The Cardinal is partly right

There’s been predictable outrage at a German Cardinal’s assertion that homosexuality, rather than the Catholic Church, is responsible for the plague of priest child sexual abuse cases.

“What has happened in the church is no different from what is happening in society as a whole,” Cardinal Walter Brandmüller said. “The real scandal is that the Catholic church hasn’t distinguished itself from the rest of society.”

A study commissioned by the German Bishops Conference and published last year found that more than 3,600 children were sexually abused by Catholic clergy in Germany between 1946 and 2014.

But Cardinal Brandmüller claimed that only a “vanishingly small number” of clergy had committed abuses. He said the real problem was homosexuality and claimed it is “statistically proven” that there is a link between homosexuality and abuse.

Society “forgets or covers up the fact that 80 per cent of cases of sexual assault in the church involved male youths not children,” he told Germany’s DPA news agency in an interview a few days ahead of his 90th birthday.

. . .

“What a shameful way for the Catholic Church to relativise guilt and defame homosexuals. Disgraceful,” Ulf Poschardt, the editor of Welt newspaper, wrote on Twitter.

There’s more at the link.

If the Cardinal was trying to excuse the Catholic Church from its share of the responsibility for this crisis, he was, of course, quite wrong.  However, his assertion that homosexuality lies at the root of the problem, and that most of the offenders were and/or are homosexual in orientation, is entirely correct.  That’s been demonstrated by study after study.  I won’t bother to go into it in this article, but here are a few sources that outline the scale of the problem.  Please read also the links to investigations, reports and assessments dating from the earliest days of this crisis, all of which agree that homosexual attraction to youths (known as ephebophilia), and homosexual acts with male youths (known as pederasty), were and are far more of a problem than simple sexual attraction to young people of the opposite sex (i.e. pedophilia).

The evidence is incontrovertible.  What’s more, the problem of homosexuality within the Catholic clergy has been demonstrated to be far greater than I’d previously imagined.  Some years ago, I stated:

Some have alleged that the celibate nature of the Catholic clergy has provided a haven or refuge for frustrated homosexuals. I think it depends what one means by that. Contrary to some alarmist and hysterical outbursts in the news media, I don’t believe for a moment that the Catholic priesthood is a hotbed of homosexual activity. Certainly, in my years as a priest, I saw no indications of it. (Let me admit, however, that because I’m heterosexual in orientation, I might have missed signs that would have been obvious to someone of a different bent – you should pardon the expression.) On the other hand, I’ve met a fairly large number of priests who were homosexual by orientation. As far as I’m aware, those I met were not sexually active, remaining celibate and chaste. I certainly have no evidence to the contrary. (I learned to value the ministry of such men very highly. They demonstrated a sensitivity and discernment in difficult counseling situations that I lacked, and I referred several cases to them with outstanding results.) On the basis of my own experience, I’d accept that up to a quarter of Catholic priests in the US might be classified as being of homosexual orientation. Of course, I have no hard, empirical evidence for this figure; it’s my personal opinion, not a statement of demonstrable fact. However,others have advanced similar ‘guesstimates’.

Having only limited personal experience of them, I can’t offer an opinion about homosexuality in religious orders (groups of men or women who follow the teachings of their founder(s), living in communities – although some undertake pastoral and apostolic work in isolation – and observing a common Rule of life). According to the news media, it appears that certain establishments run by some religious orders have been rife with the sexual abuse of children, involving homosexual acts in the vast majority of reported cases. This is sickening beyond belief, and I can only hope and pray that the problem was restricted to the institutions and orders so far identified. To think that it might be ongoing and as yet undiscovered in other Church institutions is a prospect too ghastly to contemplate.

Again, more at the link.

Sadly, in the light of all the evidence that’s emerged since I wrote those words back in 2010, I must now concede that the proportion of homosexual to heterosexual clergy in the Catholic Church is far higher than I’d previously suspected.  I’m not, of course, suggesting that all clergy with a homosexual orientation are also practicing homosexuals;  I’m sure many of them are faithful to their promise or vow of celibacy and/or chastity, and as such are in good standing with God and the Church.  Nevertheless, it seems clear that many have failed to live up to their vows and promises, and should therefore be removed from the ranks of the clergy – just as should all clergy, including heterosexuals, who repeatedly demonstrate their inability to control their sexual urges.

The Cardinal’s remarks are thus explained, and I think he has a point.  However, he fails to point out that it’s the Catholic Church’s fault for admitting so many candidates to the priesthood who were manifestly incapable of living the celibate lifestyle to which they claimed to be called.  Catholic seminaries must bear a very large share of the blame for this, particularly because some appear to have been hotbeds (you should pardon the expression) of homosexual activism and activity.  As I said earlier, I blame the Bishops who were in charge of supervising them for failing to act to curb such irregularities – more than irregularities:  such sins.  That’s what it amounts to, after all, according to the teaching of the Church.  Unchecked, those sins led on to actual crimes, which is the situation in which the Catholic Church finds itself today.

And that’s why so much odium has been heaped upon Cardinal Brandmüller’s head for his comments.  Homosexuals are outraged because they feel that their sexual orientation is being exclusively blamed for the crisis.  They prefer to ignore the fact that it’s been demonstrated, pretty conclusively, that such attractions are at the root of the crisis.  Overwhelmingly (in well over four out of every five incidents of clergy child sex abuse), cases have involved male clergy and male youths and homosexualbehavior.  Like them or not, those are the facts.  They can’t gainsay them:  therefore, they’re attacking the messenger, in the hope that discrediting him will also discredit his message.  This time, that won’t work.  The evidence is incontrovertible.

The Catholic Church remains overwhelmingly to blame for this crisis, due to her abdication of responsibility for ensuring that priestly formation, training and education excluded such individuals and did not allow them to achieve positions in which they could commit their sins and crimes, and for failing to act against those who were exposed.  Nevertheless, let’s not lose sight that the homosexual lifestyle and culture must also bear a significant part of the blame.  That’s medically and scientifically incontrovertible, as demonstrated in the studies and articles cited above.

Peter

12 comments

  1. Not every gay man is a pederast, but all those young boys just won’t bugger themselves. 🙁

    Some are born gay, but many more are made. 🙁

    The Left is defined as the party at odds with reality. Their repeated denials of reality come as no shock.

  2. it’s the Catholic Church’s fault for admitting so many candidates to the priesthood who were manifestly incapable of living the celibate lifestyle to which they claimed to be called.

    Your remarks–up to this one–are completely correct.

    Let me explain my objections.

    1) “The Church” admits no one to the priesthood. BISHOPS ordain candidates, and their appointed seminary officials accept or recruit candidates. Bishops and seminary officials have been flagrantly ignoring Roman directives on homosexual candidates for at least 60 years. Albeit anecdotal, I can name the names of both the Sem official AND the Bishop(s) who screwed the Milwaukee Archdiocese in the ’70’s–and there are very credible rumors about the names of those who did the same in the ’50’s and ’60’s.

    2) Whether hetero- or homo-, it is impossible to tell in advance whether one is “manifestly incapable” of “living the celibate lifestyle” in the vast majority of cases. Yes, there are some who are easy to spot immediately and some others who manifest a pattern over time. What percentage is that? 10%? 20%? 50%? Whatever; it’s not 100%–and I seriously doubt that it’s even 10%. Should the obvious ones have been tossed? Of course!! But then, see #1 above. (The discovery of ‘hetero-‘ problems is, as you know, FAR more difficult than of ‘homo-‘.)

  3. Read what he said. The German priest is entirely correct.

    Why do liberals crap all over the church for their pedos – and then turn around and foist them off on the Boy Scouts? Or defending the hire queer pedos as public school teachers and allow them to teach ‘sex education’ to elementary students? That was the man’s point, and he is right.

    I have disagreements and problems with the catholic faith, and I may be out to lunch on this – but I think that if you delve into it, the people protecting the child molestors were queers themselves.

    The church is absolutely correct to oppose homosexuality and regard it as a sin – but instead they caved to the gay agenda. Look where it got them. There is a lesson here for all of us.

  4. Glen –

    Studies have shown that children of homosexual households are 2 to 4 times as likely to become homosexual themselves as compared to the general population. – Timothy J. Daily, “Family Research Council: Insight: Homosexual Parenting: Placing Children at Risk”.

    Some are born. Many more are made. This is just more evidence why homosexuals must have no place or positions of influence over children or teens, or influencing policies for them.

  5. McChuck, your comment is correct and has nothing to do with my objections to the statement I italicized from Peter’s excellent essay.

  6. But perhaps I cam use an analogy to clarify my objection to Peter’s “the Church ordains….” statement.

    Recently a Sheriff’s deputy pulled out a gun and shot a very small dog to demonstrate that the deputy is The Man In Charge. (He was fired for that.)

    Now, then. Was it “the Sheriff’s office” which hired this predatory jackass? Or was it “the Sheriff” (or his duly appointed subordinate)?? Peter’s use of “the Church” is analogous to my use of “the Sheriff’s office.” Some INDIVIDUAL made the decision; not “an office.”

  7. Dad – Deputies all across the country have been inexcusably executing dogs for years now. Pretending that it is not something done by a disturbingly large minority of deputies is disingenuous. You can identify the act. You can identify the group of perpetrators. If you are in charge, you train and supervise to rid your department of these people. Or better yet, Don’t hire them in the first place, or identify them in training.

    What you don’t do is pretend it isn’t happening, while preferentially hiring likely animal abusers, while allowing them to shoot dogs for sport in training.

  8. Based in part on familial experience, I would suggest that it might be less a matter of Homosexuals tending to be predators than many predators not giving much of a damn about the gender of their victims and having more same-sex opportunities.

    But if that s the case, the ‘Gay Community’ still needs to own its mistakes in tolerating vermin like NAMBLA and lionizing the likes of serial predator Harvey Milk.

  9. A lot of the reason for all this outrage is because homosexuality has become a Holy Cause, not to be questioned even in its worst forms, on the Left. Why this is so, I do not know.

    Many leftists would rather be accused of incest or treason than “homophobia”—defined as any reservations whatsoever about the idea that homosexuality is not just something we have to put up with, but an unalloyed Good Thing.

  10. Let’s be absolutely honest here… The problem is not homosexuality, but the obsession with sex. Which is, admittedly, far more prevalent in the homosexual community than it is in the heterosexual one, if only because homosexuality behavior is itself often a symptom of an unhealthy obsession with sexual matters.

    Most normal people do not obsess over sex; yeah, it’s an important factor in life, but it’s not the end-all and be-all of their identities–Which is something you’re going to find in about 90% of the homosexual population. You make your sex life the primary focus of everything you do and think about, and the results are not going to be at all healthy. And, since the homosexuals are by default already doing this, well… Sexual matters become obsessively important in their lives, and they can justify just about anything to themselves in order to achieve sexual gratification. Normal people aren’t like that–They don’t have twenty lovers, or make themselves serial adulterers. Heterosexuals can be just as bad, but because their perversions are considered more “normal”, they don’t get near the oppobrium settled on what they do.

    To my mind, the root of the problem is the entirely unhealthy focus on sexual matters that most of these people have. Sex isn’t just a part of their lives; it’s all there is, and gratification of their needs becomes a major driver for everything they do in life. As well, the conflict between what their unnatural drives is telling them to do, and how they feel about it all becomes a source of conflict within themselves that becomes as much a driver for their behavior as the sex is.

    Normal humans don’t give in to their animalistic urges; you may see an attractive yet chronologically immature person, and think “Wow… Nice butt!!!”, but you don’t go past that, because you don’t have the necessary sexual imbalance that overcomes your mores and values; the sexual abuser who is likely to become a pedophile does not have these controls, and that’s why they do what they do. The hindbrain is always looking for the opportunity to reproduce, but the mark of a civilized human is that those instincts are controlled. In the homosexual population, you’re looking at a group of people who are already past the culturally-imposed limits, and so you’re going to find more potential abusers there. The control rods are already most of the way out of the reactor, so to speak…

    I’m of the mind that anyone who displays an obsession with sexual matters, in any of the many and varied directions that can go, is probably not someone you want around kids or doing the job we ask of clergymen. Avowed celibates can be as annoying as vegans or cross-fitters, and are about as useful when it comes to dealing with issues relating to counseling others. I’d suggest that a way to prevent this sort of thing would be to figure out a means of determining levels of sexual obsession in people, and if they’re over a certain limit, then they don’t get into these jobs. Ever.

    It’s not a gay/straight deal; it’s a sexually-obsessed issue. I know gays who have perfectly normal levels of sex drive, and who are simply humans who happen to like the same sex. There are others I’ve known who I’d have to say were Casanova-like gratification freaks, and who’d probably boink anything and everything that stood still for them, just like some equally screwed-up heterosexuals I’ve known.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *