McCarrick

In a statement, the Vatican said: “Yesterday evening the Holy Father received the letter in which Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop emeritus of Washington (U.S.A.), presented his resignation as a member of the College of Cardinals. 

“Pope Francis accepted his resignation from the cardinalate and has ordered his suspension from the exercise of any public ministry.” 

The statement said the cardinal would remain in seclusion “for a life of prayer and penance until the accusations made against him are examined in a regular canonical trial.” - NYT

Like I said, the corruption is institutional and systemic.

Whose team are you on?

Artist: Angel Zarraga

And there is a pattern of silencing those who call it out.

Case in point, the Honduran seminary scandal.  Like Pope Francis first did in the Chilean scandal, Cardinal Maradiaga and fellow critics condemn the seminarians as gossipers and being homophobic, dismissing their claims of homosexual corruption in the seminary.  In other words, blaming the victim and shooting the messenger.  This sort of denial and cover-up for the sake of preserving the Church from scandal is what perpetuates the culture of corruption and cover-up.

The Letter 

The Register has obtained the text of the unsigned letter, which was a joint effort undertaken by 48 seminarians (of the 180 who are enrolled there) who stated they could not “hide any more the magnitude of this problem in the seminary.” 

“We are living and experiencing a time of tension in our house because of gravely immoral situations, above all of an active homosexuality inside the seminary that has been a taboo all this time,” the seminarians wrote, “and by covering up and penalizing this situation, the problem has grown in strength, turning into, as one priest said not so long ago, an ‘epidemic in the seminary.’” 

The letter called on seminary formators to follow what the Church teaches about such conduct and requested a new “formative process” that is more up to date and represents a “holistic” and “prophetic” vision. And it asserted that any seminarian who engages in homosexual activity should be removed from the seminary, even if he is a friend of the formators, because such a person clearly is “not suitable for pastoral ministry” and will “cause pain to the Church sooner or later.” 

“Not everyone who wants to can be a priest!” the letter stated. “The ministry is a gift that should be lived and received from the conviction of the Gospel and radical and jealous love.” 

The seminarians insisted their letter was not carrying out a “persecution” or exemplifying “homophobia,” accusations that some local Church leaders have leveled when seminarians raised similar concerns on earlier occasions. “Neither is it gossip or a lack of manliness,” they said. 

And, the seminarians noted in the letter’s concluding paragraph, their submission was not the product of merely a single concerned party, but instead was written “by a group of seminarians” who had been urged by spiritual directors and other priests at the seminary to make their concerns known. - NCRegister

Cardinal Maradiaga has not responded publicly to the allegations regarding his archdiocesan seminary.

Many of us know how that feels.  Ever been snubbed by your pastor?  I have a friend who always gets the run around whenever she seeks some guidance or clarity about spiritual difficulties, or just questions.  Father is much too busy.  Another friend had the misfortune to seek direction and support from priests who were living a double life - one of them still in jail for sexual abuse.  When I have approached bishops about gay issues, I too have been shamed and criticized for being disrespectful, a gossip, and so on.

I love telling the story about the bishop, now a cardinal, who complained that a member of the faithful went over his head to report that he permitted a transgender man to become a religious sister.  He said the whistle blower should have approached him first.  Experience informs us that priests, bishops, cardinals, and chanceries are not always receptive to faithful Catholics who are willing to call out abuses.  Nor are the bishops always faithful to Catholic teaching ... as they interpret it, that is.  Bishops, spiritual directors, rectors, priors - even Cardinals freely offer dispensations and letters of recommendation to admit this or that person with 'same sex attraction' (the neutered term for 'gay') to religious life or seminary.  I guess they have that  their prerogative, to freely ignore, or discern the weight out of any instructions from the Holy See they happen to disagree with:

The Church “cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture.’”

Yeah Blanche, but you do.

Not to worry.  

In the end, it comes back to bite a guy in his clerical ass.

A little bit of history repeating ... Remember Miami Vice?

 Song for this post here.

Knees are knocking ...

As the spin takes off and the denial revs up...

An apologist writes from Commonweal:

A witch-hunt mentality demonizes the vast majority of celibate gay men who are faithful to their vows, serve the church, and are as horrified as anyone at the abuses committed. The need to reject stereotypes and call out homophobia doesn’t mean that all discussion about homosexuality in the priesthood is off the table. As veteran Vatican observer Robert Mickens recently argued in the Washington Post, the closet is part of the problem:

There is no denying that homosexuality is a key component to the clergy sex abuse (and now sexual harassment) crisis. With such a high percentage of priests with a homosexual orientation, this should not be surprising. But let me be very clear: psychologically healthy gay men do not rape boys or force themselves on other men over whom they wield some measure of power or authority. However, we are not talking about men who are psychosexually mature. And yet the bishops and officials at the Vatican refuse to acknowledge this. Rather, they are perpetuating the problem, and even making it worse, with policies that actually punish seminarians and priests who seek to deal openly, honestly and healthily with their sexual orientation.

If the church removed all gay priests from ministry today, it would suffer for that loss. Nor would it bring an end to the abuse crisis. The problem is with those bishops, and others with influence in the church, who at best are asleep at the wheel and at worst willing to excuse predatory behavior. - Read the rest here.

Calling people homophobic is an ideological tactic to silence and shame those who are being honest about a homosexual problem in the Church.  It has been around since the beginnings of Dignity in the 1970's and the early development of strategies to equate the gay rights movement with the civil rights movement and women's liberation and so on.  It's a political term just as much as gay rights and gender equality is.  It's well documented in the literature, especially by Fr. Rueda in 'The Homosexual Network'.  I suggest rectors and pastors and bishops get a copy and read it.

Citing the homosexual problem in the clergy, as well as exposing bishops who have lived double lives and perpetuated a homosexual culture within seminaries and dioceses, does not in any way 'demonize' those celibate gay men who are faithful and are just as horrified as anyone about the abuses committed.  I'm not all that sure many of us are as 'horrified' by the sexual sins as we are by the corruption.

Churchmen and their spokesmen have to stop trying to distract us with  their political-ideological-pastoral-care-outreach formulae and address the very real problem of corruption.  It's gay Fathers - it's gay.  It's gay to call me homophobic for saying so.  Don't be gay.

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".

- Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations

How McCarrick groomed his boy-toy seminarians and young priests.

Fr. Desmond Rossi reveals the 'grooming' techniques common to homosexual predatory behavior.

Within an institutional setting, a negative culture can be and is generated from the top down.  How a little effeminate such as McCarrick was even admitted to seminary, and then permitted to be ordained, is wonder enough.  But then to be promoted through episcopal consecration and made a cardinal is beyond comprehension. 

The recent revelations by Albany's Fr. Rossi is extremely important to read, in order to know and understand how the culture of abuse and cover-up begins at the top. It is especially helpful to recognize the 'grooming techniques' employed by McCarrick.  Premeditated, planned, and deliberate networking and grooming activities, demonstrate an always predatory inclination - on the look out for someone to seduce.  The behavior is so reminiscent of what St. Peter speaks of in his Second Letter:  Thinking daytime revelry a delight, they are stains and defilements as they revel in their deceits while carousing with you. Their eyes are full of adultery and insatiable for sin. They seduce unstable people, and their hearts are trained in greed.

This isn't just ordinary sin by sinners in the Church - this is corruption.  This is actual filth and corruption.  Institutional and systemic - protected and covered up.  

The personal behavior and modus operandi of McCarrick is gravely corrupt.  To attempt to excuse it, wave it off as a simple fall from grace, or to say, 'we are all sinners, so give him a pass' is wrong.  We are in collusion with the cover-up and promotion of error - our RCIA programs are completely impotent and/or contracepted if we permit this double standard to endure.  The exposure of this serious corruption in the hierarchy should give one pause and wake all of us up to the evil of sexual exploitation and immorality. 

McCarrick's predatory behavior reminds me of the psalm, "Sin speaks to the sinner in the depths of his heart, He plots the defeat of goodness as he lies on his bed ... There is no fear of God before his eyes. He so flatters himself in his mind that he knows not his guilt. - Psalm 36

Yet the son of a bitch was promoted to one of the highest positions in the Church.

Albany priest describes the culture of harassment under McCarrick.

Father Desmond Rossi says he first met Cardinal Theodore McCarrick when he was a seminarian in Newark in 1986. He says that he had heard rumors that then-Archbishop McCarrick cultivated inappropriate relationships with young men, murmurings that appeared to be confirmed following a visit by the archbishop to the Immaculate Conception Seminary at Seton Hall University.

Father Rossi says that unwanted touching and harassment from the archbishop, along with an alleged sexual assault by two seminarians, left him shaken and prompted him to transfer to a different diocese before he was ordained. Years later, he says, those experiences contributed to a deep depression that required a years-long leave from active ministry.

A priest in active ministry in the Diocese of Albany today, Father Rossi says he recently shared his story with his bishop, who supports his decision to speak out, and with his parish.

During the newly installed Archbishop McCarrick’s first visit to the seminary, he made a point to greet each seminarian, including Father Rossi and another seminarian who was a friend. A few days later, that seminarian received a phone call from someone in the archbishop’s office asking if he would be interested in spending a night at a beach house with the archbishop. It would be decades before it was revealed that Archbishop McCarrick allegedly used those weekend getaways to sexually harass and assault seminarians and young priests. - O'Loughlin

I know what it's like, I worked in presentation/marketing in a major department store where the culture was just like that.  I was told I knew what I need to do if I wanted to get ahead.  I finally left the situation.  Unless you are gay you have no idea what a negative-predatory-gay culture is like.  The #metoo movement has little to nothing on it precisely because everything LGBTQ is politically correct and anything wrong with that is outright denied and silenced.  (Just watch my comment box for retaliatory comments and blow-back.)

I dug out my copy of Rueda's book, "The Homosexual Network" yesterday.  This corruption was all detailed in his comprehensive study.  Interestingly I came across the 1975 CDF document Persona Humana, another papal teaching signed off by Paul VI.  Yesterday everyone celebrated Humanae Vitae - I think some ought to take a look at Persona Humana again as well.

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people. - Persona Humana 1975

I'm not writing books about no longer being/saying gay, or the devil blew out of my ass - I'm not looking for hits, or friends, or money or fame.  I don't care if you friend me or unfriend me.  I don't want anyone's approval.  I know I am a sinner, steeped in sin since birth - I also know Jesus Christ is God and he is my savior and redeemer - I have no one but him, and Our Lady and St. Joseph.  I surrender everything to Jesus and trust he will take care of everything.  I believe in one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.  I am God's and God is mine.  Amen.

Go away if you don't like it.

Looks like I am not alone in my outrage over the McCarrick cover-up.

“I am deeply troubled by these reports that have traumatized many Catholics and members of the wider community." - Cardinal O'Malley

Scanning FB and other online sources - including Cardinal O'Malley's recent comments, I see I am not alone in my outrage, my disgust, my being scandalized by the McCarrick scandal and the collusion of the priestly caste and other Catholics over the years.

It's a major problem that just can't be put in a box under your bed, much less something to use to shame the victims and the faithful - even those Catholics who left the Church because of the cover-ups and sexual abuse of minors.  One may indeed console oneself with a personal examination of conscience for their part in the cover-up, but this time around, there needs to be a major cleanup and exposure of the corruption in the Church.  Pious prayers concerning 'the filth' does nothing to correct the enablers.

One can say we are all to blame, or we can perpetually repeat the very guilt-inducing cliche, 'we get the bishops we deserve' - but that no longer works, nor should it work.  When Christ lamented, with pity and compassion, "They are like sheep without a shepherd.' He was not scolding them for being ignorant or misled, much less for being scandalized - he was moved to pity, to mercy.  He taught and spoke with authority, and he wasn't blaming the sheep for the hypocrisy and corruption of the shepherds.  He wasn't waving them away, despite the fact his own disciples would plead with him to send them away, or sometimes they themselves would tell them to keep quiet.  Jesus knew what spirit they were, and did not turn any away.

When Jesus scolded them to examine their own consciences, he wasn't challenging the sheep to blame themselves for the scandals they endured, but rather directing the shepherds to go and learn the meaning of justice and mercy.  Blaming the victim is never the way to act or respond to this evil - Pope Francis learned that the hard way in the Chilean abuse case.  Dismissing souls with pious platitudes does nothing to remedy the situation.

That said, Ross Douthat has one of the best articles on the problem so far.  I'm not that familiar with him, although if I remember correctly some Catholic pundits don't like him, and I think people like Fr. Z have criticized him before as well.  Right now, in the history of the Church, not being liked by clergy and hierarchy may be a sign that one is doing something good - even saintly.  (I'll have to do a series on saints who were condemned by bishops and priests.)

Priest and prophet forage in a land they know not.

I said in my alarm;

'no man can be trusted'

all have gone astray,

there is not a good man left -

there is no one who does good,

no, not even one. 

Anyway, the NYT has a paywall, so I will quickly post a couple of pull-quotes to give some sense of Douthat's opinion piece, which demonstrates that 'I'm not alone' in my disgust and insistence this case takes precedence and requires definitive corrective measure - to the point of complete exposure.  Hopefully laity will not be shamed into silence again.

[W]hat needs to be commissioned this time, by Pope Francis himself if the American bishops can’t or won’t, isn’t a synthetic overview of a systemic problem. Rather, the church needs an inquest, a special prosecutor — you can even call it an inquisition if you want — into the very specific question of who knew what and when about the crimes of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, and why exactly they were silent.

In 2013, when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, McCarrick was too old to vote in the conclave but was active in the politicking. When Pope Francis was elected, he became an eminence grise, whose lobbying helped elevate several of the new pope’s choices for high office in the American church — including the new cardinal archbishop of Newark, Joseph Tobin, and the head of the Vatican dicastery for family life, Kevin Farrell, both of whom considered McCarrick a mentor.

In other words, two decades after McCarrick should have been removed from his offices, defrocked and handed over to the civil authorities, he was instead wielding remarkable influence in the church … right up until the moment when a lifetime’s worth of crimes were finally dragged into the light.

I think this long and sickening narrative should clarify why the McCarrick case, though “only” about one abuser, merits an expansive and public accounting of the facts. Over the course of multiple decades, across a period in which not just crimes but cover-ups devastated the moral credibility of the church’s hierarchy, many important figures in Rome and the United States must have known that a man who embodied the official response to the scandal was as guilty as any of the priests whose conduct he pretended to deplore.

Someone, or indeed many someones, needs to be held accountable for this disaster. And that accountability requires more than self-exculpating statements from the cardinals involved. - Douthat, NYT

Bishop Tobin quits Twitter.

He says it is an 'occasion of sin'.

Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin left Twitter for good Monday, condemning the site in a final tweet as “an occasion of sin” and major distraction. 

Tobin, bishop of the diocese of Providence, Rhode Island, was known to tweet about hot-button issues like abortion, the church’s sexual abuse scandal and the moral decline of the West. Tobin joined Twitter in February and quickly took to it as one of the most active Catholic clergymen on the social media site. He at first lauded its ability to give users an immediate impact among their audience and to give his particular audience a glimpse into the humanity of a bishop. 

Tobin recognized early on, however, the danger inherent in being able to say anything instantaneously to potentially millions of people at once. The bishop has evidently decided that Twitter’s cost outweighs its reward. 

“A final tweet. Sadly, Twitter has become a major distraction for me, on good days and bad, an obstacle to my spiritual life, an occasion of sin for me and for others. So, good-bye,” Tobin’s tweet read, according to Crux Now. “If I’ve offended anyone, I’m truly sorry. If I’ve helped anyone along the way, thank God.” - CNA

If Tobin really wants to avoid the occasion of sin I'd suggest quitting the USCCB as well.  Just kidding - or am I?

If they ever want to make you a bishop, run and hide.  And if the bishop shows up at your door, don't answer.

The consistent and still current teaching of the old Fathers (which I am embarrassed to repeat, I who failed to escape from my girl cousin, or elude the hands of the bishop) is that in all ways a monk should flee women and bishops. Neither would allow him, once entangled in their company, either to apply himself to peaceful work in his cell, or to cleave to divine contemplation, in the consideration of holy things with undistracted eye. - The Monastic Institutes, John Cassian

See.  So add to that the maxim to avoid Twitter as well.  (Avoiding this blog would be good too.)

Have a nice day.

Song for this post here.

The Bishops Did It.

Botero

While protecting the Church.

I saw a headline declaring, 'The new scandals concerns bishops and cardinals, not priests.'

The byline links to a CNA article by Ed Condon concerning the resignation of Honduran Bishop Juan José Pineda Fasquelle, accused of sexual/financial misconduct, which many knew about.  To say these scandals involving bishops and cardinals is new because they don't involve priests is in some ways another enabling edit in the Catholic-guilt inducing practice of cover-up.

Bishops are priests.

It's a good article nonetheless, which raises innumerable questions and also gives one really, really good reason why offending bishops aren't kicked out of the Church:

While laicization clearly expels a bishop from the hierarchy, it effectively ends any oversight church authorities have over him. Contrary to popular conception, a laicized bishop does not cease being a bishop, sacramentally speaking. Once conferred, sacraments like baptism, ordination, and episcopal consecration cannot be undone. If Pineda were laicized and he went on to seek ministry in unauthorized settings, sacraments he administered, including priestly ordinations, would still be valid. The potential damage and confusion which could be done by a rogue bishop, outside of church control, is enough to make laicization highly unlikely. - CNA

The 'priest scandal' broke at the beginning of the Millenium, but it was brewing and enabled long before that.  Cardinal Spellman has popped up in the news since the McCarrick scandal emerged - these guys go back back to the mid-20th century and before.

With the news that Hunthausen just died, I came across an interesting footnote regarding a former auxiliary in the archdiocese of St. Paul/Mpls, Bishop Lawrence Welsh, who had been consecrated in 1978 as Bishop of Spokane.  When scandals surface concerning Welsh in 1986, apparently Archbishop Hunthausen had known Welsh and his 'problems', but Welsh remained in office.  Welsh's career timeline takes us back to the 1970's - demonstrating how far back all of this denial and cover-up extends, as well as the protective sanctuary given to perpetrators by bishops and cardinals.

In 2002, at the height of the sexual abuse crisis, it emerged that police had informed him in 1986 about an investigation into the Bishop of Spokane, Lawrence Welsh in 1986. Police met with Hunthausen following an accusation that Welsh had attempted to strangle a male-prostitute during an encounter in Chicago that year. While Welsh admitted to the encounter, no further action was taken and he was allowed to continue in episcopal ministry. - CNA

Welsh remained in office until 1990 when he resigned after an arrest for drunk driving.  The following year he was made auxiliary bishop of St. Paul/MPLS.  This even after the 1986 incident involving a male prostitute:

On September 9, 1986 police officers of the Spokane Police Department were assigned to investigate charges that Welsh had tried to strangle a male prostitute in Chicago. The accuser also said that Welsh may have committed murder in the past. Welsh admitted to police that he picked up a drug addict and took him to his hotel room for counseling. On further questioning Bishop Welsh admitted to putting his hands all over the victim's body. - Source

Thus my point, it has always been a problem of bishops, and those bishops get promoted and those bishops pick and choose which policy to follow, and they ordain and consecrate and promote their favorites.

Why am I writing about this crap?

Because in and around the same time Welsh was made an auxiliary here in this archdiocese, I approached Bishop Bullock (1980-1987 auxiliary) with the hopes of having a Courage chapter erected in the archdiocese, and also confided to him my troubles concerning certain confessors in the diocese.  Namely the gay priests who told me homosexual acts were not sinful.  He feigned surprise and said he was not aware of gay priests in the archdiocese.  Maybe it was 'mental reservation'?  Maybe he had actually accepted one aspect mentioned in CDF documents that one doesn't label people like that.  You know, you can't say gay.  If only I had known to say SSA - maybe then ...  nah, not even then.

What?

Note bene Poodles:  Don't get mad at me because this stuff bothers me - I write about it because writing helps me develop my thought - it helps me think things through.  I use the blog to document and remember.  This is a personal web log, a sort of diary - with public access.  That said, these latest stories should really bother the Dubia Brothers as well as every career-minded cleric, but I think they all know about it, just like the rest of us.  So I have a new slogan for Fr. Z's coffee mug-bumper sticker business:

"Fuck the dubia - fix the corruption."

'Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, as explained' ... by the CDF.

Then why have a CDF?


CDF - Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.  It used to be called the Holy Office.  Letters, instructions, notices, etc. are indeed binding for Catholics.  Where did I get that idea?  I was taught that when I learned the Creed as a child.  I also profess it when I recite the Act of Faith:

O my God, I firmly believe that you are one God in three divine Persons,Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe that your divine Son became man and died for our sins and that he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teachesbecause you have revealed them who are eternal truth and wisdom, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. In this faith I intend to live and die. Amen.

Over the years spiritual directors have told me I do not need to read encyclicals or documents from the Vatican, or this or that teaching isn't necessary for me to be concerned about - because it usually did not pertain to me or my situation.  I get that.

However, sometimes there are notifications from the CDF on issues related to popular piety, as well as faith and morals which do pertain to me.  Though addressed to 'Bishops' these documents may be necessary for a lay person to know.  For example, notices as to the authenticity concerning mystics and private revelations, as well as instruction to avoid the same, may be very necessary to know.  The prohibitions such as 'do not conduct pilgrimages' or 'do not sponsor this or that mystic and their locutions' are not only necessary to know, but they are binding.

It is not uncommon, even for priests and devout laity who follow such dubious private revelations to object to the judgment issued by the CDF, as well as to insist it is not binding and is certainly not condemned.  We see that in the cases of Vassula Ryden and Christina Gallagher, and the Medjugorje road show.

Now I'm told instruction from the CDF, in the form of 'Letters to Bishops' correcting this or that misunderstanding are not binding on the faithful.  How many Catholics have been taught that the teaching on contraception is not binding, as well?  Therefore I suppose I cannot be surprised that one can contradict CDF instructions and statements on faith and morals, anymore than be surprised Humanae Vitae is ignored by many Catholics.

I may give more importance than I should to some things the Pope and CDF have said, but when I do, it is because it resonates deeply with me, and accords with my conscience.  I attribute it to the sacrament of confirmation and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, especially the gift of counsel, which is closely allied to the virtue of prudence.  Hence I see the necessity of submission of the intellect and will to what is taught, albeit not explicitly defined.

Canon 752: While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the college of Bishops, exercising their authentic declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.

 Works for me.

The Carmelite Feast of Mother of Divine Grace

Prayer

God of eternal wisdom, in Your providence You willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should bring forth the Author of Grace, and take part with Him in the mystery of man's redemption. May she obtain for us grace in abundance and bring us to the haven of everlasting salvation. We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, Your Son, Who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.  Amen.

Eight days after the feast of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel, Carmelites celebrate the feast of Our Mother of Divine Grace.

That Mary obtains for us and distributes to us all graces is a certain doctrine, according to what we have just said about the mother of all men. As mother, she is interested in their salvation, prays for them, and obtains for them the graces they receive. - Garrigou-Lagrange

In thanksgiving for every grace!

Walk On By

Fr. Martin steps in.

All of them witches.*

Many will disagree - or will they?

Again, I know what Fr. Martin is saying.  Yes gay men can embrace chastity and live celibately, and are not pedophiles and or ephebophiles or any other kind of abuser.  We know this.  I know this.  And, this would be why we never hear of normal people abusing others.

So anyway, why did the Cardinal get by with it?  Who promoted him and who didn't object to his promotion and fund-raising?  Who was invited to his beach house and joined him for cocktails and vacationed with him, and so on?  Of course they completely normal, well balanced, emotionally healthy and psychologically mature, deeply spiritual faithful members of the clergy.

From Fr. Martin's FB page:

Dear friends: Some comments on the connection between sex abuse and homosexuality in the Catholic priesthood, in the light of the Cardinal McCarrick case, and some recent ill-informed and outright homophobic commentaries.

Being gay (or, more broadly, being LGBT) does not make a person a pedophile, an ephebophile, or any other kind of sex abuser. How do we know this?

Answer: the example of millions of emotionally healthy and psychologically mature LGBT people who have never abused anyone--and never will abuse anyone.

Moreover, we have the example of many healthy, faithful and dedicated gay priests who live out their promises of celibacy and vows of chastity and are beloved by their parishioners. I know scores, maybe hundreds, of them. And many of you do as well.

Then why does it seem like such a high percentage of gay priests are abusers? Because healthy celibate gay priests are usually not permitted to be open about their sexuality. (There are several notable exceptions: Fred Daley in Syracuse and Gregory Greiten in Milwaukee.)

Why are most of these men not “out” yet? There are many reasons: Often their bishops or religious superiors will not give them permission; they are private people; or they are afraid (of stereotyping of the kind I’m discussing).

Thus, in the absence of any other examples, the only public examples of gay priests ends up being notorious abusers, like Cardinal McCarrick.

By analogy, imagine if the only stories permitted to be published about one ethnic or religious group were about the criminals in that group. Soon the public would, quite naturally, see them as always and everywhere criminal. (We know examples of this.)

A significant number of Catholic priests are gay—and chaste, in religious orders; and celibate in the priesthood. They lead lives of healthy service in the church. To paint them all as abusive or potentially abusive is a dangerous stereotype.

(Also, to say that gay men are incapable of living chastity or celibacy is to go against the Catechism, which requires celibate chastity for gay men.)

In short, to say that being gay means being an abuser is the worst kind of stereotyping and should be avoided. - Fr. James Martin, S.J.

Fr. Martin is right - stereotyping is really, really bad.

Once, sitting in a cafe in Rome, with a couple I met in Lourdes, a priest and his lover stopped to talk to us - he made fun of us for our traditional devotion and our reverence for the Holy Father, Paul VI.  As he was leaving he told us we would be surprised at what goes on  in the Church.  It's a very vague anecdote, but my friends and I knew what he was getting at.  We knew then what Fr. Martin and Sr. Gramick have been saying about 'gay clergy'.  They are everywhere.

I knew that when I tried to get a Courage chapter erected here in St. Paul/Minneapolis.  I knew it when Bishop Bullock told me he wasn't aware of any gay priests in this diocese, and when he told me that he'd look into the Courage thing. Not promoting Courage used to be a sort of telltale signal that the priest or bishop  was among those 'millions of emotionally healthy and psychologically mature LGBT people who have' no problems with their sexual orientation.  Just like straight people.

While it is true, those who make the news maybe an exception, or simply had a lapse in judgment, made a mistake, fell into sin, but are not necessarily sexual abusers - the ones who show up in the news are the only ones 'outed'.  The stuff they are outed for is usually perverted, but it's the exception to the rule?

Famous gay fresco.

Gay people don't normally engage in sexual misconduct?

So it is a rare exception in Washington, DC for men to cruise the restrooms?  I had a friend from religious life who told me how cool it was to get a BJ in a public restroom in front of other guys.  That type of behavior used to be considered shameful and remains illegal, but it's acceptable in the 'gay community'.  Truth be told, it's almost innocent compared to the stories Joe Sciambra has told.

So here is the deal.

The promotion of all things gay is against Catholic teaching - it isn't a benign condition.  I'm not recommending shaming or unjust discrimination against gay people, but the promotion of gay is good goes against Catholic teaching.  To suggest Cardinal McCarrick is just a sexual anomaly, despite the fact that he used his position of power to take advantage of young men and boys is hypocritical.  You people know that.  You know it.

The priest in the bondage gear and mask knows.  The naked runner priest knows.  The drunk priest in jail knows.  The priest in the park masturbating knows.  The priest who laughed at me in Rome knows.  Monsignor Meth knows.  All the priests I've ever written about on this blog knows.  You know.

McCarrick with a group - I posted it

because the young priest next to the Cardinal looks

rather uncomfortable.

The cover-up is institutional and widespread.  The shaming is done by all sides. 

Years ago I was in the baths and went into a guy's room ... he had a religious medal on.  I asked him about it.  Turns out he was a priest, a Norbertine, he was in town to give a retreat to cloistered nuns - I got off of him, pulling away in shock.  I asked him, "How can you do this - what about your mystical life?"  He laughed at me.  He was able to compartmentalize his behavior.  Just like the NY priest who slept with a novice sister he was directing, he'd still get up from being in bed with her, to keep his hour of adoration as Bishop Sheen always recommended for faithful priests.

That's so normal.

I used to say you are damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Catholics are so like that - but actually, they can't damn you - they can only shame you.  They shame you when you do, and shame you when you don't.  That's my experience.  Don't say gay - that's bad.  You can't live celibately and chastely with another man - that's bad.  You can't be gay and Catholic - that's really, really bad.

And yet, as Fr. Martin and others point out, there are scores, hundreds, many, many gay priests.  Evidently everyone else knows that too.  And that's okay?  Is everybody gay then?

I guess I've been doing it wrong all this time.

I don't know who I am, or what I'm gonna do 

Been so long I've been hopelessly confused...

I embrace the shame then.  I will rejoice in my outcast state.

Therefore, Jesus also suffered outside the gate, to consecrate the people by his own blood.Let us then go to him outside the camp, bearing the reproach that he bore. - Hebrews 13:13

*Here.