I’m confused.
Wasn’t one of the biggest scandals in the recent history of the Catholic Church the cover-up of an epidemic of molestation of young boys by priests?
What I’m confused about is why there has been virtually no mention of this scandal in the context of recent reporting about Pope Francis’ proclamation about homosexual priests.
Instead, there has been jubilation.
It was front-page news everywhere.
Yet, I am hard-pressed to find even one mention in any of these reports of the massive scandal that cost the church prestige, moral standing and hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits.
Just to refresh your memory, while talking to the press aboard his plane returning to the Vatican from his visit to Brazil Monday, the pope was asked what he thought about “gay” priests who aren’t sexually active. His response: “Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord? You can’t marginalize these people.”
While it was a somewhat ambiguous question and a more ambiguous answer, what’s most troubling to me is the complete silence of the press on the matter of the molestations. By definition, only homosexual priests would even be inclined to molest boys.
Instead, the pope’s remarks were reported as some kind of triumphant breakthrough in the Catholic Church.
I don’t think it was.
What the pope clearly said is that he cannot judge any “person of goodwill who seeks the Lord.” But this is where things get a little dicey.
I suspect most priests who molest boys are not people of goodwill who are sincerely seeking the Lord. I also suspect most of the homosexual priests who molested boys took an oath of abstinence. They not only broke their oath but the trust of the church and the law.
How did the church respond all too often? By transferring those priests to other venues and covering up their crimes.
Why no follow-up?
Because the press is an integral part of the cultural amen chorus for the homosexual political agenda.
The molestation scandal, which, by definition, was a homosexual scandal of epic proportions, wasn’t even an afterthought for the major media. It was like it never happened.
While the scandal was unfolding, the major media focused on the hypocrisy of the church – namely its condemnation of homosexual acts but its cover-up of homosexual rape. But all that was forgotten when the pope said a few words that were welcome by the press – namely that he is in no position to marginalize homosexual priests who are not sexually active.
Here’s the problem: To become a priest, one must pledge to be sexually inactive.
Color me puzzled.
While I concur with the pope that homosexual inclinations alone are not to be judged, clearly the Bible and church doctrine condemns all overt sexual acts by priests. Wasn’t this a great opportunity for the pope to make that distinction clear?
He did not. In fact, he wasn’t even asked about it.
Neither was the background of the scandals reported by any major press outlet.
It was as if it was irrelevant. Is it?
I don’t think so.
It’s also worth noting that Pope Benedict XVI formally prohibited men believed to have “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from entering the priesthood. Pope Francis’ brief comments don’t necessarily suggest a change in approach, but, again, they were a little ambiguous.
How are “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” to be judged?
Are they only judged when they are acted upon?
Again, how did the church act during the reign of sexual abuse that lasted decades?
These are a just a few of the questions the press ignored in its glee to report that the new pope took what the media believed to be a more progressive stance on homosexuality.
The pope denied there is a “gay lobby” inside the Vatican. But it’s undeniable that there is one inside the press.
|
|
