[fporretto]

The homosexual subculture and its defenders will do everything they can to avert the conclusion that the sexual abuse of boys, which, despite Bill Donohue's assertions, occurs at a far higher rate among Catholic clergy than among the ministers of other Christian denominations, are the fruit of homosexuality within the Church, even though the existence of a lavender mafia with particular, enormous influence over seminaries is well established.

The critical factor in the abuses is not human sexuality. Indeed, to be fair, it might not even be homosexuality as such. But only within the Catholic clergy do men of God get such enormous, unsupervised authority over the young -- and only within the Catholic clergy are as many as 25% homosexual. Even if that figure is overstated by a factor of two, that would mean that three times as many priests per capita are homosexual as are secular American men.

Homosexuals, therefore, are attracted to the priesthood in disproportionate numbers. Why? What does it offer that's especially enticing to homosexuals? Couldn't a position of authority over young boys, whose sexuality is in a dynamic, influenceable state, be one of the attractions?

The Church, by insisting that priests be unmarried, has deprived itself of one of the checks on homosexuals entering its ranks. This is not to say that there are no married homosexuals. However, by limiting its candidates to the unmarried, the Church sacrifices a partially effective filter for homosexuality. Also, Protestant ministers rather frequently share pastoral authority and duty with their wives. Continuous spousal supervision thwarts many temptations to sexual sin -- and this is no less true of marriages in which the husband's sexual orientation is divided or concealed. Given the removal of these deterrents, is it really a surprise that homosexual and pederastic impulses are more frequently acted upon by priests than by non-Catholic clergymen, or by secular American men? Given that the Church in America has faced a severe shortage of vocations these past few decades, is it really a surprise that the Church has been slow to root out the problem in the only effective way?

Homosexuals have fought hard specifically to get into positions of authority over young boys: as teachers, as Boy Scout troop leaders, and as priests. If that authority brings them personally nothing they particularly desire, why have they made such an effort?

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[browardchad]

I can agree with the first part of your argument, i.e., “Homosexuals, therefore, are attracted to the priesthood in disproportionate numbers,” but I would add that the culture of homosexuality which is currently being revealed within the ranks of the priesthood, most specifically in seminaries, has allowed those who, as homosexuals, are attracted to this “enormous, unsupervised authority over the young” to flourish. The “filters” in some seminaries either no longer exist, or worse, they are filters that screen out heterosexuals and/or those who believe in conservative Catholic doctrine.

With regard to your second argument, you negate the ability of men to overcome their carnal desires and sublimate them into good works. It’s no surprise that in our “if it feels good, do it” culture, there are many who simply believe that this state of “positive” celibacy is beyond man’s reach – in fact, there are many who apparently believe celibacy to be more abnormal than homosexuality. This argument ignores the good done by celibate priests through the centuries – yes, there have been abuses in every age, and perhaps the current crisis is one of the worst in memory – but it does not negate man’s ability to overcome his carnal desires for the greater good.

It were better that the Church had far fewer, celibate priests, cardinals and bishops of moral integrity than thousands who use the sacred trust of their office to defile the young.