Pope Francis arrives Dec. 1, 2018, for an audience at the Vatican for members of the Dioceses of Molfetta and Ugento-Santa Maria di Leuca. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

Pope says he's worried about homosexuality in the priesthood

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Francis has been quoted in a soon-to-be published book as saying that having gays in the clergy "is something that worries me" and remarking that some societies are considering homosexuality a "fashionable" lifestyle.

Italian daily Corriere della Sera's website Saturday (Dec. 1) ran excerpts of the book in the form of an interview that Francis gave about religious vocations. Francis was quoted as describing homosexuality within the walls of seminaries, convents and other religious places where clergy live as "a very serious question."

"In our societies, it even seems homosexuality is fashionable. And this mentality, in some way, also influences the life of the church," Francis was quoted as telling his interviewer, a Spanish-born missionary priest, Fernando Prado.

The book, based on four hours of conversations the two had in August at the Vatican, will be published in 10 languages next week. Its Spanish title is "La Fuerza de la Vocacion" ("The Strength of Vocation").

Francis reiterated past Vatican pronouncements about the attention that must be given to selecting men for admission to seminaries, saying "we must very much take care of human and sentimental maturity" when training future priests.

Separately, the Italian news agency ANSA quoted Francis in the book as commenting on a clergyman who had told him that having gays in Catholic religious housing "isn't so grave" because it's "only an expression of affection."

That reasoning "is in error," Francis said. "In consecrated life and priestly life, there is no place for this kind of affection."

He said candidates with "neuroses or strong unbalances" should not be accepted "to the priesthood nor to (other forms of) consecrated life."

Still, Francis, as he has in the past, stressed that gay Catholics contribute to the life of the church. He said the church must always remember that "they are persons who will live in the service of the church, of the Christian community, of the people of God. Let's never forget this perspective."

Francis in his papacy has sought to stress that while obeying church teachings, the faithful must also be compassionate and open to others with different views.

Catholic teaching considers homosexual activity sinful, and that everyone, except married heterosexual couples, should abstain from sex.


  1. Thanks, Frank, for deflecting once again, and trying to put the blame for your crisisof faithless priests, sexually disturbed and immature men, pedophiles, men who can’t keep it in their pants, enabling bishops, and so forth onto the backs of homosexual men, and by the same logic, on to the backs of gay men who are not faithless, sexually disturbed, pedophiles, and enablers.

    From something I wrote elsewhere:

    Are you really interested in the answer to that?

    First, and foremost, it is a catholic issue. It is an abuse issue. It’s an issue of priests ignoring their vows and doing what they shouldn’t be doing, with a lot of other people enabling it. It is an institutional issue, and an old one. 1000 years worth, according to St. Peter Damian. And I remember reading a few papers that indicate it was going on well before that, but I don’t have a citation.

    But if you want to pretend it’s a homosexual issue, because you have an agenda, and your agenda needs to pretend it’s a homosexual issue in order to scapegoat others, and wants to avoid actually understanding sexual abuse and how it works to advance that agenda…

    Then sure, it’s a homosexual issue. Just ignore the heterosexual abuse. Just ignore 13 year old boys getting abused my priests, because they have pubic hair (maybe) and that makes them “men” (also very telling). Just ignore the coverups. Just ignore the facts.

    But let’s try to understand sexual abuse. We’ll step outside the church to do that.

    In real life, 50% of the abusers are fathers, step fathers, and father surrogates. 50%. These are men who are known in their families, churches, and communities as heterosexual men, and they would identify themselves as such. So, WHY ARENT WE CALLING IT A PROBLEM OF HETEROSEXUALITY? Why is a man who molests boys called a homosexual, but a man who molests girls not called a heterosexual, but a child molester? And what about true pedophiles, who are only interested in children? The sex is irrelevant, but there is some evidence (again I don’t have the citation) that they don’t want to be labeled as- wait for it— Homosexual! Not to mention, yet again, that a boy 11-14 is still in many ways a child, not a man.

    For those men, 100% of the abused are their own children. 80-90% of the victims are girls. 10 to 20% of the victims are boys. 90-98% of the abusers are men. SO WHY AREN’T WE CALLING IT A MALE PROBLEM? 25% of the time, the abuser is known to the child— another family member, a friend of the family, a coach, teacher, or priest. Those figures have held up remarkably well in the 40 years I’ve been studying the subject. SO WHY ARENT WE CALLING IT A FAMILIAL PROBLEM OR A FATHER PROBLEM?

    What does this tell you? That the real issue is access. Family members are accessible, strangers, not so much. Children given to the charge of a priest are accessible. Strangers, not so much. Seminarians are accessible. Strangers, not so much. And throw in the centuries of shame and fear directed at young homosexual people, you can pretty much expect the seminary to be full of young men who joined up to avoid confronting their sexuality, to avoid the questions about why they aren’t married, who hope that god, the church, the fake sanctity, and the vows of celibacy will protect them from themselves. But what do they find when they get there? A lot of young men just like themselves. As I can tell you, remembering my own coming out nearly 50 years ago, coming out just put me in a candy store chock full of the candy I had been denied for the previous 10 years.

    Two gay men I knew who entered the seminary told me that they entered to avoid their sexuality, and they left because they found far more sex going on inside the seminary than outside. And they realized they and a lot of other people were lying to themselves and everyone else.

    So there is your answer as to why it is not a homosexual problem. You just have to want to actually see the problem for what it is. And that requires honesty. But honestly, based upon the reactions of the church for decades, honesty is THE VERY LAST THING WE’RE GOING TO SEE.

    And you just proved it, yet again.

    Here’s a fact for you. I have never molested or abused anyone. In my entire life, I have known only one man whom I would describe as gay who also had an interest in underaged boys. Experts like Nicholas Groth say clearly that your average gay man is no more likely, and possibly slightly less likely, than your average heterosexual man to have any interest in abusing children.

    So why do you want to call it a homosexual problem instead of a catholic problem, a male problem, a familial problem,or an abuse problem? What is your agenda here? Because Mr. Catholic, there is an agenda.

    Or is this not in the least about sexual orientation, and is sexual orientation a huge red herring designed to serve the interests of the very gay-bashing hierarchs who crafted that red herring to draw attention away from their moral corruption and failure to deal with this crisis?

    How about the priest who raped and impregnated a girl, got her an abortion, and then received a letter from his bishop expressing sympathy for the priest — not the girl (p. 6 of the Philadelphia report)? Heterosexual acting out? Do we need to bar heterosexual men from seminaries and the priesthood if we want to prevent atrocities like this?

    Or is it not about sexual orientation at all, and are the trolls who want to keep pushing that meme more interested in attacking a vulnerable minority group than in addressing these horrors effectively? Hate’s a powerfully addictive — and powerfully stupefying — drug. And homophobia is, indeed, a form of hate. Dressing it up in religious clothes only makes the pig’s lipstick brighter. It does not disguise the pig in the least.

  2. PS Frank,

    “Some societies consider homosexuality a fashionable lifestyle.”

    First, Frank, fashionable has absolutely nothing to do with it. That’s your attempt to trivialize something your own catechism disagrees with.

    Second, Frank. That’s not how it works. It never has worked that way, and never will.

    Third, Frank, those “fashionable societies” are just insuring that thei gy citizens, peoplelkke me, people who are law abiding, productive, contributing members of society, are not being disadvantaged because of millennia old prejudices and stupidity. Fashion, other than a concern for civil rights and level playing fields, has nothing to do with it.

    Fourth, it’s not a lifestyle, you fossil. IT’S A LIFE. A lifestyle choice is Cardinal Burke, wearing a scarlet dress with a train, A frilly lace apron, and damning people he knows nothing about.

    In sum…

    BS, Frank.

  3. Should a bunch of old guys professing celibacy and dressing in medieval costumes to prove how important they are really be calling other people intrinsically disordered?

  4. Honestly? THOSE concerns, are what Mr. Francis should have said way back at his fateful 2013 press conference. He should have publicly expressed concerns about “homosexuality in the priesthood” way back then.

    Sure, Mr. Francis’ famous soundbite “Who am I to judge?” gave him great favor with the Liberal Media and President Obama. Sounded all kewl and progressive. But now, in 2018, everybody sees the huge price tag that Catholicism is paying for it.

    NOW, insiders and outsiders alike are seeing that the longtime homosexual culture that infected the Catholic Clergy, ultimately became — and still is! — a Cat-4 hurricane. Francis’ best-known soundbite, merely gave a Free Pass to lots of storm damage & casualties.

  5. The pope will use this book as a “modified hangout” (see Bill Clinton tactics).

    He’ll say “I’m worried about….”

    He’ll say “The Church recommends that” no homosexuals be admitted.

    But he’s softening at every of his many utterances. The Agenda will gain ground.

    Have no doubt, Spadaro who wears penny loafers, has over crafted every word that makes its way into print.

    There’s a blueprint that is being traced here to total upheaval and chaos.

    The modernists are in charge of the Church.

    By next Friday, this thing will have been used as support to open up the seminaries to just about anyone with a heart beat.

    Take a snapshot of the US JESUIT seminarians today…and that will be a perfect image of the seminarians in diocesan seminaries in 5 years: oversmiling, very expressive lads, who don’t know how to change a tire, or jump a car.

  6. “the huge price tag that Catholicism is paying”
    That huge price tag began 50 years before Francis became pope. Francis, as ineffectual as he is, so far has not fallen for the self-deluded scapegoating of homosexuals for the Church’s problems. Maybe that is changing. Maybe he has decided to blame your Gay Goliath since nothing else is working for him. Maybe you can loan him your slingshot.

  7. As I understand the doctrine expressed in the last sentence of this article, there would be no difference at all between homosexual priests and heterosexual priests who all restrict their public behaviors to those which have always been the prescribed standard for priests. The church is obviously concerned with the public behaviors of the priests, but the “orientations” are irrelevant when a person does in ministry that which he promised to do in an ordained status——not be in intimate relationships. We HAVE TO know that this vocation in this denomination has always been an acceptable refuge for guys who are gay by nature and who do not act it out with other people. This is not different from men who are straight by nature, who go into the priesthood and thereafter do not mess with women.

  8. You stated the obvious, but Pope Francis is having none of it. So much for, “who am I to judge?” Nothing but meaningless words.

  9. It would have been better if he said, “Who am I to know?”

  10. Or a stone. I think that is always the preferred method of dealing with sin.

  11. At this point, it would have been better if he had said nothing at all.

  12. Does the Pope not know that sexually abused boys are more likely to end up gay and/or abuse others?

    Yes statistics do back this up.

  13. For generations, Catholic families steered sons whom they suspected of being gay into the Catholic priesthood as a way of sublimating their natural but socially unacceptable desires with the hope of giving them some degree of social standing since the priesthood requires celibacy, that is, starting at the second millennium of the Catholic Church’s existence.

    Unfortunately that little arrangement hasn’t worked out so well. Families may have been spared the initial shame of having an unmarried son but that bargain came back to bite them when those sublimated desires erupted into unhealthy expression with underage boys instead of with consenting adult men. Their sexual development became arrested, they became sexually fixated on underage boys, and the rest, as they say, is history.

    Once again, society shuns gay people to the margins of society, or in this case into a more socially acceptable place, the Catholic priesthood, and then acts shocked, shocked when bad things happen. It’s a never-ending story.

  14. The Pope is in a tight spot, IMHO. He wants to be a tad looser on this issue than some other more “hard-line” Popes, methinks, BUT, there is the danged old doctrine, always some Vatican gadabout stuff going on which would be embarrassing if disclosed, and then all the pedophile scandals in the news. I really have no idea how a guy like Francis is supposed to cope in the setting.

    But I know this. Wherever there are problematic public behaviors, they ought to be talking about the behaviors and not the “orientation”, which was my point. I can’t know for a fact, but I have often suspected that a higher-than-average representation of gay guys (and nuns?) are in these celibacy-sworn vocations. And why not, for goodness sakes?

  15. Yes, I saw it. You are quite correct about reminding everyone that abuse should not be blamed on orientation. It is something “else” altogether in many iterations. Personally, I think (like Dr. Jocelyn Elders once articulated as Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General), that solo should be a taught subject. It should be a norm, the responsible expectation for singles, for people in these celibate roles, and especially for would-be offenders BEFORE they become offenders and INSTEAD of ever being an offender. We need a lot of discussion of the outlet that never hurts anybody—–and, of course—– most churches have boxed themselves in on this subject to the point of not being able to even mention the obvious.

  16. Please provide these statistics, because from everything I’ve read from reputable sources, rape never changes people’s sexual orientation, whether they be male or female, gay or straight, it just screws them up sexually for the rest of their lives. I believe the part about abusing others, however.

  17. They say it doesn’t change the orientation but self selecting reports from gay men show they are more likely to have experienced sex while underage with someone who was a legal adult.

    That’s a dressed up way of saying they were molested.

  18. Homosexual behavior in the Catholic Church is a mortal sin, spelling death for the soul, and contrary to what the Church was founded for – salvation.

    BS, Ben.

  19. Obviously there’s nothing YOU can do about, so “yes”.

  20. Francis, as ineffective as he is, has apparently not fallen for the self-delusion that homosexuals in the Church are A-OK were it not for scapegoating.

  21. Even though Jesus himself never said a word about homosexuality. So your contention is all based on your particular denomination’s catechism and nothing Jesus himself actually said on the matter. He did have a lot to say about hypocrites, however. That being the case, if I were you, I’d fear for your own salvation before “worrying” over anyone else’s, Bob.

  22. “Or a stone.”

    What do you think David used in his slingshot? Jellybeans?

    “…and [David] chose him five smooth stones…” (1 Samuel 17:40)


  23. And yet, Mark, of course, homosexual behavior in the church is not exactly what the church wants to deal with. In short, they are interested in controlling the behavior of those who aren’t catholic. As are you, as you have demonstrated in the past few years.

    And yet, Jose, you are still ignoring the obvious problem— well, not ignoring it so much as changing the subject. FAITHLESS PRIESTS, who have sex despite their promises to god, who engage in sinful behavior despite their promises to god, who preach the word on sunday and live sinful lifestyles that indicate they really don’t believe a word they tell everyone else. The pedophile priests. The priests with wives and girlfriends and boyfriends. The priests molesting kids. And the priests who know all about this, and don’t tell anyone else. And the bishops who cover it all up.

    And also, Bob you are ignoring another problem— the problem of how these faithless priest are called to the priesthood by god, and how the church’s process of discernment is worth as much as a faithless priest can make it worth. it does no good to claim that somehow the Evil Homosexual Menace corrupted the process, somehow, somewhere, somewhen. I mean, You WILL make that claim, because that is what a certain kind of person does. All that is admitting is that the process is far from “perfect” at best and totally bogus otherwise.

    And yet, Draco, talking about BS: not one word that you say addresses a single point I made, nor do I grant the slightest bit of moral authority to a millennia old institution that has at least a millennium’s worth of problems with molesting kids, and then Covering it up, and then, moving the molester to somewhere else where he can molest again, and then, Covering it up again!

    Or one That was complicit in the genocide in Rwanda.

    Ot the Magdalen Laundry scandals in Ireland.

    Or keeping on a KNOWN SERIAL predator like McCarrick.

    Or another KNOWN SERIAL PREDATOR like Wesoslowski. Word on the docks implicated him for years. Wasn’t it funny how he died while in Vatican custody?

    BS, DR.

    But thank you for providing the opportunity to clarify what you and your church would obfuscate. Now I can go back to ignoring all of you.

  24. “…Jesus himself never said a word about homosexuality.”

    Yep, he never said a single word expressing approval of homosexuality. The only sexual practices he ever spoke of approvingly were heterosexual marriage (Matthew 19:4-6) and celibacy (Matthew 19:11-12).

  25. Thank you. You know who, or you know whos, disagree. Naturally.

  26. I think it gets fixed when the grownups, not obsessed with sex, take over, or when the pews are empty.

    I think exactly the same thing should be true of drugs and alcohol. Teach people to use them responsibly, and hopefully, they will. Just saying “don’t” has neverworked. And if some people don’t want to use them responsibly, like drunk driving*, then you have every right to punish them when they don’t.

    *Years ago, when I was a probation officer, it was just when the laws were starting to get tough on drunk driving. I always thought, said to my clients, and think to this day, that everyone is entitled to ONE drunk driving arrest, if that was all it was for. (Not that I think drunk driving is a good idea or EVER ok). Hurting, killing others, substantial property damage– no, you get the book thrown at you because those things are crimes with or without alcohol. Teach people to drink responsibly, teach people to use drugs responsibly is not telling them that doing either is OK. But maybe you can avoid a good portion of theconsequences.

  27. Deducing that Jesus somehow disapproved of homosexuality because he is only recorded in scripture as having said glowing things about heterosexual marriage (while a guest at a wedding when asked to say a few words over the happy couple) is what is known as a logical fallacy; in other words, bad logic. Plato would not approve. Neither would Jesus.

  28. Jesus’ “glowing” words about heterosexual marriage were NOT spoken while he was “a guest at a wedding when asked to say a few words over the happy couple”. That is what is known as an over active imagination on you part, coupled with basic Biblical illiteracy.

    There is no record of Jesus making any public statement during the wedding in Cana, only a few private words to Mary and some servants.

    The words I referred to in Matthew 19 on heterosexual marriage were spoken at another time during a little debate with the Pharisees; those on celibacy were spoken immediately afterwards to his disciples.

    Noting that Jesus only spoke approvingly of heterosexual marriage and celibacy is a simple fact.

    Deducing that Jesus somehow approved of homosexuality because he is not recorded as having said anything against it is an example of a non sequitur fallacy. One could make the same faulty arguments about beastiality and incest.

  29. Okay, I grant you the part about the wedding at Cana. I should have done some research before responding. But my accusation about your logical fallacy (which is the same thing as a non sequitur) stands. You’re the one in logical error, not I.

  30. I’d be for lots of people leaving their denominations or religions when things are out of whack, but darn it, what we have discovered is that most people seem glued to the seats and just won’t get up and go, even when all the signs are flashing that they should.

  31. I’m so so glad a thinker like you exists. It’s refreshing.

  32. We can get through your crapola in fairly short order Mr. In Oakland.

    You are commenting as a sworn and dedicated enemy of the Catholic Church – “they are interested in controlling the behavior of those who aren’t catholic” – because that Church opposes what you choose to do.

    Jesus had twelve Apostles, one of whom was a rat fink.

    The Catholic Church admits it is a pilgrim church, in which the evil mingle among the good, even among the high and mighty.

    The same thing is true of the gay community.

    You’ve also been told many times, Mr. Ben Anonymous, that the answer to “how these faithless priest are called to the priesthood by god” is that they are not.

    Both in East Germany and the former Soviet Union after their respective collapses people shocked to find that some of their priests were paid infiltrators of the Communist goverments (also, of course, rabbis and ministers).

    Since the Church is run by humans, it’s “process of discernment” is not perfect, as Theodore McCarrick illustrated.

    One of the reasons homosexuals are banned from consideration is precisely to avoid Theodore McCarricks, and McCarrick bent the rules to allow more his ilk into the seminaries.

    And yet, Mr. Oakland, you go on about “at least a millennium’s worth of problems with molesting kids, and then Covering it up, and then, moving the molester to somewhere else where he can molest again, and then, Covering it up again!”

    Of course, you hate that Church, you hate its members, you hate everything about it because …. it says homosexual behavior is wrong, intrinsically disordered, and so on.

    So we get a laundry list:

    “complicit in the genocide in Rwanda” – as always some Catholics sin

    “the Magdalen Laundry scandals in Ireland” – overhyped for the most part, and as always some Catholics sin.

    “a KNOWN SERIAL predator like McCarrick” – I believe you mean the cunning homosexual McCarrick.

    “another KNOWN SERIAL PREDATOR like Wesoslowski” – laicized, awaiting trial – the Vatican held an opening hearing in criminal proceedings against Wesolowski., not protected at all.

    So, here’s how I see it.

    You really have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

    You can emit your anti-Catholicism in one brief sentence and quit.

  33. That is your most intelligent comment this week.

  34. You sound like you speak from experience.

    I’m betting you took more than one in the head.

  35. Take away that mirror from in front of your face, Bob, and you might see more clearly.

  36. “You are quite correct about reminding everyone that abuse should not be blamed on orientation.”

    So, we should set kleptomaniacs, genocidal lunatics, and serial killers free?

  37. How do pronounce his alias anyway? Very phonetically or some other way?

  38. Well, I saw a teachable moment today, and actually responded to one of THEIR posts. No teaching THEM, of course. He gave me the usual “you hate the church”. In short, nothing really to say. And pretty much what I expected. I have to admit, I read mostly the fart about hating the church, because it stood out.

    On the other hand, he didn’t seem all that concerned about Catholic complicity in the Rwandan genocide. So there’s THAT.

  39. I seriously don’t think it’s possible for Francis to say nothing. He takes this pope business seriously, and that is the papistical* job description. I wish, however, that he would limit himself to things he knows about, and not listen to some right wing cardinal that thinks Michele Bachman’s a prophet. This discourse on “fashionable” is right out of the far right catholic playbook, the very people who would Iike to dropkick Francis to the curb in front of the Vatican where the Indians and Pakistanis sell thousands of nail clippers and beer openers imprinted Roma and Citta della Vaticano.

    That to me is what is sad about this, apart, of course,from the damage this stupidity does and is intended to do to gay people. I think he knows better, but some wormtongue slithered his way in and told him to look “strong”.

    * I learned this bit of English last night watching a period drama that took place in early 19th century England. I thought it was a wonderful word in the way it was so hysterically pronounced by the Protestant character. I was waiting for a chance to use it,

  40. Individuals who are genuinely seeking to become more like Christ and wish to obey God’s commands in the Bible, despite our rebellious hearts to sin, will ultimately be saved. Yes, faith in God alone will lead to salvation, but our actions should demonstrate that faithfulness. Personally, it doesn’t matter what homosexual or heterosexual lifestyle a person is living, continuing to sin without repenting will lead further and further away from God’s design. Allowing for these man-made false beliefs to manifest into delusional lies between the fine print of the Truth, will only poison the mind, and make it a “normal” mindset for others to follow the act of disobedience in the direct face of the Lord. The Lord is merciful with the grace that He has so freely given us, through the death of His one and only Son, Jesus Christ. Really, the biggest question is, why abuse the intimate relationship we are all (hopefully) striving to build with Him? Pray for everyone in the world out of unconditional love, and especially for those practicing homosexual behavior. We are all His people, which means He is in control of our lives, no matter how badly we desire it be ours. I am not perfect myself, nor do I claim to be. All my soul desires is to listen, worship, and spread the good news that has been shared with me because I want to be on Jesus’ team. In the end, He cannot touch upon free will, so everyone has to make the inevitable choice: to faithfully follow God’s commands and His Shepard (Jesus) OR blindly follow ourselves/others towards destruction.
    Thank you all for hearing me out, and I appreciate any feedback you may have to share with me.

  41. You are correct to suggest that the fearsome Price Tag was visible even before Mr. Francis became Pope. But that only worsens his gig today, because now there’s NO way he can say, “Well, I didn’t know about this stuff.

    The John Jay Reports (both 2004 and 2011) had confirmed that 81% of something VERY unpleasant, was happening with the Catholic Clergy in America. The late Pope John Paul II, in 2002, had even called some US Bishops to Rome, about checking seminaries for “the need for fidelity to the Church’s teaching, especially in the area of morality, and … a deeper study of the criteria for suitability of candidates for the priesthood.” That is NOT a reference to jaywalking, folks. People knew that a dark, misty collision-course was locking in.

    So there’s no way in Hades, that the new Pope Francis (2013) would have been unaware of a large, functioning, (and toxic), homosexual clergy culture, a real part of the Catholic sex-abuse crisis. Yet when the media asked the Key Question in 2013, Francis punted, and gave his Gay-Goliath-appeasing soundbite. That ain’t working anymore.

    “Scapegoating”, by the way? No chance. After all, even Mr. Francis himself is NOW speaking the truth. I’m only saying, “Why didn’t the man just be honest, and say this stuff 5 years ago.”

  42. The fact that 80+% of the abuse was male-on-male is one of those unfortunate facts that you just keep trying to sweep under the rug in your intrusion into the internal affairs of a denomination you acknowledge hating.

  43. And everyone else wishes that YOU would limit yourself to things you know about, homosexuality in the priesthood, the priesthood itself, and Catholicism in general all being over your pay grade.

  44. Now tell him about all your various aliases, Bob. At least I only have one.

  45. Re: “FAITHLESS PRIESTS, who have sex despite their promises to god, who engage in sinful behavior despite their promises to god…. The pedophile priests. The priests with wives and girlfriends and boyfriends. The priests molesting kids. And the priests who know all about this, and don’t tell anyone else. And the bishops who cover it all up.” 

    I particularly love how all the Catholic apologists rage and bluster and fume and pound their fists over homosexuality, especially within the priesthood, and how it causes all of this. But conveniently they forget that, while a lot of the abusive priests attacked boys, they weren’t the only victims. The Pennsylvania grand jury report included lurid tales of priests having sex with girls, and in at least one case pressuring her to have an abortion (yes!). And some of the priests’ extracurricular dalliances weren’t even with unwilling partners; take e.g. the auxiliary bishop in L.A. (his name was Zavala, IIRC) who a few years ago was found to have fathered children, and was forced to resign when it came to light. 

    In some of these cases, nothing illegal (under secular law) took place, yet they happened nonetheless. And as you point out, they were done by faithless priests: Men who, in their “day jobs,” ran around ordering everyone else not to do those very same things. It’s called “hypocrisy,” and their own Jesus explicitly forbid them ever to be hypocritical … but apparently they didn’t care. And honestly, the rest of the Church doesn’t care — as long as it’s all kept quiet. 

    The Church as an institution actively covers creeps like this, owing to a number of factors: Its large size, which grants them room to move malcontents around; the autonomy many clerics have within it; its propensity not only to keep secrets, but force others to keep them for them; its own internal legal system (canon law and the Curia) that intercepts wrongdoing and keeps it out of the public eye; and more. But the raging hypocrisy which lies at the heart of this — i.e. the principle that priests being unpriestly is OK so long as it’s kept secret — is a distinctly a Christian problem. Christians have cultivated hypocrisy as an artform, almost from the time the evangelists penned quotations of Jesus’ own words ordering them not to be hypocritical. 

    That hypocrisy now lives as a kind of beating heart deep within the psychopathology of that religion. Historically Christians have conjured dozens of rationales for why they’re allowed to be hypocrites, in spite of Jesus’ clear, unequivocal instructions to the contrary. So long as Catholics deny this raging hypocrisy, and keep granting their clergy license to range afield from their own Church’s teachings, there is no way to solve this problem … at all. 

    Note, this is a problem that goes beyond the Catholic Church, even if it happens to be more evident within that sect than some others (owing to its large footprint). No Christian sect can ever straighten up and fly right until it addresses the tendency of their own clergy and followers to be hypocrites in spite of Jesus’ teachings that it’s simply forbidden. But good luck with that … as I said, hypocrisy lives in Christianity now, and has for some 19 centuries or so. Ripping it out is going to be a tall order (and that’s putting it mildly). It’s safe to say Christians simply will refuse even to try doing so. 

    More’s the pity. 

  46. What difference does it make if someone in the priesthood is gay or straight?
    The real problem is pedophilia.

  47. Matthew 15:19: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality…”

    Genocide is a variety of murder, just as homosexuality is a variety of sexual immorality.

    So Jesus actually DOES condemn homosexuality – contrary to Elgal’s assertion – just as he likewise condemned genocide.

  48. No. I did not deduce that Jesus did not approve of homosexuality because he only spoke glowingly of heterosexual marriage and celibacy. What I did was to note that your deducing that Jesus somehow approved of homosexuality because he is not recorded as having said anything against it does not logically follow. ,

    Further, your premise that “Jesus did not say anything against homosexuality” is itself false, as I demonstrated in my post to Mark (above). Jesus, the Apostles (taught by him), and the ancient Church (taught by them) are consistent in condemning ALL types of sexual immorality – including homosexuality.

  49. Actually the real problem is both pedophilia and homosexuality, as both are sins.

  50. Well, we have in all of Mark’s fetid “rebuttal” everything you are talking about. And everything You and I have talked about in the past. I would expect nothing better than this from someone like Jose.

    Religion makes you moral, except when it doesn’t. Then it’s the Mark of the beast, so to speak.

    Genocide in Rwanda? Well, some people sin. So that’s all right. Do you have time to hear about godless atheists?

    Ya got some good points? Not a single disputation of the actual facts, but Awww, let’s change the subject to how much Ben just hates the church, and Bob’s your uncle. The fact that I really don’t hate the church, and never have hated the church, just lying, hypocritical, child molesting scum trying to pin the blame for this Most Catholic Problem on their perennial targets. I’m not overly fond of genocide, either. I’m surprised he didn’t pull out “And ya hate GAWD, too!” It’s funny how I have no issues with Unitarians, ELCA, Quakers, Episcopalians, UCC, Presbyterians, JW,s, SDA’s, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and most of the catholic priests I met during my career.

    Priests NOT called to the priesthood by god? Not what I was told by several priests. Google “is a vocation a gift from God?” And there are even more citations. Thus, of course, not true, and a less than ept attempt to change the subject. Discernment less than Perfect? Then it discerns nothing. We’ll bring up the problems in Germany, but forget to mention the Reichsconcordat, wherein the Catholic Church and The Nazis promised not to bother each other much. Then we’ll ignore that this isn’t post warGermany we’re talking about, and the problem goes back 1000 years at the least.

    Quite a charmer, our Draco. I promised mark silk that I would keep my comments civil, and try to raise the tone of the place. I’ve been doing may best to keep that promise. It’s why I ignore most of the usual suspects, including DR, most of the time.

    I’m going to go back to ignoring THEM. I truly wish he would do the same for me.

  51. As is heterosexual behavior outside of marriage. As is making romises to god that you don’t keep. As is hypocrisy, as in “Scribes! Pharisees! hypocrites!” As is looking the other way when priests do what they do.

  52. It’s basic sociology. for centuries, until the last 50 years if so, everything possible was done to this discourage gay people from having healthy, affirming relationships, including sodomy laws, prisons, beatings, executions, destroyed families, destroyed careers, and every single other punishment the religious could think of to make our lives as difficult, dangerous, expensive, and unpleasant as possible. And all for the crime of being different.

    And then, when gay people don’t have those healthy relationships, the religious say, “see! This what happens when you revel againstgod.”

    You can see exactly the same dynamic applied to black people.

  53. The statistics ACTUALLY say that most molestation occurs in the Holy Heterosexual Family, with the father, step father, or father surrogate being the perpetrator 50% of the time, and a family member or friend being responsible 25% of the time.

  54. You and PsiCop have nothing to contribute but hatred of religion in general, hatred of Catholics and their Church in particular, and pro-LBGT propaganda.

    If you post, you may get responses.

    If you don’t want to read them:


    which eliminates any reason whatsoever for your continued kvetching.

  55. And the Catholic Church also opposes heterosexual “behavior” outside of marriage, a seamless garment.

    That pretty much concludes the source of your complaint.

  56. It has to do with a number of things such as temptations in seminaries, the ability to advise the faithful, and the like.

    The real problem is sin in general, and mankind’s proclivity for falling into it.

  57. You just love to spew anti-Christian, and especially anti-Catholic, invective.

    If you only knew what you were talking about ….

  58. No one denied that some Catholics in Rwanda were naughty.

    Some homosexuals are naughty, too.

    Now, IF you could support the proposition that the Catholic Church, as a Church, planned and implemented the Rwandan genocide ….

  59. He should be more concerned about child abusers. Of course a church that makes men remain celibate attracts gay men, because straight men would rather get married. However, homosexuality Is not necessarily a bad thing if, like heterosexuality, it is not acted upon if you are a priest.

  60. Of course the four major carpers – Ben in Oakland, Elagabalus, alwayspuzzled, and PsiCop – don’t give a fig about what the Scriptures say.

    Two are practitioners of naked leapfrog, one is a curmudgeon, and one is …. well, something.

    They are here to attack the Catholic Church, morality, Catholics, religion in general, and to generally muck about.

  61. Yep, all those are grave sins as well. Never suggested they weren’t.

    Glad to see that you consider fornication/adultery, broken vows, hypocrisy, and cover-ups in the same category (sins) as pedophilia and homosexuality.

  62. Every inclination to sin is “necessarily a bad thing”.

  63. I don’t.

    I don’t believe there are sins, except in the sense of transgressions against other people, all of the things you name EXCEPT homosexuality being a sin against others. Since I don’t believe in your kindof god, I don’t believe in sins in that sense ofbeing against god.

    I certainly don’t consider homosexuality to be anything other than natural. Science agrees. Facts agree. Experience agrees. The only thing that disagrees is a certain class of sex obsessed Christian.

  64. No, science does NOT agree.

    No, experience does NOT agree.

    A phalanx of LBGT propagandists and a group of folks in the pseudo-science of psychology agree.

  65. No studies have indicated that celibacy particularly attracts gay men.

    On the other hands comments at RNS attracts gay men who like to attack religion.

  66. I wrote that “both pedophilia and homosexuality…are sins”, to which you added “As is heterosexual behavior outside of marriage”, etc.

    So, yes, you did include them in the same class (sins). As Ledger’s Joker said: “Such a poor choice of words!”.

    “Science”, mundane “Facts”, and “Experience” are incapable of telling us whether anything is sinful or not. Their purview is limited to this fallen world, and is therefore highly distorted – as are those who exclusively rely on them.

  67. True.

    But when they misquote the Scriptures, they can expect to be called on it.

  68. “something that worries me”.

    It should, after all the scandals, law suits & loss of faith in many in the Church leadership!

  69. It’s nice to see you finally displaying some self-awareness. . . . Oh, wait, never mind.

  70. Of course the four major carpers – Ben in Oakland, Elagabalus, alwayspuzzled, and PsiCop – don’t give a fig about what the Scriptures say.

    I can’t speak for the others, but I’m afraid you’re quite wrong about me. Contrary to your unfounded assumption, I have taken much comfort and inspiration from the Christian Bible, I just don’t have a slavish, pathological devotion to it the way fundamentalists do; and I also don’t believe it is inerrant or that it should be treated as an idol like fundamentalists do. I do believe in Jesus’ words in the Gospels and I try to form my life by emulating them. I’m human, so naturally I fail. A lot. But I keep trying. Isn’t that what a Christian is supposed to do?

    Your unfounded ad hominem is both unwarranted and uncharitable, though hardly out of character. I deserve an apology, but do not expect to receive one from you. Perhaps you’ll prove me wrong. We shall see.

  71. The only two gay men I’ve EVER known in the past 47years were both molested by their thoroughly heterosexual fathers. Not to mention, the obviously gay kids are frequently the ones targeted.

  72. They don’t sound “thoroughly heterosexual” to me. A “thoroughly heterosexual” person does not have sex with a person of the same sex.

    Closet bisexual, with a preference for the opposite sex except when desirable members of the same sex were young.

  73. Richard, your ability to tune reality out in favor of whatever that is that you keep peddling makes “It’s nice to see you finally displaying some self-awareness” …. Oh, wait, never mind.

  74. I understand, but do it for others, not for them.

    They care not a fig.

  75. Wow – two personal examples!

    That clinches it.

  76. Re: “… let’s change the subject to how much Ben just hates the church …” 

    Don’t you realize, Ben, the driving principle here? No one is permitted to not love the R.C. Church! It’s just not allowed. Anything less than absolute deference to the moral superiority of the R.C. Church is unacceptable. To say anything even remotely unflattering about Catholicism is verboten

    Re: “I’m going to go back to ignoring THEM. I truly wish he would do the same for me.” 

    Both those IDs are on my “block” list, and will remain there. I expect the same guy to respond to me, but using some other ID. 

  77. It is the perverts in the Catholic priesthood that should worry the Pope, the way they worry the rest of us. Perverts and Homosexuals are NOT the same thing. That is not ‘doctrine’, it is reality.

  78. “Perverts and homosexuals are not the same thing.”

    Very true. All homosexuals are perverts, but not all perverts are homosexuals. Homosexuals are a subset of perverts.

  79. “They don’t sound .thoroughly heterosexual” to me.”

    I know. Thank you for admitting, FINALLY, that the issue is far more complex, far more nuanced, than merely assigning sexual orientation to someone, based simply upon predatory behavior, and what you think that sexual orientation MIGHT be.

    and by extension, trying to blame innocent people based upon that mislabeling of sexual orientation, becuase you have a social, religious, and political agenda.

  80. Maybe if enough of us were to do that, it might make a difference……

  81. I hadn’t thought of it that way. But you are 100% right. That is the subtext.

    It let’s change the subject to how much The Usual Suspects admitted something: genocide is merely “naughty”.

    “No one denied that some Catholics in Rwanda were naughty.” Of course, naughty covers genocide. That’s adorable.

    From the Guardian, 11/20/16: The Catholic church in Rwanda apologised on Sunday for the church’s role in the 1994 genocide, saying it regretted the actions of those who participated in the massacres.

    “We apologize for all the wrongs the church committed. We apologize on behalf of all Christians for all forms of wrongs we committed. We regret that church members violated [their] oath of allegiance to God’s commandments,” said the statement by the Conference of Catholic Bishops, which was read out in parishes across the country.

    The statement acknowledged that church members planned, aided and carried out the genocide, in which more than 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Hutu extremists.”

    It sounds to me like THE CHURCH admitted complicity, and did not admitmerely being naughty.

  82. I’ve decided to flag any patently offensive posts.

  83. I do that, too.

    I wish that more monitoring went on, though, because I believe that this stuff ought to have no place on this site.

  84. I will not lie about sincerely held religious beliefs.

    Sorry you believe in neither diversity nor freedom of speech.

  85. I am sure enough totalitarian minded people could eliminate freedom of speech as well as diversity of moral thought.

  86. Yes, I am sure you believe only your progressivist thought should be allowed a voice.

  87. The LGBT censorship police is out in full force in the replies to Joe Gallagher’s new post above.

  88. … says the man with an LGBT sexual agenda.

    Of course sin is a complex issue. But it is still sinful.

  89. Re: “It sounds to me like THE CHURCH admitted complicity, and did not admit merely being naughty.” 

    They did, but again, you miss the point: The R.C. Church must be praised for having admitted complicity! You’re not supposed to just sit back and say, “You see? I was right about your Church, and they even admitted it!” 

    Oh no! That’s not nearly enough for any true “Champion” of the Roman Catholic Church! 

    What you were supposed to say was, “How wonderful of your Almighty Perfect & Holy Church to have admitted its complicity, which of course was completely understandable at the time, but how magnanimous of them to take at least some responsibility for what they did. Well, not so much what ‘they’ did, but what other people did, albeit with some collaboration here and there on the Church’s part. Which, of course, they were terrific about admitting to, so likewise, of course, they’re to be fawned over for having made such an enormous concession. And no one should ever think poorly of them for their complicity in an atrocity, because they so wonderfully — many years later — came right out and admitted it!” 

  90. “If you only knew what you were talking about ….”

    He does.

  91. Sure, you can change the subject to sin, if you like. It won’t change anything. And as I said earlier, I grant no moral authority to the Catholic Church whatsoever. In that, I’m practicall y a southern baptist!

    All you did was admit that this Much vaunted plan of “get rid of them Evilllll Geyz and our church will be pure again” is really “blame it on the Geyz and carry on.” You’re addressing the wrong problem with even more wrong assumptions to fulfill a bad agenda. People knew about mcarrick for years. People knew about wesolslowski for years. And about O’Brien and and a heavenly host of others. And they did nothing, said nothing, stopped nothing. My guess is that some actually used it to their own advantage,

    And for those reasons, it is unlIkely to work.

    My guess is that it will in fact make your problem worse. father Martin says he knows many gay priests who are both comfortable with being gay and being celibate, and take their vocations seriously. You’ll be getting rid of those good priests with no benefit at all to a church short of priests, except in your minds. Getting rid of the admitted homosexuals doesn’t mean you’ll getrid of the closeted ones, or the homosexual hating homosexual ones, or the pedophile ones, or the bisexual ones, or the sexually immature and confused ones, orthe unsure ones, or the perverted ones, or the heterosexual ones who are all of those things and cannot maintain celibacy. Or the ones who pass as heterosexual but like young boys on the side, like the Boy Scouts. Or the bishops who enable them. And me t time it all comes out, as it will, you won’t have anyone to blame but yourselves. Not that you will.

    And Your process of “discernment” seems to be a crap shoot in all senses. So good luck with the plan.

  92. Glad to know that your sincerely held religious beliefs include calling people perverts. We know what really hides behind sincere religious belief, but it is nice to know that occasionally, one of you will admit it. You should have employed sin leveling. It would have been much less obvious.

  93. “One of the reasons homosexuals are banned from consideration is precisely to avoid Theodore McCarricks…”

    Sloppy/inductive reasoning.

  94. If that is what anybody was doing or intending, sure. Freedom of speech entitles you to say what you wish. It doesn’t entitle you with a platform to say it. RNS has rules, or so they claim, which you might well be violating. I got kicked off RNS for a while becuase I stopped being polite and respectful to an internet troll who does nothing to merit it. You didn’t hear me come whining like a little snowflake about how I was being censored and persecuted. It of course, I’m not on the right wing.

  95. I got a sunburn from all of that shade you were throwing. Teehee!!!

  96. That Jesus says nothing in the Gospel about same-sex relations suggests at least two conclusions:

    a. Jesus, while valuing fidelity and permanence in opposite-sex marriage, saw no need to talk about other sexual matters. Why talk about something his listeners would not have comprehended/ understood?

    b. His listeners, given their relatively primitive understanding of marriage, could not have comprehended faithful and lifelong romantic and sexual relationships between persons of the same sex. They would have associated same-sex sexual relations as involving a slave and a social superior, not unheard of within Roman culture. In the latter case, sex was used to demonstrate superiority, not faithful and lifelong commitment.

    Jesus did not preach freeing slaves. It would take centuries for societies to condemn the practice. The Church of Rome was rather late (to put it mildly) to “categorically” condemn slavery, per John T. Noonan, Jr in his A CHURCH THAT CAN AND CANNOT CHANGE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF CATHOLIC MORAL TEACHING.

    We’re witnessing Catholic moral development about homosexuality. Thanks to the internet and better education, one can only hope it won’t take the Church of Rome nearly as long to reverse its doctrine.

  97. The USCCB online translation mentions “adultery” and “unchastity”. Per the related commentary, “The Marcan list of thirteen things that defile (Mk 7:21–22) is here reduced to seven that partially cover the content of the Decalogue.” Homosexuality was unknown in Jesus’ time. Men having sex with men was known to exist (a) within pagan temples and (b) between slave and a superior male as a demonstration of power over an inferior. You are engaging in anachronism.

  98. Thank you. Some folks have great trouble adjusting to change, especially when it is based on new information and insights. In Western Catholicism, for instance, the tide is against them.

  99. And the John Jay College researchers concluded it was not a homosexual issue.

  100. The mistake you made was doing your usual in comments on an article by Mark Silk.

    Avoid Mark Silk, and you avoid his censorship.

  101. Sociology is just as much science as is industrial engineering.

  102. Your comment reminds me that a behavior is inherently wrong because it harms people including the sinner. In other words, we are our own worst enemy when we sin. Most of the commandments in the Decalogue deal with human behavior, not with belief in or obligation to God. I recall a fellow blogger asserting that God gave us the Ten Commandments simply because God wanted to do so. She was responding to my contention that God gave us the Decalogue to guide behavior for our benefit — in this life! God did not prescribe the ten commandments merely for the purpose of doing so. Obeying the behaviorally anchored commandments promotes healthy societal functioning.

  103. You must be an industrial engineer — “pseudo-science of psychology”.

  104. Au contraire re: personal experience supposedly unable to tell us that anything is sinful. If “sin” is understood — correctly — as any behavior that has a negative impact on societal functioning, and if the person/sinner is aware of and appreciates this basic truth, then a sinner can reflect on his or her wrong behavior and its deleterious effect on both sinner and society.

  105. Pedophilia is a sin.

    If homosexuality is a sin, so is heterosexuality.

  106. Yup. Colorado is the poster child for “responsible” drug use; San Francisco too.

  107. Was Jesus not a Jew? Did he not follow the “old law”?
    Was he not sent to save the Jews first?
    Wouldn’t he have followed and taught one to follow the old law as he transitioned to the laws of the New Testament?

  108. See, that’s the rub.
    You don’t believe in God, therefore by default you don’t believe in sin; as sin is the act of offending God. What you consider natural, God may not. I would argue that man defining his own sinfulness is a precarious way to live.

  109. Pardon my interruption of what appears to be a long running conversation among people who seem to have encountered each other previously — but I felt a need to say HUH? We can agree that genocide is a variety of murder, by definition, but how do you conclude that homosexuality is a variety of sexual immorality? Homosexuals can be immoral just as heterosexuals can be immoral, but that does not make homosexuality immoral. As for the statement below that homosexuality was unknown in Jesus’ time, another HUH? That is just plain ignorant. Even the Old Testament refers to homosexuality. It is merely a variant sexual orientation and has been around since Adam and Ben.

  110. Wow Ben, you finally listened to what I have been saying: get rid of every unholy priest, bishop and cardinal. Shut down churches and get back to a more orthodox form of Catholicism.
    I think you were on your extended leave of absence when I cited st catherine of Siena and her thoughts on unholy bishops and what should be done with them (rite of degradation).
    Regarding discernment and being called to the priesthood. Not all men join the priesthood because they are called by God any more than all civilians join the army because of a sense of obligation to the country. On the contrary, plenty of guys in the military join for college money, or to get away from something/someone or for reasons other than, “God, Country, Corps”. As eblabulus stated earlier, many men joined the priesthood to hide their sexuality or for an education or class status. I doubt if any of these men joined the priesthood having truly discerned their vocation.
    I do believe that a good and holy priest is called; just as a police officer, fire fighter, doctor; etc. They are few, but they truely have been called.
    That being said, there may be some who fall after entering seminary; or the priesthood. For whatever reason, they focus on themselves and their fleshly desires; instead if the souls of the faithful. This is sin ben; turning your back on God. The men we read about are sinners of the highest order. They have betrayed God, the church and the faithful.
    You are attempting to legitimize homosexuality and it’s acts by implying that God called these unholy priests via vocational discernment. As I stated earlier, this is not the case.

  111. Stop it Parker. You and Mark are making too much Bible sense around here. You stop it right NOW (and tell Rick B that he better stop it too!!)

  112. Unfortunately for that opinion, the JJ researchers placed the 81 percent homosexual number directly upfront in both 2004 and 2011, thus solidly confirming the reality of who was involved.

    Shoot, they even quantified the primary target — the postpubescent boys. No excuses possible. And even the 2011 report was unable to lower the actual numbers on either the gay men or the boy targets.

    So it’s absolutely a homosexual issue. Pope Francis is finally getting real about it. But even now, unless Catholic and Protestant Christians can offer an effective healing Antidote, the problem will never be solved.

    Oh wait. Such an Antidote DOES exist. Check it out folks. http://www.restoredhopenetwork.com

  113. The Roman Catholic Church is, and since the 4th century, has been the most corrupt institution mankind has ever been cursed with.

    Let’s stop the crap about hetero and homo and pre or post pubescent and eliminate the problem at it’s source.

    The source is and has always been the criminal activity that disguises itself as Divinely created – the Bride of Superstition, of a phantasm, of a concept that frightened the ” sheep ” into total and absolute servitude, to the creators and purveyors of this crap.

    That destroyers of entire societies, cultures, civilizations, and innocent human lives by the hundreds of millions….

    The Roman Catholic Church.

    No other organization in the history of man has ever spawned a false spurious debate as is unfolding between RCC apologists on the one hand, and the human species.

    It needs to be attacked and destroyed as with cholera, smallpox and the Black Death.

    It offers no validity for it’s survival – and billions for it’s total eradication.

  114. It is also an issue of religions being harassed and being broken down to reform to others ways of life . It’s real simple don’t have same sex relationships teaching the Catholic faith problem solved. That goes against their faith . Has anyone seen Imams except that ? Why should any faith ? We all have to leave to people be and their faiths . Stop reforming everything and everyone. Everyone be who they want but stop forcing your ways of life on people .

  115. Stop infiltrating the Catholic religion with gay Jesuits , the social warrior reformists. Stop breaking down your own beliefs go conform to “ modern society “ . We have to respect what others sexually believe we never as humans have to force it upon ourselves to make others feel comfortable. I’m so sick of sex of any kind with whomever being made top priority . Child marriage is some peoples faith not the Catholic faith that as well as same sex marriage is not the Catholic faith . So what if you lose people joining the Catholic faith because you won’t reform to what some in society say you must to reform to . Stand solid and believe and practice what you hold near and dear . If you aren’t forcing your beliefs on others you have Every right to believe what wish . Freedom of religion mean you are free to do so .

  116. God created nothing sinful.

    God created heterosexuality. (Genesis Chapters 1 and 2)

    Man fell into homosexuality because of sin. (Romans Chapter 1)

  117. patrick is and has been since he first joined Disqus an anti-Catholic flamer.

    With hatred as his script, he spews things like “The source is and has always been the criminal activity that disguises itself as Divinely created – the Bride of Superstition, of a phantasm, of a concept that frightened the ‘sheep’ into total and absolute servitude, to the creators and purveyors of this crap.”

    In its heyday the KKK was opposed to “Kolored, Kikes, and Katholics” and patrick stands directly in that ugly tradition of hatred.

  118. The conclusion that homosexual activity is a variety of sexual immorality arrives from the constant Jewish tradition, which carried unchanged directly into Christianity right up until the liberal Protestants and Jews decided to discard 3,000 years of moral teaching.

    The orientation itself, of course, is not sexual immorality.

  119. On the other hand, he does know what he likes and dislikes.

    That is the only basis for his moral code.

    Dogs and cats do the same.

  120. If you have followed Alexandra at National Catholic Reporter, Bilgrimage, and here the reason is obvious.

  121. “If it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet’.” (Romans 7:7)

    Pardonez moi, monsieur, but I prefer to follow the Divinely inspired Apostle rather than you.

  122. The Church does not teach that gay people are “perverts”.

  123. Nope, I did not change the subject. Discussions about homosexuality are always about sin.

  124. No, every respected association of medical, nursing, psychology, psychiatry and social work agrees that homosexuality is a variant of human sexuality, not a pathological condition. Only a phalanx of bigots and religious creeps disagree with that.

  125. Homosexuality is one of a laundry list of prohibited sexual immoralities which may all be found in Leviticus 20 and were well known and understood by all of Jesus’ listeners. Unlike most of the Torah’s laws, even righteous Gentiles were expected to observe them.

  126. If every association (“respected”is a throw away) of medical, nursing, psychology, psychiatry and social work agreed that bestiality is a variant of human sexuality, not a pathological condition, would that make it acceptable?

    Of course your proposition is false.

    What did happen is that the psychiatrists and psychologists in SOME societies based on no research moved homosexuality out of the DSM – the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. It is still listed in the World Health Organization ICD-10 as a “ego-dystonic sexual orientation”.

    In other words, the change was political not scientific.


    It has zero effect on how religions view homosexual behavior, or whether or not a society chooses to make some or all aspects of homosexual behavior illegal, nor binds anyone who is not required to use the current DSM for diagnostic criterion.

    Psychology, and the psychological component of psychiatry, is after all, not science.

  127. The USCCB commentary offers the following:

    [7:7–25] In this passage Paul…aims to depict the disastrous consequences when a Christian reintroduces the law as a means to attain the objective of holiness pronounced in Rom 6:22.

    [7:7–12] The apostle defends himself against the charge of identifying the law with sin. Sin does not exist in law but in human beings, whose sinful inclinations are not overcome by the proclamation of law.

    [7:13–25] Far from improving the sinner, law encourages sin to expose itself in transgressions or violations of specific commandments (see Rom 1:24; 5:20). Thus persons who do not experience the justifying grace of God, and Christians who revert to dependence on law as the criterion for their relationship with God, will recognize a rift between their reasoned desire for the goodness of the law and their actual performance that is contrary to the law. Unable to free themselves from the slavery of sin and the power of death, they can only be rescued from defeat in the conflict by the power of God’s grace working through Jesus Christ.

  128. You continue to equate homosexuality (as understood by medical and social sciences today) with the ancient understanding of man-on-man sex. Not the same. Sexual orientation is real and far more complicated than the sex act. God created sexual orientation, both same- and opposite-sex attraction. “God created nothing sinful.” True. There was no “falling into homosexuality because of sin.” God created diversity in human life.

  129. You’re wrong. Ben is telling it like it is (and was).

  130. Ben I remember reading a report several years ago now that there was a link between birth order and homosexuality in last born sons. Then I never heard more about it. The thought at the time was that something happened in the womb during gestation–the male hormones of the fetus were in conflict with the womans hormones.

    Now consider that in large Catholic families, there was a time, don’t know if this still holds, but it would be interesting to find out, when the youngest sons were the ones that were dedicated to the Church to become the priests. The oldest son inherited the family wealth and lands, the second son was the spare, and there was nothing for the youngest but a career in the church.Consequently there may have (NOTE I say may have this isn’t a condemnation of homosexuals) a larger number of homosexuals in the priesthood than say in comparison to the general population.

    I am mentioning this because I think the problems with the church are more complex than people think.

  131. Connelly/Arnzen, or whatever his name is, calls everyone who disagrees with him “anti-Catholic.”

  132. See:

    + https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2011/06/06/what-caused-crisis-key-findings-john-jay-college-study-clergy-sexual-abuse and, re: the writer, http://gwclei.com/kathleen-mcchesney-ph-d/.

    + https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201105/the-new-john-jay-report-clergy-abuse-in-the-catholic-church and, re: the writer, https://www.scu.edu/tplante/. Clicking “Biographical Information” on the latter site will provide much more detail about his professional life.

    More information about the “Restored Hope Network” may be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restored_Hope_Network.

    EDIT (18 minutes later): For information about so-called “conversion therapy”, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy.

  133. I support same-sex marriage, just as I have no (moral) problem with opposite-sex marriage. Both involve the sex act — and much, much more about the human person. Sexual orientation includes much more than sexual congress and should not be confused with the ancient understanding of men having sex with men.

  134. In reply:

    + Yes, Jesus was a Jew. Your second question is ambiguous.

    + Yes.

    + Not necessarily. Jesus was crucified at the request of certain Jewish religious authorities, after all, because they FEARed his religious influence as a challenge to their approach to the law.

  135. Homosexuality, not a cause of the clerical sex abuse scandal in the Church of Rome, is not a sin.

  136. Baloney can be a synonym for the nonsense that comes out of someone’s mouth — yours in this case!

  137. mark it is not swept under the rug . it is a simple question of opportunity . compare the example, you have likely heard many times and dismissed, of sex in prisons . it does not express orientation of the person, rather the availability of the people .

    to continue to use statistics out of context does not speak highly of your logical skills .

  138. It’s exactly what I was saying to Rick Brant somewhere on this thread. He admits in one place the problem is far more complicated than he thought, and then thinks that “get rid of the Geyz” will solve it. I suspect it will make it worse.

  139. No, it is NOT a simple question of opportunity.

    Try to palm it off as such does not speak highly of your logical skills and indicates your comments are agenda-driven.

  140. If you’re not forcing your beliefs on others…

    Another pot not looking into the mirror of blackness.

  141. Yeah. But they must be truly offensive AND I have to find them. I’m not reading everything here any more.

  142. According to some estimates, at most 50% of priests are celibate.

    The prohibition on priests and nuns having intimate, caring relationships creates a culture of lies and cover ups, and creates emotionally unhealthy people. Gays are not the problem.

  143. Arrogance, unkindness and praying in public are sins. And eating shellfish. Sex without consent is not a sin.

    Your book isn’t helpful.

  144. I agree with s lot of what you say. I was told by several priests, including a Monsignor, that you CANNOT be a priest without a vocation. The church will not allow you to be a priest unless they determine you have one.

    I have only a small issue if the church wants to think that homosexuality is a sin, though I believe that is an abuse and misuse of scripture. My objection is that it is used to justify the 2000 years of bigotry and oppression aimed at gay people. Believe whatever you want, but keep it out of my life. I’m not a member of your church. Believe whatever you want, but stop trying to claim that people like me are the source of your issues. I’m not responsible, nor is anyone I know.

    My point is continually this is your problem, your issue, the results of your actions and the actions of the members of your church, especially the hierarchy.

  145. And JESUS said that defining their people’s sins is a precarious way to live. And I will add, especially defining other people’s sins out of ignorance, fear, stupidity, bad parenting, prejudice, self hatred, and political and personal agendas is not only precarious on YOUR terms, but precarious to their lives as well, as centuries of murders, prisons, executions, beatings, destroyed lives, careers, and families will attest.

  146. I agree, but for a minor quibble. Not MOST: the first five are all about godly obligations. And one of them, at least people ignore.

  147. Homosexual behavior is not uncommon in other primates. If god created them then he made a mistake. They aren’t tempted by the devil or cursed with Adamic sin and god doesn’t make mistakes – therefore it’s a natural variation.

  148. You must have said that while looking into a mirror.

  149. “No, it is NOT a simple question of opportunity.”

    Says Mr. Connelly, an agenda-driven blogger.

    “Since about 80 percent of the victims of clergy sexual abuse are male, many wish to blame the clergy abuse problem in the Church on homosexual priests. While research does suggest that the percentage of Catholic priests who are homosexual is much higher than found in the general population, we know that sexual orientation is not a risk factor for pedophilia. Homosexual men may be sexually attracted to other men but not to children. Research has found that most of the sexual abuse perpetrators didn’t consider themselves homosexual at all but were ‘situational generalists’ (i.e., they abused whoever they had access to and control over, boys or girls).

    “Again, let me be clear. Sexual orientation isn’t a risk factor for pedophilia. Pedophilia and sex offending behavior is not predicted by sexual orientation but by other known risk factors such as a history of child abuse, impulse control problems, alcohol problems, head injuries, and an inability to manage and maintain satisfying adult and peer relationships.”

    SOURCE: Thomas G. Plante, PhD, ABPP, “Separating facts about clergy abuse from fiction”, PSYCHOLOGY TODAY at https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-the-right-thing/201808/separating-facts-about-clergy-abuse-fiction.

  150. That “Homosexual behavior is not uncommon in other primates.” needs to be qualified.

    It involves dominance issues, the perpetrators are still oriented towards mating with females rather than choosing it in lieu of heterosexual behavior.

    There is LGBT phalanx in any other species of primates.

  151. Actually God created free will, which permitted evil.

  152. “According to some estimates” does not establish anything other than there are pretty whacky estimates.

    There is not single study which indicates celibacy “creates a culture of lies and cover ups, and creates emotionally unhealthy people.”

    For obvious reasons gays are not the problem – for you.

  153. We live in a society in which the majority forces what it believes is best for that society on others.

    Thus the prohibitions, for example, on prostitution or certain drugs.

    Get used to it, everyone else has.

  154. You suspect a lot of things, and you believe some fairly zany things.

  155. Bigots on this issue certainly pervert the Gospel teaching of God’s unconditional love. As a Catholic, I have come to realize that religion is the major purveyor of bigotry of whatever kind. It’s nice to have God supposedly on one’s side. Sad.

  156. PERVERT – verb: to alter something from its original course, meaning, or state, to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

    Homosexuality alters sex from its original course (male.female heterosexuality as given by God – Genesis Chapters 1 and 2), to a distortion or corruption (same sex contact) of what was first intended.

    Homosexuality clearly alters sex from its original course, perverting what God intended. Those who pervert something can correctly be termed “perverters” or, more simply, “perverts”.

  157. You should check the dictionary for the meaning of the word ‘whine’.

  158. “I was told by several priests, including a Monsignor, that you CANNOT be a priest without a vocation.”

    Many children are told there is a Santa Claus.

    Since you are not a believer, let alone a Catholic, not a priest, and have zero evidence to cite, the notion that the Church is abusing scripture coming from you is bizarre.

    “Believe whatever you want, but stop trying to claim that people like me are the source of your issues.”

    Believe whatever you want, but stop trying to convert a discussion about the internal affairs of the Catholic Church into a soapbox for you to complain and kvetch as though you had a stake and a voice in it.

  159. Oh no, is someone still bandying about that old shellfish canard?!

    Read Acts 15 – the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem – as a useful first step in overcoming your shocking Biblical illiteracy. Then come back and post something less ignorant.

  160. Eating shellfish is a violation of the Kosher laws for an Orthodox Jew.

    You do like to try to dust off and mention archaic Old Testament material as though relevant to Christians.

  161. The reason why you never heard about it is because no evidence supported a conclusion that it was more than one of those strange but frequent correlations.

  162. The righteous Gentiles were expected to observe the Noahide laws, which included the prohibition of sexual immorality.

  163. And you demonstrate, many perverts are also bigots.

  164. In addition to what Mark says below, you are ignoring the fact that the creation has now been distorted by sin (Romans 8:18-21), so no useful conclusions can necessarily be drawn from what we find in it. The current state of nature does not reflect God’s intention.

  165. Except of course, that it does not. You simply ASSUME that your beliefs about sex and god aretrue? Good, apply them to yourself only, and keep it out of my life. Have you EVER bad sex without intending to reproduce? You just invalidated your own argument.

  166. “In other words, the change was political not scientific.”

    Your link to the PSYCHOLOGY TODAY article does not support your claim.

  167. There is no indication in Scripture – or anywhere else in the teachings of the early Church – that “God created…opposite sex attraction.” You are spouting a myth of your own making.

  168. Here I agree with you. Believe what you like, keep it out of my life, and we have no issue.

  169. I think it is like any human institution it has its good points and its bad points, some much more so than others. it’s done a lot of good and it’s done a lot of harm. The problem is people saying “here’s a chunk of good” and “here”s a chunk of harm” and using the former to ignore the latter.

  170. Christians do it all the time. The OT is peachy keen whenever they want to crap on gays, push creationism or plant a religious monument on government property.

    Hypocrisy is not a virtue.

  171. He’s just making it up.

    But “defining other people’s sins out of ignorance” of God’s clear teaching in the Bible seems to be his shtick.

  172. “There is no indication in Scripture – or anywhere else in the teachings of the early Church – that ‘God created…opposite sex attraction.'”

    God created human life. If sexual attraction, gay or straight, is real, then God created it. We don’t have any definitive answers re: the cause(s) of sexual attraction, but human observation alone indicates it is real and complex.

  173. No. The bible stares clearly and plainly that god created evil.

  174. Mr. Johnson bases his comment on the observable world. You base your reply on religious belief. You lose.

  175. None of their waffling is worth a dime compared to Paul’s clear teaching that it is the law which teaches us what sin is.

  176. Yes, sin is real and complex. But it was not created by God.

  177. The doctrine of “free will” as taught by the Church of Rome is pure fiction. Luke 15’s three parables illustrate that one who is “lost in sin” was not — and is not — free. It is God who searches for, finds, and reconciles, i.e., restores the sinner to freedom. Evil itself is a mystery.

  178. Nope, the Word of God speaks more truly than fallible human conjectures based on a fallen creation.

  179. I can see you didn’t bother to read Acts 15. Then again, I doubt you would understand it.

  180. Mr. Johnson is not “conjecturing”. Your reply, based on religious belief, does not address what our fellow blogger shared. When you want to walk across the street, do you wait for God to instruct you? I’d hope not. You would *observe* (you might pray, too, depending on traffic, but you would ultimately rely on your God-given capacity for visual and aural observation to safely cross the street).

    When someone presents an observable claim, you should respond accordingly. If someone makes a religious claim, then respond with a religious refutation.

    Respond in like kind.

  181. I have never intruded my beliefs into your life, other than voicing what I believe. Just like you never stop voicing what you believe.

    I don’t see how having sex without intending to reproduce invalidates anything I said.

  182. Isaiah 45:7 King James Version

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

  183. The particular laws you “cited” are not cited by Christians at all, let alone”all the time”.

    The Old Testament is peach keeny insofar as Christianity adopted its moral laws, but since Christians operate under the New Covenant, the ritual laws of the Old Covenant were not carried forward.

    Ignorance is not a virtue, and your ignorance of the what, the why, and the wherefore of what in the Old Testament binds the followers of the New Testament has been pointed out before, and pointed out more than once.

  184. No, his “observable claim” – that “God created them” homosexual – is an unverifiable assumption on his part. He has no way of ascertaining how God originally created them.

  185. Indeed the King James Version says that.

    It also said God is awful, in the sense that God fills men with awe.

    It always helps when reading an old text to know what the words meant at the time they were written.

    In this case “evil” describes not the evil of sin, but the evil of punishment.

    In modern translations we find:

    New International Version:

    I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster: I the LORD do all these things.

    New King James Version:

    I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.

    The Hebrew word being translated – rā – directly translates as “calamity”.

  186. So for my benefit, how far down the slope does one go before something is considered “unnatural”?
    Man+dead body?
    Man+ hole-in-the-wall?

    Serious question; all of these are found in “nature”; are they not?

  187. The men perpetrating these acts on children and teens do not call themselves gay. They claim to be heterosexual.

  188. Our dear friend Mark might want to google “fraternal birth order in homosexuals”. Though he won’t like what he finds!

    Getting rid of homosexuals in the priesthood won’t address the underlying problems in the priesthood. Problems that stem from attitudes towards sexuality, women, marriage, and our friend Mark’s favorite infallibility doctrines of the Church.

  189. In his previous incarnations, he claimed he never claimed he was an uber catholic, though it was obvious.
    He has more-or-less admitted that he had previous incarnations, five times in the last week, once today alone, that I know about.
    He doesn’t like anything that disagrees with him. Reality is a real problem.
    He’s not our friend, but I do understand the sarcasm.

  190. Several here have been schooled about the Apostolic Council and understand it well enough. They keep offering the shellfish nonsense because it easily convinces the ignorant — which is the entire point of their being here.

  191. Then why aren’t they? Why aren’t priests observing these laws?

  192. Because they are committing sins.

    Were you under an impression that some group or other was immune to sinning?

  193. No, i’m not.
    Look not for the speck in your brother’s eye lest you miss the beam in your own.

  194. God’s word never changes…

    except when it does.

  195. Very true.

    I was surprised they didn’t bring up “mixed fabrics” too. Looks like they’re slipping!

  196. Nice try, Ben, but no cigar. The Apostle Paul is quite clear about it.

  197. Yes, he is QUITE CLEAR that the context is idolatry. After a long discourse on that subject, the magic word WHEREFORE, sometimes translated as FOR THIS REASON, appears. As in, for this reason, idolatry….

    And then, we find out that god punished those idolaters by turning heterosexuals into homosexuals. given the never ending insistence by some Christians that gay people MUST turn heterosexual and MUST live out their lives as something they are so clearly not.

    25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen.



    In case you missed it.

    26 For this reason, GOD GAVE THEM OVER
    God turned them into homosexuals, in case you missed that

    26 For this reason, God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.…
    Heterosexuals into something they are not. PRETTY CLEAR, I’D SAY.

  198. Mixed fibers always gives me a chuckle as it reminds me of a certain
    ignoramus who brought that up long ago on HuffPo — remarked about polyester/cotton blends being a sin according to the OT. Clearly he had never heard of shatnez — but of course as soon as I explained it to him he claimed he knew what it was all along.

  199. I haven’t noticed any such changes. Sexual immorality remains as wrong for the Gentiles as it was when God rejected the Canaanites for it, and the Torah remains silent about Gentiles and shellfish.

  200. What!?

    OT anti gay verses are regularly cited by christians.

    Genesis is cited by creationists opposing evolution.

    The OT verses with the 10 commandments are planted on govt property all over the country. Arkansas. Alabama. Mississippi, Pennsylvania. Check out that one about bearing false witness.


  201. Bob/Mark/Jose/Draco/DR has this to say..

    Studies that show W are bogus, Show me the studies that say X, show me where the studies don’t say Y, There are no studies that say Z. Who would be doing those studies? Sociologists and psychologists.

    Then he says, AND I AM QUOTING: Sociology isn’t science. Psychology isn’t science.

    Apparently, the only way to know anything is to ask Bob/Mark/Jose/Draco/DR , and he will be happy to tell you.
    Very telling.

  202. In light of the God-given origin of heterosexuality and homosexuality and the basic humanity of gay and straight persons alike, there is no “slope”. Are the three examples you’ve provided “found in ‘nature'”? What do you mean by “nature” in this context?

  203. Homosexuality does not cause sin, and it does not cause sexual abuse.

  204. Old Testament verses which carried over into the New Testament, primarily moral laws, are regularly cited by Christians to support moral decisions. An example would be the Ten Commandments.

    I actually found three posts pointing that out to you over the last year. Obviously you read them with your eyes closed and know essentially nothing about the sources of Christian morality.

    One poster provided this for you:


    Therefore you have no excuse for continuing this charade.

    The Supreme Court approved placing presentations of the Ten Commandments on government property under some circumstances. That does not advance your argument one iota.

  205. I concede — in part I was focusing on our fellow blogger writing, “Homosexual behavior is not uncommon in other primates.”

    Sorry for the confusion.

  206. It’s not a “myth”. As a Christian, I believe God created everything in the universe. As a human being, I agree with most observers that sexual orientation is real, not chosen, and that it consists of opposite- and same-sex attraction. I also think there is something even more basic to human nature, namely, the desire to love and be loved. For most people, this desire is fulfilled in relationship with fellow human beings. We are, as some philosophers might say, “social animals”.

    Keep trying to refute me. So far, you’re at zero.

  207. “Turned over” does NOT equal “turned into,” any more than being turned over to the police turns you into a policeman (oops – “police person”). Getting turned over to your worst natural impulses happens when God removes His restraints against its happening, and simply lets your sinful “nature” take its course – as it obviously has.

  208. If the pope is “worried about homosexuality in the priesthood [sic],” I’m worried about the unjustified “scandal” supposedly caused by presbyters leaving official church ministry to get married. Celibacy: a gift, not a real choice, and a hindrance to adequate numbers of clergy to meet the needs of the church. I’m worried about heterosexuality in the “priesthood”.

  209. Our “friend” apparently is an industrial engineer.

  210. “And the Catholic Church also opposes heterosexual ‘behavior’ outside of marriage, a seamless garment.”

    This is why most Western Catholics have supported legalization of same-sex marriage.

  211. That interpretation works only in the Humpty Dumpty “reality” of Fundamentalistland, where wishes are fishes, and therefore, everyone eats. In the real world, where the rest of us live:

    Sexual orientation exists. Gay people exist. Gay people are not heterosexuals that have sinned and continue to sin becuase they don’t know they are really heterosexual, or whatever nonsense fundamentalists as pushing this week. Both the Catholic Church and the Mormon church, neither of them friends to gay people, acknowledge this.

    There are many gay people who are also deeply religious people, not despite what you allege their bibles must tell them according to you, but because of what their bibles actually say to them. And a great many Christian denominations and actual Christians agree with them,

    Now, you get to employ the No True Christian fallacy. Please do.

  212. Yes, it is pretty clear that homosexuality is a result of turning away from God, also known as idolatry and sin.

  213. A salways, change the subject.you can see my response to Otto Zeit below.

  214. As a Christian, I too “believe God created everything in the universe” – except for sin. Leaving out that last crucial fact is where you go off the rails.

    The desire to love and be loved is, as you say, basic to mankind, and reflects, in a partial and creaturely way, the God who is a Trinity of love, and in whose image man was created. This desire can be fulfilled, in a partial and creaturely way, and in sexual intimacy, with other human beings. But not with all human beings. Trying to fulfill it by sexual intimacy between parent and child would be misguided and sinful, as it would be between two people of the same sex.

  215. Where “that interpretation works” is in the world of word-meanings and dictionary definitions – you know, the world in which “discourse” (including ours) actually takes place. The existence of homosexuality has no effect on (or even relevance to) what words mean, or how they are properly used. There is no way you can turn “turned over to” into “turned into,” regardless of how many “deeply religious gays” you can bring before us.

  216. His predecessors should have thought of that 800 years ago when came up the celibacy rule.

  217. Ben still doesn’t get that ALL sin boils down to idolatry — placing anything else before God in one’s loyalties, usually self.

    As Paul wrote elsewhere, for many the belly (substitute any other body part you wish) is god, and shame is their glory.

  218. blah blah blah

    The perverted lies of a closet case.

  219. You’re a “Christian”…but “religious belief” is for losers? How does THAT work, exactly? You just confuted your own (claimed) identity.

  220. The same could be said of Capone and Gotti Sr.
    Capone set-up a free soup kitchen in Chicago during the ’29 depression.
    Gotti would entertain the Bronx with a free fireworks display every July 4th.

  221. If the Pope is really worried about homosexuality in the priesthood, he would be well advised to modify or abandon the rules that demand a celibate priesthood.

  222. Kleptomania exists. Kleptomaniacs exist.

    Both the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of the latter-Day Saints acknowledge that being afflicted with kleptomania is not itself a sin, but acting on it is.

    Neither church endorses sin.

    There are many kleptomaniacs who are deeply religious people not because they are kleptomaniacs but because they acknowledge a Creator.

    Ben, you have become in your dotage the very best argument for concluding the LGBT propaganda machine is grinding out hogwash.

  223. And you grind out the propaganda sausage to fit on order.

  224. “No results found for ‘fraternal birth order in homosexuals’”



    Twenty years ago, Ray Blanchard and Anthony Bogaert noted a correlation that suggested that more older brothers a man has from the same mother, the greater the probability is that he will have a homosexual orientation.

    Bogaert hypothesized a hormonal cause, which has never been demonstrated.

    McConaghy (2006) concluded that the influence of birth order on degree of homosexual feelings was due not to a biological, but to a social process, which has also never been demonstrated.

    In short, as I noted in my first comment, correlation does NOT equal causation, and in the absence of the scientifically valid demonstration of an actual mechanism, this supposed correlation is simply another of those odd numerical relationships that has no particular importance along the lines of noting that people who have more sex make more money.


    You couldn’t possibly know if getting rid of homosexuals in the priesthood would address the underlying problems in the priesthood since from your myopic viewpoint all the problems in the priesthood stem from being priests in a Church that you both disagree with and hate.

    It is rather like saying all the problems in the Disqus comments section would disappear if Susan Humphreys would stop posting silliness.

    Btw, the fellow you’re commenting to knows even less than you do.

  225. As I write this, there are 282 comments so far, and thus it demonstrates once again how the bigoted Christians are always eager to sling their Sincerely Held Imaginary Truth at gay people.

  226. Since you haven’t replied to my original response stating that God did not create homosexuality I’ll response to your comments about the slope.
    As man continues to debase all sense of morality and make comparisons to what occurs in the animal kingdom as natural or normal; where is the line drawn to what is acceptable and not acceptable behavior?

  227. I did not say that psychology is science.

    It is not.

    Then again I did not say that any studies I might cite were psychological studies.

    They are not.

    Apparently logic was never your strong suit, and still is not.

  228. I never claimed to be ANY religion.

    It is obvious that I know more about Catholicism than you do.

    But it is obvious I know more about most things than you do.

  229. His father always told him he was a little thinker.

    Of course hith father had a speeth impediment.

  230. The “celibacy rule” dates back to the First Century, not the Sixteenth.

  231. As you wrote that, you added the 283rd comment, demonstrating once again how the LGBT phalanx likes to adopt persecuted poses and call Christians bigoted.

  232. He is copying from Curran, McBrien, Noonan, et al as fast and as accurately as he can.

    He used to be an ornament in the Comments at National Catholic Reporter, and the material was exactly the same.

  233. In Ben-parlance “keep it out of my life” means:

    – “pass no laws that rub my fur the wrong way”

    – “never opine contrary to my beliefs where I may hear or read it”

    – “freedom of religion ends at the door of your residence”

    In short, “keep it out of my life” means crypto-fascism.

    On the positive side it’s been months since we’ve hear about imaginary “minority rights” for which in the absence of Natural Law or a Creator there is absolutely no basis.

  234. The Catholic Church official stance is that people with “deap seated homosexual tendencies” can`t be ordained. Pope Francis is just stating that the Church needs to start practising what it preaches.

  235. Perhaps. I have this “feeling” that there have been a ton of men ordained in all times past who had those “deep-seated tendencies” and didn’t tell anybody. What the pope and all Catholics are most concerned about is exactly how much gets told or shown outwardly.

  236. He is intelligent but Is very selective on how far he wants to go with an argument. If the natural course of an argument would lead to a result he doesn’t like; he ends early to support his belief system.
    I have a kid like this – I’m well versed in the 3/4 style of information sharing and debate.

  237. My conclusion is that a particular event took place for which his cure is beating on the Catholic Church; a close approximation is Edd Doerr who shares some of the same shtick.

    Neither will share what set them off, and since the cause is irrational, the discussion eventually becomes irrational.

    Both have had key premises totally demolished, and bounce right back with someone else with the very same premises.

  238. Check your math. 800 years ago puts us in the early 1300’s when priests were required to be celibate and not married.

  239. The tradion of celibacy dates to the Apostolic age.

  240. So glad you brought up Leviticus, Chapter 20. Let’s talk about Leviticus 20:10, shall we?

    “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.”

    Discuss, please, since the very same people who love to toss out Levitical prohibitions against homosexual activity never seem to get around to discussing this particular doozy. But please, Miss Shawnie, since you brought it up, do us all a favor, and take the lead on a discussion of this particular verse, especially as it relates to our current President, with whom you conservative Christians seem so very enamored.

  241. Maybe he should demand that no homosexuality be allowed instead.

  242. And you’re just all sunshine and butterflies, right?

  243. I can and do contribute something to an actual conversation beyond letting everyone know who and what I hate.

  244. I take it you’re wanting me to say that whatever adultery Trump has committed is OK? I won’t, because it isn’t.

    Anything else?

  245. Again, what nobody on any side is able to refute, is the actual numbers from both John Jay Reports — 81% homosexual encounters in 2004 & 2011, with post-pub Catholic boys as prime targets. And all sides recognize that the 81% figure equals VERY bad optics if taken seriously by the public. Hence the debate.

    You reached for psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Plante to give the whitewashed side. As for me, I’m reaching for psychiatrist Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, who correctly said Dr. Plante got it wrong. Dr. Plante blames “Situational Generalists” for abusing those poor boys, while Dr. Fitzgibbons cuts right to the chase: “Homosexual Predation.” There’s the real deal.


  246. No, of course you won’t talk about it. You’d rather evade, deflect, and moralize at gay people than talk about rank Republican hypocrisy. I get that. So much easier that way.

  247. What’s there to say about it? It’s wrong. If anyone has said differently, I’m not aware of it.

    Anything else?

  248. That’s an exaggeration. Most of the time you’re sniping.

  249. Compared to your “comments” my worst “sniping” looks like quotes from Aesop’s Fables.

    I remember reading in all of 2018 one post by you consisting of more than name-calling and/or your personal assessment of either a poster or a religion.

  250. Then do me a favor and block me, loser. I am not required to agree with you about anything, and if I assert my opinions about the Church, they are worth no less than your opinions.

  251. Self selecting data is rarely accurate.

    Curiously they both were abused sexually by men.

  252. How would they enforce that? I’ve known many gay priests. Most were very discrete and wouldn’t dare talk about it. The Church couldn’t or wouldn’t deal with known pedophile and other sex offenders in the pulpit, so what makes you think a homosexual witch hunt would be successful?

  253. I have no intention of blocking you.

    I intend to counter your nasty comments as I see fit, which contribute absolutely nothing at all to furthering a discussion.

    Like alwayspuzzled and a few others, you have no reason to post except to troll religious believers and particularly attack Catholics and Catholicism.

  254. Wrong. 12th-13th century.


    The practice of priestly celibacy began to spread in the Western Church in the early Middle Ages. In the early 11th century Pope Benedict VIII responded to the decline in priestly morality by issuing a rule prohibiting the children of priests from inheriting property. A few decades later Pope Gregory VII issued a decree against clerical marriages.

    The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy.

  255. The celibacy rate was determined by a longitudinal study conducted by former priest and monk, Richard Sipe. And in my seminary and post-seminary experience of knowing many, many priests, I’d say it was accurate.

  256. Who were their fathers. who were known as heterosexual in the families, community, and churches, and who would have and DID describe themselves as heterosexual. One of those fathers was someone I knew. He also molested at least one, and possibly two, of his daughters. That I also knew.
    I realize my data is simply anecdotal. But I have been in the gay community for 47 years, with many friends who have told me a good deal about their lives, active as a therapist and counselor, participating in group discussions on subjects just like this one AND including this one.
    In that entire time, hundreds, if not THOUSANDs of conversations, I have heard this exactly twice from a gay man. I’ve heard it some hundreds of times from antigay people who clearly know nothing about the subject, but need to believe it for reasons of their own. It is a part of the antigay fanatasy, because the actual truth of the matter is simply too much for them.

  257. No, I was born and raised Catholic, nearly ordained a priest, and thus my life was impacted greatly by my experience in the Church. If I want to write about that, then you have no standing to stop me.

  258. I’m pretty sure that I just came across another identity for our “friend” on another website. I called him on it. He responded by telling me what Bob Arnzen would tell anyone.

  259. You don’t see me stopping you from telling your sad story and kicking at everyone like a petulant child instead of dealing with it like an adult.

    I won’t be seeing you stopping me.

  260. You and I disagree acrimoniously on just about everything, but here I have to say you are basically correct. And priestly celibacy has never caught on in the Eastern Church to this very day.

  261. Keep ranting like a spoiled child. It suits you.

  262. “Again, what nobody on any side is able to refute, is the actual numbers from both John Jay Reports — 81% homosexual encounters in 2004 & 2011,…”

    The researchers themselves “refute” your opinion.

    So you rely on psychiatrist Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons?

    Former KC bishop Robert Finn referred a presbyter facing child sex abuse accusations, Shawn Ratigan, to Dr. Fitzgibbons for clinical evaluation. At the time, Fitzgibbons belonged to Opus Bono Sacerdotii, an organization established to help Catholic clerics facing abuse charges. Fitzgibbons was also a board member of NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (which, by the way, “has operated under the name Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (ATCSI) since 2014,” per Wikipedia). When I checked Dr. Fitzgibbons online CV (since removed?) a few years ago, he did not claim professional board certification from the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Having hired physicians for the VA healthcare system in both California and Kentucky, I knew the importance of board certification in the United States (information about this topic is available from https://www.abms.org/). If you yourself, Mr. Lee, obtain medical help from a physician who is not board-certified in an appropriate specialty or sub-specialty, be wary. The American Board of Medical Specialties is one source of consumer information, which also might be available from your state’s board of medical licensure.

    Fitzgibbons determined that Ratigan, who enjoyed taking up-skirt photos of little girls, was fit for return to ministry. Ratigan was subsequently sentenced to 50 years in federal prison. Bishop Finn broke a court agreement and was later removed from his post by Pope Francis. Finn and Ratigan were subjects of major news coverage at the time. I would not cite Dr. Fitzgibbons as an authority in this area. (Bishop Finn, one of the most rigidly conservative hierarchs in the country, has since been serving as a convent chaplain according to news sources.)


  263. Self selecting data must always be viewed with suspicion.

    Example: Larry Craig continues to claim he is entirely hetero.

  264. I’ve got a head cold but I’m fairly sure research concluding “Childhood sexual abuse and non-sexual maltreatment were approximately linearly predictive with report of same-sex attraction, partners, and identity” means you’re incorrect.

  265. My opinions regarding the Church don’t spring from bigotry, unlike the anti-gay tirades posted here. I still have many Catholic family and friends whom I love and don’t hold their faith against them.

  266. That, of course, neither explains nor excuses your boorish attacks on all persons and things Catholic.

    You’re here for one reason and one reason only, and it is NOT to advance an intelligent conversation.

  267. They wouldn’t be the first people to deny having homosexual tendencies.

    A more infamous case would be John Wayne Gacy.

  268. I think it would be more accurate to state that God *permits* evil — punks stealing little old ladies’ purses; babies born with spina bifida; natural disasters wreaking death and devastation on people. We know the scientific explanations for these categories of evil, but there is no universally accepted philosophical/theological explanation for such evil. Theodicy.

  269. God did not create so-called “free will”. The term, as hyped by the Church of Rome et al, is misconstrued and misportrayed.

  270. “Disaster” and “calamity” are examples of evil.

  271. Or Ted Haggard. Or Lonnie Latham.
    And that is indeed the whole point of a great many postings I have made on the subject. The topic of sexual orientation and sexual behavior is far more complicated than the simple black or white, gay or straight, heterosexual or homosexual, saint or sinner– and on and on and on with the dichotomies– that so many people seem desperate to have be true.

  272. Where is “the line drawn to what is acceptable and not acceptable behavior?”

    Good question. If there is a “line”, it can change in response to cultural and other developments informed by human observation and faith in God/higher power/divinity/etc.

    “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when ‘from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful’ they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God” (LG-12).

    The classic example here is — again — slavery. What was once condoned is now condemned.

  273. Wow all the way around.

    I was expecting angry denial of everything I had written.

    There is a connection between sexual abuse and homosexuality but I see no reason to treat the victims badly.

    And yes the subject is complicated.

  274. All of the best research on the issue show that child molesters are sociopaths who use sex as part of their effort to dehumanize their victims. The sex itself is never the main objective, just another sadistic tool for the human predator to use against his human prey. Trying to label gay men as potential sexual predators in practical terms is the fool’s errand of claiming that they are all sociopaths. In fact, there are a lot more Evangelical youth pastors in jail as sexual predators than there are of any other identifiable group of men. Selling religion can be as “antisocial” as selling defective used cars.

  275. Are you denying that gay people can also be sociopaths?

  276. Who wrote that religious belief “is for losers”?

    Not I.

    I wrote above, “Bigots on this issue certainly pervert the Gospel teaching of God’s unconditional love. As a Catholic, I have come to realize that religion is the major purveyor of bigotry of whatever kind.”

  277. No, as far as data I have seen, the only connection between sexual abuse and homosexuality is that obviously gay kids are often targeted. As in the case of my two friends.

  278. Nope. Just that the incident is proportional to the population group. Less than 1/10 of 1% incident among “heterosexual” males and the same rate among gay ones. Research shows that men who prey on boys as sexual predators tend to live “straight” cover lives. They rarely embrace the gay community and never want to be seen as “gay” in their outward behavior. Most pedophiles who target boys are married to women and many have children of their own, including sons that they seldom target. They get classified as sociopaths because they have no remorse and their legal families are usually just covers for their “need” to prey upon and victimize other people.

  279. So you’re still following what I write.


  280. “…cause sin?”


    Are the acts sinful?

    Depends on context.

  281. I’m fairly sure research concluding “Childhood sexual abuse and non-sexual maltreatment were approximately linearly predictive with report of same-sex attraction, partners, and identity” means they’re connected.

  282. Your inference is incorrect. I used the quotation marks because the experts says that sexual predators cannot be classified as “straight” or “gay” by their choice of either female or male victims. Since they do not have “normal” sex drives, predators fall into an “other” gender/sexual orientation category. There is zero evidence that men who are sexually attracted to other men will ever become sexual predators or that sexual predators are attracted to adult men. The incident of sexual predators using a gay partner as cover is pretty much zero but the number of predators who can perform sexually with an adult woman is pretty high.

  283. Your skepticism is still going and wonderful.

    We are not after all talking about trustworthy people but sexual predators.

  284. Thank you for affirming the correctness of my comment.

  285. No, thank YOU for affirming the correctness of MY comment.

  286. Say what you want.

    Your perfect, infallible book says your deity created evil.

    But if you think your book is wrong and your deity is a liar, who am I to argue?

  287. I indexed the book Sacrilege by Podles. He got his information from the Boston Globe and the Davenport, Iowa, newspapers.

  288. Sexual predators are simply one type of sociopath, not the only kind. But I go by what actual science tells, not the holy hypocrite crowd. Using the spectre of pedophilia as an anti-gay scare tactic does far more harm to everyone than good. Holy hypocrites are often money-loving social predators, as harmful in their own way as the predators of children.

  289. I basically agree with you.

    Glanced at your profile and have a feeling I’ve met you IRL.

    Who did you vote for in the midterms?

  290. What do you call the general region of CA you’re in?

  291. Northern California. To me, that’s Sacramento and north.

  292. A culture of pedophilia, misogyny and homophobia doesn’t make for intelligent conversation.

    Furthermore, I do not attack all Catholic persons. I just said I have Catholic family and friends. You’re no friend. I attack fake Christians.

  293. You wrote: “You base your reply on religious belief. You lose.”
    If religious belief “loses,” religion believers are”losers.” It doesn’t really take much of a stretch to make that connection, does it?

  294. You mean “continence”. The tradition of Continence was there, though the priests were married. The celibacy rule came in when ti was clear that continence didn’t work well.

  295. No, I mean celibacy.

    There have been several scholarly studies on the history of celibacy. Celibacy was the norm – tradition – from the Apostolic Age.

    You’re referencing the codification as canons in the Western Church in the late High Middle Ages, in part due to abuses, and in large part due to the expansion of the Church into Eastern Europe.

    Noting that a canon was adopted does not necessarily denote something new, but often something old being codified as the Church grew to a size where a body of law was useful.

  296. If the Church removes the head of the snake – the likes of Theodore McCarrick and Rembert Weakland – the snake dies.

    The fact that you entered a seminary unfit due to orientation and attitude for the priesthood – calling the Church’s teaching on the complementary nature of the sexes “misogyny”, its teaching on the prohibition against same sex physical congress “homophobia”, and suggesting that the Church as the body of Christ in any way approved pedophilia – indicates that your departure was for the good of the Church, and probably for your own good as well.

    The fact that you park here taking potshots at Catholicism, calling orthodox Catholics and other Christians “fake Christians”, indicates you should seek professional help.

  297. What research? Cite it or stop insulting others.

  298. “I am professional help.”

    God help those you purport to “help”.

    Physician health thyself.

    “As a matter of fact, I left the seminary of my own volition, to the disappointment of my spiritual director and the diocese to which I was affiliated.”

    Don’t tell me; your spiritual director was Theodore McCarrick and the diocese was run by Rembert Weakland, or vice versa.

    What the Church does not need now, and never has, is an internal Fifth Column.

    Every single ordinand knows beforehand that the Church has banned those with permanent homosexual orientation from being ordained. Therefore, every ordinand with a permanent homosexual orientation commences his vocation disobeying the Church and committing a grave sin.

    JoeMyGod would probably be a better fit for you.

    Over there they share your hatred of Catholicism and avocation of self-deceit – speaking of dysfunctional.

  299. How would he enforce that?!
    Ask Dwight Schrute of Dunder Mifflin.

  300. You’re full of it. It’s likely that most ordained Catholic priests are gay. And you’re a liar as well. Gay men are not “banned” from ordination. If that was true, there wouldn’t be so many in the pulpit. Get a better grip on reality.

  301. Unfortunately YOU’RE full of it.

    Excusing knowing violation of the Church’s canons with “most ordained Catholic priests are gay”, which is untrue, is like saying “everyone does it”. It’s childish.

    Yes, gay men are banned from ordination.

    “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates For the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders” – S. C. Rel., 2 Feb., 1961


    “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders” – 2005


    “The Vatican on Wednesday declared that ‘persons with homosexual tendencies’ cannot be admitted to Catholic seminaries. This reaffirms a 2005 policy now seemingly at odds with Pope Francis’ famous ‘Who am I to judge?’ response when asked about gay priests (Ed: no, he was not asked about gay priests) in 2013.”

    “The document, entitled ‘The Gift of the Priestly Vocation,’ was drafted by the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy, and it is meant to offer wide-ranging guidelines for priestly formation.”

    Prior to all that the ordination of homosexuals was banned centuries ago, and this was reflected in the 1917 codification of the Canons.

    The fact that you claim “Gay men are not ‘banned’ from ordination.” indicates you’re not competent to even comment on the topic.

  302. Such as the incivility demonstrated in the comments section?

  303. On the points you raised, I think you are in error.

  304. Incivility is not, per se, sinful, nor is drinking tea from a coffee cup.

  305. Learn to read or be honest in quoting someone else. I wrote, “Mr. Johnson bases his comment on the observable world. You base your reply on religious belief. You lose.”

    Thus, it “take[s] much of a stretch” to assert that I claimed “religious believers ARE ‘losers’.”

    Context, sir/madam.

  306. So God’s intention went astray and now male monkeys are “doing it”? That sounds like a stretch. It also sounds like God didn’t know how the future would turn out and therefore is not omniscient.

  307. No, man went astray, and all of creation is now distorted by sin. God’s intention remains what it always was: man’s deification.

    That God did not know how the future would turn out is your own baseless assumption.

  308. You have to deny the presence of so many gay men in the priesthood, just like you deny your homosexuality. You’re a very sick human.

    If there weren’t so many ordained gay priests, then this article would not have been published, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The closet is a sick, sick, sick place.

  309. You have to claim a large percentage of gay men in the priesthood to provide cover for your own failures. The allegations of closeted homosexuals serves the same purpose.

    No ban on anything can be perfectly enforced, which is why in the end adherents of the Prince of Lies wind up in his charge, including the liars who hide behind “everyone else is doing it”.

    No, everyone else is not doing it, and where you are claiming it is a sick, sick, sick place.

  310. If the number of gay men in the ministry is such a minuscule number, then why are you so-called “orthodox” Catholics so obsessed about it? Why was this article published? Why get so worked up over it?

    I never said “everyone else is doing it” — interestingly, those are your words, the words of a dysfunctional, bitter man — Bob Arnzen, Mark Connelly, whoever the hell you think you are — unable to come to terms with his homosexuality in a healthy way. And it shows.

  311. Note that you, Ben in Oakland, Dr. William Lindsey, and a handful of like spirits obsessively spin EVERY conversation into it.

    You did not say “everyone else is doing it”, that was the content of your contentions that (a) most priests are doing it and (b) anyone you don’t like is closeted, and therefore would be doing it given the right opportunity.

    You wouldn’t know a healthy way from a hole in ground, and in fact give every indication of multiple unresolved issues, most of which appear to exhibit as anger.

    That is why you’re here trolling believers.

  312. God is not constrained by the limits of time or space. Man knows things “ahead of time”, “at the same time as”, or “after the time of”. Such temporal markers are not applicable to God.

  313. Apparently he did.

    Is there a point to knowing that?

  314. “Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth. God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female; he created them. God blessed them and God said to them: Be fertile and multiply…”

    “This is the record of the descendants of Adam. When God created human beings, he made them in the likeness of God; he created them male and female. When they were created, he blessed them and named them humankind.”

    “Anyone who sheds the blood of a human being, by a human being shall that one’s blood be shed; For in the image of God have human beings been made. Be fertile, then, and multiply; abound on earth and subdue it.”

  315. Yes, I understand God is beyond time but can’t fathom what that would really mean given that I lack that perspective. Your use of the word “intention” however is intricately tied to time since it is future oriented.

  316. In the Church of Rome, it’s all about meeting one’s “Sunday mass obligation” under pain of mortal sin if one doesn’t have a valid/good reason for missing weekend worship. Besides, parishes need the money, some of which — aka, the “cathedraticum ” — is forwarded to the local arch/bishop for his use. This “obligation” contributes to indifference, the opposite of love.

    Name of the game: “Get yer ticket punched here.”

  317. Goodness gracious, do I detect more than a little cynicism in your observation? (it’s ok)

  318. “As for the statement below that homosexuality was unknown in Jesus’ time, another HUH? That is just plain ignorant. Even the Old Testament refers to homosexuality. It is merely a variant sexual orientation and has been around since Adam and Ben.”


    Homosexuality — as correctly understood today — may have been around in Jesus’ time, but it was not perceived or understood as such. Homophobes today *do not acknowledge* the complexity of human nature, just as ancient peoples *would not have been able* to acknowledge the complexity of human nature. For folks in both groups, human nature involves sexual relations and nothing more.

    The Old Testament does not refer to homosexuality as such.

  319. The problem is not *misquoting*. It is *misinterpreting*.

    (that is why i correct some people on this problem)

  320. I wasn’t “the ornament”.

    I was the Star at the top of the tree.

    Get your facts right.

  321. If you can, get hold of the Linns’ GOOD GOATS: HEALING OUR IMAGE OF GOD, which addresses a lot of what you’ve shared. The authors borrow ideas from Catholic, other Christian, and non-Christian sources. Quite informative (and don’t be fooled by the cover).

  322. Well, I certainly don’t blame you for wanting to shift the discussion away from Dr. Plante’s errors, especially that white-washing phrase “situational generalist”, to try to divert the clergy-abuse mess away from the fact of Homosexual Predation.

    After all, as LifeSite News pointed out, Dr. Plante ignored the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report, which “clearly identified the 78% of abuse cases it scrutinized as examples of “homosexual predation”. Plus Dr. Plante failed to even “mention the findings of the first John Jay Report (2004)”.

    Plus there Dr. Plante’s odd phrase “situational generalist” — a phrase whose only apparent purpose is to divert readers’ minds away from those overwhelming percentage numbers regarding homosexual predation. For some folks, the phrase itself simply sounded like white-washing.

    “(The) vast majority of clergy sex offenders are not pedophiles at all, but were situational generalists violating whoever they had access to.” Ironically, Dr. Plante was a consultant on the (John Jay 2011) project.

    Well, I’ll be darned. Stupid me – all this time I had thought that the priest who violently raped me was a pedophile, and now I find out that he was only a “situational generalist”. I could clearly see now why Dr. Plante and some of the other good people at John Jay who were paid by the Catholic Church may consider me an emotional hysteric. I confused a holy priest who raped me, with a mere “situational generalist”; now I realize that I blew the whole thing out of proportion – and I probably deserved it.” — Blogger Joey Piscitelli at BishopAccountility.org

    So, for my part, I’m not going to cite your psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Plante as any kind of authority. You can do so if you wish, but obviously a Googler can come back on him and his errors anytime.

  323. No, Continence is the issue.
    I also indexed (=read very carefully, analyzed the issues) the following book: Celibacy in the Early Church: the Beginnings of a Discipline of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West, by Stefan Heid.

  324. Mark has already replied to this “fraternal birth order in homosexuals” sales-pitch, and that’s good enough.

    But I saw something in Slate magazine that I’d like to copy, so I can get it bookmarked (the Slate paragraph does not respond to copy-n-paste so I gotta type it out). Be right back.

  325. God’s intention for man remains outside of time and is eternally the same. It is only “future oriented” from the created temporal perspective of man.

  326. Point taken. In this case I should have said “misinterpret” rather than “misquote”.

    Although we do have a bit of “misquoting” going on at times as well.

  327. Most priests are “doing” WHAT?? I never implied they were necessarily sexually active, though some are — nbo different than heterosexual- priests. Grow up and be an adult.

  328. You’re no “believer”. If you believe anything, it’s your own inflated ego.

  329. If we are limited to our temporal perspective then how can we possibly fathom a being who is outside of time. It seems like an impossible task. That is always a sticking point for me.

  330. We cannot. In the words of John Chrysostom in the Byzantine Liturgy, God in himself is “ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever-existing and eternally the same”.

    The way Gregory Palamas put it was that God’s essence is completely unknowable to man. We can only know God through what Palamas called his “energies”, i.e., his working, activity, and operation in the created world.

  331. Well, now that every assertion you’ve made has been PROVEN to be unsupported hot air, I suppose that is all you have left.

  332. Projecting your multiple unresolved issues again, many of them apparently sexual in nature, to justify your pointless little hate messages sprinkled among people trying to conduct intelligent discussion actually related to the content of the articles.

  333. What a sloppy response!

    I respond by paragraph:

    + So you dispute Dr. Plante’s use of “situational generalist”. Plante has a professional background in this area. Do you? Are you professionally qualified to describe the clerics’ behaviors as “homosexual predation”? I know you prefer to do so, but I’ll rely on the conclusions of professional healthcare and social work organizations, which have stated that homosexuality is not a cause of sexual abuse of children.

    + You present a quote from LifeSite News, to wit: “clearly identified the 78% of abuse cases it [Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report] identified as examples of ‘homosexual predation’.” Did you get this quote from https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/anyone-who-blames-abuse-crisis-on-clericalism-is-part-of-the-abuse-crisis-c ? This link is to an article by psychiatrist “Rick Fitzgibbons, MD” who employs the phrase “homosexual predation” several times. The good doctor writes in part: “The recent Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report helps to clarify the origins of the sexual harassment of youth. It identifies 73% of the victims as being subjected to homosexual predation.” He says 73%; you write 78%. Who’s correct?

    I read the “Introduction” at https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/163-grand-jury-report-on-catholic/0cd27c9ad02aee539650/optimized/full.pdf#page=1. Contrary to LifeSite News, there is no reference to “homosexuality” or “homosexual predation” in this section of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report. The rest of this report merely presented the known historical record of clerical sexual abuse and episcopal malfeasance in the state. It did not address causes.

    You state that Dr. Plante “failed to even ‘mention the findings of the first John Jay Report (2004).'” Why mention the 2004 report when an updated report was issued in 2011? Please give your link to the material you quoted, i.e., “mention…(2004)”.

    + You again mention “homosexual predation”. You accuse Dr. Plante of “white-washing”. Again, what are your qualifications for such a conclusion? I’m no subject-matter specialist (psychiatrist or psychologist), but I rely for input from mainstream professional organizations. You apparently rely on Dr. Fitzgibbons, who previously served as a board member of NARTH, an organization that promotes questionable if not dangerous practices to supposedly “cure” homosexuals of their orientation. I should also point out that Fitzgibbons employs a lot of religion-laden verbiage in his article to which I’ve linked above. The good doctor, of course, has a God-given right to express his religious beliefs, but the subject-matter of his article is psychological/psychiatric in nature. As a former examiner with the U.S. Civil Service Commission and Office of Personnel Management, I know that when faced with conflicting expert opinion about an applicant’s qualifications, I increase the number of SMEs to render a definitive conclusion. You rely on Fitzgibbons; I rely on the statements of professional organizations comprised of hundreds if not thousands of subject-matter experts.

    + How does your quote from a sex abuse victim support your contention that homosexuality was the cause of his being victimized by a Catholic “priest”?

    + You continue here, as on prior occasions, to focus on the 81% figure. The John Jay Report states:

    “The majority of victims (81 percent) were male, in contrast to the distribution by victim gender for sexual rimes in the United States. National incidence studies have consistently shown that in general girls are three times more likely to be abused than boys. Despite this widely accepted statistic on victim gender, recent studies of sexual abuse of minors within institutions have shown a higher percentage of male than female victims. Most sexual abuse victims of priests (51 percent) were between the ages of eleven and fourteen, while 27 percent were fifteen to seventeen, 16 percent were eight to ten, and nearly 6 percent were under age seven. Over 40 percent of all victims were males between the ages of eleven and fourteen. It is worth noting that while the media has consistently referred to priest-abusers as ‘pedophile priests,’ pedophilia is defined as the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Yet, the data on priests show that 22 percent of victims were age ten and under, while the majority of victims were pubescent or postpubescent” (pp. 9-10 at http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf).

    Elsewhere, the John Jay Report states, “It is important to understand that no single ’cause’ of
    sexual abuse in society can be found; similarly, no single ’cause’ of sexual abuse by priests is evident. Rather, sexual abuse is a complex phenomenon…Although there are limitations to this study, as there would be for any retrospective study encompassing sixty years, the breadth of data and consistency of results provide a firm foundation for our conclusions” (pp. 24 25)…..The clinical data do not support the hypothesis that priests with a homosexual identity or those who committed same-sex sexual behavior with adults are significantly more likely to sexually abuse children than those with a heterosexual orientation or behavior” (p. 119).

    + You write, “Meanwhile, you can parrot Plante if you wish, but obviously a Googler can come back on Plante and his errors anytime.” I don’t know, but perhaps you can cite Plante’s errors?

  334. Cite where the Bible says God created evil.

    Above, you wrote, “But if you think your book is wrong and your deity is a liar, who am I to argue?” Where did I make such assertions? I didn’t.

  335. Isaiah 45:7

    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

  336. Isaiah 45:7 — just as I had suspected.

    “I form the light, and create the darkness, I make weal and create woe;* I, the LORD, do all these things.”

    Per USCCB commentary: “*[45:7] Create woe: God created and controls all aspects of creation (light and darkness, order and chaos).”

    Word Origin and History for chaos
    late 14c., “gaping void,” from Old French chaos (14c.) or directly from Latin chaos , from Greek khaos “abyss, that which gapes wide open, is vast and empty,” from *khnwos , from PIE root *gheu- “to gape, yawn” (cf. Greek khaino “I yawn,” Old English ginian , Old Norse ginnunga-gap ; see yawn (v.)).

    Meaning “utter confusion” (c.1600) is extended from theological use of chaos for “the void at the beginning of creation” in Vulgate version of Genesis (1530s in English). The Greek for “disorder” was tarakhe , however the use of chaos here was rooted in Hesiod ( “Theogony” ), who describes khaos as the primeval emptiness of the Universe, begetter of Erebus and Nyx (“Night”), and in Ovid ( “Metamorphoses” ), who opposes Khaos to Kosmos , “the ordered Universe.” Meaning “orderless confusion” in human affairs is from c.1600. Chaos theory in the modern mathematical sense is attested from c.1977.

    SOURCE: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chaos

  337. Isaiah 31:2 Yet He too is wise and brings disaster; He does not call back His words. He will rise up against the house of the wicked and against the allies of evildoers.

    Lamentations 3:38 Do not both adversity and good come from the mouth of the Most High?

    Amos 3:6 If a trumpet sounds in a city, will the people not tremble? If calamity comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?

  338. To paraphrase “The Bible does not plainly say what the Bible plainly says. Because reasons.”

    All this means is that your book is even more useless. And yet christians base their faith on a book that does not say what it says.

    Got it.

  339. I can see that this is going to be futile and it is not clear to me what you are arguing for or against but as a retired professor in biblical studies I want to note that the “Old Testament does not refer to homosexuality as such” is true only in the sense that they did not use that specific term (which is Greek in origin and historically much later) but they were very much aware that some men had sex with other men and the Hebrew priestly tradition chose to prohibit it as unnatural; there is evidence in most ancient traditions that sex between men was both known and practiced. As for homosexuality in Jesus’ time, of course it was known and practiced, and if your point is (as it appears to be) that it was not known in its full biological and psycho-sexual complexity as it is today, of course that is true but I don’t see where that gets you. Because it was prohibited under Jewish law does not make it immoral, any more than the proscription against eating pork makes that a moral issue. If RC doctrine says that homosexual behavior is immoral, then Catholics will consider it as such, but that has no bearing on the larger society — and whether or not Catholics consider any particular behavior immoral does not give them any right to attempt to impose their sense of morality on society.

  340. You write:

    + “[A]s a retired professor in biblical studies I want to note that the ‘Old Testament does not refer to homosexuality as such’ is true only in the sense that they did not use that specific term (which is Greek in origin and historically much later) but they were very much aware that some men had sex with other men and the Hebrew priestly tradition chose to prohibit it…”

    I fully agree.

    + “[T]here is evidence in most ancient traditions that sex between men was both known and practiced.”

    I fully agree.

    + “[I]f your point is (as it appears to be) that it was not known in its full biological and psycho-sexual complexity as it is today, of course that is true…”

    I fully agree.

    + “…but I don’t see where that gets you.”

    You’ve demonstrated precisely my point, namely, that mainstream social and other scientific organizations have concluded the subject of homosexuality (and, more broadly, sexual orientation) is a complex one. We know more today about its “full biological and psychosexual complexity” than did the people of Jesus’ time.

    We appear to disagree whether sexually intimate same-sex relations are morally licit: I think they are; you apparently do not. Just as “the Hebrew priestly tradition chose to prohibit [intimate same-sex relations] as unnatural,” so the Church of Rome — based on biblical teaching — condemns such behavior even today. Most Western Catholics, on the other hand, reject the church’s doctrine on this subject.

    I share your view that no church or religious organization has the right “to impose their sense of morality on society.” If you live in the USA, however, there is no church or religious organization that *does not* have the right to *attempt* to influence public opinion on moral/ethical issues.

    Thank you for your considered and respectful comments.

  341. Like the pope, you are obviously worried about homosexuality. Particularly your own.

  342. Nope, that’s not going anywhere.

    Do seek help, though.

  343. You don’t have the ability to fathom that there is no professional help that would side with your anti-gay agenda.

  344. Your “context” is just so much padding for your heterodoxy. It doesn’t diminish or qualify it – it just distracts from it.

  345. My agenda is not “anti-gay”.

    Yours is anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, and anti-morality.

  346. Waaaah!! Waaaaaaaaaahhh!!! Waaaaaaaahhh!!!

    You’re unable to be honest. That’s the sickness of the closet.

  347. Again, the caliber of “help” that you are recommending is that of a quack.

  348. I know what licensed helping and medical professionals believe. You apparently do not.

  349. You know what the licensed helping and medical professionals you happen to like believe.

    You apparently do not know that there are solid contingents among the mind mavens with contrary opinions, or that the scientific basis for the opinions you like is slim to none.

Leave a Comment