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.”
Comments
Post a Comment