In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

I *heart* Mass

Jill

Because they *heart* marriage equality.

The Catholic Church? Not so much. They’re preoccupied with their homo witch-hunt, apparently looking to oust anyone with deviant tendencies from the priesthood after the well-publicized child sex abuse scandal. Nevermind, of course, that attraction to children and homosexuality are two very different things, and the disproportionate number of boys being molested likely speaks more towards access than proclivity. The Church is potentially even getting rid of the gays who haven’t been sexually active for more than a decade (or ever). Which is interesting, given that the Church requires gays to live “chaste” lives. So what about the whole “love the sinner, hate the sin” thing? Not applicable anymore, I guess.

3 thoughts on I *heart* Mass

  1. I just knew that when the Massachusetts anti-marriage amendment came up for its second vote, it would fail, because now everyone can see that same-sex marriage is a good thing.

    They’re preoccuppied with their homo witch-hunt, apparently looking to oust anyone with deviant tendancies from the priesthood after the well-publicized child sex abuse scandal.

    Fewer Catholic priests isn’t a bad thing, IMO.

  2. Unfortunately the failure of the amendment isn’t as wonderful as it seems. Part of the reason it failed was it was crafted as a compromise and after Reilly oked the 2008 amendment (which is in no way a compromise) both sides backed away leaving the fight for 2008. Everyone’s now gearing up for a long, painful fight in the media over this issue and I’m not sure I have faith in the Massachusetts people to be strong enough and kind enough to overcome the homophobia spread by the church.

    My point is that while I’m glad the legislature did the right thing yesterday I’m still very much afraid.

  3. To remind the Church that it teaches that homosexual inclination is not sinful is a fair criticism. However, the comment that “attraction to children” is not related to homosexuality reflects ignorance about the nature of the sex abuse scandal in the Church. Very few of the cases involved pedophilia; most involved teenage boys. It is virtually incontestable that the widespread “gay culture” that settled into seminaries in the 1960s and 1970s was a culture that saw sex between grown men and teenage boys in a permissive light and that this, in turn, is the reason that the relationships between priests and teenage boys were as common as they were. There was no analogous problem with heterosexual priests and teenage girls. The claim that this was due to “lack of access” is absurd. Priests typically meet young people in co-ed settings — youth groups, Catholic schools, etc. If you are serious about not allowing a recurrence of what caused the scandal, it is critical that that that cause — gay culture in the seminaries — be rooted out. That is why the Church is doing what it is doing now. Again, however, I agree that it is going too far if it expels a priest who is in fact celibate based solely on sexual orientation.

Comments are currently closed.