Pope Emeritus Benedict wrote an extended essayon the clergy sex-abuse and cover-up scandal, where he cited the sexual revolution coming of age in Europe in 1968 as a contributing factor.
Some critical commentators thought Benedict’s attention to the sexual revolution was misplaced. Some, such as seasoned reporter and Vatican watcher Christopher Altieri, observed that the problem preceded the sexual revolution. Some say the problem is bigger than sexual morality. And to be perfectly honest, some want to say that the problem is anything but the sexual revolution and/or anything but homosexuality.
I’m willing to concede that clergy sexual abuse didn’t start in 1968 and that the clergy sexual-abuse crisis has many other important facets.
In spite of this, however, I maintain that the sexual revolution really is a significant factor. I will go further. We will not get a full grip on this problem until we confront the toxic ideology of the sexual revolution and the damage it has done.
The reception of Frederic Martel’s widely anticipated book In the Closet of the Vatican has been surprising. The tantalizing hints dropped before the “bombshell,” “salacious” book’s release exclaimed, “80% of Vatican priests gay.” After an initial international media flurry, the book has dropped out of sight. Two questions arise in my mind. First, what, if anything, can we infer from this deeply flawed book? Second, what did Martel believe he was accomplishing?
The author, Frederic Martel, is a self-described “French gay atheist.” His overarching theme is that the Church’s stance on homosexuality is hypocritical and harmful. Many priests are living “double lives,” professing Church teaching by day and seeking homosexual sex by night.
The solution, in Martel’s mind, is to change Church teaching so that these clergy can live openly homosexually active lives. In this, he, no doubt, has many supporters, both inside and outside the Church.
In a recent column, I introduced the concept of weaponized self-pity. I noted how often I’ve seen divorced parents become defensive when I talk about the impact of divorce on children.
Numerous times, my friend Leila Miller and I have assured people that, yes, of course, spouses have every right to remove themselves from a genuinely abusive environment — although these assurances often go nowhere with some of those divorced parents to whom we speak.
In a similar way, I was about to respond yet again to someone claiming that the “Catholic right” seeks to “purge” all “gay priests” from the priesthood. Then I caught myself doing for priests who identify as “gay” what Leila was doing for divorce: repeating myself.
In 2010, Marcus Stock, now the tenth bishop of Leeds, then appointed General Secretary for the Bishop’s Conference of England & Wales by Vincent Nichols (a well worn career path) stated:
“To the best of my knowledge, there is no empirical data which concludes that sexual orientation is connected to child sexual abuse.
“The consensus among researchers is that the sexual abuse of children is not a question of sexual ‘orientation’, whether heterosexual or homosexual, but of a disordered attraction or ‘fixation’.
“Many abusers of children have never developed the capacity for mature adult relationships. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or both.
“In the sexual abuse of children the issue is the sexual fixation of the abusers, and not their sexual orientation.”
There could be something to his statement, I know many readers will find these words eminently sensible, except that, as has been demonstrated beyond doubt before and since, the vast majority of victims of abuse (over 80%) are adolescent boys, many of whom are post-pubescent.
This reality has been confirmed by a new report which argues that the evidence strongly suggests links between sexual abuse of minors and two factors: a disproportionate number of homosexual clergy and the manifestation of a “homosexual subculture” in seminaries.
I especially appreciate Blogger Lambert’s notice of not only the homosexual connection, but also the fact that clergy sex abuse has been creeping up since 2002. That is the part of our report that has not gotten enough attention.
“I found that clergy sex abuse did drop to almost nothing after 2002, but then it started to creep up,” he continued. “It’s been increasing. And there are signs that the bishops or the dioceses have gotten complacent about that.”
“It’s not at the great heights that it was in the mid-1970s, but it’s rising. And it’s headed in that direction,” he added.
A lot of people are upset about Pope Francis. Some have called on him to resign. Some have gone so far as to make the outrageous claim he is not really the pope.
Although I don’t agree with some of his actions, I will not be calling on him to resign, nor claiming he is not really pope. However, that does not mean that I plan to sit around doing nothing about our current troubles in the Church. I am making some serious demands on myself in this matter. I encourage you to do the same. Let m Continue reading “Why I Won’t Ask the Pope to Resign (and Neither Should You)”
Evidently, some Catholic clergy have difficulty understanding what “celibacy” means. Fr. Dwight Longenecker catches Fr. James Martin, saying in his 2010 book, (page 216) that celibacy is “the restriction against marriage for members of the Catholic clergy.”
Can anyone read German? Here is a article in German on our Clergy Sex Abuse Study. The headline means, “Stop Denying.”
According to the Google translator function:
(Fr. Paul) Sullins’ proposal for resolution looks like this: To deal with the homosexual subcultures in the seminars, “the first thing that needs to be done is to stop denial.” You have to realize that there is a problem. This includes admitting that there may be a connection between “homosexual behavior in seminaries or in the priesthood and this kind of mischief,” the abuse. The impulse “that we do not want to say anything that could stigmatize homosexuals is understandable. But this must be weighed against the damage potential for the victims. How many times do we want to repeat that and continue to deny what is becoming more and more obvious? “When do we take action to address it?
Please keeping sharing the study. People need to have the courage to face this issue directly.
A friend sent me a concern about someone doing some internet hanky-panky with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Here is the gist of her note:
There is a revised version of the Vatican’s Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2358 on homosexuality floating around. If you search Catechism of the Catholic Church Homosexuality on Google, you find the top two links are to Vatican pages which look nearly identical. The only difference is paragraph 2358.
The second link is the revision. A web-savvy friend found it does belong to the Vatican and was created in 2015. It is indexed which means “they” want it to come up in searches. It comes up as number two: a problematic acceptance of pop theory on homosexuality and the removal of the words intrinsically disordered. The correct version of CCC 2358 is first on google searches. Verbal engineering is afoot!!! Continue reading “Keep your grubby ideological mitts off the Catechism!!”
Bill Donahue, of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, has a post called “PENNSYLVANIA GRAND JURY REPORT DEBUNKED.” I will eventually read it and possibly comment on it. But I must say this before I do.
Even if I turn out to agree completely with his analysis, he is completely wrong to be talking about this at this moment. Here is why:
This is the Catholic moment to face facts, take our lumps, and make amends. We can talk about other people’s mistakes and problems after that.
I’ve been stumbling over the words of the Morning Offering prayer I have said for years. “I offer them for all the intentions of our bishops.” Whoa! Wait! All the intentions? All our bishops? I’ve had to mentally rewrite this, morning after morning.
All the intentions of bishops who are complicit in sex abuse cover-ups? Bishops who are not teaching the fullness of the faith? Bishops whose “intention” is to hang on to their offices at all costs? Ok, Lord, how about this? “I offer all my prayers, works, joys and sufferings for all the worthy intentions of Cardinal Farrell? Or maybe, for the ultimate good of Cardinal Baldiserri? Or for the complete conversion* of Cardinal Mahoney?
Maybe I just need a new prayer. So I came up with this:
Dr. J’s Morning Offering:
Dear Lord, I give you thanks and praise for another day in which to serve you.
Shower your blessings on every person who crosses my path or my mind this day.
Please keep me from doing anything mean or stupid.