[QUOTE=tomndebb]
There may be plenty of reason for that to occur (although it would not play well with the large majority of Catholics who believe the bishops should be held accountable for their actions). What your thesis lacks is any evidence.
You have the personal remarks of two guys. You have no pronouncements from any official Catholic Congregation. You have no arguments following that line from lawyers representing the church in lawsuits. You have little more than a desire to assert that various individuals speaking their own beliefs represent an official position that indicates the “will” of the entire church.
[/QUOTE]
First of all, I would not expect official pronouncements to be issued. I hardly think the RCC is going to put out a declaration that “we have decided that none of this is the fault of our priests, and all of it is the fault of that “intrinsic evil” homosexuality.”
Come on, I think they are a bit more clever than that.
Lawyers representing the Church in lawsuits do not use that line because the judge and jury would tell them to knock it off. Can you imagine the lawyer for a rapist saying “It wasn’t my client’s fault, it was the fault of lust.”?
It is a much more subtle and long-term strategy that implies: “See, the Church always told you homosexuality was evil, and now it reaches even into our Church to corrupt our priests and foul it with child sexual abuse”.
In terms of evidence, if you are waiting for me to produce a document from the Vatican entitled “Dastardly Plan for Shifting our Child-Molesting Guilt onto Homosexuals” I fear you will wait a long time.
You say I have only the “personal remarks of two guys” as evidence? I assume you mean Bishop Alvarez and the priest I debated with?
First of all, Bishop Alvarez may be one Catholic, but I think you will agree he is not just any Catholic. If a Catholic cab-driver in the Bronx had made a comment such as: “Why is the abuser of minors sick and not the homosexual?” I could shrug it off as the comments of an ignorant man. But if there is one thing I know about the RCC is that the men they promote tend to be be educated and intelligent.
Given his age, it is likely the Bishop was appointed by John-Paul II or by the present Pope, both arch-conservatives. Surely they would have carefully reviewed Alvarez’ opinions, sermons, declarations and general reputation before making him a Bishop.
Besides, it is more than one Bishop and one priest. I have debated or discussed with several priests who have made this sly reference to “protecting children” when it comes to gay people. Each time I have come up with the crude but effective answer that it is not really gay men who seem to have trouble keeping it in their pants around kids.
Canadian Bishops campaigning against gay marriage have pulled out the “child protection” card on more than one occasion.
The campaign run by Anita Bryant in Dade County Miami in the 1970s, which sucessfully overturned an anti-discrimination ordonnance to protect gays, was warmly supported by the Bishop of Miami who sent a letter read in his churches before the vote. Bryant’s campaign was entitled “Save our Children”.
A number of years ago (about 10 or 15, sorry, I have no cite easily available but I might be able to find it) the RCC Bishop of British Columbia got in a dispute with the teachers’ union because he insisted that teachers in Catholic Schools had to sign a “lifestyle and morals” agreement regarding their private lives. The issue concerned more than gays, I admit, but the comments about protecting children from gay teachers were a major component of the debate.
A document put out around 1999 under the approval of John-Paul II (and likely written by Ratzinger, since it quotes extensively from a document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) is entitled “Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons” fundamentally attacks the idea that gay people should be legally protected from discrimination, and essentially endorses the idea that having homosexuals near children presents a danger.
An interesting quote:
"Such initiatives (to make public housing available to gay and unmarried ciouples) even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonment of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society.
and further:
“There are areas in which it is not unjust to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the consignment of children to adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or coaches, and in military recruitment.”
This document, published at the same time as charges of child sexual abuse by priests were exploding all over the world, clearly delivers the message that gays are dangerous to have around children.
Finally, Tomndebb, I would submit the evidence that gay people throughout the world have noted this subtle but very real tendency of the RCC to shift the blame to homosexuality itself. The quote I gave from the gay Magazine “Fab” in which it is suggested that the working title of the colouring book should have been “Keep it in your Pants, Monsignor!” is harsh, but it is based on a deep resentment in the gay community where this trend has been noticed.
May I submit to you, Tom (unless you are Jewish or Black yourself), that if a Jew were to say he has detected increased anti-semitism or a black were to say he has noted more racism, you would at least admit that their impression deserves some credence, since you have not lived their experience?
