Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ann Coulter: Should gay priests adopt?
World Net Daily ^ | 03/20/2002 | Ann Coulter

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anncoulterlist; catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: PLK
Homosexual priests, who are serious about their vocation, should be required to submit to psychological counseling to overcome their deviant desires. In fact, this scandal can be an opportunity for the Church to provide ample evidence demonstrating that homosexuality is a mental illness that can be cured.
61 posted on 03/20/2002 7:27:55 PM PST by spindoctor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Ann Coulter / Scouting bump . . .


62 posted on 03/20/2002 7:30:37 PM PST by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident; mlmr
Both of ya'll have been added.
63 posted on 03/20/2002 7:39:26 PM PST by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Proverbs31
Since the candidate for Holy Orders is a man who is in the state of grace, and active homosexuals are not, isn't an actively homosexual priest an oxymoron? They don't need 'defrocking' because they weren't legitimately 'frocked!' This is another liberal Church result, just as the majority of Catholic Massachusetts Catholics are Democratic. If they are truly Catholic, they have to be against abortion and can't believe in the abortion, any time all the time, Democrat Party!
64 posted on 03/20/2002 8:00:20 PM PST by SouthCarolinaKit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy…

65 posted on 03/20/2002 8:09:24 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
…is that sodomites cause sodomy…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.

Thanks for the reality check Ann.

66 posted on 03/20/2002 8:16:04 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: foreshadowed at waco
Your gut feeling is pure speculation and very hurtful to good,caring priests dedicated to saving souls in the past as well as currently.

I would not have commented but for your conclusion that priests should be allowed to marry.Many people knew that when they finally decided to go with the "pedophile priest" scandal they were hoping to mask all the chickenhawks (homosexuals who like young blood)and keep them in their positions,only using the victims to puff up the "pedophile" statistics. Unfortunately,people started to catch on so now they are putting plan B into effect.Plan B:let priests marry,ordain women. If you care about the Church don't fall into promoting the plan of the enemy..

67 posted on 03/20/2002 8:25:34 PM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Note to the liberal press
68 posted on 03/20/2002 8:40:18 PM PST by EdReform
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Amen!
69 posted on 03/20/2002 8:57:26 PM PST by xsive_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rllngrk33
You are on the money!
70 posted on 03/21/2002 3:03:18 AM PST by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
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.

One of the best articles she's ever written.

71 posted on 03/21/2002 5:07:46 AM PST by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
BINGO! This is exactly what I was thinking and saying. There ARE some people who think for themselves afterall.
72 posted on 03/21/2002 12:34:52 PM PST by oremus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: SouthCarolinaKit
I think you're right, and I believe I read somewhere that Ratzinger or someone from the Vatican said that their ordination *may* (depending on each individual case) be invalid - null and void - as in the case of a marriage which is annulled - it is determined that there was no marriage to begin with, no Sacrament took effect.
73 posted on 03/21/2002 12:44:38 PM PST by oremus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta
One of the best articles she's ever written.

Agreed.

Highest truth-to-word ratio I've come across in a long time. This article ought to be used as a case study in writing classes.

In short: iron on target.

74 posted on 03/21/2002 12:53:46 PM PST by LTCJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Link to a good discussion of this topic
75 posted on 03/21/2002 1:15:05 PM PST by maica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
BTTT
76 posted on 03/21/2002 1:25:01 PM PST by father_elijah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Another Coulter classic!
77 posted on 03/21/2002 3:20:54 PM PST by L.N. Smithee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Our Ann skewers the NYT (again), does it using their own definitions, and doesn't even begin to rise to the level of a rant. That lady is just 2 kewl.
78 posted on 03/22/2002 5:54:03 AM PST by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
pokey please add me as well!

BTTT for ANN!

79 posted on 03/22/2002 10:59:27 AM PST by katherineisgreat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
This is the Lady I want to be in my next life, if there is such a thing. More conservative women who are strong in their convictions should be outspoken like Ann. God knows we have too many liberal Ann's--if you catch my drift? I think her opinions are what all these men are attracted to, not the fact that she is as skinny as a toothpick.
80 posted on 03/22/2002 7:12:44 PM PST by GOPsheree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson