di Stasio
Oh -and tribalism.
I began to skim contemporary 'literature' when I began to read Fr. Groeschel's books which he batted out one after another, realizing that much of it was transcribed from his talks and homilies. Nothing wrong with that, but it didn't inspire devotion or introduce anything I didn't know already. So my reading library, though rather full, isn't comprised of contemporary writers - especially anyone with a blog or website, because once again, their pamphlet-books end up being a sort of reprint of what they have said already. When they announce they are writing an apologetic work on this or that doctrine, I know it's not for me.
Pundits and apologists 'virtue signal'.
It's not a new term for me, but I never thought about it, or what it meant. So when a guy on FB kept posting complaints and rants because this or that nemesis of his used terms he considered offensive or hateful - in other words, politically incorrect = he's call them out about it. Amazing how much effort a Catholic apologist expends fighting unjust word usage in his opponents, all the while his followers go on the attack with more invective. One seems worse than the other. They make a career attacking those they disagree with, which is one more reason their books and articles have little to no credibility.
When they ban or unfriend you, that is fine with me, but I'm a bit bewildered. You see they have a language, a sort of canon of their own. You can't say this, or suggest that, and you can never, ever use this or that term. They do exactly the same thing the opposition they condemn as too conservative, too rad-trad and too narrow, do. Call me naive, but I don't know why these people have jobs, much less writing contracts. Who even made them apologists?
Homo-correct-us.
It's like saying ssa or gay. For me, in general usage, they are synonymous. Theologically-politically they are different, but as I love to say - even the pope uses the general term, gay. So I don't make a big deal there. I don't care. It can be virtue signalling and extremely hypocritical, and I'll tell you why. A priest acquaintance of mine took an interest in a guy who used to comment on my blog. The man was involved in Courage and was discerning a vocation. I told my priest about him and one of the first things he did was identify himself as ssa - 'I'm same sex attracted too." Why would he do that? I never ever asked him if he was, but he told the young man I was concerned about that he was. I guess they corresponded for awhile. What I am saying is that Fr. told the other guy he just met that he was gay too. You can say ssa, but you are still letting the other person you are gay too.
I'm not going to belabor that point except to say that's a case of virtue signalling becoming hypocrisy. It happens all of the time online. It's fake. It's rash judgment to condemn a person for saying gay when you use ssa to identify in the same way. Yet they will accuse me of rash judgment for saying what I just said.
Both sides of the culture wars and their minions bark at one another. It is much worse when they hide beneath the LGBTQ and SSA labels - battling over common language usage, feigning offense. It kills me how the overly sensitive piss and moan over hurt feeling because someone uses the wrong term or suggests Catholic teaching is right. Or on the other hand, boasting about their conservative politics against liberals but feeling attacked and oppressed when their gay-rights are not honored by the Church and they are not permitted to enter seminary.
No one will admit that there is a problem of homosexual corruption in the Church because homosexuals think they are just fine and ssa people think they aren't gay. And I laugh, because I over-simplify and use generalities, but y'all are either really misinformed, or you have lost touch with reality and are bound by tribalism. Just saying.
Zeus and Ganymede
Hypocrites in a nut-cup ...
The problem of homosexual corruption originates in the hierarchy and corruption has a way of enabling all sorts of evils, including paedophilia, but the majority of cases involved homosexual advances-predation. Every gay male my age knows that. Younger gay males may think otherwise, unless of course they have encounters with, or are attracted to older men. Contrary to what people like Sciambra and psychologists and others believe, it isn't always a father figure issue. It can be complex, but when I was a boy, it was about 'seeing a grown man naked' and being accepted by a grown man as having some value. I wasn't looking for a dad - I wanted to be with a mature man and recognized as a man. But I'm not writing here to tell my story.
Everyone has their own opinion and some are insistent that you accept their narrative or else - you become persona non grata. Especially if they have statistics and academic studies - no matter how far flung or biased. They in turn are happy to calculate the same stats according to their bias. One guy just suggested the paedophilia thing was more akin to soldiers in wartime raping POWs than anything even remotely related to homosexuality. And he considers himself an apologist. He is continually defending gays from being scapegoated by conservatives without ever having experienced first hand living in a homosexual milieu, and most likely never hit on by a homosexual predator. And he will not listen to someone who has, who as an 18 year old moved in with his boss 20 years his senior. I was dressed in designer suits and shown off at cocktail parties, bars, and trips to NYC and elsewhere. Just like McCarrick and his buddies did with their boys.
It's fact of gay life and it still goes on, legal age or not. Kevin Spacey is not a pedophile, he's just gay - oops! SSA. One must repeat, not all gays are like that, and it's more likely a predator like him is either closeted - like McCarrick and his ssa-gay clerics, or they are married to women and even have a child or two of their own. In denying this, they perpetuated the corruption. I want to repeat something I wrote in another post: There is a huge difference between a cleric, in a moment of weakness, going to a public park for anonymous sex, and a bishop having gay cocktail parties to show off his latest seminarian boy friend. As Pope Francis said, "A varnished putrefaction: this is the life of someone who is corrupt."
Corruption molests and abuses and destroys - it operates and thrives in secrecy. I could be wrong of course.
Scene from Death in Venice
A metaphor for Fr. Martin's book ...
Excellent, Terry.
ReplyDeleteI have no personal experience with the gay lifestyle, so please forgive me for asking what may be a stupid question, But I did not understand this sentence: “The problem of homosexual corruption originates in the hierarchy and corruption has a way of enabling all sorts of evils, including paedophilia, but the majority of cases involved homosexual advances-predation.” What is the difference between pedophilia and “homosexual advances-predation” when it involves an underage boy, and especially when it is a prepubescent boy? I don’t believe the majority of the victims in the Church scandal were willing partners so doesn’t that automatically make it sexual assault?
ReplyDeleteSexual assault is always about power. If one just wanted sex, I would think you would just find a consenting partner or at the very least, seduce a person so they do consent. But if the only ones you want are those you assault, then there is something else going on. At least that is true in heterosexual relationships. If a man forces a woman to have sex against her will, that is rape. Isn’t it also rape when a man forces another man or worse, a boy, to have sex against his will? Just as heterosexual rape is not about sex, it would seem that gay rape is not about sex either, but about power. Obviously the men were homosexual, but if they only wanted to act on their sexual feelings, they would have found willing partners, which some actually did. Or am I wrong? Is it common in the gay community for men to force others into sex? That is what you seem to be saying, or am I wrong? Sorry for being so long winded, but I am trying to understand what really happened in the Church.
Those are really excellent points, thank you. Actually that helps me understand why people see it solely in the confines of sexual assault and connect it strictly to that dominant-power trip perspective. All of that is probably part of a systemic problem. When I say the corruption originates in the hierarchy, I'm trying to express my point that the current problem of clericalism is more or less facilitated and governed by closeted gay prelates, rectors, superiors which allow one another to carry on, so long as no one is outed. I can't make this too long but yes - because they are the power-brokers they permit all sorts of evil, excuse it, look the other way, forgive and transfer offending clerics, as well as shame the victims. Esp. by saying the under aged were willing partners, revealing they do not believe that there was abuse except for the fact the abused were underage - so yeah - the whole thing lands back in their lap. Real pedophilia is with pre-pubescent boys/girls, usually interchangeably. I was molested like that, and I recall a sort of trans-like state happened to me - and I 'seemed' to 'allow' it. Of course I know the difference now. Long story short, looking back those guys who molested me were pedophiles. Later, when I 'came out' I used to see a few of the men I had sex with as a teen, they were older adults at the time, their entire social circle was gay. They were not pedophiles, they just liked teen boys. Two local designers each had parties with rock'n'roll, sex, drugs and young men. That was their thing. Providing drugs and liquor and having sex makes willing partners out of not yet legal young men. And that's what I am attempting to say here about the predominant fault in the scandal - as it takes shape under the McCarrick revelations. That really and truly was/is a gay network if you will. Does that help?
Delete(Continued)
You see I am speaking from my experience and recognizing what happens when you have an underground/closeted gay 'cabal' for a lack of a better term at the moment. In earlier posts I attempted to show the similarities in the clerical milieu compared to the closed situation of department store structure - or any large corporate situation. A culture is easily created and maintained, again the so-called #metoo movement is supposed to bring all of that in the open - but as we are learning today, the woman who initiated that movement is perhaps guilty of it herself.
DeleteI don't believe the majority of the victims were willing partners at all - no matter what - gay or straight, underage or legal age. That is not what is at issue - at least in my book. It's about clericalism and corruption which allows and legitimizes a homosexual subculture in complete opposition of Catholic teaching. I know people will say - so it is an abuse of power and domination - yes, it is. In this case it is also a case of homosexual using and abusing the system, intent upon changing Catholic teaching. In the meantime they advocate or try to restrict ordinary people in an effort keep their positions of power. It's deadly.
Another example might be say a Cardinal Archbishop and a chancery of sycophant, ambitious guys. A famous woman comes in to get her annulment to marry a rich tycoon, and in a very short time she has it - even though the first marriage was valid. Favors granted and the rumors about the prelate being gay never see the light of day. I think that's another example of corruption.
I only have my experience to go on and anecdotes too many to relate of how others are controlled by this. It doesn't matter if you are a good witch or a bad witch, they all operate within a corrupt culture. I also lived in Boston while some of the more famous offender priests were active. I knew some of their house-boys-sacristans.
The Pope spoke and pointed to the antidote - prayer and penance, penance, penance. Especially prayer in a spirit of reparation. The reform of bishops is up to him - which is why I pray for the Holy Father and his successor.
I hope that helps - I'm not scapegoating gays - just pointing out what I'm pretty much convinced is going on. It's much more difficult now days because LGBTQ politics has scared many bishops silent, and or, they just don't know how to talk about it. Good priests really want to minister to the People of God, but those who control the narrative or call the shots in their dioceses - good or bad - won't let them.
Thank you for that very thorough answer. I will need to read through your answer several times, I think, it truly understand it all. I think I do understand that there is a corrupt culture, but that question is, which came first. Did the abuse lead to clericalism, or did the clericalism lead to the abuse? I wonder if you read Pope Francis’ letter of Aug 20. He never even uses the word homosexual or gay in it. He puts the total blame on clericalism. Of course, a lot of people have already attacked him for that, including Father Z who insists that the entire problem is homosexuality. He seems to refuse to admit that there is such a thing as clericalism.
DeleteI could be totally wrong on this, of course, but I do believe Pope Francis is right that clericalism is at the heart of the corruption, and the abuse and the homosexuality is a symptom of it. Clericalism is elitism. It is thinking that you are special and privileged, It is not recognizing that you are a servant, but instead thinking that because of all you *sacrificed* to become a priest, the people are there to serve you. It explains why the bishops seemed so much more concerned about the abusive priests than they were for the victims. They see each other as joined together in a privileged class, apart from the people they serve. I believe this is what Pope Francis has been fighting his entire pontificate. Look at how different he is from any other pope, how simply and humbly he lives. He realizes that the biggest danger to priests and to the Church is clericalism. That sin completely shuts us off to the Holy Spirit. And it does not just infect the clergy. The laity can be just as infected with it. Anytime we start to see ourselves as somehow *special* or *privileged* because of who we are or what we know, that is a form of clericalism. We unfortunately see a lot of this on the Internet.
Anyway, that is my two cents. Again, I will have to read through your answer a few more times, So I may be back. Thank you for staying loyal to God and His Church despite all the pain in your life. You have much to offer because of your experiences. All of the greatest saints were broken people. Those are the only kind of people God can work with. After all, He said it is the sick who need a physician, not the healthy. Those infected with clericalism don’t seem to understand that.
Terry you are, I think, describing a culture or better yet a subculture that flourishes in secrecy. There is more involved here then sex. Fashion, fame, expensive clothes, jewelry, entertainment, vacation homes, and drugs, licit and illicit. I am reminded the the European aristocracy and the ongoing gay subculture there described in novels by Evelyn Waugh and others. In Briedshead revisited Sabastian was conflicted by his RC religion and his gay attraction. His father’s mistress comments his SSA is something she thinks English boys all go through, a phase which one grows out of. Anyway, I am beginning to think this is much more then sex. It is a clerical materialism and thirst for power. I do not know how to root that out of our Church it is so deeply ingrained. Pope Francis sees it and tries to set by example but few seem to be following his lead.
ReplyDeleteTerry, the painting you lead do with is perplexing to me? Who is the artist and what is happening in it?
ReplyDeleteThe artist is Stefano di Stassi http://www.artnet.com/artists/stefano-di-stasio/
DeleteI used it for this post to demonstrate closeted clergy and the masquerade of gay politics represented by the other figure and the connection to one another - the volcano symbolizes the current eruption of scandal and disgrace. That's my interpretation - I have no idea what the original artist's meaning was.
With music and art - which speaks to me - I apply my own interpretation.
Thank you. As you well know a piece of art speaks to each indiviudaul in their own voice. I like your interpretation.
ReplyDelete