Given the earlier topic, this press release FYI... anyone know of similar actions in other cities Sunday?

Peaceful Demonstration & Press Conference

A Call to All People of Good Will To Insist that the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church Stop Scapegoating Gay People and Cease Shifting the Blame for Its Own Mishandling of Sex Abuse of Children by Priests

WHAT: A Peaceful Demonstration Followed by a Press Conference

WHEN: Sunday, April 28, 2002

9:30am (Peaceful Demonstration)

11:00am (Press Conference - Immediately Following the Cardinal's Mass)

WHERE: Front of St. Patrick's Cathedral - 5th Avenue & 50th/51st Streets

WHO: Elected officials, clergymembers, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, our allies, families, and friends.

WHY: To respond to the reprehensible campaign orchestrated by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to scapegoat gay people for the church's own failure to deal with sexual abuse of children by clergy.

From the Vatican to the pulpit of St. Patrick's, church spokesmen are attempting to shift the blame for this scandal on to gay people --
linking homosexuality to abuse of children, calling into question whether gay men are fit to be priests, reiterating that being gay or lesbian is an "intrinsic disorder." Already, witchhunts have begun in seminaries and parishes. All of this must end and all people of good will must reject this defamation.

The demonstration and press conference are being organized by a wide variety lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals and
organizations.

Thanks for the tip, Bill.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote] The Church seems to be damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they try to screen out homosexuals from becoming priests or expel homosexuals, they're looked upon as homophobic or discriminatory. Yet, if they don't do this, they're accused of not taking steps to solve the problem of abuse.

---

I don't see it that way at all. All the Church had to do for the past 20 years or so was simply not to sweep all the instances of abuse under the rug. The Church is going to have to put up with a lot of well-deserved criticism for a long time. As long as the Church makes good on their promise not to continue the same crap the criticism will eventually subside.

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
You know, I wonder just how much of the blame for the anti-gay stuff lies with the media. No, this is not the ole "media is bias" diatribe; rather, I have seen and heard many comments as of late where the Church has been criticized for permitting homosexuals to be priests, as if this is a gay problem.

Pedophilia is not a gay issue. It's a sickness, pure and simple, just like rape is a crime of violence and not sex.

"If the Church would be more careful in banning homosexuals from becoming priests..."

"Too many priests are gay and these men prey on the young children..."

"The Church is a refuge for homosexual men, who are more inclined to be guilty of such acts..."

I am paraphrasing comments and attitudes of many a media outlet in the above remarks. I don't think they're doing justice to the homosexual community. In fact, I think they're being purely hypocritical.

The Church seems to be damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they try to screen out homosexuals from becoming priests or expel homosexuals, they're looked upon as homophobic or discriminatory. Yet, if they don't do this, they're accused of not taking steps to solve the problem of abuse.

The fact that neither is the cause seems to escape many.

---

The people in the media who are making the above statements are merely taking their cues from the church officials who make statements such as this one:

[quote]"It is most importantly a struggle to make sure that the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men." -- Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

---

The big ballyhooed meeting with the Pope ended up falling well short of the hype. They don't WANT to clean up their act. If they did, then they'd turn over EVERY SINGLE RECORD they have regarding the molester priests to the investigating officials (police, DA, etc.), no questions asked. They'd make it a policy once and for all to STOP transferring these criminals out of one area when an allegation arises and instead let the police investigate it. They'd stop the coverups and the stonewalling, and those who did the coverups and stonewalling (Cardinal Law of Boston, are your ears burning?) would resign or be removed.

Instead, they want to blame gays. Fine--let them continue down this path and make things worse for themselves. I'm enjoying their stupidity.

This is the only posting I will make on this subject, so anybody who wants to attack me for my position, feel free, but please realize I will make no response.

The Catholic Church does have a real problem with pedophilia and sexual abuse of minors and adolescents (there's some "-ophilia" word for sexual attraction to post-adolescent minors, but the word escapes me). It's a PR problem, yes. It's been exaggerated by the anti-Catholic media, yes. But the problem is real and it's important. Too many Church officials are not willing to heed the words of the Pope as to how these matters should be handled.

Those people who think the solution to the problem is rooting out gay priests -- whether celibate or not -- are just as wrong as those who think the solution is to end celibacy, and to permit married clergy and female priestesses. Taking any of those positions (rooting out gays, ending celibacy, or ordaining women) has nothing to do with protecting adolescents (especially young males) from predatory priests. It's simply trying to use a tragedy to advance a political agenda. That's wrong wrong wrong a thousand times wrong.

I watched a program featuring an older man who was once a child abuser and a priest. He started in the seminary at a very young age, like 12 or 13, right when his thoughts, like every other adolescent male's thoughts, were focused primarily on sex. He soon learned to repress and bury those thoughts, and of course soon became celibate. I don't remember exactly what his timeline was, but he felt strongly that once he began fondling and sexually abusing kids, it was because he'd been stopped up, if you will, since he was so young. He didn't offer this as an excuse as much as an explanation. Does it excuse his behavior? Of course not. It's just one piece of insight into what may cause these horrific situations of child abuse. And they have little to do with gay or straight. It's called repression; it's harmful.

I believe there are a couple of wrongs taking place. Obviously, the actual abuse of children and teenagers is foremost. The fact that the church has been incredibly deceptive in its covering up of the abuse is the second great wrong. Now that the church is trying to deflect blame by placing blame is another outrage.

This whole tragedy has nothing to do with anti-Catholic media. It has everything to do with the Catholic Church and its incredible arrogance. They have allowed the most horrific abuses of power to take place and then taken extreme steps to cover these abuses up. The ailing Pope is the only one who's made any sense to me; at least he emphasized caring for the victims. Blaming all of this on gay priests is just more lies from a Church already steeped in lies. They must take full responsibility and then be prepared to re-examine their archaic ways.

CITT, The term you're thinking of is "ephebephilia," meaning a fondness for post-adolescent youths, generally male, given the Greeks' focus on male beauty. Given your stated intention not to respond to any responses to your posting (?), I'll take your silence as a "thanks!"

The current issue of National Review has an intersting article on the whole subject, one of which's revelations is its rather exaggerated claim of a vast gay hierarchy in the RCC. If that's the case, it's about to be broken up.

This issue reminds me of what we in Log Cabin did a few years ago in criticizing NAMBLA, the N.American Man-Boy Love Assn. (the very name gives me the creeps!), essentially a pederasts' club. No other gay group had the courage to call this illegal, abusive and abhorrent behavior for what it was, but once we did, others jumped on our bandwagon and, typically, tried to claim credit. Wouldn't it be a good thing if we also condemned abuse of minors wherever it occurs and urged that the abusers be strictly prosecuted without casting the net too wide?

Shockingly enough(!) I am in concurrence with CitT's last paragraph (though from a different angle).

The issues of celibacy and gender reforms will simply never be addressed unitl the Tyrant-on-the-Tiber, "Shake-Daddy" Wotyla, croaks. So why bother getting worked up about it?

The crimes against the victims, both legal and moral, stand for what they are.

However, like in Watergate, it is the cover-up that is the issue before us. I'll leave the moral implications of the actions of church officials to others, I merely want to see the barriers that organized religion places between itself and complianc with the laws of the land torn down for good.

The fact that five years after his 1993 zero-tolerance policy announcement, the slimeball Bernard Law was trying to palm the NAMBLA-official Fatha Shanley off on the New York Archdiocese encapsulates the situation just as succinctly as when, in Watergate, Charles Colson stated that he would "run over his grandmother" for Nixon.

The fact that even the normally-reactionary John O'Connor would have none of Bernie's shennanigans proves that there are SOME good people at the top of the church hierarchy.

The fact that the Krakow Krackpot owes Bernie Law bigtime for pushing through the 1985 changes in canon law that codified many despotic changes wanted by Karol and his Kuria, means that Bernie's red beanie is likely safe for now.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Law is just an ass kisser, doing what he thinks the church wants. The real villain is the Catholic Church and its fascist pope John Paul II, as bad as Pius XII. The only solution is for the American Catholic Church to separate itself from Rome. It's a dream, I know, but there's a glimmer of hope.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:


A dream? For the Prince of Darkness,

---

Bud Selig? What does he have to do with this?

[quote] This cafeteria Catholic attitude is simply bullshit. If the whining Catholics aren't happy with their Church's doctrines, well: There's the door, don't let it hit your ass on the way out.

---

That would leave a lot fewer Catholics. A lot fewer. "Be careful what you wish for..." comes to mind.

[quote]Originally posted by Bryan:
I watched a program featuring an older man who was once a child abuser and a priest. He started in the seminary at a very young age, like 12 or 13, right when his thoughts, like every other adolescent male's thoughts, were focused primarily on sex. He soon learned to repress and bury those thoughts, and of course soon became celibate. I don't remember exactly what his timeline was, but he felt strongly that once he began fondling and sexually abusing kids, it was because he'd been stopped up, if you will, since he was so young. He didn't offer this as an excuse as much as an explanation. Does it excuse his behavior? Of course not. It's just one piece of insight into what may cause these horrific situations of child abuse. And they have little to do with gay or straight. It's called repression; it's harmful.

---

Bryan, can you give a more precise reference? Do you think there might ben a way I can get the name of this individual or a place where this interview might have appeared in print?
(I wanted to ask you this in a private message, but your current Outsports member choices don't allow for private messages.)

I'm pretty sure it was on PrimeTime Live a week or so ago, either that or Dateline. I rarely watch either and it was totally by chance that I watched it. The subject, however repellent, made a great deal of sense in explaining how he thought he came to do the things that he did..he didn't know any better, he was retarded sexually. It was tough to watch but it did give more insight.

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
For the Prince of Darkness, perhaps, who is waiting for this day

---

Say I were the P of D, plotting to destroy a certain faith-based institution.

Would I use Plan "A":

Destroy the individual spiritual devotion of hundreds of million of people, one by one;

or

would I ue Plan "B":

Destroy the meaning of the institution that hundreds of million of people once looked up to, by abetting the placing of venal, corrupt, flawed men in the highest offices of the institution?

I tend to think that the P of D would and has taken the path of least resistance.

Buidling on this suposition, seems that the P of D's men (the Nazi-hugger Pacelli (19 years) and the power-drunk Wotyla (22 years this October) have outlasted the good guys (Angelo Roncalli (5 years) Giovanni Montini (15 years) and especially the great great Albino Luciani (cut down after a mere 33 days, coincidentaiiy on the night after informing his Secretary of State that he intended to reverse Humane Viate (sp?) and to rid the Church of Marcincus and the others on the Curia who saw nothing wrong with laundering the Mafia's money)....

Well said, Wurm. All that these warped, withered old men have is power and their little red dresses. They have given up a personal and a sexual life for this power and will do anything to keep it.
No, I don't want cafeteria catholicism, I gave the whole thing up at age 7. But I am sorry for any gay man who accepts the whole package. We all deserve more than to think we'll rot in hell because we act on our natural, God-given sexual attraction toward other consenting adults.
Gay men who believe that they are intrinsically disordered have been abused into thinking that. Most priests fall into that category, no wonder they are screwed up.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ump25:
You truly are an ignoramus, aren't you?
First of all, I'm sure the Roman Catholic Church is a better place without you.

---

Moderators, please don't censure Ump for his personal attack. I forgive him.
Ump, you finally brought a smile to my face. I think I love you.

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
Those people who think the solution to the problem is rooting out gay priests -- whether celibate or not -- are just as wrong as those who think the solution is to end celibacy, and to permit married clergy and female priestesses. Taking any of those positions (rooting out gays, ending celibacy, or ordaining women) has nothing to do with protecting adolescents (especially young males) from predatory priests. It's simply trying to use a tragedy to advance a political agenda. That's wrong wrong wrong a thousand times wrong.

---

In general, I agree with this. One should never justify a prexisting political agenda on the shoulders of a greater tragedy. Also, the issue of pedophile and ephebephilia (If CITT won't thank you, gmginsfo, I certainly will) must be addressed in a more aggressive and definitive manner.
However, I think long term solutions of this problem are going to have to include looking into the widening of the pool of priestly candidates, one way or another. One of the problems the current Church in America is having is a lack of qualified priest candidates. The upper class are no longer having large families, where a second or third son is considered "expendable" to the clergy. The lower classes no longer see the priesthood as the best way out of poverty. In other words, America in the 21st century is not feudal Europe of the 15th.
And, Ump25, offering unhappy Catholics the door is a dangerous game to play. There is already a steady and growing stream of liberal devout heading to the Anglican church (Catholic lite: all the liturgy and a third less guilt).
Perhaps because I am Jewish, and Judaism is not the all or nothing religion of Catholocism, I cannot appreciate the issues at stake here, but it seems to me, if a large portion of the religion thinks its leaders are not responsive or are culpable in corruption (and what is more corrupt than pedophilia?), that religion is headed for a schism. Will we see 95 theses nailed to the door of The Cathedral of the Holy Cross?

More fuel for the fire...from the archbishop of Philadelphia...

[quote]"We feel that a person who is homosexually oriented is not a suitable candidate for the priesthood, even if he did not commit an act [of gay sex]," he said.

"There is a difference between heterosexual candidates and homosexual candidates," he said. "A heterosexual is taking on a good thing, becoming a priest, and giving up a very good thing, the desire to have a family."

A gay seminarian, even a chaste one, he said, "by his orientation, is not giving up family and marriage. He is giving up what the church considers an abomination."

He said, "It is possible we have homosexuals who are very chaste [as priests]. But the risk is much higher, that he will fail on celibacy. The risk is higher, that's all we are saying."

Bevilacqua did not cite any proof of a higher risk with gay priests. The cardinal was responding to a question, and no time remained for follow-up questions.

---

Link to full article

Is Bevilacqua out to lunch or what? The majority of priests are gay, it's a fact, and unbiased church scholars have confirmed that --for many years the Catholic Church has been a labor camp for gays.
The church leaders are playing with fire. There is going to be a general rebellion among gay priests. There's a limit to what they'll be willing to put up with.
This is actually getting exciting. We might get something to happen after all, a breakthrough for gay rights if the church is forced to acknowledge our humanity. I wouldn't be surprised if Cardinal Law turns out to be an important force for change.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Tom ]

[quote]Originally posted by Tom:

Moderators, please don't censure Ump for his personal attack. I forgive him.

---

That's very Catholic of you, Tom. Many who profess to speak on behalf of the Church could learn a lesson in Christianity from you.

[quote] You truly are an ignoramus, aren't you?

---

Speaking for myself, I know I am, because I can't figure out how a gay Catholic cannot be a "cafeteria" Catholic and accept all Roman Catholic doctrine, if I understand the term "cafeteria" correctly. I would appreciate any explanation. I would say at least 80% of the Roman Catholics (mostly straight) that I know are "cafeteria" Catholics. Personally, I don't find anything wrong with that, but I got out before the door hit me on the ass. I don't know if the Church is a better place for it, but I frankly don't care.

Also, my guess is that about 1/3 of the Roman Catholic clergy is gay, and that at least 95% of the clergy "are truly wonderful examples of humanity." I have no proof of either. I only base that on the priests that friends, family, and I have known or have been acquainted with.

"Maybe the Catholic Church will separate from Rome"--this happened more than once before, the main moment being the REFORMATION, under Martin Luther, who simply had had it with the hypocrisy of indulgences and the hierarcy and other non-Biblical shenanigans the folks in Rome (and in Germany at that time) were up to.

Ephebophilia: much of the discussion of the illegal activities of these priests has focused on "pedophilia" (or more correctly from the Greek root "paedophilia," when, as others have pointed out, the majority of cases appear to have been actions motivated by or describable under the rubric of "ephebophilia" (from the Greek "ephebos"="young man" + "philia" [from "philao," I love]--and this then does not account for sexual activity involving "young women," which I guess would be "eparthenophilia," or "young woman/girl" [eparthenos] + philia).

Now--here's the question. American culture, and American gay culture, are quite youth-oriented. Young people, especially younger gay men (as in 16-22) are not only celebrated, but in some quarters worshipped. Sex involving ephebes--adolescents and pre-grown-men is depicted, written about, etc., not infrequently in mainstream gay media. The high school/post-high school character on QAF is one example (and there are few older gay male, or lesbian characters on this show (as well as few people of color, though that is another subject)). LEATHER JACKET LOVE STORY presents another scenario, and yet another was depicted in a recent movie about a guy who falls in love with a teenager out on Long Island (though not LOVE AND DEATH--I can't remember, is Jason Priestly supposed to be in college?)

I have longed deplored what I find to be an excessive focus on and currency given to youth (though I think it is important to address it in art and other forms), because I believe it is of a piece with an infantilism in American culture that resists people actually growing up, maturing, growing OLD(er). We have a revulsion towards aging in this culture which really needs to be discussed and explored. It's especially ironic in light of the hecatomb caused by AIDS in the 1980s and early 1990s, which stripped away the possiblity of growing old from hundreds of thousands of men and women. AIDS unfortunately is still ending the lives of millions of people prematurely across the globe.

(And I want to say that I'm not claiming that gay culture should not take account of young(er) gay people, but I do believe that it should try to feature the range of who we are. Nowadays, some young people come out at 11-12, something I could not have conceived of when I was that age, in the late 1970s. But 11-12 year olds negotiating their desires among each other, as youth, is quite different from pairing them with adults--the latter is pedophilia no matter how you describe it.

At any rate, I feel like the issues of homosexuality, homosexual clergy, and ephebophilia are getting conflated and mixed up, just as homosexuality and pedophilia often are lumped together, thereby taking the focus and onus off the church hierarchs, who have allowed thousands of children to be harmed because of their secrecy and mishandling of these cases. The R.C. church hierarchy need to take immediate responsibility, set strict policies and address their long legacy of ineptitude, neglect, callousness, hypocrisy, and outright malevolence (as in the case of Law and Daily, another horrible, un-Christian person).

The conflation of, or failure to parse out, homosexuality and ephebophilia in particular is damaging, because while I do think some priests have committed and are committing pedophilic acts (like Shanley, who openly spoke out in favor of NAMBLA and whom Law praised and protected, which I find sickening and worthy of prosecution) and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, others were engaging young men in their mid-to-late teens (like some of the seminarians who were seduced or engaged in sex acts with some of these priests) or in some cases, early 20s. Such actions are considered acceptable under other circumstances by many in our community. If a young man--an ephebe--is a high-school senior (at 16-18) or a college freshman (at 18-19), where does one draw the line? I find people this young TOO YOUNG personally, but some men don't. The number of men who have sex with girls as young as 12-13-14 is not inconsequential, and while male-female pedophilic and eparthenophilic scandals have gained some attention in the last few years, they are usually NOT condemned with the same vehemence as ephebophilic scandals, because of the same-sexual (if not age) nature of the latter. Pedophilia is not homosexual OR heterosexual, but what is ephebophilia? Or is homosexuality qualify only if it's with a peer, and then what is a "peer"? If a man is 40 and he has sex with a 20-year-old, is this sex between peers? How subjective are the criteria?

I ask, because then are we going to condemn all ephebophiles, or is it a contextual issue? If the consent laws are very low in Denmark and high in the U.S., doess that determine how these relationships are viewed? A child CANNOT consent, but what about a 17-year old? Of course, if a priest takes a vow of celibacy (which includes CHASTITY) seriously, he is not supposed to have sex with anyone, including himself. But what do we say to the ephebophiles in our community/communities? Is sex with a 17-year old--or magazines praising it, shows celebrating it, etc.--okay--if a priest is not involved?

I am not an ephebophile, but I do wonder about the many men who are--how are they to be viewed?

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
(And I want to say that I'm not claiming that gay culture should not take account of young(er) gay people, but I do believe that it should try to feature the range of who we are, especially now that some young people come out at 11-12. But showing 11-12 year olds negotiating their desires among each other, as youth, is quite different from pairing them with adults--the latter is pedophilia no matter how you describe it, and it's very wrong.

---

While the breadth and depth of your entire post was impressive, I'd like to isolate this small part and make a comment. I think our society as a whole dangerously oversexualizes adolescents and pre-adolescents. There is no excuse for kids to be going on their "first dates" at 11 and 12 years old. And certainly, parents should not be encouraging this behavior. I look at it almost in an evolutionary, primitive society manner. We have children as young as 11 and 12 who are pressured into symbolic mating rituals by the adults around them, and then told that they can do everything up to, but not including, mating with the partner. America in particular is a society that has divorced itself from the meaning behind the symbolism of it rituals. Ask the next woman you see wearing lipstick if they know where that particular custom comes from.

As for Bevilacqua's comment, he really ought to be ASHAMED about such HATEFUL nonsense. Obviously he, like the other hypocrites, neither is aware ofof the any recent social science or psychological studies on homosexuality nor does he study his Bible, which is especially perverse for a Catholic prelate. He and the others can purge all the homosexuals from the U.S. Roman Catholic priesthood, and they'd be left with very few priests. The Jesuits alone, according to Garry Wills, would be decimated.

The Roman Catholic Church, under the right leadership, like John XXIII, can push to have the priesthood opened to married men and women, to celibate women (as with men), and to committed monogamous homosexuals.

The key is that the Church has GOT TO say NO to pedophiles, to punish them when they are proved to have committed the acts, to be forthright with the lay people and the legal authorities, and not to continue the musical chairs and praisesongs that Law(less) demonstrated with Shanley. Didn't these people ever read Jesus Christ's reply as to the two greatest commandments? They obviously are not showing love for God nor for their underaged neighbors, the must vulnerable members of their flock. I think in part this is because they did not see these sexual scandals--the pedophilia--as that serious, and they need to ask themselves PUBLICLY why they did not...do they have something to hide as well? Wasn't Cardinal Mahony himself also accused of sexual hijinks?

An idea just occured to me. How can you purge the Church of "homosexuals" who have never slept with a man, as the archbishop of Philidelphia says they are going to? How can you possibly know who the homosexuals are?
I think what we're hearing here is code talk for a purging of activist priests. Why else would a priest be openly gay and celibate in the current atmosphere of... well, witch hunt is the only thing that comes to mind.
If the only thing that comes out of this whole tragedy are a bunch of pain in the ass activist priests get defrocked because they said a little too much in public, the Catholic Church will have truly degenerated into the perverse body some on this list believe it to be.

Wonderful set of posts, fantomas and jqueer. I'd like to add a couple of things about context.
My belief is that ephebophilia is wrong when there's an imbalance in power, control. Doctors, psychiatrists, teachers, coaches, and priests, for instance. In the case of priests, it's compounded by the fact that they are engaging in an abomination according to the Church that they themselves represent. Nothing new here; I presume most people agree.
Second, along with the emphasis on youth here in the US, there is the double standard of excessive protection. "Baby on Board" is what I focus my exasperation on. I suspect that the reason this scandal has broken here, and not in Ireland or Belgium or Poland, is that over there they don't view priestly excesses with teenagers as such a serious crime and, almost automatically, it does not affect the teenager in the same harmful way. I remember an interview with the film director Almodóvar where he stated something like "of course, priests made it with me", and he sounded neither shocked nor scarred by the experience. I'm not suggesting American victims are phony; they are truly scarred because our society is so deeply puritanical that even vicitms of forcible rape are made to feel ashamed.

Jqueer--excellent point about the sexualization of kids--and the hypersexualization of our entire culture. I mean, even on sitcoms, every other storyline involves a sexual situation these days. I think it's okay to portray sex, but I think nowadays it's been ramped up to a degree that's out of control.

Judith Levine, whose new book Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex (just published by the University of Minnesota Press) has caused a firestorm, is on WNYC 820 AM right now talking about teen sexuality right now, and one of her main points appears to be that sexuality among young people is okay and that greater education of children is important. She believes context is crucial and has been talking about state ages of consent; ages of majority; and the fact that a girl can marry at 13 in some places, even though consent in this case is problematic. A guy called in to say that most adult-teen pairings involve men and women--NOT men and boys--because of our patriarchal society--I'd agree with this.

Great points, Jqueer, about the witch hunt, and Tom about balances of power. Shortly after the priest scandal broke, I was dining with three other gay men, and one piped up joyfully, "One of my favorite lovers when I was younger was a priest!" He didn't view it as abuse, but rather as a positive aspect of his early sexual experiences.

Another man I know in Chicago was debating whether or not to embark upon a romance with a monk there; he said to me, "Well, I'm not Catholic, and what happens when I want to be with him and he's in the monastery and can't get out?" It was almost comical; and yet at another level quite touching and sad.

I have known a number of gay priests and gay ex-priests, and I really think that trying to remove gay men from the priesthood may backfire horribly. This would be one instance where I would strongly support widescale OUTING of any of the hypocrites in the hierarchy who back such a policy.

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
[
where does one draw the line? ... I ask, because then are we going to condemn all ephebophiles, ... A child CANNOT consent, but what about a 17-year old? But what do we say to the ephebophiles in our community/communities? Is sex with a 17-year old--or magazines praising it, shows celebrating it, etc.--okay--
I am not an ephebophile, but I do wonder about the many men who are--how are they to be viewed?
[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ][/QB]

---

If you are over 18 -then anyone under 18 is unlawful - male OR female. Why the question???

[quote]Originally posted by copman:
If you are over 18 -then anyone under 18 is unlawful - male OR female. Why the question???

---

If you can't be trusted to buy a beer, why should you be considered able to consent to sex? Or is that a comment for the lowering the drinking age thread?

edited for grammatical atrocities

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: jqueer ]

[quote]Originally posted by copman:


If you are over 18 -then anyone under 18 is unlawful - male OR female. Why the question???

---

The question arises because a range of publications, films, etc. in gay culture have portrayed and continue to portray relationships, without problematizing them, between men over 18 and young men from 15-18. **That's** why I asked the question. Obviously among more than a few homosexuals this is not problematic; and as I said, in a wide range of countries outside the U.S., it is even less so across society. That's why I asked the question; it needs to be asked because it is an issue.

[quote]Originally posted by copman:
If you are over 18 -then anyone under 18 is unlawful - male OR female. Why the question???

---

Not necessarily, copman. When I lived in NYC, I believe a 3-year age discrepancy was allowed. In other words, if you're 30 and having sex with a 16-year-old, you're busted. But if you're 19 and having sex with your 16-year-old boy(or girl)friend, that was legal.

Ump25, I'm not challenging you, but more questioning. Unless you choose to be celibate, how can any gay man be anything other than a "cafeteria" Catholic? PS - re: John Paul I and Humanae Vitae ... please tell me you know the true circumstances of John Paul I's death.

This has been a very difficult issue for me. I mean it when I say that I love the Church with all my heart. But I'm not naive about the horrible abuse of power that has allowed the molestation of children to persist. Power corrupts, and corruption is what's behind this conspiracy. A priest submitted a report to the Church about the alarming trend of sexual predator priests back in 1985! Of course, that report, along with so much more, was simply covered up.

I'm sorry, but I don't think the driving force behind the cover-up is all that complicated. Men who were very concerned about their own careers made the Church's interests paramount, at the expense of far too many innocent children. I don't think the men involved in the cover-up were necessarily evil, but their actions inarguably were.

What I find most distressing about all this is that they (the Church hierarchy) still don't get it. If you're choosing a life of celibacy, what does it matter if you're gay or straight? Why are some maintaining the spurious connection between homosexuality and pedophilia? Perhaps most distressing of all was Cardinal Law's reaction to one man's accusation against Law's predecessor Cardinal Madeiros: Cardinal Law immediately dismissed the man's accusation as a flagrant attempt at character assasination. Uh, doesn't he get that it's just that attitude that caused this mess in the first place? Maybe the guy is just a gold-digger looking for some easy money. Maybe the guy is a sociopathic liar. But maybe the guy is telling the truth, and that knee-jerk response sure doesn't help matters any.

I used to have my issues with the Church, but I've long since resolved them. One thing that's easy to lose sight of amidst all this is just how much good the Church does. In every human endeavor, you'll find both good and bad. I believe the reason the Church has survived the fall of Rome, Pope's myriad mistresses, anti-Popes, the Inquisition, and everything else over the course of over two millennia, is that in the end, there's so much more good to Catholicism than bad.

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[ January 03, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

Well, it seems like we're in agreement here then. I have actually come to agree with most of the Church's stands on issues like abortion, the death penalty, divorce, and papal infallability. My only real disagreement with the Church is "sex only for purposes of procreation" (obviously). I went through a long period of rebellion, where I rejected almost all the doctrines of the Church, only to come around after thinking through them for myself.

As for Tom's statement that most priests are gay ... hmmmm, if by "most" you mean >50%, then I seriously doubt that. I have met/known a lot of gay priests, however; certainly less than 50%, but it does seem to be a higher percentage than the 5-10% in the general population.

PS: no response regarding the death of John Paul I? PM me if you want.

It's hard to argue with someone who thinks being gay is bad, Ump. My statement about priests being gay is not meant as an insult; your calling it "ridiculous" and an "absurdity" suggests you view it that way, or else you would have chosen to challenge me in a less hissy tone.
I have read and heard Fr. Donald Cozzens and others who believe the number of gay priests can be as high as 60% (I suspect it's even more than that). The absurd denials by self-righteous priests, like political climber and Robertson imitator Fr. John McCloskey, are even more telling.
I know, either personally or through my partner, who was a seminarian, a seminary president and an archbishop who are gay, very good people, and still have a don't ask don't tell cover up mentality. I know that some dioceses even have (to insiders) colorful drag queen names, and it's my choice not to out anyone here.
When I said priests were screwed up, I didn't mean they were all bad. They can be very charitable people and still have a screwed up sexuality.
When I chose Belgium, Poland, and Ireland, it was PRECISELY because in those three countries there had been incidences of what we're going through here in the US, and it has not become a big time scandal there.

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy
PS: no response regarding the death of John Paul I? PM me if you want.

---

Sorry, I deactivated my PM's a long time ago.

[quote]Originally posted by Tom:
It's hard to argue with someone who thinks being gay is bad, Ump.

---

I think you misinterpreted my comments, Tom. I didn't say that being gay was bad; rather, I thought your generalizations about priests was bad/ridiculous/illogical.

Regardless, I've probably said enough here. I don't think the masses here need here more from me on this subject.

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[quote]Originally posted by BoSoxRudy:


Not necessarily, copman. When I lived in NYC, I believe a 3-year age discrepancy was allowed. In other words, if you're 30 and having sex with a 16-year-old, you're busted. But if you're 19 and having sex with your 16-year-old boy(or girl)friend, that was legal.

---

As I understand it-and I don't have occasion to enforce this much as I am not primarily a juvenile officer- In Ohio the law allows sex, with a two years age gap IF BOTH PARTIES ARE UNDER 18. Such as a 17 yr old and a 15 yr old. But an 18 - 16 is not allowed.