Tuesday, 4 April 2017

Vatican Approves ‘Transitory’ Gay Seminarians

The Vatican's new guidelines for seminarians is relaxing the rules on men with homosexual tendencies. While continuing to exclude from the seminary men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies," the new guidelines now allow in seminaries men with a "transitory problem" of "homosexual tendencies."
The document, titled "The Gift of the Priestly Vocation," was promulgated Thursday, December 8, by the Congregation for the Clergy. Paragraphs 199–200 reads,
[T]he Church ... cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.' ... Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem — for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. ... [S]uch tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
While the above quote is in keeping verbatim with a 2005 instruction from the Congregation for Catholic Education, it nevertheless contradicts the updated and more restrictive guidelines put out in 2008 by the same congregation titled "Guidelines for the use of Psychology in the Admission and Formation of Candidates for the Priesthood."
The 2008 guidelines direct seminaries to dismiss men who have not only "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" but also an "uncertain sexual identity." Of this latter group, the 2008 guidelines say their "path of formation will have to be interrupted."
But this isn't the case in the current manual on seminary formation just promulgated by the Congregation for the Clergy, which leaves such men in the seminary to work out their "transitory problem." Paragraph 200 of the manual says of these men, "Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate." 

The 2008 document, on the other hand, spoke of psychological deficiencies in seminarians, pointing out, "Such immaturity would include ... uncertain sexual identity; deep-seated homosexual tendencies; etc. If this should be the case, the path of formation will have to be interrupted."

It went on to list problems that "block the vocational journey," which include "a sexual identity that is confused or not yet well defined."

It also didn't allow conflicted seminarians to stay in formation to work out their psychological difficulties. "If it should be ascertained that the candidate needs therapy, this therapy should be carried out before he is admitted to the seminary or house of formation."

The Vatican emphasized in 2005 the dangers associated with ordaining homosexual men. Rome emphatically warned: "One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies." 

To see the danger one needs only look at the sex abuse scandal that has plagued the Church. According to official reports, the "pedophile scandal was really of homosexual scandal where approximately 80 percent of the victims were post-pubescent males.

One of the biggest lies of the sex abuse scandal is that "pedophile priests" were the culprits
In spite of the well-deserved acclaim received by the film "Spotlight," which highlights the Boston Globe's investigative work exposing the massive sex abuse cover-up in Boston under Cdl. Bernard Law, the film is not perfect. Namely, it exhibits a distinct discomfort in pointing fingers at homosexuality — the same discomfort exhibited in large part by the Church hierarchy, which, in spite of tough measures implemented after the sex abuse crisis, fails to look at the root cause: homosexual priests, and the gay-friendly bishops who protect them.
"Spotlight" deflects from the issue, one of its characters insisting in one scene, "This has nothing to do with homosexuality." The character claims the abuse happened to both boys and girls — and to drive home the point, "Spotlight" ends on a scene with a couple little girls waiting in a law firm conference room while their attorney, Mitchell Garabedian (played by Stanley Tucci), makes clear they are yet more abuse victims in need of help.
Statistically, though, girls are only a fraction of the victims in the Church sex abuse scandal. After the crisis revealed itself to be much bigger than Catholics ever knew, stretching far beyond Boston — to date at least 11 dioceses have declared bankruptcy within the past decade as a result of lawsuits (Duluth being the latest), with settlements totaling hundreds of millions of dollars — the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2002 commissioned a study to examine the root causes of the crisis. 
The National Review Board, recruiting a research team from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, released its initial report in 2004. The results were conclusive: This was not a "pedophile" scandal, but a homosexual scandal. Eighty percent of the alleged victims were male, and nearly 90 percent were post-pubescent, with "only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children." An updated report, issued in 2011, revealed similar numbers: 81 percent of sex abuse victims were boys, and 78 percent were post-pubescent.
Both findings put the lie to the oft-spoken claim that this was a "pedophile priest" scandal. 
Not Pedophilia, But Homosexuality
Pedophilia proper involves children under age 11; but the 2011 John Jay study showed the majority of abuse victims were adolescents and teens between ages 11 and 17 — a pathology more properly termed "ephebophilia." Even Newsweek acknowledged the distinction in 2002: "The great majority of cases now before the Church involve not pedophilia but 'ephebophilia,' an attraction to post-pubescent youths."
Not all are buying the phraseology, though. Author Mary Eberstadt, for instance, calls it a "pseudo-scientific distinction" that is "useless" in categorizing offenders. Some of the priestly sex abusers abused both young children and adolescents, and may also have had relations with adults. There was crossover — most notably in the case of Fr. Paul Shanley, one of the most notorious names in the Boston sex abuse cover-up. According to Eberstadt, Shanley was not a pedophile, but "a sexually active gay man with a taste for children and adolescents." Not only was he an active member of the gay community, often giving talks to Dignity USA as well as speaking on homosexuality in various seminaries, he and a gay priest co-owned a gay resort. Shanley was a homosexual before he was a pedophile.
The homosexual subculture has always involved sexual attraction to youths, and is a well-accepted part of the gay lifestyle. (The term "twink" denotes an adolescent sex partner, a common occurrence among active homosexuals.) And evidence shows homosexuals abuse children at far higher rates than heterosexuals. According to one study, "homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls." This bears out: Although homosexuals comprise only 1–3 percent of the entire population, they are committing up to 33 percent of all sex crimes against children. 
Establishment Church Denial
The Boston Globe's 2003 findings corroborate the link between homosexuality and priestly sex abuse. "Of the clergy sex abuse cases referred to prosecutors in Eastern Massachusetts, more than 90 percent involve male victims, and the most prominent Boston lawyers for alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse have said that about 95 percent of their clients are male."
But the establishment Church continues in its denial. The 2011 John Jay report itself refused to make the connection, writing off the high incidence of male abuse as no more than a matter of easy access; these priests simply "had opportunities to abuse (for example, unguarded access to minors)." Without addressing the real issue — homosexual priests — no real reform in the Church will ever take place. 
The Boston sex abuse scandal could not have happened without homosexual priests, a number of them fostered in its own archdiocese. It's a fact that a disproportionate number of sex abusers in Boston came from St. John's Seminary, a hotbed of gay activity. According to a Boston Herald report, "One student described an atmosphere of frequent experimentation. Gay students quickly identified each other ... and established networks that would last in some fashion until years after graduation and ordination into the priesthood."
A number of those same gay students went on to abuse boys in the archdiocese.
The USCCB initially acknowledged the problem of gay priests. In 2004, it declared that "80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature" and went on to affirm that "an understanding of the crisis is not possible" without referring to "the presence of homosexually oriented priests." Dr. Paul McHugh of Johns Hopkins, a member of the National Review Board, confirmed that the priestly sex abuse scandal was "homosexual predation on American Catholic youth."
But, as Fr. Regis Scanlon notes, "that warning soon disappeared from the public perception. The John Jay conclusions began to be explained as an 'environment' problem. This new interpretation was made official in a 2011 John Jay report, 'Causes and Context.'" That 2011 report characterized the problem not in terms of homosexuality, but rather as a result of stress, psychological difficulties, and greater access to boys. And the USCCB has apparently never contradicted this conclusion.
Gay-Friendly Bishops — The Problem
The problem is not simply homosexual priests — it's the bishops who protect and promote them, or at the very least tolerate them. Just a few examples suffice.
The case of Cdl. Bernard Law shows how one single bishop can be the cause of massive damage — to thousands of souls, and to the Church's credibility. Law spent decades shuffling around hundreds of predator priests in Boston, resulting in thousands of victims; it strains credulity to think he was unaware of those priests' sexual orientation, or that he was unfamiliar with the reputation of his seminary, which was churning out a number of these sex-abusing men to serve his diocese.
Over in Pittsburgh, we know then-Bishop Donald Wuerl allowed pro-gay Dignity Masses to continue for eight years under his watch (in not one but two parishes in his diocese). And in 1991 he allowed dissident New Ways Ministry (whose founder has since been censured by the Vatican) to offer a homosexual presentation on diocesan property. New Ways itself came into town carrying letters of recommendation from bishops in dioceses stretching from New York to California.
And in Detroit, Dignity flourished for 22 years under the protection of the archdiocese, whose priests took turns offering the gay liturgies. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton was supportive of the group (whose support continues to this day), while then-head of the archdiocese Cdl. Edmund Szoka did nothing to stop the gay Masses. His successor, Cdl. Adam Maida, denied the existence of Dignity Masses, but was forced to finally acknowledge them and put an end to them once they became a national scandal. Even so, Dignity continues its sacrilegious Masses in the archdiocese weekly at an independent Catholic college — all with the full knowledge of the current archbishop. 
It was Cdl. John Dearden, though, who laid the groundwork for all of this. He headed the Detroit archdiocese from 1958–1980, and used those two decades to implement his progressive reforms. It was Cdl. Dearden who spearheaded the dissident Call to Action conference in 1976, which promoted female ordination and questioned clerical celibacy. And it was under Dearden's watch that the local seminary — called "The Hothouse" for its rampant homosexuality — showed gay porn to seminarians. The administrator who sponsored the porn program, Kenneth Untener, went on to become bishop of the Saginaw diocese — with Dearden's support.
It was gay-friendly, dissident Dearden who became the first president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, now the USCCB — which to this day remains invested in maintaining the narrative that the sex abuse crisis had little to do with gay clergy and everything to do with a handful of deviant, child-molesting perverts unconnected to homosexuality.

Facts show that the reality is far different.


The above articles come from a right wing, homophobic site called Church Militant.

Everything they say comes with a health warning.

But they do raise important issues about:

Gay friendly bishops covering up for promiscuous priests and seminarians.

The role of homosexual orientation in the abuse of boys and young men by priests and seminarians.

All these topics need a thorough debate.


  1. You are the product of the sin friendly policy. A new chapter begins. Thank you.

  2. Its interesting this new policy - "tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate" Does this mean a seminarian can do 3 years messing around before he goes chaste?????

    1. No. It means he can do a lifetime's worth of messing around, followed by three years of going chaste. After that, who knows ...

  3. Bishop P., it might have been helpful had you cited the source (or sources) of these reports.

    They do sound, to me, dangerously homophobic, since they subliminally present all homosexuals as ephebophilic predators by definition of their sexuality. This is not, as far as I am aware, backed up by hard scientific evidence and should, therefore, not be allowed to pass unchallenged...if untrue. Are all gay men attracted to adolescent males? As a gay man yourself, Bishop P., can you answer this?

    Knowing the author's (or authors') identity might have enabled exposure of any previous history of homophobia and would, therefore, have called into question the reliability of these reports.

    LGBT people are often the object of vicious and physical homophobic violence and reports like these can, potentially, only make matters worse.

    As for those Vatican guidelines, the assumption here that homosexual tendency can be 'transitory' (in other words, 'a phase') is, I think, more old wive's tale than psychological fact; it shows up the Vatican's ignorance and prejudice on homosexual orientation. And it shows up, too, the hypocrisy of Pope Francis' apparently wise and compassionate comment on gay priests: 'Who am I to judge?'

    1. Church Militant?!! Says it all.

    2. Bishop P., it is important to note that the John Jay Report, cited above, had at least one, serious methodological flaw: its research data was supplied principally by Catholic dioceses in the U.S.. This data comprised only substantiated allegations against priests. So who knows how many unsubstantiated allegations there were, and whether they concerned males or females, pre- or post-pubesence. Who knows indeed? Well, the short answer, of course, is the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. These not only commissioned John Jay College to carry out the research, but controlled both the nature and amount of data it was to investigate. Moreover, some at least of these bishops were conservative and had been appointed by Pope John Paul 11. They would therefore, in all probability, have had a vested interest, like Pope John Paul himself, in protecting the, er, 'integrity' of the institutional Church.

  4. I am not keen on Church Militant. They are far too right wing for me. Donald Cozzens has a more balanced approach to the problem.

  5. Pope Francis and the rest of the Curia are all hypocrites when it comes to this issue. It's obvious to anyone the amount of gay Clerics that surround them day in and day out in the Vatican and yet they choose to turn a convenient "blind eye". The contradiction is that they publish shite like this to show they disapprove of such activity whilst It's going on behind their walls.

    A Dublin PP by the way has been in Rome to visit someone in the Irish College but to evade suspicions he didn't stay in the College. He chose The Grand Hotel de La Minerva and he wined and dined said Seminarian there. I couldn't afford a coffee in that place, it also happens to be next to Gammerili where certain garments were measured for and paid no doubt on the Parish credit card. Some things in Rome can never stay secret for too long and this came to me from a friend studying at the American College.

    1. If your source has such detailed information he must be close to the seminarian in question and has betrayed a confidence ? Or if such events are factual is maybe motivated by jealousy? In which case he is hardly a worthy candidate for the priesthood?

    2. Not sure what point you're making at 16:39? A Dublin PP went to Rome, stayed in a hotel and bought dinner for some seminarian. And your point is? Please elaborate.

  6. Sad to say based on what we see here the church is more about sex than it is about God. Sexuality can not be switched on and off. However abuse can be switched off and needs to stop

  7. +Pat, when men leave the priesthood what proportion of them leave and enter homosexual relationships as opposed to heterosexual? It was reported yesterday that Conan is now in a homosexual relationship so it got me thinking about the ratio....

    1. Conan is not a homosexual!

    2. Yes he is! Who are you kidding? LOL

    3. I imagine less than 25% may entere same sex relationships if they're lucky. The rest will just to be bars and toilets as per usual.

    4. 21.44 - make sure to go to confession, you anonymous coward!

    5. 10:13 - you are also an anonymous coward! I bet you are one of the seminarians that join him in the Kremlin on the weekends......


    6. 2144 & 1143 if you're so confident about your ridiculous accusations, stick your real name to them - log in, link to your Gmail/email (your real name mind you, not like 1143's cowardly attempt to hide behind someone else's name!)

      Also it's a criminal offence to publish defamatory or harassing comments online and to publish them under someone elses name.

      Check out psni.police.uk for further information.

  8. I disagree, Bishop Pat, with your query, '(what is) the role of homosexual orientation in the abuse of boys and young men by priests and seminarians. Does it have a causal role? Your query comes perilously close to accepting the sexuality itself as problematic (an 'intrinsic disorder') rather than pointing the finger of blame in such abuse at the abuser: the person himself, in other words.

    Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality predisposes anyone to such abuse: that is a decision a heterosexual or a homosexual makes for himself. He is not controlled to deviance by his orientation.

    There is a myth about heterosexual men that needs exploding: that they are never sexually interested in post-pubescent female youth. I watched an episode of the popular crime drama, Morse, a few years ago. Morse had been sent to an all-girls boarding school to investigate something or other. As he arrived, some of seniors (17 to 18 year olds) were playing hockey, dressed in those very short and revealing skirts. Morse ogled them for a while and then said this (or something like it): whoever had invented hockey skirts had turned a male fantasy into reality.

    If anyone thinks this just a line by a fictitious tv detective, he should think again. Male heterosexual interest in post-pubescent female youth is a comprehensive reality, but a taboo one. Men are naturally attracted to females capable of breeding: the taboo against this is a cultural and legal one, not a natural one.

    As for Church Militant's arbitrary age categories for pre- and post-pubescent youth: if a minor (a child) is defined as such by their lack of ability to breed, then I was a minor (a child) until I was over 16 years of age. No kidding: I didn't reach puberty until I was nearly 17 years old.

    1. see your a total weirdo in every sense

    2. 20:29, takes one to know one. What! What!

    3. 20.29 Pat I thought you were cutting out the insulting posts. Again promote the good. Show people a proper Christian alternative to follow

  9. The blog has been without nastiness and personal abuse/insults for some days now. However, sadly to say, it has made its return in the form of Maggie Cartey who decides to make an appearance again, funny that.

    1. Ta-Dah!

      Thank ee, my friend.

      I do appreciate my fan base.

  10. Just be proud Maggie Cartney of the amount of people you have turned off this blog, you've done this before on other sites and you have form. You just have to look at how so few are now contributing to this blog recently.

    1. Please Magna Carta, and you did promise -
      No more 23:40 donkey stuff.

    2. Ok, Pip. I'll do it for you.

  11. Not a trace of compassion. Not a scintilla of humility. Not a touch of humanity. Not a sign of being mortified by emerging truths. Not even the illusion of love. Not a Christian, as in being a follower of Christ. An anti-Christ.
    This unrepentant bollocks is, I believe, one of Archbishop Diarmuid Martin's soutaned bullies of the Lord, given free rein to insult the memory of enslaved women and their unfortunate babies. Where is Diarmuid Martin in this?
    This Father Padraig McCarthy states that "... women were sent to asylums in many countries for being “feeble minded” and “promiscuous” as if that wasn't the case here, which it most certainly was, and even worse. He talks about forced sterilizations in other countries but doesn't raise the issue of a denial of sterilization in this country on church orders, even when there was a risk to the life of the prospective mother.
    He is a liar, a dissembler, a mental reservationist, a moral equivocator.
    And The Furrow gives him a platform for his perverted justification of a diseased institution.
    What a disgusting creep.

    1. Such an irrational and offensive reply to the man puts you firmly in the categofy of'disgusting creep'. The point the man is making is that dreadful practices were commonplace in many countries where the catholic church held no sway/ i.e. the problem and its handling was not down to the church.

    2. Father McCarthy had committed the cardinal sin of contradicting the hate narrative of the media.
      What he seeks to do is to contextualize the Irish problem into a pattern of behaviour that was evident in many countries around the globe. Its refreshing that there are some willing to seek balance in the debate.

    3. 9.29
      And exactly what are you doing? Exactly the same
      These were first born children, the babies were not from promiscuous women...and even if they were...they were still created by God and born of women
      It certainly isn't refreshing to read your reply.
      This Fr mc carthy Need exposing and brought to book by his archbishop...and quickly

    4. So at least 2 posters who post here defend this fr mc carthy

    5. Pat...do you have an opinion on fr paudric Mc carthy' writings and disgusting statements

  12. A Tom stokes posted the above on facebook

  13. A prominent Catholic priest in Ireland has defended how the church handled the issue of unmarried mothers in institutions like Tuam in Galway, where 800 children have no burial records.

    1. As I said on other blogs, the institutional Roman Catholic Church is a whore, a Christ-betrayer.

    2. 23.27 was an extract from Tom Stokes post in the Furrow.
      His name didn't copy, so I apologise to him
      It was not my intention to leave out his name on that post
      I strongly agree with everything he says

  14. In the past, McCarthy has also strongly defended the church’s handling of pedophile cover up charges.

      What Fr McCarthy seeks to do is to depart from the hate narritive that characterises so much of the media coverage and bring a more balanced objective view to bear. The many thousands of good priests and religious who gave their lives in service deserve as much.

  15. Pat, maybe u shld get that TomStokes to write about the goingons with the ordinations of theses sexual active seminarians

  16. I'm done with this blog. Waste of time and would be better devoting my energies elsewhere. Farewell to the person in control of this blog, Magna Carta. It's become as boring as watching paint dry.

    1. Close the door behind you on your way out

    2. Sorry 12.40... U obviously another priest not wanting to take responsibility for the disgusting behaviour of priests being scandalised by a young pregnant woman....hide her away was all they could think of
      I remember being pregnant, married, in 1967, being at a wedding a couple of weeks b4 the birth.
      I so remember my pp giving me a dirty look for being out enjoying my friend's wedding....no alcohol.... He was so obvious
      Btw the priest is still alive, just wondering if he still can't look a pregnant woman in the face, or her belly.

    3. Just because we always have had good men as priests does not cover for the way the rc church looked down on women who bore babies out of wedlock.
      Disgusting creeps made up the bigger part of the clergy then and still do

  17. Good idea - 09:45,
    The tighter the better - might stop some of the more obtuse, hard to listen to stuff escaping into the 'general population' who, most decidedly deserve better