Typical, nothing surprising there then.
I repeat, Religion is the single most dangerous, destructive force this world has to deal with. It’s time people woke up and place these outdated theories to where they belong… To the History books!!
Gay priests are anyway a kind of a sellout to the other side really, I think it’s probably a positive thing that fewer people of gay orientation will be joining the ranks of our oppressors in the Catholic church.
As a scapegoating and blame shifting tactic this stinks plus it will do little to address the problem of Catholic clergy who abuse kids.
They are attempting to shift the blame for their heinous crimes on the gay community.
They are creating a “Fog of War” that is intended to distract public opinion from their crimes thus shifting the debate and diverting attention from the very real problem of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church towards this invented issue of ‘gay priests’.
For them its like killing two birds with one stone: absolve themselves from blame while passing it on us queers… Plus by scapegoating us they can hope to stir public opinion against gays and lesbians thus leading to the destruction of the gay community.
Here in Italy this Propaganda is working very well.
Now I wonder which criteria is it using to weed out the straight applicants and how do they discern if some of those are likely to be molesters? Hasn’t it occured to them that girls were and are molested by priests and some priests even have clandestine sex with women? The Vatican NEVER addresses that, in fact, ignores it.
‘Marianne Duddy-Burke, the executive director of DignityUSA, a Catholic gay rights group, said it was “impossible in this atmosphere” for celibate gay men to apply to the priesthood.
“The bishops have scapegoated gay priests because gays are an acceptable scapegoat in this society, particularly among weekly churchgoers,” she said.’
Marianne is a tremendous woman and has worked hard to support gay American Catholics for years, and to organize conferences with some of the world’s most articulate and well-informed scholars.
DignityUSA is a formidable force in the American Catholic Church.
Personally, I’d like to know what the American Catholic Church is doing to screen the existing clergy, at all levels, for paedophiles. The scenario of having paedophile bishops screening seminarians for paedophilia is really not that unlikely, is it.
Still, I’m inclined to agree with Pavlos that gays drawn to religious life should avoid the RCC and other homophobic religious institutions.
@ Squidgy. I understand where you are coming from and why you are coming from there but I would suggest that what you are talking is actually fundamentalism rather than religion. Yes fundamentalism can be a manifestation in religion but it can also come through in other human thought systems. Religion can be a force and a catalyst for good. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. For further food for thought on this complex issue I suggest you read Is Religion Dangerous? by Keith Ward which is a well thought out and intelligent discussion of the issue.
Seems like the catholic church has learned a bit from the past. Identify all those who are not like us, identify them, denigrate them and ensure they are viewed as subhuman. Easier to round them up and dispose of them.
Wonder where Ratzinger got the model for that from?
I find myself agreeing with Pavlos and Jean-Paul again – Any gay person who’s catholic by choice rather than upbringing is doing a Groucho Marx – i.e. not joining any club that would have them as a member.
Whilst I could see a vague argument for changing the system from within I’m more inclined to think screw the catholic authodoxy, we don’t need their seal of approval.
And the next time priestly child molestation hits the headlines as it inevitably will, they won’t have their handy gay scapegoats to blame it on.
I would disagree with you, I do not regard the cathloic church as fundamentalist, in fact it is one of the more monolithic churches and quite homogeneous with few extremes (some oddities but not WBC like).
Even so Squidgy is right, their attitude to homosexuals, women, contraception, aid in return for souls, amassing of wealth, secrecy, proselytising, mind control all lead me to agree with his assessment of religion.
There are very few religions which are happy in their own delusions and don’t wish to make us all as happy as them.
“A priest can only give his life to the church in the sense that a man gives his life to a female spouse. A homosexual man cannot have the same relationship.”
This is demonstrably false. Mixed and same-sex relationships are exactly the same. The circumstances and nuances are different, but the commitment, feelings and love are exactly the same.
Of course, if they can’t even get that right, I’m guessing the entire screening process is laughably ineffective. In order to successfully screen people, you actually have to be using competent psychological models of evaluation. And if the RCC is using their typical brand of quacks, that’s just not going to be happening.
@pumpkin – your last thought occured to me too… who in their right mind when filling out such a blatently loaded application to be a priest would say “yes” to a question like “Do you prefer kids to someone your own age?”
That’s almost as dumb as the questionaire at US passport control that asks questions like “Are you a member of any terrorist organisation” or “Is the purpose of your visit to overthrow the government of the united States of America?”
That’s not a rigorous screening method, it’s just a way of keeping out compulsive sarcastic types!
Picture it: a catholic applying for the seminary…dressed in Lady Gaga drag. Well, drag is drag, innit.
But Squidgy, the Con-Dem government which you support so much is planning the biggest expansion of Faith schools since the 19th century as reported in the Daily Mail as well as many other places. These will no doubt be free from having to concern themselves over LGBT issues in education. On every occasion where religion was opposing LGBT rights David Cameron supported religion 100%. This is not because David Cameron is necessarily religious himself, but because in the Conservative party religion, in the form of the Anglican church, is hugely powerful, and Cameron simply complies to the will of the most powerful force acting upon him.
“But it has to do with our view of marriage,” [Rev. Kevin J. Sweeney] said. “A priest can only give his life to the church in the sense that a man gives his life to a female spouse. A homosexual man cannot have the same relationship. It’s not about condemning anybody. It’s about our world view.”
Well there’s one simple solution and Rev. Kevin J. Sweeney has said it himself: allowing ssame sex marriage in the Catholic church will make this whole point moot. So easy and yet they appear so blind to it.
“But it has to do with our view of marriage,” he said.
And this is coming from a self imposed celibate priest and someone who will never marry, and has no idea of marriage or what it involves. And now they’re experts on the subject?!?
They were also supposed to be experts on childcare, and we all know how that ended up.
These creeps will stoop to anything.
Thankfully, not many parents will encourage their sons, gay or straight, to enter the RC priesthood nowadays. On the contrary, they would probably disown him first.
Why in the hell are there any gay priests in the first place? Well, it’s a great job for a gay man who is strictlly out for himself and has no illusions about any motive beyond pure selfishness. You’d be very much in demand. There aren’t enough priests to go around, so there are good job opportunities. That’s because no one would become a priest unless they had some desparate ulterior motive. A lot of priests nowadays come from abject poverty – the kind of poverty you only see in third-world nations. For them, being a priests is about 50 steps up – instead of starvation, you get to eat at least three meals a day. And then there are the gay priests. First off, you don’t have to make lame excuses why you don’t have sex with women. And in addition, most people will probably automatically respect you – something that you probably never experienced without a collar and on your own . . . and something you very likely you don’t deserve.
@ Dave. Catholicism is just one of around 30,000 distinct Christian sects and denominations identified in the world today. Are you seriously saying that they all pose a serious threat, that they are all dangerous? And how do you know that? Do you also summise that all Hindus, Buddhists, Druids, Muslims, Jews, Spiritualists, indeed anyone who ascribes to the thought that there is a spiritual dimension to the human experience poses a dangerous threat to humanity? And why and how exactly are they “the single most dangerous, destructive force this world has to deal with” ?
You make very valid points, as I said I do not view catholocism as fundamentalist, it is more benign that many denominations. Most of the christian evangelicals are much worse. As I also said, those religions who are happy to keep their delusions to themselves are in the minority.
I have rarely heard of druids out there proclaiming the WORD, or wiccans out there protesting at peoples funerals. I have rarely heard anyone out there asking for gays to be killed other than evangelical christians and some muslims.
Jews do not proselytise so don’t care what others do, Hindus are equivocal about homosexuality as they have a third sex anyway so they are not quite sure. Buddhists in the main do not judge, even the Dali Lama has said that as long as it is consensual it is not for him to comment.
So, no I do not proscribe to the fact that all people with beliefs are dangerous, just the majority of them. As I said the only safe ones are those happy in their own delusions/beliefs and don’t wish to make us all as happy as them
Their loss and many other far more worthwhile and influential careers for gay men to pursue.
Victim of abuse from Catholic clergy speaks out.
(harrowing description, extremely moving)
Istitutional, systemic abuse in the Catholic church.
(the abuse would appear to be systemic rather than simply caused by abusive individuals)
(excellent but sound quality is not great)
Don’t really get your point. I’m pretty sure most people don’t agree 100% with everything the party they voted for say and stand for. So not really giving to much of a toss what you think Or what your trying to imply!
My comment (1) is my thought, it’s what I believe and as entitled, I stick to it.
But just for reference, you saw fit to highlight my comment (1) yet you don’t say – do you agree with it or disagree with it? I suggest you agree with it but just because of who it is just felt the need to pick! hence again I don’t see the point.
de·lu·sion /dɪˈluʒən/ Show Spelled[dih-loo-zhuhn] –noun
1.an act or instance of deluding.
2.the state of being deluded.
3.a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4.Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
In what sense is the concept that there is a spiritual dimension to the human experience a delusion?
And in what way do people who believe that there is a spiritual dimension to the human experience pose a threat? How exactly are they dangerous?
I don’t agree for one second with the position taken by those in this news item or with what you mention above… “their attitude to homosexuals, women, contraception, aid in return for souls, amassing of wealth, secrecy, proselytising, mind control…” none of these things are representative of the spiritual belief system I ascribe to, indeed these things are diametrically opposed to everything it stands for so how exactly do I pose a threat to humanity?
@ Dave. And aren’t notions such as forgiveness and reconciliation, of promoting peace, of emancipating the downtrodden and outcast, of working with rather than against nature, of alleviating suffering, of promoting equality – fairness – justice, are these not things worth sharing?
@ Dave. These may not be concepts that occur in an exclusively religious context but they are nonetheless notions that are advocated by most if not all religions. Which begs the question as to how exactly one can make the sweeping generalisation that all religion is dangerous.
Or that the majority of people who practice or are involved with a form of religion or spirituality are dangerous.
I have the utmost respect for gays. Gays are only interested in other gays not young boys – consenting adults. It’s the pedophiles we are complaining about. How many pedophiles are HIV positive and don’t give a thought to abusing little ones.
Why do the priests all huddle together to discuss the problem – they are not supposed to be a cult. Not a thought is ever given to the children – God is looking and has a good memory.