As I mentioned in my most recent post, we are on the eve of the Vatican summit on The Protection of Minors in the Church. My intention was to point out that the New York Times, concerned that the homosexual orientation will be blamed as the cause of the crisis, mounted an attack priestly celibacy. The Times suggests that celibacy is the cause of the current crisis in the Church, having previously championed abortion on demand, “gay marriage” and transgenderism in arguing that sex—in any way, with anyone—is the final expression of individual desire and personal self-actualization.
As I discussed in The Smoke of Satan, the big lie of the Sexual Revolution is that human beings must act on their sexual impulses, however they may manifest themselves. Not to do so wars against nature by “repressing” these urges, to the ultimate detriment of the person.
Post-McCarrick, with the lay faithful pleading that the the Holy Father and the Vatican do something about world-wide reports of homosexual sexual activity among a minority of priests, 80 percent of whose victims were male and post-pubescent, the Times threw down the gauntlet with front page piece, “‘It is not a closet. It is a cage.’ Gay Catholic Priests Speak Out”. The piece was an obvious attempt to drum up sympathy for priests with a homosexual orientation, fashioned as victims of a bigoted Church. Post-McCarrick, the Times bewailed that “widespread scapegoating has driven many priests deeper into the closet.”
As I wrote in my previous post, the Times disingenuously said “study after study shows that homosexuality is not a predictor of child molestation,” (it is a factor in predicting homosexual sex acts) citing the Jay Report in 2004 as evidence. What was not discussed was a November 2018 study by the Ruth Institute using the same data as the Jay Report, which showed “a strong correlation between the percentage of self-described homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood and the incidence of sexual abuse of minors by the clergy.”
With yet another piece, “The Catholic Church Is Breaking People’s Hearts,” what is one to conclude but that in publishing to defend the Sexual Revolution’s notion that the homosexual orientation is normal, it implies that celibacy is the cause of priests’ sinful behavior. The Times is pushing the Gay agenda, uninterested in discovering the real causes of sexual abuse by clergy (or anyone, for that matter)—a lack of holiness, which makes one more disposed to temptation, and a failure to properly integrate men’s sexuality within their lives. Thus, the sinful priests we read about, driven by their sexuality, and enabled (in some cases encouraged) by seminaries that formed men in accordance with the bankrupt dogmas of the Sexual Revolution rather than those of Jesus Christ, must bear the blame for the scandal facing the Church. Just study the case of Mr. McCarrick, the late Cardinal Keith O’Brien of Scotland, and Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee among others.
The New York Times will never do its homework here, as it knows that what turns up will give the lie to their agenda. As one sociologist who has done his homework has written, “[T]o people who hate the truth, the truth looks like hate.”