Tuesday, April 13, 2010

It's the Homosexuals.

Cardinal Bertone in Chile.
"SANTIAGO, Chile – The Vatican's second-highest authority says the sex scandals haunting the Roman Catholic Church are linked to homosexuality and not celibacy among priests.  'Many psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relation between celibacy and pedophilia. But many others have demonstrated, I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true,' said Bertone. 'That is the problem.'" - Source
I happen to agree with this, as most of my readers already know.  I'm also convinced most real pedophiles are heterosexual men - single or married, and/or boyfriends/friends/relatives of women with kids from a previous marriage or a former partner.  Be realistic - normal, real-men - manly men priests - who happen to be weak, lonely and/or are disposed to commit a sin against chastity, would go for women, younger (late teens to early 20's) or a little older (someone attractive and pre-menopause), such as religious-ed women, parish secretaries, bookkeepers, or someone they may be counselling... a little too often.  Think the former Fr.'s Stone and Cutie.  Most priests are normal heterosexual men.
Yep, so anyway, like I always say - man/boy stuff is definitely gay.  So don't be obtuse.  (And I mean that in the nicest possible way.)
Photo credit: Chilean protest 2003


  1. Even if the majority of the offending priests are engaging in homosexual activity, that is no reason to claim that the abuses are somehow an indictment on homosexuality. If a 45 year old man has sex with a 14 year old girl, you will not hear about how it is a "heterosexual problem." So this is nothing more than an instance of a Cardinal taking shots at homosexuals. If a homosexual is a pedophile or a pederast, it is blamed on his homosexuality, of course with the cop-out "well not all homosexuals are pedophiles or pederasts." But when a heterosexual engages in the same activity with members of the opposite sex, no one makes a big deal about their sexual orientation. No one suggests that somehow heterosexuality is the part of the cause of the problem. Why do you think that is?

  2. michael r.10:35 AM

    "I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true,' said Bertone. 'That is the problem.'" This certainly doesn't square with what Pope Benedict said on the plane on his way to the U.S. Did we all forget about that already? He said that he 'would not speak of homosexuality at this time, but rather of pedophilia, which is something different.' I've been waiting for him to speak of homosexuality ever since. But, the point is that he drew a sharp divide between the two issues. Hopefully he's not going to subscribe to this kind of nonsense now.

  3. It's a point not worthy of consideration, as there is not one scrap of evidence to suggest its validity.

    Don't you remember how the Pope just spoke on the agreement between faith and science?

    (By and by, I was waiting on you to pick up on this one. It had "Terry" written all over it. In lipstick, no less.)


  4. "Yep, so anyway, like I always say - man/boy stuff is definitely gay. So don't be obtuse. (And I mean that in the nicest possible way.)"

    Pedophilia, in the strict since of the word, is about the attraction to pre-pubescent children.
    The seduction and abuse of adolescents/teens is different.
    Man/boy stuff is definitely a homosexual issue.

    I agree with you, Terry.

  5. Nazareth priest, it is no more a "homosexual issue" than a man having sex with a 14 year old girl is a "heterosexual issue." What the Cardinal is suggesting is that the abuse somehow flows from their homosexual nature. I am calling nonsense on that, because no one would claim that a 45 year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl is a result of his heterosexuality. Or put another way, if most of the abuses were of young girls, no one would claim that the problem was with heterosexual priests.

    Why the double standard on homosexuals?

  6. AJ: Sorry, but when a man seduces/abuses a minor male, it is homosexual. Period. Whether or not the priest is "homosexual" in orientation, it is a homosexual act.

    When a priest abuses a minor female, it is a crime, it is wrong, it is a sin. The problem is with the fact that this priest has broken his commitment to celibacy, has violated the innocence of a minor girl, has committed fornication.

    Homosexual activity is not the same as heterosexual activity on one level; it is criminal, sinful and wrong on another.

    That's the point.

    When an adult male has sex with a minor male, it is homosexual activity.

  7. No, no, no.

    Simple science contradicts such a reductionist opinion.

  8. Hi AJ - thanks for commenting. I meant to respond to your question:
    "No one suggests that somehow heterosexuality is the part of the cause of the problem. Why do you think that is?"

    I say because heterosexuality is normal - and the rest isn't.

    Michael, I too wondered why the Holy Father didn't address the gay issue, until I realized he already had under JPII with his CDF document on the subject.

  9. Poodle - I mean Thom - it was either this news story or Huckabee's comparing gay adoption to people raising puppies.

  10. Fr. JM - Thanks for your support here.

  11. AJ and Thom:
    I think we are dealing with two separate issues here. One, I think you will agree with me; the other, not so much.

    The majority of cases of substantiated abuse of minors was a priest molesting a boy/male teen or young adult. That is homosexual activity.

    There are other documented cases of priests abusing females who were children/teens/young adults.
    That is sinful, criminal, wrong but it is not homosexual activity.

    The point at which we diverge here, and I mean no offense to anyone, is that the Church teaches that homosexual genital relations are "disordered"; this has been the consistent teaching and it has to do with what sexual intimacy is primarily ordered to: the marriage covenant where a man and a woman commit themselves for life to be open to new life and to their union.

    Homosexual sex cannot generate new life nor is it unitive in the sense that a man and a woman can achieve physical union.

    That is a "hard saying" but that is the teaching of our Church.

    It does NOT mean that those with same-sex attractions are somehow secondary citizens or condemned to a life of loneliness and despair. The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" emphasizes the need for pastoral care, nurturing chaste friendship and the role of prayer and the Sacraments.
    It DOES mean that sexual activity is ordained, by the Creator, to be between a man and a woman AND within a marriage of a man and a woman. Period. There is no other alternative.

    Priests who have violated their pledge of celibacy, whether religious or diocesan, have sinned and in many cases, committed crimes. But to be intellectually honest here, we have to make a distinction between sexual sins "against nature" (St. Thomas Aquinas), meaning that the acts are basically masturbatory and are not directed to their natural end (between two persons of the same sex); and acts, which although criminal and sinful, between a male and female, are not, in their "genus" against nature.

    I know, I know. I'm gonna get hit with all kinds of you know what.
    It's okay.

  12. No, Father, you can save your red for another day. No one's out to make you a martyr. Easy there. ;-)

  13. Thom: O shoot!
    I'm ready, I'm ready...take me now Jesus:<)!

  14. I think that's Thom's favorite song, "Jesus Take the Wheel" - oops, sorry Father, I misread your comment.

  15. It was an instant favorite after I heard you sing it, Terry, karaoke-style, for the Offertory at Mass last year.

    I was touched.

  16. And I want to add here:
    We have to define our terms more carefully.
    "Homosexuality" in the sense that one has an attraction to the same sex is not the same as "homosexual activity"...I am sorry I did not make that clear before.
    Many, many people struggle with this, heroically, and I want to give credit where credit is due.
    "Chaste friendship" is the only way to know the love of Christ and the authentic love of another.
    But when "homosexual activity" is involved; this is objectively sinful. I absolve anyone who comes to me with this sin; please do not think I am some kind of "homophobe"...but I believe, because of the Church's teachings, that genital expression between two men or two women is sinful; it does not express the true meaning of human sexuality.
    Love, on the other hand, is something that can be expressed in
    "chaste celibacy"; and this does not in any way diminish the authentic love and self-giving between two individuals, whether male-female, male-male, female-female.
    It's Jesus' love that is not selfish, self-aggrandizing, nor sinful.
    It can be very, very fruitful and beautiful.
    The lives of many of the saints attest to this, both those friends, male-female, male-male, female-female.
    That's the beauty of our Catholic faith; we have so many witnesses of authentic Christian friendship.
    In the Lord. Blessed by His Love.

  17. No, Terry, that is a favorite around here..."Jesus, take the wheel"...cause oh my stars...well, anyway!

  18. I know. (Both Thom and Father.)

  19. Re sex with 14 year old girls--In these parts (Southern Utah) the FLDS Church-of Warren Jeffs fame--he also had a compund that got busted in Texas--seems to think it's ok to unite girls as young as 12 into plural marriages with men often 4 times their age...because their prohpets say is ok and it's a religious matter....our State districk Attorney doesn't have the balls to go after them because, well, many folks around here came from pioneer Mormon stock and really believe that plural marriage is God-given...

    If the girl is under 18--it's still statuatory rape, even if her parents give consent. And plural marriages are not recognized so if she's wife number whatever it is still rape.. that's something folks around here just don't get.

    So in the abuse cases coming up..it shouldn't matter if it is a boy or a girl...if it is a minor child having any kind of sexual relations with an adult that is statuatory rape...and the people who commite these crimes and the folks who shelter them should be triedn and punished..


  20. Sara: Amen. Any adult male who violates a minor, male or female, in a sexual way, is a criminal. Period.
    And he should be prosecuted accordingly.

    The distinction between criminal prosecution and canonical trial has GOT TO BE DISTINGUISHED. And I use this as an opportunity, not because of your comments, but because I'm in the mood (!).

    Canonical trial of a priest who has violated a minor sexually (a suspended 'latae sententiae' penalty, I might add; in other words, by the very act of doing it, not because the Church imposes it in terms of a penalty by the bishop; if this priest confesses this to me I have to tell him he is suspended and I must petition the Apostolic Penitentiary in order to absolve him; I cannot do it by myself--it is now a reserved sin). The "secrecy" that the MSM has unfortunately misunderstood, has to do with a canonical proceedings, and not a civil suit.
    The Church operates under a certain code which demands secrecy if it involves the "seal of confession" or the good name of an accused or accuser. This is not to "cover up"; it's to protect the people involved, not in a matter of criminal cover-up, but in order to get to the matter of whether or not a priest, has in fact, incurred a canonical penalty and needs to be punished according to the Church's norms.
    Good grief, if every accusation was the means of putting a priest down, whether it was true or not, is this what we want as public knowledge, before it can be verified with certainty?
    These "dweebs" in the MSM who want "full disclosure" better the hell look at themselves in the mirror and ask if "they" want full disclosure about all the crap they have been involved in, whether or not they are are innocent or guilty.

    Today I wasted about two minutes watching some "married priest" (an excommunicated priest from the Diocese of Rochester, NY) carry on about how the "seal of confession" needed to be revamped so that priests could tell local prosecutors about any confessions of child abuse they had heard.
    Confessions would absolutely go to nothing with that kind of shite.
    Is nothing sacred anymore?
    I am not condoning child abuse here, but if people can't come to confession and know that nothing, absolutely nothing will be repeated ever, ever...what is the use?
    This is just a complete farce, when it comes to people pointing fingers.
    Okay, I'm done:>)!

  21. The problem with child abuse/molestation-- and that is just the nature of the beast--is that you're judged guilty until proven innocent by the public and media ...if you are innocent or falsly accused you must spend lots of money and time to restore your good name...and even still people won't let you near their children "just to be safe." Unfortunately nowadays there are LOTS of false accusations, whether its folks gettign their 15 minutes of fame, out to get a good monetary reward, or to simply destroy the name or character of an individual they don't particularly care for...we've have several wolf-cryers--women falsy accusing rape and others pointed at for child abuse..makes it so difficult for the true victims as then they aren't taken seriously...


  22. Sara: This is exactly the nature of all of this; false accusations stick...this harms the real problem of those who have actually been abused/harmed/left without any help or voice.
    The real victims must have some kind of justice; the false accusations have to be dealt with so that the innocent are not harmed.

  23. LeoRufus9:01 AM

    3 puddy tats must live in or around St. George


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.