What the Sex Abuse Scandals Reveal About Catholicism

Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Two Lovers (1850)
Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Two Lovers (1850)
Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Two Lovers (1850)
Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Two Lovers (1850)

A lot of people are pointing to the recent sex abuse scandals (the McCarrick scandal and the Pennsylvania grand jury report) as proof that Catholicism is false. In at least one important regard, though, these scandals prove just the opposite.

I. The Unintended Silver Lining

Suppose there was a group claiming that chewing tobacco caused mouth cancer (this was once a controversial claim, after all). Now suppose it was revealed that several executives of this company were regular chewers, and that this fact was revealed only years later when it was clear that they had, in fact, contracted mouth cancer.

That would surely reveal some unhappy things about those executives – they would be exposed as hypocrites, and people would reasonably wonder whether or not THEY believed their own message. But it would also, ironically, lend support to the group’s message. After all, they warned against the dangers of chewing tobacco, and when these warnings were ignored within their own ranks, the dire consequences came true.

The Church has been waging a losing battle with most of the rest of the world for some time on how seriously to take sex. The other side in this debate defends pornography, fornication, masturbation, sodomy, and sometimes even adultery on the grounds that “sex is no big deal.” The Huffington Post, in an entry aptly titled “Why Sex Is No Big Deal” makes the case this way:

Sex is certainly a worthy subject of inquiry, being arguably the most powerful socio-economic force in America. It drives the $600 billion fashion apparel business and the $50-billion cosmetic industry, as well as the huge, multifaceted entertainment industry, in which a single Hollywood film grossing less than $100 million is hardly worth making.

Sex makes millions for psychologists, lawyers, artists, pharmaceutical companies, and sex toy manufacturers. It provides a bully pulpit to politicians and pastors, to abortion rights activists, to LGBT advocates, and mental health workers. It sells toothpaste and tires, detergents and bathtubs, coffeepots, cars, and computers. Sex empowers lovers, grants couples pleasure and progeny, and is the most-often-cited cause of divorce. It teases and taunts, comforts and terrifies, and it holds our society in thrall.

It shouldn’t be this way, anthropologist Ava Mir-Ausziehen told the CatalysCon audience. “Sex isn’t some strange, ethereal construct. It’s as normal and necessary as eating and sleeping.” Mir-Ausziehen believes that “when we regard sex as something apart from the mundane, we’re causing anxiety, fear, and dysfunction.”

By this reasoning, the only thing we have to fear about sex is our fear about sex.

But the sexual abuse scandal proves that this isn’t true. The reason sex is such a powerful force (for good, for ill, and for capitalism) is that it’s something powerfully different than eating or sleeping. Adults regularly force children to eat and sleep when they don’t want to, whether it’s forcing them to eat their vegetables or to take a nap. Even in adulthood, you may find yourself forced to go to a business lunch when you’re not hungry, or to go to bed when you’re not tired (although in adulthood, it’s usually being forced to be awake when we’d rather be sleeping). There are even small physical invasions, like the formality of shaking hands even when you don’t want to.  These occurrences may be mildly obnoxious, and you might be annoyed for a little bit, but they’re soon forgotten. What you don’t have is trauma that shatters your life for decades, as we’ve seen with the victims of rape and sexual abuse.

I can hear now the objection that this is something fundamentally different – the molestation of a child is on a whole different scale than consensual sex between adults. Understood. But the severity of rape and molestation point to something important — and something that we’ve spent a long time denying as a culture — about the unique power and importance of sexuality. The Church’s argument for sexual restriction isn’t because sex is dirty or evil. It’s because it’s sacred and powerful. As the Gospel Coalition’s Ray Ortlund puts it, “Sex is like fire. In the fireplace, it keeps us warm. Outside the fireplace, it burns the house down.” Or as this XKCD comic reminds us, the people who want sex to be simple repeatedly forget that people are complicated:

II. The Pedophilia Connection

It’s worth remembering that it was EXACTLY this “sex is no big deal” mentality that helped to fuel the sex abuse crisis. A great many of the cases now coming to light involve abuse that occurred in the 1970s and 80s, at a time in which there was a concerted push to normalize pedophilia – particularly as a wing of the gay rights movement. The BBC recounts the shocking history (focusing, of course, on the events in Britain):

The Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties – now Liberty – in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But how did pro-paedophile campaigners operate so openly?

A gay rights conference backs a motion in favour of paedophilia. The story is written up by a national newspaper as “Child-lovers win fight for role in Gay Lib”.

It sounds like a nightmarish plotline from dystopian fiction. But this happened in the UK. The conference took place in Sheffield and the newspaper was the Guardian. The year was 1975. [….]

PIE was formed in 1974. It campaigned for “children’s sexuality”. It wanted the government to axe or lower the age of consent. It offered support to adults “in legal difficulties concerning sexual acts with consenting ‘under age’ partners”. The real aim was to normalise sex with children.

Journalist Christian Wolmar remembers their tactics. “They didn’t emphasise that this was 50-year-old men wanting to have sex with five-year-olds. They presented it as the sexual liberation of children, that children should have the right to sex,” he says.

It’s an ideology that seems chilling now. But PIE managed to gain support from some professional bodies and progressive groups. It received invitations from student unions, won sympathetic media coverage and found academics willing to push its message.

One of PIE’s leaders openly boasted to newspapers that “I am a paedophile. I am attracted to boys from about 10, 11, and 12 years of age. I may have had sexual relations with children, but it would be unwise to say,” and yet “on at least two occasions the Campaign for Homosexual Equality conference passed motions in PIE’s favour.” The National Council for Civil Liberties argued that “childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult result in no identifiable damage.”  This was nowhere near as fringe as you may be imagining: the NCCL was headed by Harriet Harman, who went on to become Labour Party Chair, and Leader of the House of Commons.

Such claims were not limited to Britain or to the 1970s and 80s. In 2009, Germaine Greer (“Australia’s most famous feminist” and “one of the godmothers of second-wave feminism“) responded to a case of lesbian child molestation by a teacher by saying, “I’m supposed to think that falling in love with people under the legal age of consent is evidence of deep perversion and vileness, but I don’t.” She explained further that “in Shakespeare’s play of star-crossed love, we are told repeatedly that Juliet is 14. We don’t know how old Romeo is. There’s nothing to say he isn’t 27.”

In America, figures like Allen Ginsberg and Harry Hay (“one of the most important and influential activists in the history of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual (LGBT) movements”) were open supporters and advocates for the pedophilic North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), and NAMBLA remained an official part of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) until 1993, when conservatives (led by Jesse Helms) used the NAMBLA-ILGA connection to have ILGA’s consultative status on the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) revoked. At the heart of this advocacy for pedophilia is the repeated claim that it’s harmless sex, nothing more than a rite of passage – particularly for homosexuals. As Harry Hay explained, “if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.” By this logic, as long as the children or teenagers think that they want the sexual encounter, they’re consenting, and their molester is doing them a favor.

As late as 2000, we find Vanderbilt’s Robert Ehman (and even later, the psychologist Bruce Rind) arguing that “the case for a causal connection between a child’s sex with an adult and psychological harm is at best inconclusive, and that “much of the harm from pedophilia arises from the negative social reaction to it,” which “provides an argument against pedophilia only when it cannot be successfully concealed from public view.” In other words, if you cover up the pedophilia, nobody gets hurt.

These days, that argument doesn’t fly. Any movement – even on the radical left – to normalize pedophilia is over, and Vice Magazine is left asking, Whatever Happened to NAMBLA? Mary Eberstadt has argued convincingly that “what happened” was the Catholic sex abuse scandals:

First, the scandals made clear that one point was no longer in dispute: The sexual abuse of the young leaves real and lasting scars. In the years before the scandals, as the foregoing examples and many others show, a number of writers contested exactly that. Today, however, thanks to a great many victims testifying otherwise in the course of the priest scandals—it’s hard to imagine them daring to do the same.

All those grown men breaking down on camera as they looked back on their childhood, describing in heartrending testimony what it meant to be robbed of their innocence: It will take a long time to wipe such powerful images from the public mind again. At least for now, no one would dare declare that the victims had gotten what was coming to them, or that they had somehow asked for it, or that seduction by an adult wasn’t as bad as all that—three notions that were most definitely making the rounds before the scandals broke. Moreover, that the vast majority of victims were male—81 percent, according to the definitive study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice—proved a particularly potent antidote to the poison about boys that had been circulating earlier.

But these conclusions can’t be confined to cases of pedophilia or statutory rape. You cannot credibly claim that sex between an adult and a teenager is life-shattering the day before the kid’s 18th birthday, and harmless fun the day after.

Nor, if you do treat the 18th birthday like magic, can you avoid minimizing the abuse of adult victims. One of the accusations against now-Archbishop McCarrick is that he made his seminarians share a bed with him, wherein he would sexually harass them. If sex between adults is just like eating or sleeping, it’s hard to see (a) how McCarrick can be blamed for ignoring his promise of celibacy – after all, you can’t expect a man to go without eating or sleeping!; and (b) how the seminarians could be considered victims (or at least, any more than employees or subordinates who have to endure the triviality of an unpleasant work meal).

III. The Catholic Message vs. The Catholic Messengers

These abuse scandals discredit hundreds of Catholic priests (many of them now deceased), but it confirms what the Catholic Church has been claiming on sexual issues. None of this reduces the severity of the sins (and felonies) of which these rotten clerics are accused. It’s just to distinguish the message from the messengers. In Matthew 23:2-7, Jesus Christ warns,

The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men.

The Pharisees didn’t practice what they preached – they simply said the right things for public approval and to secure their social position. But it’s easy to overlook that Jesus instructs the crowds to “practice and observe whatever they tell you.” Just because someone’s a hypocrite, it doesn’t mean that they’re wrong.

So, too, the disgraceful hypocrisy of some Catholic priests and bishops doesn’t invalidate the message that they preached… even if they ignored the message themselves. And that message is an important one, one which I wish that they had listened to, both for their own and for their victims’ sake, So what is that message? It’s about what St. John Paul II called the “nuptial meaning of the body“:

The human body, with its sex, and its masculinity and femininity seen in the very mystery of creation, is not only a source of fruitfulness and procreation, as in the whole natural order. It includes right from the beginning the nuptial attribute, that is, the capacity of expressing love, that love in which the person becomes a gift and—by means of this gift—fulfills the meaning of his being and existence.

Sexuality is both powerful and inherently meaning-laden. That’s key to understanding the beauty and significance. Sex doesn’t just mean whatever we want it to mean, any more than we can turn a punch in the face into a friendly greeting. By the very action of giving yourself to another person sexually, you’re giving them all of yourself. If you understand this, you can see why the Church cares so much about making sure that people are only having sex within marriage – that is, that the inherent meaning of sexuality (total gift of yourself to the other person) matches the circumstances (a lifelong bond in which you have given yourselves to each other entirely).

The Catholic bishops and priests who caused so much harm, and wrecked so many lives didn’t cause that harm by living out the Gospel too much. The problem wasn’t that they were too Catholic. The problem is that they weren’t Catholic enough. They failed to live according to the teachings of the Church, and in many cases, seemingly didn’t even try. If they had practiced what they (or, at least, their Church) preached, the entire sexual abuse scandal would have been avoided. It’s a dark day for Catholics, but a day of vindication for Catholic teaching.

It’s a remarkable thing, if you think about it. When the whole world seemed (from the 1960s onwards) to want to treat sex as something merely recreational, something harmless (or, if harmful, only so because of public mores and shame). The Church kept on insisting, kept on proclaiming something very different, something that she wasn’t succeeding in persuading even some of her own ministers on, by the looks of things. But at the end of the day, the scandal shows that she was right to insist in claiming that sex is more powerful than we might expect or might desire. And if the Church is right on this, maybe she’s right on all of those other areas in which she proclaims something countercultural and unexpected, like that her Founder rose from the dead.

113 comments

  1. I had no idea about those groups promoting pedophilia. It all makes sense, but I sure wish I could unread and unknow some of that. So distressing!

  2. The sexual crimes committed by the sodomites were directed at adolescent males not prepubescent children.

    So, why take the media line that the crimes were pedophilic in nature, and not homosexual?

    Over 80% of the sexual crimes committed by perverted priests were committed against adolescent males ( post pubescent males, mainly in the 14-17 years old range) and not prepubescent children.

    One can not even begin to try and correct a serious problem if there is a refusal to identify it and the problem has been allowing sodomites into seminaries and then granting them Holy Orders.

    Sodomites can not have an authentic call to the priesthood as their sin is one crying to heaven for vengeance and sodomites are not only intrinsically disordered, they are fundamentally subversive and they will dutifully labor to undermine the rules, canons, moral praxis, orthodoxy etc that, correctly, condemns their disordered lust in any institution that accepts them.

    An institution is insane if it knowingly allows sodomites into its ranks and it is suicidal if it permits them or encourages them to enter into positions of authority.

    There are nine ways of being an accessory to another’s sin. Look at this list and try to identify the one not committed by the Catholic Hierarchy:

    1. by counsel
    2. by command
    3. by consent
    4. by provocation
    5. by praise or flattery
    6. by concealment
    7. by partaking
    8. by silence
    9. by the defense of the ill done

    It is widely known that the Popes have known abut the sexual crimes of sodomites committed against innocent adolescent males by Bishop and Priests but few know that certain Popes not only knew of the crimes but counseled suppressing knowledge of the crimes and counseled clamming-up about them and moving the criminal cleric to a different pasture where the parents of the innocent sheep were forbidden knowledge of the perverted priests and so allowed their innocent your adolescent males to be exposed to these monstrous wolves.

      1. Perhaps because women have become so strong and strident, easy as sex partners but difficult as friends? Humanae Vitae predicted it all just 50 years ago: July 29, 1968. McCarrick exposed: June 20, 2018.

        1. Your speculative question is very interesting, Margo. I would like to see a brave sociologist take it up and give it much further study.

    1. It does not matter what age that homosexuals have “sex”, it still wrong and evil. When a man abuses a child he is a sodo-mite.

  3. Dear Joe. Thank you for letting these two posts stand. ABS will not post anymore in this thread .There are important facts that are not being dealt with and the problem will not be solved unless the filth in the church is removed.

    Where is McCarrick?

    What has happened to the 300 page report about homosexuality inside the church that was given to Pope Benedict XVI?

    This is business as usual as the Homoheresy has been allowed to survive and thrive and one thing one can know with certainty – this Pope will not lift a finger because he has appointed known sodomites to position fo power in Rome.

    https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/02/fr-dariusz-okos-major-article-with-pope.html

    1. ABS,
      Thank you for the link. That report is in depth and comprehensive.

      What is the 300-page report on homosexuality to which you refer? Do you have a link to that too?

      1. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-us-nuncio-pope-francis-knew-of-mccarricks-misdeeds-repealed-sanction

        Pope Francis has the report and, predictably, chose not to act on it.

        Sadly. Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger quit rather than do his duty and he knowingly left the mess to his successor. He should have liaised McCarrick.

        Pope Francis will now have to resign. He has no other option.

        This is good news.

        The bad news is that his resignation will be offered as an excuse the problem is being solved. It isn’t.

        Every singe Diocese in the world must be forced – by a local Grand Jury – to open up its internal documents, come clean, and laicise the offending clerics.

        The Church can not be trusted

        1. ABS,
          “The Church can not be trusted” = interesting thought. It sounds very similar to this one: “I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other”. Where this mistrust led, it’s for everybody to see.

  4. I’ve read your blog for a very long time. First time I’ve posted a comment. I’ve no truck with your article here. I can only tell anyone that I’m absolutely not proud to be a catholic today. I probably won’t be tomorrow. I probably won’t be for a long time, if ever again. I used to be. I’m not leaving the church. This has happened decade after decade. Country after country. From the Vatican to the farthest reaches. The horror in Pennsylvania was instituted child grooming, a factory of sin and rape. The synod should’ve been cancelled. As a father of eight, it is unmitigated Gaul to allow them to mingle amongst all of those children. I do appreciate the nice, heartfelt “letter “ sent out to the press. I feel a great lifting of my despair.

    1. You don’t leave Christ because of Judas. We KNOW that the gates of HELL will not prevail against it. Stay and fight. If you were ever needed in the Church it is now. Do not abandon Christ when He needs you most.

      1. Excellent counsel Theresa!

        True Catholics are disciples of Jesus before all else, and Jesus already warned us of ‘wolves in sheep clothing’. Even if there are packs of wolves it makes no difference. We follow the words of Christ. And, we are grateful for any authentic shepherds that He provides us. Most people don’t have any idea of the spiritual combat that is, and has always, been present in the world. But even in the first pages of Genesis is this combat detailed: “I will put enmity between yours seed and her seed”.

        Keep teaching Theresa! Maybe people will listen and follow the ‘One True God and He whom He sent, Jesus Christ’…and enter into eternal life?

  5. A Lutheran minister told our Priest. “God help us if they ever open OUR can of worms”. I wonder how much has been hidden there never to be exposed because the bigots have convinced you and others that it is just a Catholic problem. Look up the report Educator sexual abuse by Carol Shankshaft. She was hired by the DOE to do it but they really did not like the results so it’s been largely buried. Schools are STILL passing the trash. Know any teachers you want to hate without any trial?

  6. From what I’ve read of the comments, it seems many brethren are like the Apostles in the boat with Jesus. They feared for their lives in that terrible storm, & cried out “Master, art thou unconcerned? We are sinking.” Jesus arose & said to the wind & the sea, “Peace, be still.” The wind calmed, & the sea became still. Jesus said to them, “Why are you faint-hearted? Have you still no faith?” Jesus is not asleep; I beg you to read the book ‘In Sinu Jesu’ & learn that God is way ahead of Satan, always.

    1. We Catholics know that but that does not mean one can ignore sexual criminals and those in the hierarchy who cover-up for them.

      ABS does not fear for his life but he does fear brethren like you who want to accuse others of lacking faith when they oppose sexual criminals and Popes who cover-up for them.

      Why are you so indifferent to the pain and suffering of the innocent victims of these evil criminals and those who succor them?

      1. The way I read Theresa’s post, she is offering solace to fellow Catholics in pain over this atrocity with the words of Christ in Scripture, ignoring neither the need for justice for both offenders and victims.

        You have essentially asked the no-answer question, “when did you stop beating your wife?”

        1. Dear AK. She used the justifiable fear of The Apostles back before the Resurrection when they were unaware that Jesus was God.

          That citation is not apt to this situation. We know God and we are not fearful for our lives but justifiably angry with the sexual criminals and the Church which has hidden them/protected them from prosecution.

          What is apt is Acts 5:1-5

          1. Hi ABS,

            At every Mass, we are reminded to partake of God’s grace through receipt of his Body and Blood, “Do this in memory of me.” We humans are pulled by the world, demons, and the clinging of the effects of original sin. We have faith, but that faith needs renewal, reinforcement, and reminding.

            Lucky are you who remind us just as Theresa has done in her post.

            I’m reading a book now. “The End of the Present World” (1881) authored by Fr. Chas. Arminjon (Sophia Institute Press). In it he speaks of the great apostasy, said to stem from great fear since the end times will be ruled by the Antichrist. The persecutions will be intense. How many of us could undergo martyrdom? It requires GREAT and SAINTLY faith. Blessed are those who have it. Please pray for all those who need more.

  7. Joe

    I came by today to read your thoughts and I’m glad you posted some. I’m deeply troubled by Vigano’s letter but thankful several US bishops, including mine, have publicly stated support for his call to investigation further stating his claims are credible and demand evaluation.

    Your words here do not disappoint. I’m teaching RCIA this year and have been struggling with how to address all this. The Matt 23 reference is perfect. Thank you. So much pain, confusion, distrust, animosity, fear, and betrayal. This chapter is far from over, but a sea of change is coming. In every expression of Western Civ one can sense its approach.

    Thanks for continuing to write here.

    Blessings

  8. “It’s worth remembering that it was EXACTLY this “sex is no big deal” mentality that helped to fuel the sex abuse crisis”

    This is disingenuous. No, it’s downright evil. You conflate consensual sex and acceptance of homosexually with raping children with anecdotes about NAMBLA.

    THE MOLESTERS ARE IN YOUR HOUSE. How dare you point the finger at others?

    The rapist in this case was not a free love hippy led astray by sexual mores, he was a cardinal.

    I can’t read the rest of this. The church needs to take responsibility rather than covering up and blaming the gays they’ve been attacking for decades, or the church needs to continue regressing into complete irrelevance.

  9. “it was EXACTLY this “sex is no big deal” mentality that helped to fuel the sex abuse crisis”

    Phil, this is a very true statement and the ‘free love hippies’ you refer to had EVERYTHING to do with fueling the sexual abuse crises. Your description of ‘FREE love’ says it all. Sex might be free, but raising children to adulthood is not free, and the effects of free, undisciplined, sex on society is huge. All generations of humanity have realized this fact since the beginning of time. And, as such, we have a world-wide institution of marriage extending throughout world history which has regulated family life and sex in a way that is designed to benefit society at large. But, in the 1950’s- 60’s your FREE LOVE HIPPIES did everything they could to destroy this world-wide institution of marriage ( and consequently ‘well ordered family life’)…thinking maybe that such strict societal customs were outdated, unnecessary, or suitable for the utopian world vision that they had (… and you probably still have).

    So, this blindness and lack of concern for regulating sex for the sake of healthy and stable family life, influenced even priests who were dedicated to celibacy to loosen up their morals regarding sex. They listened to the philosophies and lies of the FREE LOVE HIPPIES that you refer to, and some of these priests were able to thereby justify their perversion with hippy excuses. MAnd, then mix that FREE LOVE hippy philosophy with homosexuality and the problem is just compounded.

    So, yes, your ‘free love’ philosophy is, and was, the origin of the modern sexual crises problem in the Church. And the ancient customs of fidelity, marriage and happy family life are the solution. Moreover, men that cannot live chastely should opt out of the vocation of the priesthood…or resign if they are already ordained.

    1. You’re suggesting priests and cardinals who took a vow of chastity, and were actively preaching against the evils of sex, were led astray by free love hippies into raping children?

      Am I taking crazy pills here?

      Maybe the problem is how Joe framed it. Calling it “the sex abuse crisis” maybe allows you to pretend it’s a widespread societal problem affecting everyone.

      It isn’t.

      It’s that hundreds or thousands OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS raped children and then the rest of them evidently tried to pretend it didn’t happen.

      That is the problem. That is it.

      This is not a result of people having premarital sex more often. This is not a result of married couples having affairs. This is not a result of homosexuality becoming accepted in society. None of those people are priests who were raping children, none of those people were covering up for rapist priests.

      You may as well blame it on the moon landing.

      1. It absolutely is a widespread societal problem. However you choose to frame it, Phil. Also, no Catholics here in the comments nor Joe are saying we Catholics don’t have a problem in our house. On the contrary, we are demanding en masse for full investigation and house cleaning.

        #MeToo
        Hollywood and BBC paedophilia
        Rape culture
        Record cases of STDs
        Public School teachers and administrators

        AND YES

        The Roman Catholic Church (all in the news just this past week!)

        Sexual deviancy, sexual predators, and society’s overall attitude and approach to sex reveal a brokenness that must be addressed. That was the point of Joe’s post, and it should be a pursuit of all of who see the destroyed lives left in its wake.

        No one denies the concept of the slippery slope. Everyone acknowledges that it is a real thing. What people argue and fight about is its starting point. No one wants to acknowledge that their personal sacred cow can legitimately be another’s point of departure down a rabbit hole of tragedy.

        1. Well said. The only sex God permits for a healthy world and each individual is between a man and woman who are married to each other.

        2. “It absolutely is a widespread societal problem.”

          Priests raping kids and other priests covering it up (the topic here) is not a societal problem, that’s a church problem.

          “Sexual deviancy, sexual predators, and society’s overall attitude and approach to sex reveal a brokenness that must be addressed. That was the point of Joe’s post, and it should be a pursuit of all of who see the destroyed lives left in its wake.”

          No, the point of Joe’s post appears to have been shifting the blame from evil hypocrites in the church to innocent people who disagree about sex.

          “No one wants to acknowledge that their personal sacred cow can legitimately be another’s point of departure down a rabbit hole of tragedy.”

          That goes both ways: the secretive society of indoctrinated celibate men leading the Catholic church is their sacred cow, and they are insisting that this isn’t the reason for a lot of horrible acts the church has done.

          1. Phil, you wrote: “the secretive society of indoctrinated celibate men leading the Catholic church is their sacred cow, and they are insisting that this isn’t the reason for a lot of horrible acts the church has done.”

            The horrible acts by Catholic churchmen were predominantly committed against males, indicating that, yes, this is predominantly a homosexual problem.

          2. Walter

            “The horrible acts by Catholic churchmen were predominantly committed against males, indicating that, yes, this is predominantly a homosexual problem.”

            Joe is saying this is because of the sexual revolution and gay culture. This is nonsense. Most gay men are not raping children.

            This is a catholic church problem from start to finish. The problem is not gays.

          3. Phil, sometimes through the hemp-fog you get something right, though for the wrong reason.

            It IS A Catholic Church problem. It’s the same as if you have a cancerous tumor. Maybe you got that tumor because you smoke and drank and did PCP way too much. Whatever…you need to deal with the tumor – expunge it and all its metastasizing – before it kills you.

            Homosexual behavior is a tumor on society and the Church. Society has chosen to live with and normalize homosexual behavior, and there’ll be a price for that, just as there has been a price in societal dysfunction, broken homes, etc., with your “sexual revolution’ (duuude). The Catholic Church, however, doesn’t have to be part of that, and can and will purge this cancer. If in years past, homosexuals thought they had a safe haven in the cassock, they need to look elsewhere – there are all kinds of elsewhere’s for them today. The seminaries are already working to block men who have sex with men (MSM) candidates, and I would think, with Church having been burned, woe to the cleric nowadays who even sticks his pinky in the wrong direction. It’s going to be damn difficult to form those “secret societies” of under-radar MSMs banding together to practice their perversions and inflict them on the innocent. The laity are watching. Big Brother, right here.

            It’ll take time, but we have Matt 16:18 – y’know, that stuff written by clerics for clerics – on our side.

            Back to your bong. But before you do, suggest you do a little research on the stats regarding homosexuality – how much of it is related to severe dysfunction, disease, suicide, pedophilia, early death. Recent stats, not from “the bad old days” before homosexuality became a mandatory cultural fashion accessory.

            And then tell me, with a shred of honesty, “it’s all just fine…”

          4. AK,
            I wholeheartedly agree with your rebuttal of Phil’s arguments (or non-arguments, better said). Nevertheless, allow me a clarification. It almost seems that you are saying that the Church will not accept individuals with same-sex tendencies. I don’t believe you are saying it, but it seems that way. The Church accepts and embraces every individual, regardless of their sinful nature. As the US Conference of Catholic Bishops says, “While the Church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, she does distinguish between engaging in homosexual acts and having a homosexual inclination. While the former is always objectively sinful, the latter is not. To the extent that a homosexual tendency or inclination is not subject to one’s free will, one is not morally culpable for that tendency. Although one would be morally culpable if one were voluntarily to entertain homosexual temptations or to choose to act on them, simply having the tendency is not a sin. Consequently, the Church does not teach that the experience of homosexual attraction is in itself sinful”. I am sure that you know the difference; I am not equally certain that individuals like Phil can see it.

          5. @LLC

            You’re conflating who the church accepts (which itself could mean many things) with who the Bishops should and should not permit into seminary and later might ordain. The church/bishops can and should discriminate and the standards for ordination should be very high.

            Heck. The Army won’t let you serve if one of your feet is smaller than the other. Nor if you have a tendency to sever reactions to hay fever. Special Forces is even more discriminatory. JSOC even more so!

            I see nothing wrong with a church the refuses entry to seminary based on tendencies or revealed inclinations toward behavior. Regardless if said behavior ever manifests.

          6. LLC – I have great respect for you and your discoursing here, as a point.

            I understand your comment was about love, not acceptance nor normalizing of sinful behavior, especially in the seminaries and clergy. I agree with you.

            I do believe if Jesus came back today, as he was 2,000 years ago, he’d be seen around SF bathhouses and New York’s “Stonewall,” saying, “no, not interested in that, but for those of you who want to listen, I have something to say you might want to hear….”

            That’s not me…to bring the Word to that kind of hostile turf, my charism is elsewhere. But on my own turf, my Church, I will fight to bring it back to where it needs to be to serve as a clean and proper base of operations for souls those braver than I, who go into the lions den.

          7. DJ/AMDG,
            “I see nothing wrong with a church that refuses entry to seminary based on tendencies or revealed inclinations toward behavior” = I agree. Similarly, the Church has decided that (as a general rule) a married man cannot become a priest. I did not mean to imply that the Church doesn’t have the right to discern. My comment was about acceptance at a wider level. Thank you for the chance to clarify my post (read twice, post once…).

          8. Homosexuals and their allies infiltrated the Church to spread their perversion. This includes people who want sex all times and for any reason.

      2. Phil,
        “Calling it “the sex abuse crisis” maybe allows you to pretend it’s a widespread societal problem affecting everyone. It isn’t” = factually incorrect. Please visit the database of the Megan’s Law, and see how many sex offenders (convicted) live around your domicile, and how many of them are priest.
        “It’s that hundreds or thousands OF CATHOLIC PRIESTS raped children and then the rest of them evidently tried to pretend it didn’t happen” = factually incorrect. Even in the case of the highly faulted Pennsylvania report, less than 300 priests (out of more than 5000 who actually served in the Dioceses during the time covered by the report) were accused (accused, not convicted) of sex crimes.
        “This is not a result of people having premarital sex more often. This is not a result of married couples having affairs. This is not a result of homosexuality becoming accepted in society” = Please read JH’s post again: “I can hear now the objection that this is something fundamentally different – the molestation of a child is on a whole different scale than consensual sex between adults. Understood. But the severity of rape and molestation point to something important — and something that we’ve spent a long time denying as a culture — about the unique power and importance of sexuality. The Church’s argument for sexual restriction isn’t because sex is dirty or evil. It’s because it’s sacred and powerful”. If you negate this idea, if you claim that sex is just a natural act that doesn’t have any other meaning other than in itself, any (any) behavior involving it becomes equally acceptable.

        1. How many of the megan’s law sex offenders had help escaping justice from the Catholic church exactly?

          This specific instance Joe is talking about is absolutely not something that can be blamed on anything other than the Catholic church.

          ” Even in the case of the highly faulted Pennsylvania report, less than 300 priests (out of more than 5000 who actually served in the Dioceses during the time covered by the report) were accused (accused, not convicted) of sex crimes.”

          You’re really making the argument “Only around 5% of the priests in one place were accused of raping children?”

          The issue is it happened at all, was covered up by many more in the church, and now excuses are being made to pretend it’s essentially everyone else’s fault.

          “If you negate this idea, if you claim that sex is just a natural act that doesn’t have any other meaning other than in itself, any (any) behavior involving it becomes equally acceptable.”

          I did read up to that point and that’s about where I couldn’t stomach any further.

          It’s a ridiculous argument, and the disclaimer “I know there’s a difference BUT” is disingenious.

          Turning “Preists raped children and higher officials covered it up” is absolutely not an illustration of anything other than arrogance, evil, and corruption within the church.

          It has ****ing nothing to do with the sexual revolution or “the power of sex.”

          1. Phil,
            “You’re really making the argument “Only around 5% of the priests in one place were accused of raping children?” = No. I just recused your incorrect facts. The crimes committed by some priests stand, but your arguments do not.

          2. It appears that a culture grew in the priesthood where gay sex was permitted within it. This drew large numbers of gay men into the priesthood. As an institution, the percent of gays was well above any other. They protected one another even as they moved up the hierarchy. Alter boys and seminarians were convenient victims. When it’s an alter boy, it gives some the appearance of pedophelia when it’s not.

          3. Bill, conspiracy theory tone aside, what does that have to do with anything? This is still not something that can be blamed on homosexuality being accepted, this is still the Catholic Church failing.

          4. LLC, so bottom line it for me, you’re saying it’s not a big deal or what?

            I don’t know what you mean about “your arguments don’t stand.” Priests were raping kids and more were covering it up, that’s just facts.

          5. Phil,
            “LLC, so bottom line it for me, you’re saying it’s not a big deal or what?” = no. Bottom line is that your arguments are factually incorrect. Nobody here has ever said that these sex crimes “are not a big deal”, but dismissing the societal changes that caused it is disingenuous and doesn’t help addressing it.

          6. LLC

            I’m saying Joe is trying to blame others for the sins the church has committed.

            Me saying “hundreds or thousands of priests” and you pointing out that it was merely -potentially- hundreds in one city doesn’t make that “factually wrong.”

            “the societal changes that caused it” is exactly the type of blame dodging that I’m arguing is going on here.

            You’ve proven my argument is factually correct.

          7. Phil,
            “Me saying “hundreds or thousands of priests” and you pointing out that it was merely -potentially- hundreds in one city doesn’t make that “factually wrong.” = please do not add misleading words to my posts.
            Firstly, it’s not one city, it’s six Dioceses.
            Secondly, it’s not “potentially”, nor “merely”. As already indicated, nobody here has any trouble admitting that there have been sex crimes committed by priests, the gravity of these crimes, and that the guilty -proven guilty, no simply accused- ones must pay.
            Finally, “I’m saying Joe is trying to blame others for the sins the church has committed” is incorrect. JH is not shifting the blame. He is simply arguing that this issue is deeply rooted in societal changes. Not admitting it is, again, disingenuous and doesn’t help addressing its consequences.

      3. And those “priests” (which were homosexuals/gays) infiltrated the Church to perform gay acts on those children. You need to accept that gays are evil.

  10. @Phil. Why must it be one or the other? I think it’s both AND more. That’s the spirit of the op. The problem is deeper than just one characteristization. If we fail as a church to understand all the causes we will fail to successfully root out the evil in such a way to eliminate it (for a time; history tells us fighting corruption is a never ending battle when humans are involved). Additionally, if we deny a related cause simply because naming it for what it is goes against the societal grain, we become “of the world,” not just in it.

    1. It’s fine for the church to have whatever opinions it wants on sex (though their opinions tend to become imposed on the rest of us legally which is not).

      But more specific to this post, the effective message here was to shift the conversation and blame from the church which allowed children to be raped, and instead shift it to others. Specifically gays, liberals, and I’m assuming abortion was in there after I stopped reading.

      1. “Specifically gays, liberals, and I’m assuming abortion…

        No, we all understand it was anthropogenic climate change (the latest incarnation of anthropogenic global warming or cooling or whatever) that caused clerics to abuse children then cover it up.

      2. Then you denied the truth that were sodo-mites (gays) who abused those kids. And you are just as guilty as those men who sexualy assaulted young boys.

  11. With the goal of preventing any more sexual abuse of children, what potential intervention strategies have been proposed? This is clearly much more than a catholic issue (google denny child sex abuse protestant to find a 2018 research study, or search in other societal domains to understand the broad scope). Can we petition the screen writers organization to begin including messaging of respect for human dignity in TV? How to change our culture?

    1. This is more than child abuse. This is men having sex with boys as well as other men/priests/semenarians. These are men who have a same sex attraction that take advantage of younger males and are active sexually and not celibate. This is what the hierarchy nurtured and protected.

  12. I lived most of my life in San Francisco, CA. I had a small service business there also for about 20 years, and had countless gays as clients whom I treated exactly the same as all my other customers. And, in all that time I really tried to figure out what made the gays ‘tick’, that is, why they were the way they were. But, in the end I couldn’t figure it out, and still can’t. But I have always been kind and patient with them, and still am.

    And, I think the Church might have the same problem as I, that is, trying to understand the mystery of same sex attraction. Because, without understanding it ….how is it possible make judgements regarding it? And the Church, I think, maybe has been as mystified as I was(and still am), even after decades of analyzing it. And, so, the Church seems to have generally taken an open and merciful view of it, trying not to be too judgmental with something that is very difficult to understand. And also, in practice, it seems to have in practice given the benefit of the ‘doubt’ in favor of allowing gay seminarian’s and religious, even though there have been various Church teachings (i.e.. catechism and papal pronouncements) on the subject going back decades.

    The way I see it, is that the guidelines already written by the Church, and even by Pope Francis himself, should be strictly adhered to, and that same sex vocations must be scrutinized very carefully before allowing the candidate to the priesthood or religious/monastic life.

    The entire history of monasticism can teach us some lessons on this. That is, it is widely known that monks and nuns have communities that are separate from each other, and this is specifically for the purpose of reducing sexual temptation, and occasion of sin, amongst the same religious monks and nuns. Even though they be heterosexual, they still can have powerful temptations regarding purity (and their their vows of celibacy), and so, to guard against this the sexes have traditionally been separated from each other in their respective vocations. The lives of the saints and Desert Fathers have countless stories and counsels regarding this. And, even in the time of St. Augustine(400AD) many churches throughout the world separated their congregations during their holy liturgies, with the men p[laced on the right sides of the churches and the women located on the left; and for the same purpose of reducing the occasion of sexual temptation amongst the congregants attending the Mass.

    Now, regarding same sex attraction, this wise separation of the sexes for religious purposes gets very confusing. For instance, If gays back in the early centuries were naturally attracted to men, then they really ought to have been located on the left sides of the churches at Mass with the women, and for the very same purpose of reducing temptation amongst them. But than again, this would confuse many of the women that they were in proximity with, because of the inability to distinguish a male biological appearance of a gay man, with the same male biological appearance of a straight man. And so, this would make the separation of the sexes during the liturgies absurd and useless. And, the same applies to monasteries. It seems that those who are attracted to the same sex, should be with the opposite sex…so, gay men should be in women’s convents and lesbians should be in mens monasteries; as this would lessen their occasion to sin.

    In short, this is a real conundrum for the Church, as there doesn’t seem to be a simple solution for safeguarding the traditional values of sexual purity and celibacy in the Church when it comes to same sex attracted priests,monks and nuns. Where are they to go? If they enter monasteries where they themselves will not be subject to temptation, they themselves will be an object of temptation to the many others of in the same monastery because they still have the physical characteristics of the opposite sex.

    So, this is also a problem with gays who want to enter seminaries. They are living in the midst of the very people that can cause them the most temptation against their vows of celibacy. And for this, I think the Church is correct in not allowing such candidates for the priesthood, or religious life, those who have strong inclinations or past physical practices of homosexuality. It would be easier for them to regulate a life of purity in the secular world where they can tailor their lives according to their spiritual needs as God Himself directs them.

    1. This comment was reasoned excellently. Thank you for your compassion and understanding. Your comforting tone was evident in your writing, which is a valuable criteria in back and forth on this issue. If possible, please comment similarly on other articles on this topic. I am in agreement with you and try to express our viewpoint lovingly to the gay people in my family, friendships and coworkers.

      1. Thanks Bill. Your comments on this site are also a pleasure to read.

        Best to you always in the Lord, and keep up the good faith.

        – Al

    2. “And, in all that time I really tried to figure out what made the gays ‘tick’, that is, why they were the way they were. But, in the end I couldn’t figure it out, and still can’t. But I have always been kind and patient with them, and still am.

      And, I think the Church might have the same problem as I, that is, trying to understand the mystery of same sex attraction. Because, without understanding it ….how is it possible make judgements regarding it?”

      They could include gay people in their community by accepting gay marriage.

      Telling them who they are is sinful and the love they feel isn’t real is a great way of driving them away and never being able to understand them on any level. So is excluding them from any leadership roles in the church.

      The KKK is unable to understand anything about black people or the outrage over cops murdering their children because the KKK of course excludes black people.

      “And, so, the Church seems to have generally taken an open and merciful view of it, trying not to be too judgmental with something that is very difficult to understand. ”

      The church actively lobbied government to keep gay marriage illegal, denying a legal right to millions of them. That’s goes beyond judgemental and into the actively attacking territory.

      I think I know why you failed to understand gay people: because you didn’t actually try, you were biased against them from the start and never went in with a goal of anything other than “they’re evil.”

      “monks and nuns have communities that are separate from each other, and this is specifically for the purpose of reducing sexual temptation”

      And the reason the rest of society doesn’t is because we’ve realized that men and women are actually pretty good at being able to control themselves. The church assumes if people are around people they’re naturally attracted to, they’ll be unable to keep their clothes on. That’s projection: celibate priests may have that problem, normal people do not.

      1. “They could include gay people in their community by accepting gay marriage.”

        Except that this would contradict the teachings Christ, found both in the sacred tradition of the Church and in the Sacred Scriptures also, wherein Jesus taught His Church:

        “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” (Matt. 28:18)

        Can you find anywhere in the History of Israel, or the teachings of Christ Himself, or in the History of the Church that Jesus founded …a teaching that promotes homosexual sex or gay marriage? If so, please provide the sources. And, if Jesus did not teach it, then it is not right for the Holy Church to teach it either, as it is not part of the Gospel message that was to be proclaimed as mandated by Christ in the quote above. Surely, if it were part of the Gospel message mean’t to be taught throughout the world, Jesus would have mentioned it when He was teaching in Israel 1985 years ago…and consequently the Church would then be teaching it also. But this was not the case, even though homosexuality was very common in the Greco Roman world at the time.

        So, it’s not good to teach Christians that it is good to promote doctrines not revealed by Christ Himself.

        1. Hey Al – if I remember my “Gospel according to, like, Phil,” Scripture is “just a book created by clergy for clergy.” So it can be changed at will, to, y’know, like, meet the standards of the times. Or just discarded.

          Barring that, you are spot on. More, not only are these doctrines “not revealed” by Christ, but sexual perversion and normal (yes, you read right, Phil – “normal”) activity outside of marriage is actively denounced by the Scripture documenting both Old and New Covenants.

          Leave it to Antifa Phil to use the KKK analog. What an ironic joke. The infiltrating, offending Satanic elements that have invaded the Church and turned too much of it into a play-den of perverts are more like SF bathhouse clientele than a Grand Kleagle Chapter meeting. Hopefully to be cleansed and purged from the seminaries up.

          1. AK, you’re mad at me using a metaphor comparing one aspect of the church’s psychology to the KKK.

            You’re being intentionally homophobic too.

            If you were alive in Jesus’ day, you’d be lining up to throw rocks at Mary Magdalene.

            Your religion is based on love for God and your neighbor, and you’re more interested in attacking your neighbor under God’s name.

            Do you even care that your church is raping children?

          2. “Do you even care that your church is raping children?”

            Phil,

            If someone steals and cashes one of your checks by means of forging your signature, it is called banking fraud and you are not liable to the bank for the fraudulently stolen money by the forger. In the Catholic faith, our souls can be compared to the the check and the ‘signature’ is the marking, or impression, of God Himself on our souls in the Person of the Holy Spirit. If someone claims to have the signature of God, but is actually forging that signature through art and craftiness, he is a fraud. And Jesus warned of these future frauds and counterfeiters under the term “wolves in sheep clothing”.

            What’s the biggest problem concerning fraudulent signatures? It’s that it is often extremely difficult to distinguish a true signature from the false, and sometimes even a graphologist is needed to distinguish such artful crooks.

            This happens in the Church also, and now the Church is investigating all of the fraudulent and counterfeit activity that is going on in it’s midst.

            If a bishop’s ability to spot a counterfeit signature or distinguish a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ is lacking, then he really shouldn’t be in the business of performing these functions for the Church. It’s not that he himself is a criminal, but that he is a poor, lazy, or careless, ‘graphologist’. But, even as in any banking fraud case, there needs to bean investigation so as to NOT accuse innocent people of a crime they didn’t do. And this is what is happening now in the Church.

            Hopefully, the Church will invent a means of confirming authentic, God verified ‘signatures’, when finding bishops for the sheepfold…even as banks do with chip imbedded ATM cards. This way, counterfeit activity is much more difficult.

            This is also to say, that screening at seminaries is extremely important, so as to catch any crooks/frauds/counterfeiters early, while they are still mere tellers…and before they become the managers at the bank (as was, unfortunately….”Uncle Ted” McCarrick).

          3. Your bank fraud comparison assumes the bank is not on the side of the fraudsters.

            In this case the catholic church hierarchy WAS covering up the rapes.

            And now that it’s coming out, catholics appear to be blaming someone else, anyone else, everyone else.

            And that is why there will continue to be more rapists within the church coming forward, because the problem will not stop no matter how hard the church goes in rooting out the gays: the problem is the church itself and the church itself won’t even admit it.

        2. “Can you find anywhere in the History of Israel, or the teachings of Christ Himself, or in the History of the Church that Jesus founded …a teaching that promotes homosexual sex or gay marriage?”

          Sure, just as soon as you provide a quote promoting tattoos which are also banned in Leviticus yet are not a big deal for the church.

          Or for being rich. IIRC Jesus pretty explicitly calls them out yet I don’t see the church banning wealthy people.

          Or this gem “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” You’re saying there’s no seal of approval for gay people in the bible so the church should continue excluding them, but you’re not asking where the seal of approval for anyone else is why?

          You don’t get to pick one thing and say you’re just following orders while ignoring the others you don’t like as much. There are clear double standards here that have nothing to do with what is written or not written in the bible. If you hate gay people, say you hate gay people, don’t pretend it’s because Jesus because it clearly is not.

          1. “as soon as you provide a quote promoting tattoos which are also banned in Leviticus yet are not a big deal for the church.”

            Phil, many of the regulations of the Pharisaic laws such as eating pork, tattoos, ritual washings, etc…were done away with during the First Council of Jerusalem (during the ‘Judaiser’ controversies in the 1st century AD) and detailed in the Acts of the Apostles. But the Ten Commandments of Moses were never abrogated, and on the contrary were mandated by Jesus when He said:

            “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

            and also,

            “And he saith to them: So are you also without knowledge? understand you not that every thing from without, entering into a man cannot defile him: Because it entereth not into his heart, but goeth into the belly, and goeth out into the privy, purging all meats? But he said that the things which come out from a man, they defile a man.
            For from within out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and defile a man.” (Mark 7:18)

            So, sodomy would probably fall under the classification of ‘fornication’, above, and which a multitude of heterosexuals in our modern times are also guilty of. Moreover, Jesus’ first gospel message to his disciples was to repent of their many sinful (i.e…adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit…) ways:

            “Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying: The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand: REPENT, and believe the gospel.” (Mark 1:14)

          2. Phil, Phil…good afternoon to you too!

            Hate? Mon frere, au contraire…in a life beset with tortuous ennui, due to the boring nature of endless winning under the Trump administration, your occasional shambling emergences out of the cheap-weed fog provide welcome entertaining respite….

            “Homophobic!” Is that a word? In case of “yes,” you forgot to include it’s mandatory adjuncts, “misogynist” and the BIG ONE…”Racist.” The three go together like P-B-J.

            Is there such thing as a “Catholicophobe?” Better yet, let’s Greekify it “kato-holikos-phobos.” That’d be….well, you. Not that I am judging…..

            Phil, the Scriptural scholar….that’s why I look forward to your visits. Context, Phil….you secular-types love to quote Leviticus. How come you haven’t asked me if I wear polycotton cloth or eat shellfish?

            The difference, Phil, is rooted in a concept called “moral law” (natural law if you’ve ever heard of a fella named Aquinas). Put down the bong and look at those Levitical laws you love to quote. The Levitical laws were imposed by Moses in part as a sorta ‘boot camp’ on the Israelites, after they fell into paganism even after la the miracles of the Exodus. Like any boot camp these were designed to train and orient to a purpose, in this case, the Israelites so they might be worthy to bring forth the Redeemer. Since you’ve read them in detail sufficiently to be comfy quoting them in a discourse, I’ll ask, have you noticed a difference between any of them? Huh? I’ll save you the trouble. The Levitical laws are a combination of ceremonial and moral laws. The moral laws are roughly grouped together in Leviticus 18 and 20. Note the verbiage in 18 – abomination, perversion, defilement – and the corresponding penalties for 10-16 – death for the sexual offenses. Ceremonial laws garner a host of other penalties short of death, most often exile or being “cut off.” Levitical moral law, as opposed to the ceremonial laws that went out the window for Christians in the New Covenant, corresponds with the concept of mortal sin described in Catechism 1849-1876…and the penalty for unrepented mortal sin is still death, the death of the soul. Note particularly, for the purposes of our discussion, Leviticus 20:13.

            Biblical history is a continuum, Phil. Scriptural cherry-picking in a crowd like this will get you philosophically and theologically, flayed.

            So….no, no one here judges…God does the judging. We follow the rules He set. Out of love for the most important portion of any human, that which lives eternally. Your degraded parody of love says ‘do what thou wilt…’ and damn eternity. Not doing them any favors.

            If Jesus disdained wealthy people he would not have had Joseph of Arimathea as a friend. Jesus disdained not wealth, nor people, but the propensity of people, any people to focus on wealth and the things of this world so that for them, the entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven became as small as “the eye of a needle.”

            Did I miss anything? Oh yes…do I care that some in My church are raping children? Of course! Which is why I want the abominable ones, the sodomites, purged so this will stop, and never recur. We’re working on it, from the seminaries on up.

            I suppose if I were in that crowd 2,000 years ago, and were a devout Jew, I might’ve had a rock in my hand. But then again, I have no reason to believe I would not have reacted as did the rest to the words that began “…let he who is without sin…’ And that context thingy again….remember what Jesus said as Mary of Magdala prepared to leave….”go, and sin no more…”

            Phil would have said “no such thing as sin, hon…next time…..don’t get caught…put ’em in the air and have a good time (wink, nudge)”

          3. AK, You appear to be accusing me of smoking pot. This is odd, given that I don’t, smoking pot is legal and ethical, and you guys are raping kids and blaming someone else.

            “Scriptural cherry-picking in a crowd like this will get you philosophically and theologically, flayed.”

            If you put down your pipe, you’ll realize I was pointing out that’s you’re doing with the “gays are bad” bit.

            “If Jesus disdained wealthy people he would not have had Joseph of Arimathea as a friend. Jesus disdained not wealth, nor people, but the propensity of people, any people to focus on wealth and the things of this world so that for them, the entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven became as small as “the eye of a needle.”

            You’re picking the parts of the bible you like (“Boo gay people”) ignoring the parts that are obviously nonsense (“ceremonial and moral laws are tattoos so that doesn’t matter”) and explaining away the parts you don’t like (“When jesus said give away your material posessions what he REALLY meant was something else because he was friends with some rich people!”)

            RE rock throwing you’re giving a pass to the holy church of enabling children rape and instead are twisting it as the fault of the gays.

            If I’m “Catholicophobe” its because people like you have turned it from a simple truth of love your neighbor and God into “The gays are always the problem: the men of the church are never to be questioned, those who disagree are to be mocked now that we can’t chop their heads off anymore.”

            And also because they’re literally raping kids.

          4. Phil, I have been to this rodeo before.

            You can’t do but repeat the same thing over-and over.

            I addressed every one of your points and you just keep on keepin’ on. Obviously you have nowhere else to go but there. Persistent drug usage will do that to your cognition.

            As for your ‘raping kids’ as a Catholic institutional dogma, which you seem to imply, whatever will twinkies like you say when that culture is as dead as the abuse of indulgences or as Pope Alexander VI, his mistress Giulia, and his Borgia children? I am sure you are selective in your indignation being a good little lefty…I have little doubt the daily reports of kids being abused in public schools and pedophilia in Hollywood – to name a few – escape your notice. You’re a “Catholicophobe” because you like being that way, and no—other–reason.

            So cram your indignation back into your bong, or wherever it fits.

          5. “You can’t do but repeat the same thing over-and over.”

            Indeed, it seems no matter how many times I point out “gay marriage didn’t cause priests and cardinals to rape children or to cover it up,” it’s not sinking in.

            “whatever will twinkies like you say when that culture is as dead as the abuse of indulgences or as Pope Alexander VI, his mistress Giulia, and his Borgia children?”

            Really? Your defense here is “Hundreds of years from now, priests raping children will be ancient history so who cares?”

            I’m saying the church appears to be doubling down on insisting the problem is the gays. Not that they hired pedophiles and then repeatedly avoided addressing the problem to protect their marketing brand. There are still priests raping kids today, there will still be priests raping kids for years to come.

            All because the church has decided to cater to the crusty old trump crowd rather than re-examine whether hating the gays is really consistent with Jesus’ message, the same way they decided tattoos weren’t actually bad.

            “I am sure you are selective in your indignation being a good little lefty…I have little doubt the daily reports of kids being abused in public schools and pedophilia in Hollywood – to name a few – escape your notice.”

            “Everyone rapes kids from time to time and I bet you don’t make a big deal about it” in other words. In fact I do, but Hollywood actors haven’t taken a vow of chastity nor do they imagine they speak for God, consequently they rape children less, and they don’t have a powerful international institution covering up for them. So it’s less of a problem. In the sciences, there is rampant sexism and cover ups for powerful men doing it, and I am trying to help change that. If you’re going to accuse me of hypocrisy on (checks notes) calling out the rape of children, then please try harder.

            “You’re a “Catholicophobe” because you like being that way, and no—other–reason.”

            Again, your people are raping children and pretending it’s the gays fault. I don’t like turning my back on the faith I was brought up in, but it’s clearly run for and by senile geezers more interested in attacking outsiders than addressing their own problems and loving their neighbors.

          6. Phil:

            You keep putting quotes around both your own words and mine. Having trouble understand the concept?

            “Really? Your defense here is “Hundreds of years from now, priests raping children will be ancient history so who cares?”

            An instance of you quoting yourself. I never said that. Try hard, read slowly. What I said was, the people of the Church are as fallen as any other humans, and subject to Satanic influence to maximize the effect of human weakness. In this case, in this century, the “fallen” is almost 100% in the guise of virulent predatory homosexuals – people you seem to like – and the Church is rooting them out. When the problem is limited not to institutions, but ones and twos that are immediately turned over to law enforcement – in your lifetime, Phil – about what are you going to whine? That Church properties are too big? That thoughts are thought are thoughts a la’ Esalen-Institute-think? Again?

            “I’m saying the church appears to be doubling down on insisting the problem is the gays. ”

            I am sorry for you that you are so pathologically attached to the disorder of homosexuality, that you can’t see its dangers. There’s therapy for that.

            “There are still priests raping kids today, there will still be priests raping kids for years to come.”

            Probably. Welcome to the fallen world. Just like your fellow hippie Manson’s will be slaughtering innocents, and fellow sexual revolutionaries like Keith Maniere will be branding vulnerable women on the genitals and making them sex slaves – with the help of other women. The difference is, the Church will not cover anymore, because the lesson has been learned, and they will be laicized and go to jail. The self protecting rings of vicious poofta predators in cassocks will have been Big Brother’ed by an aware Church, broken up, forced out or deep underground, unreplenished by purified seminaries, to die out snarling and unsatisfied on their way to hell. New queers will see no opportunity for themselves in Holy Orders taken in vain, confining their disorder to other venues. Hollywood calls.

            “In the sciences, there is rampant sexism and cover ups for powerful men doing it, and I am trying to help change that.”

            Let me touch my forehead to the carpet in supplication at your self-professed heroism. I am sure you have the ear of the National Science Foundation (do you supply their weed?) But the Church, trying to change from the laity up, gets no credit from Your Cheech-ship. What were you saying about hypocrisy?

            “I don’t like turning my back on the faith I was brought up in, …”

            My a$$. You turned your back on Catholicism because it was incompatible with your past-openly proclaimed sex-and-drugs (old) hippie culture, and you use anything – anything – again by your past posts, to attack it, undoubtedly out of self-tortured guilt, trying to justify your poor life choices.

            …”by senile geezers ”

            My maximum daily requirement of iron(y)……

          7. “All because the church has decided to cater to the crusty old trump crowd rather than re-examine whether hating the gays is really consistent with Jesus’ message, the same way they decided tattoos weren’t actually bad.”

            I think the determination ceremonial Levitical laws no longer applied to the New Covenant was made a bit before 2016….try the Council Of Jerusalem. You can read about it in Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15. Book written by old clergy geezers for old clergy geezers, your sorta-quote. If you have a problem with Trump, I recommend therapy. Maybe screaming at the moon every 20 January.

            As for “hating gays”…did you read what has been written all through this thread, about loving the one who sins, without accpeting the sin? You really do have a comprehension issue, don’t you? Such vision problems usually are from an excess of blinding…wait for it…

            ..hatred. Look in a mirror. And fix yourself before you try to fix Catholicism.

          8. ” and they don’t have a powerful international institution covering up for them. ”

            Wonder how did Harvey Weinstein – and others – got away with their depredations as long as they did? See the little item awhile back about NBC spiking Ronan Farrow’s expository piece on Harv? That’s just ne example of same-same. But then again, he was just a good sexual revolutionary, properly enjoying his rape-a-Catholic-schoolgirl fantasy on Annabella Sciorra, and all is A-OK because Harv is on the proper side of the political fence. Gun control and all that. Phil approves.

    3. The only thing we need to understand is that God told us that homosexuality is evil. If you have a homosexual friend you need to take him to a faithful bishop who truly believes and is holy, so they can excorize the demon from him.

  13. As part of his ecumenical activities, ABS has been in contact with the Reverends Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton and they will all meet in Saint Peter’s Square early in October and march in circles chanting

    Hey, Hey, Ho Ho
    Vigano is right. Francs must go.

  14. This is a great point!

    “The reason sex is such a powerful force (for good, for ill, and for capitalism) is that it’s something powerfully different than eating or sleeping. Adults regularly force children to eat and sleep when they don’t want to, whether it’s forcing them to eat their vegetables or to take a nap. Even in adulthood, you may find yourself forced to go to a business lunch when you’re not hungry, or to go to bed when you’re not tired (although in adulthood, it’s usually being forced to be awake when we’d rather be sleeping). There are even small physical invasions, like the formality of shaking hands even when you don’t want to. These occurrences may be mildly obnoxious, and you might be annoyed for a little bit, but they’re soon forgotten. What you don’t have is trauma that shatters your life for decades, as we’ve seen with the victims of rape and sexual abuse.”

      1. The Papacy, aka Popery, isn’t shameful, anymore than is the Presidency. Especially since the papacy was established by an authority a bit higher than the Continental Congress.

        This will pass. I say stand your ground and leave the name as it is, for what my vote is worth.

          1. Up to you.

            If you’re new here, a disclaimer – there isn’t a regular here who doesn’t know all-llll about Alexander VI and his like.

            Those of us who spent time in nuclear weapons employment planning liked to say, with follow-on attacks and detonations, comes a point where all you’re doing is bouncing around the rubble.

        1. Hi AK,

          Your point is well taken. But Bill’s is too. The Pope’s behavior has shown itself shameful to many of us if not to him. This is OUR church, OUR MOTHER.

          Connotations change over time. Is today’s connotation (of popery) more to the man or more to the office? Is it more to Catholic doctrine, ceremonies, practices, and government or more to (the man in) the office?

          Some thinkers, scholars, commenters are beginning to refer to this time of paradigmatic shift. Some see Vigano’s accusations as some see Luther’s theses.

          Time tells. In the meantime,

          Dictionary.com defines popery as a [disparaging] noun:
          “the Roman Catholic Church, especially its doctrines, ceremonies, and system of government.”

          Oxford Dictionary:
          NOUN
          derogatory
          archaic
          the doctrines, practices, and ceremonies associated with the Pope or the papal system; Roman Catholicism.

          In other news, PF gives China the power to choose Catholic bishops. What next? This child goes to Latin High tomorrow, and I’m choosing not to honor my stewardship pledge to my parish. No more diocesan funds for seminarians. The picture of the Pope and his U.S. delegation laughing, with the St. Joseph statue on the table was a bit too much for me yesterday.

          1. Margo:

            Margo…I hear you.

            If the men in that picture really are evil, that reflects on them, not the Christ who ordained his Church…or His Church. Don’t need to tell *especially* you that, but it bears repeating.

            Would love to chat offline…if you want to take me up on getting my email from Joe, I look forward to hearing from you.

  15. After participating last night in a Holy hour of reparation, lead by very holy priests, followed by my awe this morning as wonderful Holy priests consecrated bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus for us, following the commandments of Jesus, and aware that every day, the Catholic Church feeds, provides health care, and educates more people than any other institution, and after re-reading the promise of Jesus that the hell will not prevail against His Church, reading this blog is very confusing. Why don’t we all trust Jesus? Why not imitate Him? Why not ask and pray for His guidance on how each of us can help? Maybe over-turning tables is our calling, but the bible records Jesus praying far more than over-turning tables. Do we more efficiently make progress toward loving everyone as God loves us through bitter discourse or through constructive discourse and brainstorming (with the Holy Spirit) toward effective interventions? The Pennsylvania grand jury report states that the interventions applied by the Catholic Church following the 2004 John Jay report appear to have been effective, as only 2 of the 1000+ cases they report happened after the John Jay report. Maybe we can learn from the success of those interventions how to prevent further abuse of humans wherever it occurs? How many of us would recommend to anyone that they abandon their biologic family because one or more family members made some very bad mistakes? Is it not better to help restore health to the family? Should we not do the same when the family is the Body of Christ? I pray that we can start from the beauty and love that forms the heart and truth of the Catholic Church – and work from this core to healing the deep wounds that we all feel.

    1. No one is talking of abandoning their family except you, I believe. I DID talk about our father’s behavior toward our mother, and our children seeing that. Yes, it is good to restore health to the family. Through prayer yes, with God’s help, it may be done. In the meantime, what else does one do? Stand above, aloof and aloft of those who in need of more faith and charity?

    2. Lucky you, to be living through such a great and wonderful time of healing with the very holy priests at your Holy hour of reparation. I sense the peace you received as a result of that. Sorry that my moans and groans upset your little apple cart. I’m sorry I misspoke (I realized today that I was writing on the wrong forum!) Thanks for allowing me a share in your insights and consolations.

  16. One of G.D. Rossetti’s androgynous sketches is a peculiar choice for a piece about pederasts in the clergy.

    The author certainly waxed long and lyrical, but what more is needed than this: “But whosoever shall cause one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, better for him that a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea, for offences must come, but woe to him by whom they should come.”

    Now, does that mean that priestly pederasts have only to go to confession on Friday and ask their peers to “absolve” them? If their fellow priests can forgive their sins, then presumably they’re “good” until next Friday? “Oh dear, fell off the wagon onto one of the altar boys again; oh well, we’ll get that struck off on Friday for a few Hail Marys, and then we’ll see how it goes the week after that…”

    Whatever awaits such people in the hereafter, if it is so terrible that Christ said it would better for them to die rather than commit such sins, I personally doubt that a few incantations in the confessional are going to suffice. No, they had better flee, better cut off their “right hands” or whatever other parts of their anatomy may be involved, lest their whole bodies be dragged down into Hell. That is, if you believe what Christ said?

    Or was Christ just speaking about people who aren’t Roman Catholics and don’t have that “get out of Hell free card”?

    I wonder.

    1. An act of contrition is said by the confessor before he leaves the confessional. “I FIRMLY resolve, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to AMEND my life. Amen.” It is therefore necessary in the mind of God, for the confessor to be sincere, for the confession to be valid and for the sin to be forgiven.

  17. People who point to the sex abuse scandals as proof that Catholicism is false are being, well, immensely stupid. It’s like me pointing my city’s public school district (which is currently going through its own sex abuse scandal) and saying that education is a sham.

    1. Why would anyone want to be American because, y’know, slavery, the Trail of Tears, the Ludlow Massacre, Wounded Knee, My Lai…etc etc etc….but we just keep on keepin’ on, hoping and working or that More Perfect Union…..

      St. Francis de Sales said something about humanity’s struggling pursuit of the divine, ending only when the earth is shoveled on us….

  18. I just watched the video of the pope being interviewed on his flight back from Ireland where he dodges the fact the he covered up and re-appointed that pederastic cardinal of Washington or whatever he was, McCarrick?. Mumbling and bumbling, but at least no weird satanic horns hand signals or bizarre peeping through looped fingers…what the heck was that all about my “shameless” friends? Is there a simple, rational explanation for a pontiff doing that sort of thing? Just trying to be hip was he? Or the hand stuck in the coat like Bonaparte? I won’t spoil it for you; you can look that one up for yourselves.

    “When ordained a priest, the first child he baptized, he later committed sexual abuse against that boy,” noted Murray. “He abused a seminarian at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in the sacristy; He lied to the American bishops about the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger and said the exact opposite of what the letter said.”

    McCarrick’s influence on Pope Francis

    “The hard facts we know after 2013 are these,” said Robert Royal, “that somehow McCarrick began to play a role in this papacy.”

    “It seems very clear he played a role in getting … Cardinal Cupich appointed in Chicago and Cardinal Tobin appointed in Newark because of some influence somewhere,” said Robert Royal.

    Royal also pointed out that three years after Viganò claims he informed Pope Francis about McCarrick, the Pope sent McCarrick as an envoy to negotiate with China.

    McCarrick was also “instrumental in the election of Jorge Bergoglio as Pope, noted Arroyo, suggesting that McCarrick lobbied for his friend, then an Argentine Cardinal, sensing this might provide a path to release from the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him.

    It’s clear as day what the problem is: the problem is the delusion that the mandate Christ gave to St. Peter, but strangely failed to say would be extended to his “successors” for ever and ever amen, allows priests to play God and pre-empt the judgement of the Almighty. A more blasphemous and ridiculous presumption would be hard to find, but of course it was so very flattering to mortal pride and so very lucrative to sell, rent or lease that the temptation proved irresistible. And now, like other ridiculous and blasphemous presumptions, has been spouted for so long that no one seems to have the courage to speak the truth, or perhaps even face it, since to do so would be, they think, so very bad for the “institution” they have built up. No matter that God is no more a respecter of our vain little edifices than he is of our so called-persons; no, no, some things are more important than mere truth, and besides we decide what is the truth!

    And if millstones would be preferable for those who cause the little ones to stumble, what will the fate of those who knowing what they do, allow them to keep doing it to more and more innocent victims?

    Time to cut off some parts before the whole body is dragged down into hell?

    1. And if millstones would be preferable for those who cause the little ones to stumble, what will the fate of those who knowing what they do, allow them to keep doing it to more and more innocent victims?” > What are you Refomistas going to do when Catholic Church child protection programs, widely viewed now as model for such ventures, and hierarchically (oh that word) mandated, reduce the abuse rate to virtual zero, while those paragons of individual responsibility/accountability, and private ‘terpretashun (“we decide what is the truth!”), Reformed Parsters, are still diddling their flocks?

      Don’t cut yourself too badly, y’hear?

  19. There is no “if” about it, unless one doubts the words of Christ.

    What exactly is a “reformista” again? I’m not up to date on ecclesiastical slang.

    I’m afraid I known nothing about whatever mechanism the Roman church has purportedly put in place, except that they are long overdue and likely to be more smoke than fire. But you had a wonderful ambassador in Cardinal McSomething, or so the media thought. Until he turned out to be a pedophile himself. A very convincing liar apparently. I’ll bet you an indulgence or two that other pedophiles will swiftly step forward as protectors of children – it’s the best way to get access and avoid suspicion no doubt. Watch for that maybe?

    Perhaps the pope hasn’t heard of all the big new changes, as he fumbled and stumbled over the questions about McSomething’s behaviour, and then there was some shambling mush about some clerics in Spain and how the media ought not to try them and forgiveness and all that. Oh, forgive, forgive! What a pity the Roman church wasn’t so forgiving in past centuries – we might all be Roman Catholics yet!

    Anyway, it really makes little difference what church such predators belong to, they are all going somewhere very unpleasant indeed. If they could only keep that certainty before their minds, they might be less inclined to commit the crimes they do.

    1. McSomething and the large powerful group of men who infiltrated the Church are not pedophiles. They are gay men who have sodomy with each other, young seminarians, and the “grooming” of boys into their disordered behaviors. The Pope appears to be one of them, sadly.

    2. “McCarrick was also “instrumental in the election of Jorge Bergoglio as Pope, noted Arroyo, suggesting that McCarrick lobbied for his friend, then an Argentine Cardinal, sensing this might provide a path to release from the sanctions that Pope Benedict had imposed on him.” > indeed, a violation of Canon law. And like ancient Israel, the Church pays for the error and sin of her stewards. I believe you are sad and living proof of that. But she endures.

  20. “you understand this, you can see why the Church cares so much about making sure that people are only having sex within marriage”

    This is about the 20th catholic post on the internet I’ve read about the utter Horror, debauchery, and unprecedented wickedness of the Acts of *supposed Shepherds of THE True Church. You know, the church whose leadership is so superior, in fact the Only true leadership, because some special succession has been magically passed on,…. shepherds so legitimate because they have all the real doctrines and teachings…

    and it produced what?

    I have only read a single post in which the person unbiasedly conveyed the scope of these crimes, and that was a former protestant who went to you because your sooo legitimate, against people who put their faith in the righteousness of your church leaders. Every other one including this tries to minimize it, blame the world, or frames it with covert language to twist the readers minds.
    Like “Most are dead now”.

    “that’s why the church cares so much”… Just Wow

    It’s disgusting. Your clergy is dominated by homosexuals. They were enabled by virtually the entire church including laymen. Just these articles and posts by catholics show how pervasive your denial, bias, and self deception conspire to protect this narrative that you’re THE Church.

    Cover ups occur in every institution with the idea that… “yes, it’s terrible, but it would do more damage if it got out”. And Still continues even now as you all try and pretend it isn’t was it is.

    Christ has not been injured. Christians haven’t been injured. The Rcc has. But it doesn’t seem to even see it. When arrogance and self righteousness stop. When you finally come to terms with the fruit present through All the years. Perhaps your christians can receive the leadership the Lord demands. But if the lay people themselves reflect the utter joke I keep reading in their advocates blogs, websites, and media , why should anything ever change?

    1. Oh, my…another indignant Reformista crawls out of his bunker to fire up the generator for five minutes of keyboard time.

      Hey Baptard…got news for you….while you continue ignoring Matt 7:5, and pointing your gnarled finger at the Roman Catholic Church, you may want to take a little note of what yer very own Parster Diddle has been doing to his own flock. In numbers that likely exceed what has been going on in Catholicism.

      https://www.star-telegram.com/living/religion/article222576430.html

      https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article222576310.html

      The RC hierarchy that in part enabled this mess is going to to be the mechanism that reverses course and makes sure it never happens again. The Reformistas, having no cognizant central authority, will continue on and on and on with private interpretation of Scripture meaning it’s OK for me as the Holy Rollin’ Parster to slip my hand into little Janie or Johnny’s shorts, ….or be a Pastor Ted Haggard….or a Jim Jones…Jaybus tole’ me it’s OK…..

      You are nauseating….but we’ll pray for you.

      1. Why doesnt the flock of the Roman catholic church not just deal with this rather than being more angry with having to face it? I detect very little pain or anger for these poor innocent kids but lots of anger at those who it finally highlighted the issue. Namely the VICTIMS themselves, do you not stop to think about them? Stop deflecting about gays and protestants, try to keep this right on track. Most of the victims have suffered a lifetime of trauma from these peadophiles and bulling from the church. They have shown true guts to come forward and spill out a lifetime of shame so now is the time to get behind them and stop whinining!

  21. What is nauseating is the blasphemous presumption that being “ordained” as an RC priest gives you an automatic “get of hell free card” which you just have waver over each other after a little buggery or whatever your hobby may be, and “Bingo!”, it’s all forgiven…until we do it all again next week and then “Bingo…!” all over again.

    Oh, they don’t believe that you say? Oh, don’t they teach that the ex-officio acts and dispensations of the priest are unaffected by his personal conduct or faith?

    You tell us poor benighted “Protestants”.

    One thing I’ll tell you: this pope is going to rub your faces in your fallacies, he is going to drag you along with him through the mud, until your man-made doctrines make even greater fools of you, for all the world to see.

    Will a “right and property triumphalism” be enough to bandage the wounds I wonder?

  22. Have a listen to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm9mchnu0Vc

    And you will have the answer to the question.

    A celibate clergy? No, simply an unmarried clergy engaged in fornication of every kind, with a preference for pedophilia.

    And that’s what happens when the commandments of men become doctrines and doctrines are equated with the Word of God.

Leave a comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.