Yes, the underlying problem has been obvious. But no one wants to address it because homosexuality itself has been transformed from a disorder to a protected category. It is not a problem only in the Church.
From the article:
"In comments to the Register, a cardinal who spoke on condition of anonymity said “the root of the problem with the McCarrick scandal is homosexuality. A homosexual act with young seminarians is a mortal sin. It’s a crime in the ecclesiastical sense because it’s destroying the faith of these young people and their relationship with God, as well as the credibility of the Church.”
What happens if abuse happens between people of opposite sexes? This is pervasive in Protestantism.
It’s insulting to assume same-sex attracted people have no self-control. It’s hard enough for SSA Christians to feel pressured to live in a manner contrary to Christian teachings and to also get hit by prejudicial sentiments based on stereotypes from the other side.
Sources like the Pennsylvania sexual abuse report and “The Keepers” show that Catholic clergy have also sexually abused a lot of young girls, so it’s not like only Protestants do that. We’ve also had a considerable number of problems in the Church with clergy sexually abusing female religious sisters and nuns.
I too get bothered when people present clergy sexual abuse as somehow stemming from the clergy having SSA, like SSA somehow causes a person to go around forcing themselves on minors or non-consenting adults. But it’s like talking to the wall to try to convince any persons of this who want to blame it all on SSA. Unfortunately, McCarrick is the poster child supporting this kind of thinking because he apparently didn’t abuse females of any age, nor did he abuse little children, but instead he focused on teenage boys and young adult men.
While it’s true that “a homosexual act with young seminarians” is a grave sin, McCarrick wasn’t simply committing “homosexual acts”. He was committing sexual abuse, which is a power crime. I suspect people like the cardinal who commented (who is likely to be an older man from a previous generation) don’t understand the dynamics of sexual abuse crimes involving adults and figure that unless the seminarian had two black eyes and a broken nose, he probably wasn’t coerced - same kind of standard they probably apply to young women being pressured for sex by their bosses at work or by casting directors or whoever.
That’s not the argument. No one is saying homosexuals are more likely to abuse. The point is that in an all male priesthood, which includes a number of homosexuals, homosexual abusers are more likely to get away with it because other homosexual clergy can protect them, either because they are romantically linked or because they are blackmailable
Pretty sure a lot of heterosexual clergy covered up sex abuse also, for reasons that had nothing to do with romance or being blackmailable, and everything to do with the risks and possible repercussions of being a whistleblower.
Ok but why would there be repercussions? Maybe because you never know if the Bishop is himself part of the same network.
That’s why homosexuality has to be rooted out, beginning at seminary.
There would be “repercussions” because it would make the Church look bad on somebody’s watch.
Let’s say Bishop A does not have SSA, keeps his vow of chastity, and is not a sexual abuser.
Then all of a sudden a rampant sex scandal breaks out in his diocese involving a whole bunch of clergy committing sexual abuse and/or just doing socially unacceptable things with consenting adults, like spending the collection money on prostitutes (male or female), or doing Travis Clark stuff on the altar of the parish church at night with consenting adults.
Bishop A still has to answer for this to his flock and his higher-ups, because the buck stops with him.
Bishop A might not get that promotion to Archbishop or Cardinal that he wants.
Bishop A has a motivation to cover it up.
“The Keepers” alleged that this is what happened with the sexually abusive priest (who was allegedly abusing both teenage boys AND teenage girls, gender apparently didn’t matter to him at all) and the then-Archbishop of Baltimore. The former Archbishop (Keeler) is said to have covered it up because he wanted to get his “red hat”, promotion to Cardinal. There is no evidence or allegation that the Archbishop was gay or committed sexual impropriety himself. He just wanted his promotion, allegedly.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.