Why Aren’t Priests Identified as Homosexuals?
By David Yeagley
04-08-2002
Fallen Roman Catholic
priests are identified as pedophiles, sex abusers, or just nasty perverts.
Though they do what homosexuals do, the popular, liberated social status of
“homosexual” is denied them, both by their own Church, and by homosexuals at
large.
John Leo commented on the current Church sex scandal. But in U.S. News & World Report (April 1), he simply observes that confidence in the clergy “is suddenly gone,” as though this is the fundamental crisis, and not the sexual orientation or identity of the priests.
In passing, he says, “Abusers of teens are generally treatable. Pedophiles aren’t. But the church is reluctant to mention the distinction…” Of course, Leo’s article is not about homosexuality, and doesn’t address homosexual behavior, but it implies that homosexuality never involves abuse or pedophilia as heterosexuality does. Leo is careful not to condemn homosexuality, but condemns only the moral fraud of the priests.
Divested priest Paul Shanley, recently convicted of raping several young boys in St. Jean’s parish in Newton, Massachusetts, was associated of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). As early as 1970 he had publicly defended the pederast enterprise. NAMBLA, according to William N. Grigg (New American, June 3), is a criminal syndicate composed of homosexuals who prey on young boys.
Initiation is the crime here. The older, experienced male introduces the sexual activity to the young male. The criminal aspect of the priests is the seduction of the young or the force of adult persuasion (if not actual physical force) on a minor. Homosexual activity itself is not against the law of the land.
So, if priests do what homosexuals do, why aren’t they regarded as homosexuals? Obviously, Catholic Church doctrine completely condemns “deviant” sexual behavior, and that outrages the homosexual community at large. But, isn’t this a great opportunity for homosexuals to say, “See? Homosexuality is normal, and not even the Christian religion can change it.” The fall of priests (if they ever did stand) seems like a weighty argument in favor of homosexuality.
The homosexual ‘community’ is usually keen on support, especially the scientific kind. In 1992, Newsweek (February 24) reported that Simon LeVay, a homosexual neuroscientist at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, California, scanned the cadaverous brains of 41 males, including 19 homosexual males. In a tiny area of the brain (the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus, or, INAH3) which partially controls sexual behavior, the male homosexual cell cluster was smaller, more the size of a woman’s.
By 1994, however, in Discover (March) LeVay admitted it was “just a hint” in the direction of a biological basis for homosexuality, and his post mortem analysis was no proof. Yet the following year, Time (June 12, 1995) reported that National Institutes of Health biologists Odenwald and Zhang had created male homosexual fruit flies with the transplantation of a single gene.
But the nature of homosexuality was not on the agenda of the national bishop’s Ad Hoc Committee On Sexual Abuse which met in Dallas in June 14. The bishops discussed how the Church must ‘fess up and face up to the laws of the land. The “infallibility of priests” determined by the Council of Niaea in 325 A.D. was suspended in this late 20th-early 21st century crisis.
Furthermore, Grigg suggests the homosexual infiltration of the Catholic Church follows the blueprint created by Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, and homosexual “commie” priests are waging a “war of [political] position.” Catholic author Michael S. Rose, in Goodbye! Good Men, describes this strategy after interviewing priests and students of the seminaries. Rose’s “carefully documented study” illustrates how homosexuals and cultural revolutionaries have taken over much of the American Catholic Church’s seminary system.
Certainly, Communism and Catholicism have been historical enemies. But this still leaves the homosexual priest homeless. The Church doesn’t want him, for obvious reasons. But the secular homosexual community doesn’t want him either, not even as rhetorical justification of homosexuality. Those who have the ‘legal’ status of being homosexual consider themselves above the fallen priests.
This crisis not only leaves an ugly scar on the modern Church, but it’s an even worse reflection on the arrogance of the homosexual community at large.
In 1973, aggressive homosexuals successfully lobbied the American Psychiatric Association to expunge homosexuality from the list of psychological disorders. Yet homosexual priests are considered deeply ill and perverted.
Homosexuality just seems more wrong cloaked in the Catholic context, but that special wrongness should never eclipse the failure of the homosexual community to identify with their own.
SOURCE: http://www.badeagle.com/html/priests.html (webpage gone)
Thomas
Jefferson’s worst nightmare seems to have come to pass.
Jefferson was very concerned that judges would become
despots and overrule the rights of the people. In 1820,
he wrote to a friend,
