Ending the effeminate in the Church

By Augustinus

One of the possible good outcomes of the current sex abuse crisis in the world church is that large sectors of the church will awaken to the danger of distorted homosexual cliques in the church. There is nothing wrong with cliques in general and nothing wrong with homosexual cliques in particular. The danger for the church arises when these cliques pressure the church to change its doctrine in a way that betrays the deposit of truth given to us by Christ himself and his apostles. Only fools will claim that the current sex abuse crisis had nothing to do with homosexuals. The data speaks for itself. The vast majority of cases of abuse (of children or of adults) in every data-based investigation of the issue and spanning many decades into the past was man on boy or man on man. This data does not imply that homosexuality is intrinsically dis-ordered (it may be as the catechism claims but the abuse data is not conclusive in that regard). The data simply says that the current crisis was driven mostly by homosexuals in the catholic priesthood. Even if we adjust for the large percentages of homosexuals within the priesthood relative to the smaller percentages of straight men, the number of perpertrators who were homosexual is still disproportionately large. In short, the abuse crisis forces us to confront homosexuality in the priesthood AND the influence of homosexual cliques in the cover-up of the abuse.

If we can confront these cliques and dissolve their influence on doctrine and practice in the church we can end the effeminate in the Church.

Where-ever the forensic evidence ultimately leads (i.e. toward the cliques or not), an important question for the future of the church is a study of whether and how these homosexual cliques influenced theological and doctrinal pronouncement by the papacy and the magisterium. if historians find that some homosexual cliques resisted innovations in doctrine that would be interesting. Traditonalists may then be less inclined to sanction all homosexual priests or wannabe priests. After all there were and are homosexual priests who were not abusers and not enemies of the church. If on the other hand most or all of the identified cliques consistently advocated heretical innovations in doctrine and practice then wholesale anathemas and expulsions would be justified, particularly if members of the cliques did not adhere to the vow of celibacy at a rate exceeding that of non-homosexual priests.

My own hunch is that homosexual priests are largely orthodox and the race toward innovation in the church comes mostly from academic theologians who want to spout the latest fashions in academic thought. men, homosexual or not, who enter the priesthood tend not to push for changes in doctrine.

My impression is that priests with homosexual orientations were and are on the whole good men who did not and would not break the vow of celibacy –never mind abuse others. The actions of the cliques and the many homosexual priests who did abuse and who did trample their vows in the mud, have surely made the lives of their holy counterparts, who carry the affliction of homosexual orientation bravely, a living crucifixion these days. There has to be a priest somewhere who is homosexual in orientation -yet who does not act out this orientation due to the vows he has sworn and who loves and serves mother church faithfully day in and day out. The actions of the unfaithful priests has made the lives of faithful priests (both homosexual and straight) difficult to say the least.

Leave a Reply

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