Enough With Pervert Church!

Can this blogger say that?

The 45-year-old abuse case against Cardinal McCarrick has brought an important point back to light: the abuse crisis in the Church is largely a homosexual problem, and the gay inmates are running the asylum. [!]

The suspicion lingers.

It says there’s a fraternity within the priestly fraternity. And a tightly knit one at that.

I’ve been told this — and wrote about it in my 1994 book Bending the Rules: What American Priests Tell American Catholics, which the Kirkus reviewer called “A heavily partisan but still valuable contribution to current debates within the American Catholic Church.” (I’ll take the faint praise, admitting the first part, welcoming the second.)

To cite what I reported, from three of the 34 veteran pastors interviewed for the book, answering question #5 of the ten that I asked each priest, “Gay & lesbian issues: how if at all do they turn up in your ministry? What do you say or do?”:

[Fr.] Mike brought up the issue of gay priests. “My only problem with gay priests, guys I have known, is they tend to think that being gay they have some sort of permission to be sexually active and don’t have the same (obligation) to respect their vows.

I have tried to get an explanation from them, but I never could fully understand what they are thinking. Sexually active gay priests don’t seem to feel it’s violating their vows. It’s a puzzlement to me.”

Fr. Walt:

“In the ordinary parish, only 2% or 3% are gay, so
it’s not a big problem. In the priesthood, on the other hand, it’s way
higher. There are going to be two priesthoods, and very soon,
because of the split between straights and gays.

“We pretend we don’t notice, but there are big differences
between the two groups. Both sides understand this, but no one
wants to think it. It’s going to be a gigantic issue in the church.”

“What shape will it take? Turf-protection, mutual suspicion?” I asked.

“Already there’s suspicion. Turf issues haven’t surfaced,
because most of it is closeted. You can’t have turf if you’re closeted.

“There will be an expose or outing. It will be explosive. Downtown
won’t, doesn’t know how to deal with it. It’s going to blow up in their
face. People have asked them to deal with it, and they haven’t.

“Have you any percentages?”

“No. I am amazed that people can come up with, say 40%.
But my knowledge is limited, partly because gay priests stay away
from non-gay priests. I don’t even know who they are.”

Ben, in the same interview, conceded the numbers could be high, as reported from
various sources.

“The priesthood makes it acceptable for two men to
travel together. It offers a cover, institutionalizes the male

“But it’s really a matter of the Catholic obsession with sex.
We have created the problem, and the people who will pay for it are
gay. We have brought this on ourselves.”


“I don’t know about that,” said Walt. “A certain softness and
effeminacy has happened in the church. I don’t know how it’s
connected to homosexuality. Our diocese has the best leadership we
could hope for. But even he (the bishop) projects a softness.”

“I like him a lot, but it’s people like him who can get ahead in
the system,” said Ben.

“That’s a problem, when you have this softness,” said Walt.
“It’s probably in some way connected to homosexuality as a given in
the church. Unless the whole thing is faced, you allow softness to be
the real mode the church is known for.

“Once the pastor in this diocese was known as cigar-
chomping and whiskey-drinking. How did that change?

“It’s connected somehow to not facing certain things, such as

“Softness” is a word that turns up. A major liberal theologian used it in conversation with a newsman friend of mine. He too was concerned.

As obviously is the author/speaker of this hard-charging video at OnePeterFive , who (unwittingly started me on this knotty subject.

Who is Francis to judge, anyhow?

At 27% of Dictator Pope, I find this about the gay lobby, its main agenda, and The Pope Who Can:

The wider significance of this infiltration is that the homosexual lobby is working to change the Church’s moral teaching in its own interest, and it has come into its own with the liberalising tendency introduced by Pope Francis.

For example, Archbishop Bruno Forte wrote for the Synod on the Family in 2014 the text which attempted to relax Catholic teaching on homosexuality. His text was rejected by the Synod, but not for any lack of effort on Pope Francis’s part to advance the liberalising cause.

Perhaps an even more scandalous case is that of Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who, incredibly, is President of the Pontifical Council for the Family and whom Pope Francis has recently made President of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, the body which John Paul intended as the watchdog of the Church’s teaching.

Colonna, Marcantonio. The Dictator Pope (Kindle Locations 905-911). Kindle Edition.

Hit job? That would be to dismiss the book’s connecting dots on dozens of published sources. If it’s a case for the prosecution, it’s a strong one.

This whole married-deacon thing could pave the way . . .

. . . towards ordaining married men to the priesthood, as commenter Margeret McCarthy points out in the preceding post.

A change, allowing married men to become priests or to allow priests the right to marry might allow the deaconate ordinands a swift assent to the priesthood, quickly lessening the problem of the shortage of priests.

In other words, we have in place a training program, upgradeable to priest-training. I recall telling the wife of our parish’s newly ordained deacon — one of us, he was — that I marveled at her new role, as wife of an ordained man. It was at a parish picnic.

She seemed to appreciate it. It was as if she hadn’t thought of it that way, so seamlessly had the married diaconate come upon us.

This was years ago, early in the Chicago experience of it. As a laicized priest by then married and with kids, speaking from another era — before the revolution — I saw it as a thing to marvel at.

More to come about this general issue, I hope with references to what others say about it who have given it more thought than I.

Added thought about married priest: Marriage would indeed complicate a priest’s life, which could be a good thing.

Married priests as third pole of influence

Add this to Sex & RC Church, as below — exchange with astute reader that goes this way, reacting to my perhaps overstated dissing of current permanent deacons as priest candidates.

Astute reader:

At least most are not gay and most of them have families and jobs so that they have their feet firmly attached to the ground in that respect.  Granted, they would be less trained in theology, but they are already providing the Sacrament of the Sick, Baptisms, Marriages, and preaching as well as visiting the sick. 

The damage that they might do as priests, they are already in a position to do and now they are totally under the thumb of the local pastor who may be twisted.  As fellow priests and future pastors, they might do no worse than the damage being done now — especially by pastors for whom the collection burns a hole in their pockets — always building or renovating, wringing his hands about the recession and lack of funds because he is a spend-thrift.

My response:

Yes, but they’d be 2nd-class priests, less equipped to push back.  Nor wld they be immune to demon greed, married or not. 

Ordaining married men is the way to go, I think.  Missouri Synod expects candidates to be married, I think.  Eastern Rite RCs have that requirement also, I am pretty sure — and are ruled out as bishops, by the way. 

But the married have to be on even footing with unmarried; theology study tells where the skeletons are buried.