keep them celibate...the whole issue of pedophilia is very frightening since I believe that it is a compulsion not merely a simple temptation...the Church should have come clean on this years ago instead of just moving these guys around...it's always the cover-up that hurts more than the original crime...I'm glad that this infectious 'boil' is now being lanced...far too many children have suffered needlessly.
I would like the Church to consider marriage for the priesthood...we have a priest shortage right now and I'd like to see them widen the candidate pool.
Babe-a-licious Bump
YES.
I definitely believe this is a strong possibility in many cases.
It is no coincidence that Ex-gay ministries teach celibacy represents the proper abstinance from sinful desires....as taught by the Bible.
NOWHERE does the Bible teach that we are supposed to indulge sinful desires.
A light dawns! At some point in her life, Ann had a weakness for food....
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.