reply to post by predator0187
Predator, this is an excellent find and thread. If you don't mind I will supply a link to a related thread I posted just hours prior to yours being
posted. In my thread I took a shot at Donohue also. He deserves it. He's the junk yard dog for the Vatican. He's likely Opus Dei or whatever group
is running interference for Ratzinger now. Here's my thread:
1963 letter indicates former pope knew of abuse
I'm likely going to rock some apple carts with what I'm about to write. I will state this is just my opinion based on my experience as a recently
former Catholic. For many decades the Catholic Church has had problems recruiting men to the priesthood. The priesthood became splintered at some
point. There was and there still exists a percentage of moral men that chose the priesthood over their sexuality. You and I might disagree with their
delusional faith but we would likely not have any problem with the way they went about their life paths.
These moral men were and are both heterosexual and homosexual. My opinion is that the priesthood became one of the few harbors for homosexual men in
times where society at large was not accepting of them. Many of these men chose the priesthood as a means of dealing with the sexuality that their own
faith insisted was sinful. Keep in mind that there was little societal acceptance, there were no gay rights, there was no gay marriage, there were
few "open" alternatives. Even if these men had relationships with other homosexual priests or laymen (heterosexual priests had relationships and
lapses too) they were still accepted and "forgiven" in the Church.
You might have had an inclination that your parish priest was a homosexual but who cared? No harm, no foul, it wouldn't affect your life. If anything
your priest might be a bit more understanding of the daily hardships of the parishioners. We are after all, all "sinners" in the Church's eyes.
Homosexuals are good people and there would be no reason to delve further into the issue.
And so, I think we can all agree that there are and were and perhaps have always been homosexual priests in the Catholic Church. My point is that what
was a safe harbor for men with what most of us now consider normal adult sexualities also became a haven for damaged deviants. This was the
aforementioned "splintering" fo the priesthood. I don't have to elaborate here on how pedophiles take advantage of situations. We can all agree
that the daily settings of the Catholic Church were fertile for child predation by adults in power.
And so the pedophile scandals have recently hit the headlines in a big splash. The long string of cover-ups come out. There is still a lot of
confusion over alternative sexualities as you likely agree. Perhaps not in your mind but in society at large. What Donohue is doing here is playing on
that confusion. Donohue and his Vatican controllers (some likely pedophiles themselves) know that many of the faithful still lump anything other than
heterosexuality into the "deviant pool". And so now here he is throwing the homosexual priests to the wolves. And insinuating that abused children
wanted these sexual encounters with adults. And so the issue is morphed from there are pedophiles in the Church into the Church has been infiltrated
by homosexuals and the victims were accepting sinners.. And this rings true with simple minds as I mentioned before, parishioners might have already
suspected their mild-mannered padre of being homosexual. Thus the blame is spread to the homosexual community at large and the now grown victims
rather than confined to the Catholic institution that spawned a pedophile haven. It's twisted indeed and that is the card they are playing to save
face and remain solvent. And should any authority get tough with the Church you will see Donohue waving the old "the Church does so much more good
for the world" flag. I can see it coming.
Now, another of my opinions. One of the main reasons the pedophilia scandals took this long to surface. Homosexuals have been in the Church for
centuries. My opinion, I wasn't there! They have climbed into the hierarchy. Cardinals, bishops and perhaps popes. Why wouldn't they? What I think
protected the pedophiles was that they, the pedophiles, knew the sexualities and histories of the men around them and above them. They heard
confessions after all. They knew the Church's official stance on the subject of homosexuality and how the faithful might react if homosexual priests
were outed. How likely is it that back in the 60's, homosexuals in the Church would fear being publicly outed when a pedophile priest was being
brought to justice? They all heard each others confessions. Don't you think the situation was ripe for blackmail? "If you hand me over to the
authorities I'll tell all!"
We now see the evidence that the Church wanted these deviants to go quietly and that backs my premise. I don't doubt that some of these creeps
threatened to bring down the whole house of cards if surrendered to justice. Thus, the Church was likely held captive by the large percentage of
homosexuality among it's priests. And that was because the then sexually naive and uneducated public, and the Church had much to do with that, could
not discern between the sexual desires of two consenting adults and the psychological desires of a predator. The Church has always screwed with
people's minds and sexualities and perhaps that is finally going to bite them in their asses. Bill Donohue's mind-controlled ass would be a good one
to start with. Let us pray!