MADISON, Wis. — In response to the sexual abuse crises involving disgraced Archbishop Theodore McCarrick and the release of the Pennsylvania grand jury report, Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin, has said that the Catholic Church must renew its conviction to identify and reject sin, and admit that a homosexual culture among some clerics has caused great harm in the Church.
Has the church not always identified and rejected sin?
My answer is yes and this subject is referring to homosexual culture affect causing great harm.
Is this the extraordinary ordinary?
I read this earlier after I made a post saying there was a subculture within the Church and someone questioned what I
meant. So I was pleased this brave man
also spoke out.
Thanks for posting. You beat me to it.
I think that if more men inside the Church
speak out and acknowledge this, the greater the chance we might be successful in eradicating it.
Acceptance of acting on “SSA”, homosexual identity, is wrong. Can’t make that right. Temptations are a wide variety - all must be resisted not excused. Since 1960 the slippery slope got started and strong protections will have to be constant. Its very sad. Sad for all our good priests that live their vows of chastity and are wrongly thought suspicious. We need to pray for Priests always…
I made a post asking what you meant by a slippery slope being started in 1960, but I did find something, the allowance of chaste gay men to become priests started in the 60s, is this what you’re referring to?
I would think straight and gay would both have an equal chance of being predators, though it does seem most of it is homosexual. Not sure why this is, but we need to be true to our faith and hold to the teachings of the church, I respect people with same-sex attraction and love them like anybody else as long as they do not act upon it.
pft among some clerics ? This is a global problem with in the church, not just a few isolated insidents scattered through out history, that has some how just magically collected to the state of Pennsylvania. An the problem is not souly homosexuality . Blaming homosexuality for this problem is a stereotype and an injustice. More over it takes the light off of celebacy as a topic, it takes the light off of a lot of things, but mainly the real problem is centuries of a corrupted Monarchy, that has no checks and balances, no rights for the people they are supposed to protect and serve. A Monarchy that is secretive in how they select people, to become leaders, a closed group of individuals who get to have councils and decide on matters that shouldn’t only be left to them to rule and decide on.
Just more empty apologies, more pointing the finger at someone else as is who is to really blame. The only thing to come next is for a bishop to write an article about how the devil made everyone do this. I am tired of excuses, I am tired of the lies, I am tired of the arrogance and I am tired of people pretending that because they chose to live a religious life and have an education that they have some kind of special power to rule over others. They would be better off remembering they are servants and who they serve, and examine what power is, who gives power, who actually controls that power, because when they forget, then it is up to others to remind them, and that reminder doesnt always come in a peaceful way nor does it come with out punishment.
As I said, temptations come in a wide variety (SSA is not the only temptation). The slippery slope got a big push in 1960 - what is referred to as the onset of the sexual “revolution”. As we have lived through these many years we have been witness to sexually oriented deviant acts like a plague. Our society has all manner of ways to destroy souls. Add the drugs, human trafficking, and the worst - abortion and child abuse. The ONLY way to defend against this ruin is to PRAY. The actions that we take are to protect and defend spiritually and taking our part in acting as stewards and sheepdogs!
Emphasis on not identifying only one temptation so my posting is not misunderstood.
As far as I have understood, what we are talking about now is homosexual networks that cover up for each other and abuse children. Yes of course such networks has to be stopped!
On the slippery slope and the 1960s, I agree with the Bishop’s observations, but given the Jay’s report which found that the incidents of abuse actually peaked in the 1960s and 1970s, what does us tell that in context.
I tend to agree that there’s a “homosexual problem” that has developed in the priesthood, but the data is what it is. If the problem was at its height in the 60s and 70s, before homosexuality was regarded the way that it present is, what does telling us and how did that come about?
While I know that there will be those who find this suggestion abhorrent, and others who will point to other statistics to counter it, I can’t help but wonder if we need to take a page out of the Orthodox and Eastern Rite churches and go back the rule prior to the 12th Century and allow parish priests to marry.
I’m sure the argument will be made that this will have no impact on this, but frankly the number of regular married men who are homosexuals is tiny and the era in which homosexuals married to hide that fact has passed away. Allowing married priests wouldn’t amount to a rule requiring it and, as the Orthodox and Easter Rite churches demonstrate to us, plenty of men will still enter the priesthood and take a vow of celibacy.
There seems to be an assumption that homosexual priests didn’t exist prior to the 1960s. Regardless of whether gay men were previously allowed to become priests, there’s no doubt in my mind that there have always been gay priests.
Spot On - and I’m convinced its only a matter of time…
No doubt that’s true. . and would be true of every other occupation of any kinds as well.
But that doesn’t really complete the analysis. For one thing, I’m pretty convinced that prior to the end of World War Two: 1) the difference in personal economics everywhere, and 2) the much more limited career options for Catholics in the US, made it easier for all men to hear the Call and respond than after.
Put another way, quite frankly the fate of a lot of males prior to the mid 20th Century was basically to work yourself to death for your family. It was pretty common. In the US, for the most part, Catholics didn’t obtain college degrees and pretty much had to go into blue collar work to do that (with there of course being exceptions). Professional options existed, but they were pretty limited and in a lot of places your only clients were going to be Catholics. In that atmosphere, foregoing marriage and opting for a career that was respected, was’t going to disappear and indoors had attractions that weren’t as clear later on.
And once that set of circumstances evaporated, the situation changed for homosexuals, I suspect. Up until very recently it was deeply shameful to be one, and the Latin Rite clergy, for Catholics, offered camouflage.
Also, one way or another, social disapproval of homosexuality was very strong until just recently and stronger and stronger the further in time you go back. That plays into what I just noted, but the degree of disapproval also meant, I suspect, that those with that inclination were likely more inclined to self restraint in the past rather than risk exposure as compared to now, or even outright self denial of the condition.
As all of this has now changed, I think it’s time to open the priesthood back up to married men.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.