Just the facts, ma'am.
By Diogenes (articles ) | Mar 17, 2005
Gay-partisan Jesuit Father James Martin gave a deeply dishonest address to the LA Religious Ed Congress, duly foregrounded in this week's Archdiocesan newspaper. Using the conventional jargon of gay agit-prop, he takes aim at Catholic fears and assumptions (ours, not his).
"Today there are hundreds, if not thousands, of celibate gay priests ministering to Catholics in parishes, schools, hospitals, high schools, colleges, retreat houses, soup kitchens, nursing homes and chanceries," said Jesuit Father James Martin."
"Celibate" is a weasel-word in the gay lexicon, capable of meaning either "unmarried" or "sexually chaste." Few would dispute the claim that most gay priests are bachelors. But are they chaste? Martin claims hundreds or thousands of them are. Yet he can't possibly know this. He can only speak with authority about the chastity of one priest, namely, Fr. James Martin. Can't he extrapolate from the seen to the unseen? Sure. But that means he's just another guy with a hunch -- like the folks he claims to refute.
Among the prejudices that (Martin says) hinder an honest discussion is the "assumption that being a gay priest means that one is, by definition, sexually active and incapable of chastity." I take "gay" to refer to a subset of persons with same-sex attraction, viz., those who have said Yes to their homosexual libido and ceased the struggle to rid themselves of it. Are such persons necessarily sexually active? No. Is it bigotry to believe that, in the aggregate, they are promiscuous? On the contrary, the empirical evidence for gay unchastity is so overwhelming that only a man demented by ideology can deny it.
Are gay priests an exception? The objective data proves beyond question they aren't. More than 400 U.S. priests (including one bishop and a Jesuit university president) have died of AIDS; they didn't get it from a drinking fountain. Nearly 80% of priest abusers targeted post-pubertal males. Three dioceses have already been buggered into bankruptcy -- they're not going broke paying child support, folks -- with another dozen on the brink.
Many Catholics in the U.S. have lost their parish churches and have no Catholic school in which to put their children precisely because their bishops gambled properties not their own on the wildly improbable chance that gays were good priests -- and lost. Far from being a myth generated by "prejudice" (in the sense of a judgment made in advance of the facts), the sexual anarchy of gay clergy is so obvious a truth that it's all but impossible to see how it's still an open question for the bishops whether to admit gays to the priesthood. Blackmail, of course, is the likeliest explanation -- and, thanks to the excruciatingly empirical data provided by Archbishop Weakland and his lover Paul Marcoux, that's not a hypothetical either.
Yet the chief objection to gay clergy is one that Martin never touches. Dr. Joseph Nicolosi put it well: "To speak of a gay Catholic is a contradiction in terms, like calling someone a pro-abortion Catholic." It's that simple. We're not talking about generic homosexuals here, not about appetites, we're talking about convictions and decisions -- specifically, the conviction that the Church is in error in her sexual teaching, and the decision to shape one's own life on the belief that this teaching is false, irrelevant, or changeable. Gay priests aren't sexually active by definition; they're dissenters by definition. Gay priests are subversives. Even if, contrary to fact, they were universally and perfectly chaste, even if they outshone straight priests in every behavioral respect, their contempt for Catholic doctrine would disqualify them outright. It's not a question of what outstandingly talented players gay priests are; the problem is they're fighting for the other guys. They want the wrong team to win.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Ignacio177 -
Mar. 18, 2005 2:49 PM ET USA
The question is how to rid the clergy and religious congregations of this plague. The problem with the homosexual is that his will is corrupted. He desires what a woman should desire. A gay has the heart of a women. He may pump iron, he may try to dress like a man to coverup his corruption. But his still has a women's heart. There are others who don't even have the shame to hide their corrupted desires. It is an objective disorder of the will, it is not simply a pasional disorder.
Posted by: Gertrude -
Mar. 18, 2005 10:44 AM ET USA
You couldn't be more right Diogenes. To consider oneself gay, implies embracing the entire lavender agenda. Speaking from personal experience with a homosexual sibling, there is no discussion on what the Church teaches. He simply cannot "hear" me in any discussion of homosexuality. It's like he has an inside track on WHEN not IF the Church will change Her teachings. The immutability of Church Doctrine is a foreign concept to him. He considers himself to be a good practicing Catholic.
Posted by: John J Plick -
Mar. 17, 2005 4:23 PM ET USA
The whole posture itself is foundationally dishonest and it bothers me that with the myriad of well-educated bishops and theologians it would take a layman such as myself to point out the obvious Sin is basically a shameful thing for any truly repentant individual, and it is best worked out in the privacy of the confessional and the prayer-closet For ANY individual or group of individuals to declare themselves "gay" even in tendency only is to betray a lack of any sense of sin Disqualified
Posted by: -
Mar. 17, 2005 1:43 PM ET USA
Right on target! The issue here is and always has been DISSENT from Catholic teaching, specifically the Catholic teaching on homosexuality. They are just another subset of the long list of dissenters within the Church. Their greatest allies are those who dissent on other issues. I have yet to find one gay priest who accepts all of the Church's teaching on homosexuality, especially that the homosexual attraction is an intrinsic disorder. They are subversives within the Church attempting of effect a change in Church teaching which they do not accept. Leonard
Posted by: -
Mar. 17, 2005 9:52 AM ET USA
I understand what you ares aying here but it will be confusng to many. It would help if you would differentitate between the term "gay" and the term "homosexual" at the start of your comments.