Saturday, 9 December 2017

RELIGIOUS ORDERS GOING "GAY"

MAYNOOTH SEMINARY created a worldwide scandal last year after it emerged that the seminarian body was primarily homosexual and that heterosexual seminarians were being bullied, expelled and leaving.

This raised, once again, the question of THE HOMOSEXUALISATION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD.

CATHOLIC RELIGIOUS ORDERS - like the REDEMPTORISTS and the DOMINICANS now seem to be heading in the same direction according to the many reports that this Blog is continuing to receive from people who are claiming to have been bullied.




These reports are coming in surprising numbers from both Ireland and England - but the trend also seems international.

In the past few days, I received a long report from an English religious priest, who has spent decades in his religious order telling me the names and details of members of his order who are in homosexual relationships with each other!

Of course, this is a contradiction of these orders vows of chastity.

But the almost bigger problem is that the actively gay members of these order are forming vicious gay cabals and are persecuting other order members who are either not gay or simply keeping their vow!

In many cases some of the people involved in what this old priest called: "a cabal of gay bitches" those involved are in leadership positions in their orders and are making life a hell for others who are not so involved.

In one case a very elderly priest, who has always been faithful to his vows, is being persecuted simply because he has had a totally platonic friendship with a female friend for many years.

His leadership team accused this old priest of having sex with this woman on the basis that they went through the old man's laptop and found ONE perfectly normal facial photograph of his friend in his pictures folder. Nothing else! Just one picture of a friend.

This old priest has been moved from one place to another by his superiors to put distance between the two friends.

And now he is to be moved again as his friend has, for employment reasons alone, moved near where he is living.

AND - the problem for this old priest is that any complaint he makes would be investigated by the people who are persecuting him!

THE DOMINICANS:


In 2015 an Italian Dominican - Father Adriano Oliva published a book which said that St Thomas Aquinas' teaching -while not promoting the sin of sodomy - allowed for the love between two gay people who gave their love sexual and genital expression.



Other Dominicans were appalled at what Oliva was claiming and accused him of misinterpreting the teachings of St. Thomas.

Father Oliva and those like him were called: "Gay Thomists".

In 2015 the former Master of the Dominicans - Father Timothy Radcliffe was named a consultor to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

This caused controversy as Radcliffe had written: "Certainly, homosexual activity, can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and nonviolent. So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ's self-gift".

Many people think that it was Father Radcliffe's views on homosexuality that stopped him being appointed, as was expected, to the Archdiocese of Westminster.

I agree with Father Radcliffe's words.

But what of men and women with vows of chastity?

And what of cabals of queeny "bitches" running around dioceses and monasteries behaving as if they were in a gay sauna and persecuting those who are not part of their set?

I wonder how St Dominic would feel about that?

I wonder if that is justified in the writings of the Angelic Doctor?














64 comments:

  1. This article is so poorly written with little clinical, fact based evidence to validate its assertions except hearsay. There is a natural evolution of thought and understanding taking place in human sexuality. It is therefore obvious that all human beings would be affected - at any time - by the reality of the essential need for intimacy. Not that we should relax requirements for priesthood or religious life but we cannot simply pretend our sexuality is not an intrinsic part of who we are as human beings and that we are not affected by its existence. Embracing the gift of sexuality is better than pretending it doesn't exist just because we opt for chastity or celibacy. To be human is to be sexual and the gift of our sexuality must be treated with respect and responsibility. The negative obsession on this blog with "perceived" failures and contradictions is disheartening. Much of the contribution is hearsay. Irrespective of every priest's moral imperative to live good and faithfully to vows, I believe that at this time of year, Advent, we should encourage one another to truly "Prepare a way for the Lord" as expressed in the Word of God for this 2nd Sunday of Advent. This focus will point us to the poor, the homeless, the forgotten of our society...Let's prioritise real, meaningful, relevant moral issues instead of peeping into cloistered bedrooms!! - let's be truly CHRISTIAN IN OUR SENSE OF JUSTICE, FAIRNESS AND COMPASSION FOR THE MANY AMONG US WHO WAIT FOR OUR EMBRACE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Father Brendan Smyth loved to embrace.

      Delete
    2. 05:51 You start your comment critical of the lack of clinical fact based evidence to validate assertions in the blog but then you go on to state with an authority similar, your views on the human need for intimacy which you state as empirical but offer no "Clinical or fact based evidence" to substantiate. Actually I tend to agree with you as I think most will, though I fear enlightened views on human sexuality come and go and the direction of travel has not in history nor can be assumed in the future,to always travel forward.
      I hope your appeal for justice, fairness and compassion rightly highlighting the poor, homeless and forgotten, extends to those forgotten former seminarians and religious who are trying to make sense of their vocation against a backdrop of injustice, unfairness and an unbelievable lack of compassion! (From what I have been able to gleen from the "Hearsay" on this blog!)

      Delete
    3. @05:51, I have never seen so much photographic evidence for "hearsay" as I have seen on this blog.

      You use the word "perceived" as if your perceptions are accurate while everyone who has provided contributions and pictorial evidence here are in some way deluded.

      I have heard the type of language you use before 05:51. You strike me as someone who has been/is involved in priestly formation.

      Delete
    4. The arrogance of 05:51 is breathtaking. Throwing out the usual distraction of acts of charity. So which soup kitchen will we see you in then this Christmas 05:51?

      Delete
    5. 12.58. I play my part in trying to alleviate the suffering of others. Why do you think I was up so early?? Acts of Charity and Compassion are integral in being a goid citizen but moreso if you claim to follow Christ. Nothing arrogant about stating this!! I guess you prefer acts of gossip and innuendo over your wine! What's your schedule on "reaching out...."?

      Delete
  2. Its sad that some religious institutions have become what seem to be havens from society where people of certain sexual orientations can express their sexuality while being fed and watered by the people of God. Sadder still if the reaction to alleged abusers is protect our own and sod the rest. Themes on here tend to repeat every so often but the way forward would appear to be small house churches coming together for support. Probably a few hundred years down the line we will have to repeat the whole process all over again. The joys of being human.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So religious are paid not to have sexual lives? What a weird cult we have become.

      Delete
    2. What about the money the “people of God” spent on your formation ? Did you repay that? You apostatized the Church who “fed and watered” you.

      Delete
    3. @18:09 Money well spent I would say! Sean is realising his vocation serving God's people. God bless your ministry Sean. :-)

      Delete
  3. So isn’t having a sexual gay relationship within an order an immoral issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For our eunuch class any sex is -- shock, horror! -- a moral issue; we really has a huge problem with sex when we set up a caste of eunuchs to do our non-sex for us!

      Delete
  4. St Thomas Aquinas said that homosexual acts were the greatest sin among the species of lust.

    That Italian priest has not read Aquinas. And his interpretation is pure fantasy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems that as the Dominicans are being homosexualised the interpretation of Aquinas is changing?

      Next they will be telling us that he was the first person to talk about the gay sauna.

      Delete
    2. Article 12. Whether the unnatural vice is the greatest sin among the species of lust?

      Since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. After it comes incest, which is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.

      With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles. Now it is more against reason to make use of the venereal act not only with prejudice to the future offspring, but also so as to injure another person besides. Wherefore simple fornication, which is committed without injustice to another person, is the least grave among the species of lust. Then, it is a greater injustice to have intercourse with a woman who is subject to another's authority as regards the act of generation, than as regards merely her guardianship. Wherefore adultery is more grievous than seduction. And both of these are aggravated by the use of violence. Hence rape of a virgin is graver than seduction, and rape of a wife than adultery.

      Gravity of a sin depends more on the abuse of a thing than on the omission of the right use. Wherefore among sins against nature, the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another. While the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. Hence a gloss on Genesis 37:2, "He accused his brethren of a most wicked crime," says that "they copulated with cattle." After this comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed. Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the "vas" than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances.

      Delete
    3. 11:38, do you know why Aquinas made that evaluation of 'homosexual acts'? Because those acts were considered the result of excessive lust. Given this understanding of them, Aquinas' evaluation was reasonable, but then, his premiss was wrong.

      Homosexuality as a natural orientation was not even thought of in those times.

      By the by, did you know that Aquinas was a massive glutton? True. His gut was so huge that a crescent-cut had to be made in the refectory dining table to bring food within his reach. And you know what is said of gluttony, don't you? It's the forerunner of sexual impurity, the very thing that big, fat bastardo thought himself fit to wax morally on.

      Just thought you should know.😆

      Delete
    4. He hasn’t read Aquinas? Really? He was reappointed president of the Leonine Commission.

      Delete
    5. "Homosexuality as a natural orientation was not even thought of in those times." Actually, Aquinas does say that homosexuality is a natural instinct in a certain respect [secundum quid]. John McNeill drew attention to that in his book The Church and the Homosexual.

      Delete
    6. Thanks, 17:15, for your post.

      Yes, Aquinas did accept homosexuality as natural in terms of agape (platonic love), but not its physical (or 'sexual') expression. This does not coincide with modern understanding of the phrase 'sexual orientation', which, of course, is much more concrete in that it accepts, too, the sexual expression of homosexuality.

      Delete
    7. You like that word ‘bastardo’, don’t you, Magna? You use it a lot. You probably don’t realise though it’s a word that fits you to a tee.

      Delete
    8. The question arises in my mind, Magna, how do you manage to maintain your own svelte shape? Is it diet, or exercise, or a combination of both? You’re a fine figure for a man in his 50s

      Delete
    9. 20:28, you're right, about my 'svelte shape' (maintained by eating only what I need), but not about my age.😆

      Delete
    10. Yes, 20:24, I use the Italian word 'bastardo', but hardly not a lot.

      Delete
    11. Oh yes, I am right about your age MC. �� Lol

      Delete
    12. 48 or 49 years old, max.

      Delete
  5. Shortly after posting on facebook about my experiences in St. Michaels Abbey, Farnborough with David Brogan, now Abbot Cuthbert Brogan, I had a message request from someone who I've noticed following St. Michaels. It started
    "Hi Tom
    We're both on the ex seminarians FB page and we've probably got other things in common too.

    Me: Yes, I daresay!

    Hi

    .Be good if we did lol

    .
    Are u gay?

    .
    Are you writing an epistle???

    Me: "It's complicated!" And profoundly disappointing. No...
    ( I believe I was trying to compose a more detailed response but the impatience and triviality against what I had recently revealed about my F'bro experience, hurt me and I was not convinced of this guys good intentions being minded that he was perhaps part of the clique, a view supported by another complainant. I meant No I'm not writing an epistle, but decided I was happy to let any misunderstanding stand. Besides, exactly what appellation, if any, I wish to ascribe to myself, Is still unclear to me. I am my own special creation! (and so are you! X) I have since thought that I might have replied "Oh purr-leeese! Do you think I slid down the last rainbow astride a pink unicorn issuing multi coloured sparkles from it's rear!!lol"

    Truth is I was feeling really low and I felt this guy was after either info to use against me or to "get me onside" and to "Stop rocking the boat." He may have been genuine but who of you would ask such intimate questions and apparent flirting / chat up lines to someone who had just revealed distress that had been causing them grief and personal damage, though without clearer cognition for almost 30 years, until now? And why just a message and no friend request?

    In any case, bad timing or what!?







    ReplyDelete
  6. I found the following online. I give it here without comment. It was in response to the Roy Moore scandal in the US when Christians said if he was a molester it was no sin. It has me wondering that if the Church is really a gay tree is what why we have so much gay fruit? By their fruits? "A young man was found with Jesus in suspicious circumstances the night he was arrested. A young man [boy] wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus and alone with him in the garden. When they seized him he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. Read Mark 14. Note: young man is neaniskos, meaning he was in the prime of his life, perhaps 15 to 25 years old. As boys married young the young man was behaving like a single lad. So he was very very young. The New Testament hardly ever uses neaniskos - it prefers other words - which shows it was trying to communicate how young the boy was. If Jesus had not been liquidated for sedition it would have been child molestation. Naked always is associated with degradation and shame and a symbol for sexual abuse. Mark did not need to mention the nakedness so we have innuendo here. This is not a problem for Mark for he was clear that Jesus' message mattered not Jesus for Jesus even told a man he was not a good teacher as in good person.

    The fact remains that many people who read their Bibles and know their history is that "God's word" does indeed fail to condemn child sex abuse in marriage. There are condemnations of bestiality and adultery and gay sex and no mention of the respect due to the sexual innocence of a child. Silence is consent anyway. But silence is more consent in a holy book which claims the right to be obeyed as the word of God and which encourages people to see that they must obey the book just because it says they must do it. Those biblical cultures did accept men having sex with girls whose bodies were not ready for sex or having babies. Men married female children. There are several clues in the Bible that a man is allowed to molest the child he "marries." The child at least should have the right to get away from the husband who raped her and abused her and who could divorce her to get his hands on a new child bride. Jesus reinforced these doctrines by saying that a girl cannot divorce her husband or she becomes an adulteress if she weds another. What is worse is he was being hypothetical for women did not have a right to divorce in his society. Calling her an adulteress was abusive in itself and was virtually calling for her murder for the Jewish God had decreed death by stoning for adulteresses. (And Jesus made no attempt to do away with stoning in his ministry. The adulteress who was brought to him for stoning was brought to him as a test but even then he said she should be stoned but only by worthy accusers. He did not stone her for it was not his place and it was never done by one person. And it was a test anyway.) I repeat: the fact remains that these women were forced into marriage, were too young as well and had every right and perhaps the duty to leave their husbands. A male could easily divorce his child bride and marry another so that you have serial child molesting of serial child-brides. The story of Jesus starts with Mary conceiving him without sexual intercourse. I think that the expression that Jesus is being conceived by the Holy Spirit is a euphemism for Mary conceiving by a human sperm without full sex. She was probably molested by Joseph which resulted in a “miraculous” pregnancy. It would have seemed marvellous in an age that did not understand about eggs and sperms. Whatever the conception means the word is there and it was thought to have something to do with human seed and that is the bottom line."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've enjoyed reading your post 11:50. Well done. You make very interesting points, though I don't agree with all of them.

      As yours is a lengthy post, I simply haven't the time right now to address every point I disagree with; I wish only that I had, for you have a fine mind.

      You appear someone who prefers the direct approach to communication; nothing wrong in that. But it's a luxury Jesus couldn't always afford. You and I live in freer, democratic times; Jesus did not, hence his read-between-my-lines form of communication that sometimes exasperated his own disciples so much they complained that Jesus spoke to them in 'riddles'.

      Jesus couldn't always speak 'plainly' to his listeners, in part because this (in such a violent, mysoginistic, patriarchal culture) would have greatly shortened his road to physical death. (Remember what happened at the beginning of Jesus' public ministry? When he read from Isaiah in the Nazareth synagogue? Pious Jews sought to kill him by hurling him down a cliff for daring to identify himself with the 'suffering servant in Isaiah. In other words, 'with the Messiah himself'.)

      I shall address one of your points, about the woman caught in adultery. Bear in mind here what I said above, that Jesus could not always speak 'plainly' to his listeners. And this occasion was one such. Jesus could not directly contradict that part of Mosaic Law that prescribed death for adultery: that would have led to his arrest for blasphemy and his susequent execution...which was what those men wanted, for their purpose, as Scripture makes clear, was to 'test' him. In other words, 'to seek his death through entrapment'. Jesus was aware of this, so he couched his reply to their question in the kind of rhetoric a Roman senator would have paid handsomely for. In one short sentence, Jesus denied the validity of that part of Mosaic Law which prescribed death for adultery; establised forever the moral principle that capital punishment is against God's will; shamed the woman's accusers; and likely brought about the woman's repentance and conversion. Not bad for someone who routinely had to guard his speech.

      Delete
    2. Magna, re: comment at 11.50 and your response at 15.21. The blogger's contribution is not his: he found it on line and gives it in its entirety within commas. He does not add a personal comment or interpretation, so you cannot deduce that the blogger has a fine mind! However, your response commentary is good in giving the context for Jesus' words and actions.

      Delete
    3. You're right, 17:31. Thanks.

      Delete
  7. 11.46. I am not in any role of formation except trying to form and reform myself in God's expectation of me. That's a life's journey. When I used the word "perceived" I used it to say that we each have personal failings and imperfections and that we often embellish these failings in others for our own prejudice, bias and judgment. Sometimes what we "perceive" or "see" are just normal human fragilities as distinct from more serious moral recklessness and irresponsibility which endanger others. I have engaged in much personal reflection and study to know and believe that I am a human being, first and foremost. I allow God's grace to work through my imperfect humanity. The other point about "hearsay" - Where is the empirical evidence and scientific study to prove conclusively that the Dominicans and Redemptorists have gone/are homosexual? Having been in ministry for many, many years, my perspectives on many moral, theological and philosophical beliefs have changed. I consider this a gift and a blessing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The evidence lies with the men in the communities where these men live, operate and often persecute.

      Most are afraid to speak out for fear of revenge.

      Delete
    2. Pat, you still rely too much on gossip - which is never a good foundation for establishing truth.

      Delete
  8. ‘Let him without sin cast the first stone.’ John 8.7

    To interpret this sentence as evidence that Jesus was in favour of stoning as long as the stoner was vetted in some way is breathtakingly false and wilfully malign.

    The phrase is similar to saying ‘Murder is morally acceptable when there is a blue moon.’ In other words: never.

    Secondly, such a conclusion doesn’t conform to the characterisation of Jesus in John.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If there are sexually active ‘gay cabals’ as the article calls them, and if they are oppressing other people that needs to be condemned.

    Another constituency is at least as great a problem. It is the type of gay priest/religious who adopts a public image very different from who they are in private. The public persona is multifaceted. They use pious language (our Divine Lord, our Blessed Lady, our Holy Father). They are devoted to the church’s magisterium (our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI). They are hostile to gay issues being discussed (‘intrinsically disordered,’ ‘contrary to the magisterium’). They are interested in Tridentine liturgy (‘reverence,’ and ‘respect for the dignity of the priesthood,’ ‘beauty of lace,’). They like Latin (though they don’t have to understand it when they use it). They are socially and politically conservative (‘Certain types/people from particular addresses, are not suitable to join us.’) and some of them may come from a working class background. They are highly clericalized (a 29 y.o. wearing an ankle-length coat). Privately, they are closeted to most; very definitely not the marrying type; may be cruisers (including having serious STDs); fetish-prone (wearing no underwear/trousers or wearing women’s stockings under robes). In a word, dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are 100% right about these gay cabals being into Latin, Tridentine Mass, lace and have a great number.ber of fetishes and indeed are often social snobs.

      These exist in the Dominicans too - especially gathered around universities.

      Delete
    2. 14:43
      Yes. A dangerous mess.

      Delete
    3. They exist everywhere: gays tend to be cliquish, gossipy, jealous, and snobbish; some living beyond their means and getting into all sorts of bother.

      Delete
    4. Pat; hope your mind won't be distracted at mass tonight and tomorrow with your gay cabals obsessions and with visions of Dominicans and Redemptorists chasing you in their robes! What delightful fun you'd have.. . Remember the invitation to "Prepare a way for the Lord" is addressed to you also!!

      Delete
    5. You were watching too much of Midsomer Murders

      Delete
    6. Women’s white stockings!

      Delete
    7. 17.36
      You sound like the origin of the stereotypes - Darwin would have been interested.

      Delete
  10. Most of the predator priests were active in the post-Vatican II, anything goes, we are are all going to Heaven era.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pat my comment for blog under Anon: Definitely a gay subculture in The Kiltegan Fathers. Two of them got married and frequently visit the orders headquarters where they are made to feel at home every time. At least they had the courage of their convictions and came out ! What about the many others who remain in and hide behind the door ?

      Delete
    2. The Columbans and the Kiltegans, both founded in that grotesque parody of a seminary, Maynooth, are kaput.

      Delete
    3. The Columbans, Kiltegans and Maynooth grads are like most individuals. The good by far outweighs the bad. A sense of proportion is sadly lacking in your comment.

      Delete
    4. @12.17
      That might have once been true but sadly is no longer. The good from there are few and far between.

      Delete
    5. At 17.07
      All seems yellow to the jaundiced eye.

      Maynooth alumni are, like those who went before, people of their time.

      Candidates for ordination are peoplw of their time, which is another way of saying that every generation which produces priests and religious, or any other walks of life, gets the clergy/candidates it deserves.

      Delete
    6. At 16:56
      That’s as grotesque a generalisation and as nonsensical as saying that none was active inthe pre-Vat II we’re all going to hell days.

      Delete
  11. Going gay? They were already gay long before you were even born, dear. LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I was a philosophy student n 2000-2003, I shagged Doms, Reds, & Cars - the Reds were always up for play. I'll nvr 4get dat 3sum, awesum!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cars? In Maynooth?

      Delete
    2. Are you referring to the basement meets under the library? I know who are. We took the piss out of you guys for having red lights outside the parlours.

      Delete
    3. Really? I was a Red student at that time. Two things make it hard to verify. The Reds didn't study in Maynooth (and still don't). Philosophy was done in Milltown and Theology in Kimmage Manor. I have no doubt that I was living with gay students. But there was a very open sharing of sexuality and chastity at the time, and most were very decent guys

      Delete
  13. I don't think there is anything awesome about you..Very shabby and nothing to boast about.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nothing shabby in his post, more shaggy than shabby. Jealous or what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They're shaggots as well as faggots.

      Delete
  15. 3sums are overrated.

    ReplyDelete
  16. +Pat tries his best to defaggotise the Catholic church... but it's like sending coal to Newcastle.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correct me of I'm wrong +Pat. You're not trying to rid the Catholic Church of gay people. Instead you seem much more bothered about lack of integrity and authenticity of call

      Delete
  17. You’d have been at home in Nazi Germany. The wanted to do that to humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  18. As a Religious myself, there are two sad things in your article Pat. Firstly, the vow of chastity (not the promise of celibacy which I'd happily see changed tomorrow) is beautiful when lived in freedom. The idea of two members of the same congregation in a sexual relationship with each other undermines the charism and very foundation of these institutes. Secondly, and perhaps the saddest thing of this, it breaks my heart to think that an older brother in a congregation has his concerns ignored, and experiences such a lack of fraternal love and support, so much so that he needs to whistleblow in this way. I'll be praying for him and these congregations.

    ReplyDelete