In light of the Pope's unexpected bluntness about keeping "queerness" or "f*ggotry" out of the seminaries; I'm curious as to what the current beliefs are regarding the Catholic sex abuse scandal.

I believe, and think it has been shown that the sex scandal was mainly an issue of power abuse between homosexual clergy and post pubescent young men. This issue was further abetted by careerist politician-bishops who cared more about keeping their name out of headlines than they did protecting their flock and the reputation of the priesthood.

How much of this could have been avoided by actually screening seminary candidates for those with homosexual predilections? In the day and age of social media, it would seem pretty easy to get an idea of someone's sexuality through their media pages and interviews with their connections. B

Are you saying that there were no pedophiles, just homosexual priests?

PabloSerna said:

---

Are you saying that there were no pedophiles, just homosexual priests?

---

No, I am saying that the vast majority of abuse cases were between priests and young post pubescent males, this makes the issue a homosexual one, and not a pedophile one. The John Jay report discussed an explosion of gay clergy in the 70's and 80's following Vatican II, and it is my belief that these gay clergy had an outsized participation in the abuse.

PabloSerna said:

---

Are you saying that there were no pedophiles, just homosexual priests?

---

I think it's more than fair to say a plurality of them checked both boxes

Serviam said:

---

In light of the Pope's unexpected bluntness about keeping "queerness" or "f*ggotry" out of the seminaries; I'm curious as to what the current beliefs are regarding the Catholic sex abuse scandal.

I believe, and think it has been shown that the sex scandal was mainly an issue of power abuse between homosexual clergy and post pubescent young men. This issue was further abetted by careerist politician-bishops who cared more about keeping their name out of headlines than they did protecting their flock and the reputation of the priesthood.

How much of this could have been avoided by actually screening seminary candidates for those with homosexual predilections? In the day and age of social media, it would seem pretty easy to get an idea of someone's sexuality through their media pages and interviews with their connections. B

---

To me, the tragedy of the Catholic Church scandals is not that a homosexual act was committed. The tragedy is that a priest, or person of power, used their position to take sexual advantage of a child or teen.

Even when I try to put myself into the shoes of someone who sees homosexuality as a sin, I have a hard time prioritizing the 'sin of homosexuality' over the sin of sexually abusing a child.

And I don't think its fair to fault an organization for the abuses of any and all of its members. What matters is how an organization reacts when an abuse occurs. Screening for predators is all good. Protecting known predators, moving them around, reassigning them, hiding their abuses, etc. . . . that is the betrayal.

edit - In other words, the Church's problem isn't 'gays in the ministry'. The problem is the intentional enabling of child sexual abuse. I think we fundamentally disagree on the problem with the scandal.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Serviam said:

---

In light of the Pope's unexpected bluntness about keeping "queerness" or "f*ggotry" out of the seminaries; I'm curious as to what the current beliefs are regarding the Catholic sex abuse scandal.

I believe, and think it has been shown that the sex scandal was mainly an issue of power abuse between homosexual clergy and post pubescent young men. This issue was further abetted by careerist politician-bishops who cared more about keeping their name out of headlines than they did protecting their flock and the reputation of the priesthood.

How much of this could have been avoided by actually screening seminary candidates for those with homosexual predilections? In the day and age of social media, it would seem pretty easy to get an idea of someone's sexuality through their media pages and interviews with their connections. B

---

To me, the tragedy of the Catholic Church scandals is not that a homosexual act was committed. The tragedy is that a priest, or person of power, used their position to take sexual advantage of a child or teen.

Even when I try to put myself into the shoes of someone who sees homosexuality as a sin, I have a hard time prioritizing the 'sin of homosexuality' over the sin of sexually abusing a child.

And I don't think its fair to fault an organization for the abuses of any and all of its members. What matters is how an organization reacts when an abuse occurs. Screening for predators is all good. Protecting known predators, moving them around, reassigning them, hiding their abuses, etc. . . . that is the betrayal.

edit - In other words, the Church's problem isn't 'gays in the ministry'. The problem is the intentional enabling of child sexual abuse. I think we fundamentally disagree on the problem with the scandal.

---

Remove the homosexual clergy and there would have been much less of a problem. Any problem is too much of a problem, but whenever you can limit harm, you should. 81% of the victims were male; most were teenagers and above, for some reason when Harvey Milk does it he gets a battleship named after him, but when Catholic priests do it, it is an abuse of power (which I agree, both should be executed).

So the entirety of the problem isn't "gays in the ministry", the problem was in large part the enabling of sexual abuse by weak Bishops, and the preponderance of homosexuals in the clergy, effete bishops protecting gay men trying to have sex with males who looked like men.

Serviam said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

To me, the tragedy of the Catholic Church scandals is not that a homosexual act was committed. The tragedy is that a priest, or person of power, used their position to take sexual advantage of a child or teen.

Even when I try to put myself into the shoes of someone who sees homosexuality as a sin, I have a hard time prioritizing the 'sin of homosexuality' over the sin of sexually abusing a child.

And I don't think its fair to fault an organization for the abuses of any and all of its members. What matters is how an organization reacts when an abuse occurs. Screening for predators is all good. Protecting known predators, moving them around, reassigning them, hiding their abuses, etc. . . . that is the betrayal.

edit - In other words, the Church's problem isn't 'gays in the ministry'. The problem is the intentional enabling of child sexual abuse. I think we fundamentally disagree on the problem with the scandal.

---

Remove the homosexual clergy and there would have been much less of a problem. Any problem is too much of a problem, but whenever you can limit harm, you should. 81% of the victims were male; most were teenagers and above, for some reason when Harvey Milk does it he gets a battleship named after him, but when Catholic priests do it, it is an abuse of power (which I agree, both should be executed).

So the entirety of the problem isn't "gays in the ministry", the problem was in large part the enabling of sexual abuse by weak Bishops, and the preponderance of homosexuals in the clergy, effete bishops protecting gay men trying to have sex with males who looked like men.

---

Homosexuality is more prevalent in prisons because of lack of options and because it is symptomatic of power differences. I don't think it would be controversial for me to point out that straight people go to prison and end up engaging in homosexuality acts for various reasons. I don't know how much of a role it plays, but I wonder if something similar occurs in churches. How often does a 'celibate' priest abuse a boy because of a lack of options and because of a power indifference that allows them to get away with it? I don't know the answer to that question, but I believe its probably significant.

As I understand Christianity, we are all sinners and all have temptations toward some sin. I don't think Christians would wish to filter out all seminarian candidates who have been tempted to steal, or lie, or cheat, or have heterosexual sex out of wedlock. If the Catholic Church had had tens of thousands of scandals involving priests stealing money and then covering it up, should that 'sin' be treated any differently?

So again, I think the focus on homosexuality is the wrong focus. It is inevitable that some priests will have temptations that you find immoral. And I think its inevitable that some will act on it. I don't blame the Catholic Church for a betrayal by one priest toward a minor. The justified condemnation of the Catholic Church has to do with the cover up and protection of the offending priests.

When you have corrupt individuals operating in a corrupt organization, you haven't fixed the corruption of the organization by removing some of the corrupt individuals. There is still an institutional problem that is unresolved.

And Milk is a deflection. I'm not defending his underage relationship by any means, but since when do Catholics believe that societal double standards have some bearing on what is the right thing to be done within their organization? That might be stretching too far or putting words in your mouth. If so, I apologize. My point is that Milk getting a battleship named after him has precisely zero to do with what would have been the correct action by the Catholic Church upon learning of a priest that was abusing someone.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Serviam said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

To me, the tragedy of the Catholic Church scandals is not that a homosexual act was committed. The tragedy is that a priest, or person of power, used their position to take sexual advantage of a child or teen.

Even when I try to put myself into the shoes of someone who sees homosexuality as a sin, I have a hard time prioritizing the 'sin of homosexuality' over the sin of sexually abusing a child.

And I don't think its fair to fault an organization for the abuses of any and all of its members. What matters is how an organization reacts when an abuse occurs. Screening for predators is all good. Protecting known predators, moving them around, reassigning them, hiding their abuses, etc. . . . that is the betrayal.

edit - In other words, the Church's problem isn't 'gays in the ministry'. The problem is the intentional enabling of child sexual abuse. I think we fundamentally disagree on the problem with the scandal.

---

Remove the homosexual clergy and there would have been much less of a problem. Any problem is too much of a problem, but whenever you can limit harm, you should. 81% of the victims were male; most were teenagers and above, for some reason when Harvey Milk does it he gets a battleship named after him, but when Catholic priests do it, it is an abuse of power (which I agree, both should be executed).

So the entirety of the problem isn't "gays in the ministry", the problem was in large part the enabling of sexual abuse by weak Bishops, and the preponderance of homosexuals in the clergy, effete bishops protecting gay men trying to have sex with males who looked like men.

---

Homosexuality is more prevalent in prisons because of lack of options and because it is symptomatic of power differences. I don't think it would be controversial for me to point out that straight people go to prison and end up engaging in homosexuality acts for various reasons. I don't know how much of a role it plays, but I wonder if something similar occurs in churches. How often does a 'celibate' priest abuse a boy because of a lack of options and because of a power indifference that allows them to get away with it? I don't know the answer to that question, but I believe its probably significant.

As I understand Christianity, we are all sinners and all have temptations toward some sin. I don't think Christians would wish to filter out all seminarian candidates who have been tempted to steal, or lie, or cheat, or have heterosexual sex out of wedlock. If the Catholic Church had had tens of thousands of scandals involving priests stealing money and then covering it up, should that 'sin' be treated any differently?

So again, I think the focus on homosexuality is the wrong focus. It is inevitable that some priests will have temptations that you find immoral. And I think its inevitable that some will act on it. I don't blame the Catholic Church for a betrayal by one priest toward a minor. The justified condemnation of the Catholic Church has to do with the cover up and protection of the offending priests.

When you have corrupt individuals operating in a corrupt organization, you haven't fixed the corruption of the organization by removing some of the corrupt individuals. There is still an institutional problem that is unresolved.

And Milk is a deflection. I'm not defending his underage relationship by any means, but since when do Catholics believe that societal double standards have some bearing on what is the right thing to be done within their organization? That might be stretching too far or putting words in your mouth. If so, I apologize. My point is that Milk getting a battleship named after him has precisely zero to do with what would have been the correct action by the Catholic Church upon learning of a priest that was abusing someone.

---

I would imagine that there is a difference between being locked in a completely male-only environment instead of being around men a lot. If you've ever been into the parish offices of a Catholic Church, they're almost all staffed by women, with men normally only in maintenance roles.

With regards to the nature of homosexual urges, the Church recognizes that there are unique circumstances that make it extremely difficult for homosexuals to get through seminary, mainly that they're around young men quite frequently. The church also recognizes that homosexuality is gravely disordered and not merely a difference in attraction. Any candidate who shows a propensity towards stealing, lying, cheating, or fornicating should be barred from the priesthood, that should go without being said.

With regards to the Harvey Milk case, I'll explain my answer. Most random lefties that I know think the Catholic Church abuse scandal involved a bunch of priests raping actual children, despite the truth being that the vast majority of it was more accurately described as sexual abuse of a teenager. These same people lionize Harvey Milk to such a level that a battleship was named after the guy. As I've mentioned, I don't hold the Catholic church up to the standards of Harvey Milk; I believe any Priest who abuses anyone should be executed after a trial and period of reconciliation. I make the point only to show that those who wag their finger at the church, while celebrating Milk are just using it as an excuse to engage in good ole anti-catholic bias.

Interesting to see someone on the materialist side seem to agree that homosexuality is, at least in part, a choice. Most seem to be on the "born this way" side.

As to the matter at hand, you are correct. The issue was primarily the institutionalization of it, all the way back to the seminaries. It's anecdotal, but several former seminarians have come out saying that they were asked to leave the seminary/forced out for bringing homosexual issues in the seminary to light. It appears there were a number of rectors that were not just allowing gay men into the seminary, but were attempting to form a sort of gay contingent in order to make it easier access to sex. There was less hiding it, and no need to go find it elsewhere. Several priests and seminarians have gone down in flames when caught with a male prostitute. This made it easier.

It's also been told that there were predatory practices in the seminaries themselves. Men who were not homosexually inclined but were approached anyway, and often times repeatedly. Reporting it could get you kicked out.

All of this led to the scandal that happened, although I do think it's important to say it was a tiny minority of priests who actually did these things. Unfortunately they had a bit of a club going and plenty of opportunity for blackmail. I think the weak bishops were often reassigning priests out of self-preservation more than anything. They didn't want their own dirty laundry aired.

PabloSerna said:

---

Are you saying that there were no pedophiles, just homosexual priests?

---

From the John Jay report:

Quote:

---

The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.

---

81% of victims were male
78% were post-pubescent

So, there is a homosexual pederasty problem, not equal opportunity pedophilia.

2004_02_27_John_Jay_Main_Report_Optimized.pdf (bishop-accountability.org)

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Random question:

Who administers confession for priests? It is the local bishop, a fellow priest or what? And what happens if a priest confesses something like this to a bishop or another priest? Can the person hearing confession share or act on that information?

---

Priests would confess to another priest, possibly a spiritual advisor of theirs. Although a Bishop could hear their confession as well. The confessor is bound by sacred oath not to reveal anything disclosed in confession. This is something that many states and countries are currently trying to force the church to comply with. I think the seal of confession should be protected at all costs. However the priest hearing the confession could place turning oneself in as part of the penance. However one wonders who these priests would choose to confess to if it were to another priest of similar proclivities it may not make a difference. Also, priests who betray their oaths this severely may not have the faith that would incline them to seek reconciliation with Christ, which would be the motivation to confess to begin with.

No doubt there's an issue in the Church with respect to the abuse of minors. The John Jay report gave us a glimpse into where the preponderance of abuse came from. Thanks to Athanasius for sharing. And it's germane to the Holy Father's crass comments.

Yet, I don't think many of the power brokers in the episcopate really get it nor do they care. Take for instance "Uncle" Ted McCarrick. He was one of the architects of the Dallas Charter in the aftermath of 2002 and Cardinal Law, wherein the laity were the main ones subjected to training and hoops-jumping to volunteer in the parish. Yet, 2018 would have his pederast ways revealed. I'm still bitter at being lectured on how to behave by the American Church's biggest pederast offender. Further, he was a king maker and had high influence in Rome and DC. The victim that ultimately exposed this arch-hypocrite implicates Cardinal Bernadin in this sex abuse cabal as well as satanic rituals.

Giving witness to the problem with homosexual clergy was the Rudy Kos debacle in Dallas. I recall news stories about it in my youth. One point that has stuck with me was he "married" some time before his ordination to the priesthood, yet it was reported that the wedding was never consummated. Odd. Very odd.

Further witness to the homosexual clergy issue was the priest in my high school. He frequented the boys locker room during first period where frosh hoops and football as well as cross country runners were getting ready for second period after early morning practice. Odd. His mannerisms were stereotypical. After being reassigned to a parish, he offended against young teens. Last I knew, his new profession was massage therapist.

Priests I know well have mentioned some issues of this proclivity in their seminary days. Multiple priests. Lavender Mafia is a term some use.

Bella Dodd, former pinko commie, and others testify before Congress regarding recruiting men of bad morals to get into the seminaries as sort of a way to corrupt it from within.

The last 6+ years have been revealing and I see several fault lines. Kyrie Eleison.

My uncle was a Roman Catholic priest. He has passed away. During the time that all of this was getting exposed, he put a lot of the blame on homosexuality within the priesthood. He said that he had a natural attraction to women and that he was making a huge sacrifice in becoming a priest in that he knew he would never marry and have children. Others, unfortunately, within his seminary were really not giving up anything at all. Some of the seminaries were known as "Pink palaces" where young men with homosexual tendencies could go, meet, and continue to carry on homosexual activities fairly freely. Unfortunately, once they got out into parishes and were no longer in a situation where they had significant access to other homosexual males, they found victims within their parishes and schools, etc. This is certainly consistent with the fact that the majority of victims were post pubertal males.

Athanasius said:

---

81% of victims were male
78% were post-pubescent

So, there is a homosexual pederasty problem, not equal opportunity pedophilia.

---

Last thing I'll say and then I'll go away.

When I think about the Church sex scandals, the biggest 'sins' that jump out to me is inappropriate sexual conduct with underage persons and the intentional cover up of those actions. When I consider these scandals from a Christian perspective, I understand the introduction of the sin of homosexuality to be among the list. However, when I prioritize these sins, I have a hard time putting homosexuality above pedophilia. In other words, the worst part of 'homosexual pederasty' is the pedophilia bit, right?

I don't want to trivialize how wrong Christians think homosexuality is. But, don't we think it is much worse for Church leaders to be sexual preying on underage persons? Your post to me above reads as "Because most of the victims are boys, the sexual abuse against the girls is not a problem". Your post above suggests 19% victims were female which equates to tens of thousands of sexual abuses against girls. And in the last sentence, you exclude those tens of thousands of abuses from the 'problem'.

Surely heterosexual child abuse also deserves condemnation? On the scale of sins, is heterosexual pedophilia 'less bad' than homosexual pedophilia to such a degree as to make heterosexual pedophilia inconsequential?

Anyway, I know I've crossed the line of putting words in your mouth, but this is how your post (and several others in this thread) come off to me as an outsider. . . . for what its worth.

I think of the Church having a sexual abuse problem. And homosexual pederasty is a sub-category of the problem.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Serviam said:

---

In light of the Pope's unexpected bluntness about keeping "queerness" or "f*ggotry" out of the seminaries; I'm curious as to what the current beliefs are regarding the Catholic sex abuse scandal.

I believe, and think it has been shown that the sex scandal was mainly an issue of power abuse between homosexual clergy and post pubescent young men. This issue was further abetted by careerist politician-bishops who cared more about keeping their name out of headlines than they did protecting their flock and the reputation of the priesthood.

How much of this could have been avoided by actually screening seminary candidates for those with homosexual predilections? In the day and age of social media, it would seem pretty easy to get an idea of someone's sexuality through their media pages and interviews with their connections. B

---

You do realize, despite the protestations of many seeking to scape goat homosexuality, that there are a very large number of cases where victims have been female right?

---

Wow, way to jump into a thread, read the OP, skip the next 30 responses, and post something that shows it. Numbers and percentages have been discussed.