Am I the Only One Who Remembers . . .

Posted on | July 6, 2010 | 27 Comments

. . . how often we were told that the Catholic Church sex scandals had nothing to do with homosexuality?

Yeah, there was an endless parade of former altar boys coming forward to say they’d been molested by priests, but this was in no way related to the accused priests being gay, you see, and anyone who dared suggest such a thing was a homophobic hater.

We await similar lectures from the same people, telling us that the boy-buggering priest problem is completely unrelated to this latest news:

Kevin Gray, a priest at Sacred Heart Church in Waterbury, Connecticut, is expected to turn himself in after being charged with siphoning $1.3 million from church coffers to pay for his secret gay lifestyle. . . .

Details from the Waterbury (Conn.) American-Republican:

[P]olice say a months-long criminal investigation has revealed the 64-year-old Gray was leading an extravagant double life that his parishioners never knew about.
That secret life included male escorts hired in New York, $200,000 in restaurant bills — including dinners at Tavern on the Green — and hotel stays in the lap of Manhattan luxury, expenses amassed by Gray and paid for with the church’s money, police say. . . .
Police say for the past seven years he cut checks from the church bank account to pay for designer clothes by Armani and overnight stays at Madison Avenue hotels, among a list of other expenses.
Although police believe Gray told his congregation he was battling cancer, detectives have determined Gray has never had cancer.
“I think that’s how he explained his absence from the parish,” said Capt. Christopher Corbett, a police spokesman.

So, Father Gray was actually Father Gay. Evidently finding the Waterbury altar boys insufficiently attractive, Padre Poofter instead decked himself out in an Armani wardrobe, jaunting off to the big city where he wined and dined and snuggled up with rented gay lovers in Manhattan hotels.

And this, we will be told by our enlightened betters, is completely unrelated to anything else that might cross our minds in response to the terms “gay” and “priest” and “scandal.”

Just checked over at Andrew Sullivan’s blog to see if the lecturing had begun. He’s made himself the most famous Catholic gay man in the world and his reaction? Crickets chirping.

By the way, I understand that certain “progressive” Catholics are now organizing a summer program for teenage girls, to be supervised by Joren Van Der Sloot.

Category: Gays, Scandal, Sex

Comments

27 Responses to “Am I the Only One Who Remembers . . .”

Lightmore
July 6th, 2010 @ 6:48 pm

A profession requiring lifelong male celibacy will disproportionally attract two groups:

(a) asexuals, the 1-2% of the population that have little or no sex drive

(b) homosexual men

In addition, some clinically heterosexual males will be driven into “opportunistic homosexuality” (like some normally herbivorous animal species become “opportunistic carnivores” if meat is the only food available) by the combination of inaccessible female partners and relatively accessible male ones.

My vote (albeit not a Catholic) would be to allow priests to marry, possibly retaining celibacy for monks and for higher ecclesiastical ranks (the way it’s done in the Orthodox churches and in some Eastern Catholic ones).
NealDewing
July 6th, 2010 @ 6:48 pm

If only gay priests were allowed to marry they could make a sham of both sacraments at once…if only…
Until the lavender mafia dies out in the seminaries we’re going to keep having this problem. Can a gay man be a priest? If he’s celibate, yes. Can a gay subculture that provides “outlets” and covers for these priests be allowed to continue? No.
Lightmore
July 6th, 2010 @ 2:48 pm

A profession requiring lifelong male celibacy will disproportionally attract two groups:

(a) asexuals, the 1-2% of the population that have little or no sex drive

(b) homosexual men

In addition, some clinically heterosexual males will be driven into “opportunistic homosexuality” (like some normally herbivorous animal species become “opportunistic carnivores” if meat is the only food available) by the combination of inaccessible female partners and relatively accessible male ones.

My vote (albeit not a Catholic) would be to allow priests to marry, possibly retaining celibacy for monks and for higher ecclesiastical ranks (the way it’s done in the Orthodox churches and in some Eastern Catholic ones).
NealDewing
July 6th, 2010 @ 2:48 pm

If only gay priests were allowed to marry they could make a sham of both sacraments at once…if only…
Until the lavender mafia dies out in the seminaries we’re going to keep having this problem. Can a gay man be a priest? If he’s celibate, yes. Can a gay subculture that provides “outlets” and covers for these priests be allowed to continue? No.
Robert Stacy McCain
July 6th, 2010 @ 6:58 pm

“lavender mafia . . . in the seminaries”

Yeah, I’m Protestant, so this is none of my business, but Catholic friends who’ve studied the problem always point to the regime of “tolerance” that took hold at Catholic seminaries during the 1970s as a major cause of this problem. Gay clergy became increasingly influential in the seminaries, and as a result the path to priesthood became less appealing to non-gay candidates. The policy of “tolerance” eventually led to a conspiracy of silence, and meanwhile the church was advised by “experts” that the appropriate thing to do with molesters was to recommend them for psychological treatment, rather than prosecution.

That’s the way my Catholic friends explain it, anyway. Your mileage may vary.
Robert Stacy McCain
July 6th, 2010 @ 2:58 pm

“lavender mafia . . . in the seminaries”

Yeah, I’m Protestant, so this is none of my business, but Catholic friends who’ve studied the problem always point to the regime of “tolerance” that took hold at Catholic seminaries during the 1970s as a major cause of this problem. Gay clergy became increasingly influential in the seminaries, and as a result the path to priesthood became less appealing to non-gay candidates. The policy of “tolerance” eventually led to a conspiracy of silence, and meanwhile the church was advised by “experts” that the appropriate thing to do with molesters was to recommend them for psychological treatment, rather than prosecution.

That’s the way my Catholic friends explain it, anyway. Your mileage may vary.
John S
July 6th, 2010 @ 7:19 pm

It should have nothing to do with “gay” or “straight.” The requirement is celibacy…they shouldn’t be pursuing sex with women either.
John S
July 6th, 2010 @ 3:19 pm

It should have nothing to do with “gay” or “straight.” The requirement is celibacy…they shouldn’t be pursuing sex with women either.
Robert Stacy McCain
July 6th, 2010 @ 7:25 pm

they shouldn’t be pursuing sex with women either.

Of course not. But the point — in case you missed it — is that over and over again, the formula was “priest+boys,” while all the enlightened people proclaimed that this had nothing to homosexuality. Apparently, once a gay guy gets caught shagging minors, he’s forced to turn in his Official Gay Club membership card or something.
Robert Stacy McCain
July 6th, 2010 @ 3:25 pm

they shouldn’t be pursuing sex with women either.

Of course not. But the point — in case you missed it — is that over and over again, the formula was “priest+boys,” while all the enlightened people proclaimed that this had nothing to homosexuality. Apparently, once a gay guy gets caught shagging minors, he’s forced to turn in his Official Gay Club membership card or something.
Mary Rose
July 6th, 2010 @ 8:03 pm

My heart has been broken by the amount of abuse that has happened within the Catholic church. My brother left it as a result and is happy within a modern Church of Christ congregation.

Meanwhile, Stacy, your Catholic friends are right. Last year I read a powerful book, Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church by Michael S. Rose. I was shocked by how often the more traditional and orthodox seminarians were kicked out because they were “too rigid” but yet gay men who had no business being in the seminary to begin with were given free reign. This also goes hand-in-hand with the push by liberals for women to be ordained as priests. As a matter of fact, that was often a test for seminarians; who frequently had to answer to a woman religious during their evaluation process. (The woman would make a big deal out of saying that “soon” women would be able to become priests. The seminarian’s reaction was closely analyzed.)

Another area where you’ll hear crickets chirping: the liberal nuns (who are using the whole sordid mess to proclaim it as proof that women should be ordained), are completely silent as it’s now emerging that nuns sexually abused young girls within their religious schools. And they don’t want to talk about it.

I know many do not believe in the ability to live a celibate life, but it is possible. What is required is complete sacrifice and unwavering devotion to a calling that is larger than the world can comprehend. We have some amazing saints who managed it. But with liberals and progressives in the church constantly pushing the homosexual agenda; it is no surprise that it is portrayed as an impossible feat.

I attend the Traditional Latin Mass. One of the reasons is because there is more of an adherence to traditional Catholicism. Since I spent so many years within the Protestant church, I consider myself a half-breed of sorts. Still, there are some awesome priests who are devastated by these events but continue to serve their parishes in humility and with great repentance.

We do have some good news, though. The next generation that is entering the seminaries are much more conservative. The more conservative orders are the ones attracting the most vocations. And I continue to be amazed by how much the younger Millennials completely love the Latin Mass. I never would have imagined!
Mary Rose
July 6th, 2010 @ 4:03 pm

My heart has been broken by the amount of abuse that has happened within the Catholic church. My brother left it as a result and is happy within a modern Church of Christ congregation.

Meanwhile, Stacy, your Catholic friends are right. Last year I read a powerful book, Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church by Michael S. Rose. I was shocked by how often the more traditional and orthodox seminarians were kicked out because they were “too rigid” but yet gay men who had no business being in the seminary to begin with were given free reign. This also goes hand-in-hand with the push by liberals for women to be ordained as priests. As a matter of fact, that was often a test for seminarians; who frequently had to answer to a woman religious during their evaluation process. (The woman would make a big deal out of saying that “soon” women would be able to become priests. The seminarian’s reaction was closely analyzed.)

Another area where you’ll hear crickets chirping: the liberal nuns (who are using the whole sordid mess to proclaim it as proof that women should be ordained), are completely silent as it’s now emerging that nuns sexually abused young girls within their religious schools. And they don’t want to talk about it.

I know many do not believe in the ability to live a celibate life, but it is possible. What is required is complete sacrifice and unwavering devotion to a calling that is larger than the world can comprehend. We have some amazing saints who managed it. But with liberals and progressives in the church constantly pushing the homosexual agenda; it is no surprise that it is portrayed as an impossible feat.

I attend the Traditional Latin Mass. One of the reasons is because there is more of an adherence to traditional Catholicism. Since I spent so many years within the Protestant church, I consider myself a half-breed of sorts. Still, there are some awesome priests who are devastated by these events but continue to serve their parishes in humility and with great repentance.

We do have some good news, though. The next generation that is entering the seminaries are much more conservative. The more conservative orders are the ones attracting the most vocations. And I continue to be amazed by how much the younger Millennials completely love the Latin Mass. I never would have imagined!
Auguste
July 6th, 2010 @ 8:08 pm

Just to clarify…

Other than being a co-religionist, what does this man have to do with pedophilic priests? I see no indications that pedophilia is one of his crimes/sins.
Auguste
July 6th, 2010 @ 4:08 pm

Just to clarify…

Other than being a co-religionist, what does this man have to do with pedophilic priests? I see no indications that pedophilia is one of his crimes/sins.
MarkInFla
July 6th, 2010 @ 8:25 pm

The problem with priestly celibacy, like the problems with 36 hour shifts for new doctors, hazing, male circumcision, and female genital mutilation, is that those who make the rules suffered through it and they don’t want to make it easier for the next generation, or to indicate that their suffering was unnecessary.
Girl On The Right » Blog Archive » As I said before…
July 6th, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

[…] This case, on the other hand, is the lesser of two evils. I would rather my parish priest be stealing the church roof fund to hire blowjobs from male escorts than be fucking my son. Kevin Gray, a priest at Sacred Heart Church in Waterbury, Connecticut, is expected to turn himself in after being charged with siphoning $1.3 million from church coffers to pay for his secret gay lifestyle. . . . […]
MarkInFla
July 6th, 2010 @ 4:25 pm

The problem with priestly celibacy, like the problems with 36 hour shifts for new doctors, hazing, male circumcision, and female genital mutilation, is that those who make the rules suffered through it and they don’t want to make it easier for the next generation, or to indicate that their suffering was unnecessary.
Mark J. Goluskin
July 6th, 2010 @ 8:38 pm

Hmm, are you sure that this guy is NOT an Episcopal priest?! This story sounds very familiar. Maybe because us live-it-up Episcopalians have had this happen time and time again. We wonder why many of our churches are broke. Morally, spiritually and financially. Anyhow, this guy will be received into the ECUSA if he has not been already. Trust me.
Mark J. Goluskin
July 6th, 2010 @ 4:38 pm

Hmm, are you sure that this guy is NOT an Episcopal priest?! This story sounds very familiar. Maybe because us live-it-up Episcopalians have had this happen time and time again. We wonder why many of our churches are broke. Morally, spiritually and financially. Anyhow, this guy will be received into the ECUSA if he has not been already. Trust me.
You know the best thing about this post from Stacy McCain? « DaTechguy's Blog
July 6th, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

[…] thing about this post from Stacy McCain? By datechguy He is not in the least bit Catholic so he has no skin in the game so to […]
Erich Madden
July 7th, 2010 @ 3:35 am

gg: “….if this chap is gay….”

Seriously? “if” ? you’re kidding?
Erich Madden
July 6th, 2010 @ 11:35 pm

gg: “….if this chap is gay….”

Seriously? “if” ? you’re kidding?
Around the Web « Calvin Freiburger Online
July 6th, 2010 @ 11:51 pm

[…] Robert Stacy McCain, intolerant as ever. […]
Erich Madden
July 7th, 2010 @ 6:39 am

As usual, gg, you have made a whole bunch of points which, correct or not (mostly not) are only peripherally relevant to the topic, at best. The original topic – that the church’s pedophile priest problem is overwhelmingly a homosexual pedophile priest problem, a fact which is conveniently overlooked by the media and the left, (and a trend which extends to pedophiles outside of the church as well) and the immoral actions of this particular priest, while not on the vile level of child molestation, are directly traceable to this same issue, due to his suspected (ha!) homosexuality. The church being wrong in covering for pedophiles, which it obviously is, or your assuming what its motivations are in doing so, does not refute any of those points.

Such an effort you put in to type all that text, and all for naught.
Erich Madden
July 7th, 2010 @ 2:39 am

As usual, gg, you have made a whole bunch of points which, correct or not (mostly not) are only peripherally relevant to the topic, at best. The original topic – that the church’s pedophile priest problem is overwhelmingly a homosexual pedophile priest problem, a fact which is conveniently overlooked by the media and the left, (and a trend which extends to pedophiles outside of the church as well) and the immoral actions of this particular priest, while not on the vile level of child molestation, are directly traceable to this same issue, due to his suspected (ha!) homosexuality. The church being wrong in covering for pedophiles, which it obviously is, or your assuming what its motivations are in doing so, does not refute any of those points.

Such an effort you put in to type all that text, and all for naught.
Jazz
July 8th, 2010 @ 6:44 pm

how often we were told that the Catholic Church sex scandals had nothing to do with homosexuality?

I’m kind of lost here. Grey embezzled funds, and then he used those funds to pay for sex. Can someone explain the nexus, though, between embezzlement and homosexuality? Is the “scandal” (scare quotes because “scandal” is a term of art in Church lingo that does not coincide with general usage) that a gay man is a priest? That he embezzled? That he used embezzled funds to pay for gay sex?

I’m no apologist for embezzlers or homosexuals, but I am really at a loss to see a connection between the priest’s homosexuality and his proclivity for appropriating Church moneys. Priest embezzlers embezzle for a multitude of reasons, not just to pay for gay sex, so I don’t see his homosexuality as being evidence of any other church-related problem than he was a practicing homosexual in contravention to his religious vows.

Other information about Gray:

A well-known Roman Catholic priest who stole $1.3 million from the Sacred Heart parish over seven years said he “had grown to hate being a priest” because the Archdiocese had given him the “worst church assignments” where he would “have to fix problems made by the previous priests,” according to his arrest warrant.

The Rev. Kevin J. Gray, 64, was charged with first-degree larceny. Police said he used church funds to pay for hotels, restaurant meals, clothing and male escorts. . . .

Gray told police he first became bitter when the Archdiocese transferred him to Immaculate Conception Church in New Hartford in 2001 while his mother was dying in a New Haven hospital. He said he was angry that he had to commute so far a few times a week to see his mother, police said. . . .

Gray told police that he is gay and has a problem with the church’s stance on homosexuality, the affidavit states.

Gray has serious problems and serious hostility toward the Church. His homosexuality looks to be only one element of his resentment toward the Church and hardly the sole (or, arguably, even significant) causal factor in his embezzlement. It doesn’t look like he embezzled to get laid; it looks like he embezzled because he felt entitled and then used the proceeds on his gay pursuits.
Jazz
July 8th, 2010 @ 2:44 pm

how often we were told that the Catholic Church sex scandals had nothing to do with homosexuality?

I’m kind of lost here. Grey embezzled funds, and then he used those funds to pay for sex. Can someone explain the nexus, though, between embezzlement and homosexuality? Is the “scandal” (scare quotes because “scandal” is a term of art in Church lingo that does not coincide with general usage) that a gay man is a priest? That he embezzled? That he used embezzled funds to pay for gay sex?

I’m no apologist for embezzlers or homosexuals, but I am really at a loss to see a connection between the priest’s homosexuality and his proclivity for appropriating Church moneys. Priest embezzlers embezzle for a multitude of reasons, not just to pay for gay sex, so I don’t see his homosexuality as being evidence of any other church-related problem than he was a practicing homosexual in contravention to his religious vows.

Other information about Gray:

A well-known Roman Catholic priest who stole $1.3 million from the Sacred Heart parish over seven years said he “had grown to hate being a priest” because the Archdiocese had given him the “worst church assignments” where he would “have to fix problems made by the previous priests,” according to his arrest warrant.

The Rev. Kevin J. Gray, 64, was charged with first-degree larceny. Police said he used church funds to pay for hotels, restaurant meals, clothing and male escorts. . . .

Gray told police he first became bitter when the Archdiocese transferred him to Immaculate Conception Church in New Hartford in 2001 while his mother was dying in a New Haven hospital. He said he was angry that he had to commute so far a few times a week to see his mother, police said. . . .

Gray told police that he is gay and has a problem with the church’s stance on homosexuality, the affidavit states.

Gray has serious problems and serious hostility toward the Church. His homosexuality looks to be only one element of his resentment toward the Church and hardly the sole (or, arguably, even significant) causal factor in his embezzlement. It doesn’t look like he embezzled to get laid; it looks like he embezzled because he felt entitled and then used the proceeds on his gay pursuits.