Speaking of the Globe, they editorialize today on the parish closings. Typically, not one word is given to any spiritual realities involved in the closures. Also typically, the problem in their view is with the hierarchical structure of the Church. The editorial says, “It is disingenuous for O’Malley to claim that the closures and anticipated property sales are unrelated to that crisis.” No one will deny that attendance and giving dropped since the breaking of the Scandal, but the roots of the decline go all the way back to the 1960s. Even in 2001, parishes that were packed full on Sundays in 1980 were one-third empty.
I despise the Boston Globe – but I find this article to be credible. I do agree with the writer of the article that the $85 million dollars to be paid out for priestly pederasty could have been used (in the absence of the homosexual molestation holocaust in Boston) to shore up some of these parishes. And it is obvious to most that priestly vocations have declined dramatically over the past few decades (as the article points out) – at the same time that the priesthood in the Boston area became heavily homosexualized (to the extent that almost 100 priests in that area have now been accused of homosexual molestation). (And of course, one can be certain that a very high percentage of active homosexuals remains.) In short, the loss of priests from the scandal far outstripped the recent new vocations, and it should not be surprising that there were so few new vocations into a priesthood which was heavily infected with active sodomites (as well as with all sorts of liberal heterdox dissent from Church teachings). In short, the Boston area priesthood has been heavily damaged both by the scandal – as well as by what caused it. That certainly has played a big part in the closings of so many parishes this week.
If they didn’t have to pay the settlement, they wouldn’t have sold the property. And closing the parishes wasn’t just about debt, it was about having empty parishes in one place and overflowing parishes in places that people had moved to.
And can you cite evidence that a very high percentage of active homosexuals remain in the priesthood in Boston? You can make such sweeping assertions without evidence to back it up. Yes, there are some gay priests, but it is not as high percentage. Sinner, do you know anything about the Archdiocese of Boston other than what you read in the newspapers? Those of who live here have a different perspective.
Is anyone making the claim that homosexuals are somehow under-represented in the priesthood?
They are many independents reports that candidates for the priesthood who affirmed Catholic teaching on sexuality were systematically rejected for the priesthood.
Did those reports lose credibility all of sudden?
The point the Globe was making, Dom, was that if not for having to pay out $85 million for homosexual molestations, that money could have been spent to help revitalize declining parishes. That’s true. – On the homosexual thing – pederasty is always the overflow from an active homosexual population. In other words, let’s say that 1 out of 10 active homosexual priests cannot restrain themselves and turn to teenage boys. Then the number of active homosexuals would be 10 times the number of molestors. But let’s say I’m wrong. Let’s say 1 out of 4 active homosexuals turn to teenage boys. Then you would have four times the number of molestors who are active homosexuals. For lots of reasons (and with lots of reports and studies and so forth), I believe the number of homosexual molestors to be around 1 to 2 out of ten who are actively homosexual. Thus you can multiply the current crop of active molestor priests in Boston by five to ten to get the number of active homosexuals. – Also – we do know that the priesthood is one of the most homosexulized organizations in the country. You yourself suggest that 25% of priests are homosexual (with a higher percentage in special orders). I suspect the number is even higher. Further, surveys of priests show that the vast majority of those who are homosexual are active. Even if it’s conservatively 50% who are, then more than 1 out of 10 of ALL priests would be actively homosexual. (And given that 50% of all priests don’t believe sodomy to be a sin, at least 50% of that 25% of homosexual priests don’t believe – and are likely active). But bottom line – where there is abundant pederasty (such as in Boston, in McCormack’s shop in New Hampshire, in Huntington, Long Island, in Brooklyn, etc. etc. etc.), there is a much larger group of priests which are homosexually active. And c’mon – the bishops won’t even touch this one. Active homosexuality’s been going on for years in the priesthood – and nobody does anything about it. IN society as a whole, sodomy is now CELEBRATED everywhere in our kids’ lives, and barely one priest or bishop dares to say sodomy is a sin. (Cardinal Law didn’t; O’Malley won’t either, I’ll bet…) The Church is heavily homosexualized – with rampant active homosexuality – especially in places where lots and lots of priests have been caught pederasticizing… (And you can be sure that blackmail is common too.) Similarly, given that what four BISHOPS have been removed for pederasty, there is a large cohort of homosexually active bishops. Bottom line – this is why the Church is completely ineffectual in combatting the increasing sodomification of society – and why no sane parent will trust a priest or bishop with his/her son.