Wherein homosexualist activist @JamesMartinSJ tries to deceive you

Scandalous Jesuit and homosexualist activist James Martin has a 1700 word deceptive whine at Jesuit produced Amerika Magazine.

Let’s have a look.

First, a few comment to hold in mind as you sort through Martin’s claims, bad premises, and distortions.

Above all, Martin thinks there is a “witch hunt” on for “gay” (I hate that word) priests.  Who is he trying to fool?  This is patently ridiculous.    But it is at least clever, because it distracts your attention.

Also, Martin claims that the reason why people don’t accept homosexuality in the priesthood is because of hate.  We are homophobic.  Frankly, I don’t know anyone who is truly homophobic, and I will bet you don’t either.  We hate sin, not sinners.  Accusations of homophobia are lazy and distracting.  Martin even compares it to “racism”.  Absurd.

Martin wants you to accept that homosexuality and priesthood are entirely compatible.  A man who is sexually or romantically attracted to other men do not, cannot, have a proper nuptial relationship with the Church.

Think of it this way.  You have two power magnets.  You misalign their polls.  Instead of powerfully attracting, they powerfully repel each other.  You can force them together with real effort.  They remain in contact only because you are applying great force to overcome their natural opposition.   That’s what priesthood and homosexuality are like: misaligned magnets. Homosexual priests can function in the Church, no question.  But there is a huge strain inherent in what they do.  And when the effort to keep them together slips, disaster results.

Let’s see Martin.  It’s really long, which was a tactical error.  Many people will simply move on after a while.   As you read, think about the magnets.


The witch hunt for gay priests

[…]


No.  On second thought don’t waste your time.  If you do go over there to read, keep in mind the magnet analogy.   Priesthood and intrinsically disordered homosexual tendencies repel each other like misaligned magnets.  Constant force is required to keep them together.  Let up just a little and they fly apart.

Oh… one thing you should know.  He wrote: “Many priests abusers had a homosexual orientation. That is undeniable.”

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Clerical Sexual Abuse, Liberals, Mail from priests, Sin That Cries To Heaven and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Wherein homosexualist activist @JamesMartinSJ tries to deceive you

  1. defenderofTruth says:

    Fr. Martin is very disingenuous. It wasn’t “many”, it was “most”. By all accounts, over 80% of the victims in the 2002 report were pubescent boys. That means at least 80% of the abusers were homosexual.

  2. Ms. M-S says:

    While trying to make the case to the contrary, Martin inadvertently demonstrated why homosexuals, even with the best of intentions, are unsuited for the priesthood.

  3. GregB says:

    Fr. James Martin has often had leveled charges of phobias. The Soviet Union was guilty of the systematic abuse of psychiatry for political reasons, and used psychiatry against their political opposition, and dissidents. It would seem that the torch of the systematic abuse of psychiatry has been passed from the Soviet Union to the progressives. Fr. James Martin acts like a Soviet era zampolit.

  4. Dan says:

    I would like to ask Father Martin, how many abuse cases would we be dealing with if homosexual priests had never been admitted to the priesthood? And if most of the cases hadn’t been homosexual in nature I wonder if there would have been such pressure for bishops to cover them up.

  5. Spinmamma says:

    Cries of “homophobia” were completely expected, so Father Martin is holding to the Progressive political script. His article creates many a straw man, but one of the biggest is the claim that now Catholics believe all priests with homosexual orientation are predators. His article reminds me of the Proggie response to 9-11, wherein media pundits rushed to the defense of Muslims who had not been attacked (I believe there were two verified acts of violence against “Muslims” in the US immediately after that event, and they were not Muslims at all, but Sikhs. ) Where oh where, in his essay, is there true condemnation of the terrible immorality underlying this scandal? If Father Martin truly believes :”. . . the intensity of hate and level of anger directed at gay priests are unprecedented in my memory.. .” where are his calm efforts at reconciliation? No. Instead he accuses the Faithful en masse of hatred, not of the sins of the accused (both clergy and administrators) but of all homosexual priests. I have seen no Catholic voice (other than a few anonymous commenters on open forums) say anything hateful about persons of any sexual orientation struggling to maintain their chastity. Where is Father Martin’s acknowledgement that all priests, because of the actions of the powerful few, are now under a cloud of suspicion? How my heart breaks to see the secular arguments of the Left brought forth within the Church to attack the laity (and Holy Mother Church) under the guise of defending a supposed down trodden group.

  6. rosula says:

    I’m just angry that “witch hunt” has a negative connotation these days.

    There are actual witches. Many cause real harm to innocent people, not unlike homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church.

  7. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Rosula, you are headed down a rabbit hole. But “witch hunts” were primarily a pagan thing (and still are, in pagan places), or a Protestant thing. Catholics doing witch hunting were primarily persons with objectively disordered theology. So Martin’s slur has nothing to do with what’s really going on; he probably would have been leading a fashionable witch hunt, had he been alive in the day.

    The traditional Catholic stance, from the earliest times, was that almost everyone claiming occult or pagan priestly powers was delusional; and that the exceptions were victims of demonic forces, best dealt with as St. Paul dealt with the possessed slave girl. In some times and places, such as Germany in the very early Middle Ages, bishops forbade any Catholic from publicly accusing people of having performed witch murders or witch destruction of crops, because that was evidence that the Catholic was actually harboring pagan or irreligious ideas that God was powerless. Witches were only to be punished criminally, for things they actually physically did, and not by lynch mobs of half-pagan Catholics.

    Later on, you see people subverting documents decrying the falseness and delusions of witch stories, and turning them into arguments for the reality and widespread use of witch powers. (To be fair, a lot of this was influenced by lawyers reading pagan Roman statutes against witchcraft and poison. The idea that witches and arsonists should be burned to death was a pagan Roman idea. And yeah, that’s probably where Nero got the idea for his garden illumination-by-martyrs.) But it mostly seems to have been a way to work off people’s frustrations, even in an uncertain time when a lot of people found the occult tempting. People like St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross were accused of heresy and witchcraft in the same breath, when they were actually great saints. That doesn’t mean nobody in Spain was a heretic or a would-be bruja, but obviously people were pointing their guns in the wrong direction. A lot.

    More can be said; but as St. Athanasius pointed out, the Name of Jesus and the Sign of the Cross were guaranteed to make sure any pagan ceremony or magic spell didn’t work. (Which was why he invited his pagan readers to perform the empirical experiment of walking down any street of temples and trying out the Name.) They didn’t need witch hunts back then, so I doubt we need them now.

    Witch hunts have a name for injustice because they usually were. Criminal investigations are just. Canonical investigations are just. Even private investigators who hand over evidence where it is needed, are serving the Lord Who is Truth.

    Fair, thorough, unrelenting investigations are the least that we owe to the victims, and to all the good people who were conned into paying salaries and providing homes to wolves.

  8. Crabbetrywe says:

    Hm, let’s see. “Gay”… as if only some of these definitions apply, and certainly not number 6:

    gay (ge?)

    adj. , -er, -est,
    n., adv. adj.
    1. homosexual.
    2. indicating or pertaining to homosexual interests or issues: gay rights; a gay organization.
    3. having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits.
    4. bright or showy: gay colors.
    5. given to or abounding in social or other pleasures: a gay social season.
    6. licentious; dissipated; wanton: a wild, gay life.
    n.
    7. a homosexual person, esp. a male.
    adv.
    8. in a gay manner.

  9. Lisieux says:

    He’s a clever writer. Note the sentence: “I know hundreds of gay priests, and I can say with honesty that all of them strive to keep their promises of celibacy and vows of chastity.” The weasel word there, of course, is “strive”. I suppose all of us strive to avoid sin – but we still have to go to Confession regularly. I can believe that the priests Fr Martin knows strive to avoid their besetting sin – but he doesn’t claim that they always succeed.

  10. This “man/whatever” is sick, sick, sick. Anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence, like me, can see the wolf behind the sheep’s clothing. Never forget what de Sales said, “It is an act of charity to cry out against the wolf when he is among the sheep.” We have so many to cry out about.

  11. Bellarmino Vianney says:

    “…homosexualist activist James Martin has a 1700 word deceptive whine…”

    Readers of this blog probably already know this, but this is the strategy of the Left, liberals, etc. – they take half-truths and spin them against others to try to ruin their credibility and to turn others against them. We say we hate the sin exhibited by the sinner, but they falsely accuse us of hating the sinner.

    Recently there was another prime example of the Left apparently attempting to take half-truths in attempt to try to discredit someone. In this case it was the Great Archbishop Vigano.

    The USCCB’s “news” outlet, CNS, published a video with 3 separate half-truths which appear to be an attempt at discrediting Archbishop Vigano. Their spinning of half-truths (or implied spinning) is absolutely ridiculous, but it is a good example of how diabolical people work with half-truths.

    To put it another way, gravely evil and deceptive people arrive at false conclusions by using a few true premises.

    Lifesitenews rightly allows Vigano to respond to those half-truths in an article entitled “EXCLUSIVE: Viganó doubles down: McCarrick was restricted under Benedict, but ‘he didn’t obey’”, published August 31, 2018.

    The problem is that it becomes very difficult to respond to every half-truth thrown out there by Leftists, liberals, etc. Hopefully Vigano keeps up his efforts.

  12. mddelala says:

    Father, for our enlightment… (Introductory note) I was in a seminary a few years ago and casually caught one of the older seminarians watching what Pius V called “horrible crime[s] by which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation”. I don’t want to give out details, just say that i told my own formator priest, as well as the rector of the seminary and, as far as I know, that guy was later ordained. As a side note, for reasons unrelated, I left the seminary and I’m now happily married. (End introductory note)

    Said the above, I always felt curious as to what should/could happen when/if a seminarian told in confession to his spiritual “advisor” that he watches homosexual pornography or that he has a romantic or platonic relationship with another man. Of course, you are not a spiritual advisor to any seminary, but just to know, in the hypothetical case that a seminarian went by your confessional, and said that he watched homosexual pornography or was in one of these relationships… Wouldn’t you advise him, among other things, to leave the seminary? Isn’t there some kind of directive for confessors to say something on those lines? [Confessors and spiritual directors ought to be aware of and conform to the documents of the Church. If they are involved in the formation of priests, they ought to be aware of and adhere to the documents already issued that deal with homosexuality. Hence, they should direct a seminarians who has these tendencies to drop out of formation right away and find a proper vocation. Priesthood is not for them.]

    I’m certainly not sure about this, but I tend to believe that it’s improbable (not impossible, but really unlikely) that on 9 or 10 years of priestly formation on a seminary (that’s how long it takes in this country), the spiritual “advisor” of a seminarian hasn’t been able to tell that the guy with whom he talks at least once a month (and probably way more often) has deep rooted homosexual tendencies that show, for example, on his relation with the internet or with other men.

    I also tend to believe that on some point on his life, during his years on seminary, that guy is going to confess these kinds of sins… at least once. Shouldn’t confessors advise on these matters? Or is it just a matter to give absolution to and a penance of two or three Hail Marys and no further comments?

    As I didn’t witness anything close to what you wrote on your most difficult post a few days ago, I tend to believe that, at least in this country, this matters are mostly private. However, being private and all, I really can’t understand how is it possible for a spiritual director/advisor not to notice… Is it just plain stupidity or is it just plain disregard for Church law?

    I ask for forgiveness for the many grammatical and orthography mistakes I’m sure to have done on this post, but as should be obvious by now, English is not my native tongue.

    [Remember, too, that confessors and spiritual directions cannot violate the Seal.]

  13. Dismas says:

    @mddelala – I cannot speak for any spiritual advisor, but someone careless enough to watch pornography with the door open is likely broadcasting his disordered appetite in a dozen other ways. “Gay Code” is a real thing. As you weren’t looking for it, expecting to find it, or even exposed to it, how could you have noticed?

    As for those that dismissed your warning, heaven help him, for he will be held eternally responsible for whatever happens through that priest.

  14. Gaetano says:

    This can be tested objectively.

    Have one seminarian announce he’s gay. Have another announce he wants to wear a cassock, learn the Mass in the EF and celebrate the OF ad orientam.

    See which one gets called to the seminary rector first.

    We already know the answer.

  15. fmsb78 says:

    It’s quite misleading to use the term “Gay Priest” and celibacy on the same phrase because homosexuality implies sexual activity. If anything the term “Effeminate” could be the proper word for a chaste case although neither homosexuals or effeminate people have (or should have) a place in the priesthood, period.

    To be a priest according the Sacred Heart of Jesus, it’s necessary to man up, to be a true man all the way because of the permanent state of denial of oneself, the mortification, the never ending crosses and love for the poor sinners.

  16. Malta says:

    Where I live you HAVE to be a gay priest to get promoted; my Spiritual Adviser is going over the FSSPX. He knows five languages, was a corporate attorney before becoming a priest, and outed a pedophile, which didn’t make the intelligencia/gestappo Lavender Mafia here very happy.

    The homosexual problem in the Church is very real, and very prevalent; and, yes, gays do have a higher percentage per capita of priests to mess with little boys. The comparison with racism is absurd; my best friend here, where I live, is African American, and he hates pedophiles. I also don’t know one person who actually Hates a gay person. Maybe there are some out there, but I have never met one.

  17. mddelala says:

    @Dismas As I said, I don’t want to go into details. I noticed this incident ’cause that seminarian was using the Seminary’s internet connection, not because he was doing this in the patio.

    Side note: Seminarys should be forced to make Network audits then and now…

  18. richiedel says:

    Fr. Martin’s shoddily substantiated “witch hunt” is a straw man designed to scare people in the Church off from doing anything to address the corrupt, homosexual subculture which perpetuates structures of clericalism and power among the Church’s leadership as it seeks to entrap, control, and blackmail priests and seminarians.

    And, his whole push for the legitimization of “celibate, gay” priests is all about growing this subculture. Once “celibate, gay” priests are fine with coming out en masse, this will all but establish at least an unofficial subculture in the Church, which, once established, will make on a practical level (see Amoris laetitia 304-306) the “celibate” part less of an expectation among the faithful, pertaining to expectations for both priests and the faithful themselves.

    As “accompaniment” replaces exhortation to repentance and life, any upcoming “updating” of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality will reflect an official blessing of those types of sins for which mere “accompaniment” is enough. Thus, on both an official and unofficial level, the subculture which Fr. Martin is attempting to foster and grow will establish its roots firmly.

    I don’t know about you, but if pushing back against this means having him point his finger at me and screech about how I am engaging in a “witch hunt”, I’m fine with that.

  19. Luminis says:

    What’s wrong with Fr Martin. He is supposed to be worried about the environment and migrants. Apparently that is the role of the Church now!!!

  20. ex seaxe says:

    First to say that Abp Viganó’s charges should be properly investigated, and that I think them credible. It is not just in the American church, I knew someone who taught at Allen Hall (London, UK) around 20 years ago and saw a worrying ‘gay’ subculture.
    Nevertheless, I am not clear that it is more difficult for a homosexual than a heterosexual to sublimate their sexual impulses and channel the energy into love of God. Maybe so, but do we have evidence? I do understand that seminary is a psycho/spiritual hothouse , and (nearly) all male makes it a testing environment. You, of course Father, have personal experience to draw on.
    It’s not a new problem, so how does St Benedict deal with it? I know that some nunneries were very vigilant against ‘particular friendships’.

  21. ex seaxe says:

    On a slightly different tack – my wife told me that in Brazil the controlling partner (eg McCarrick) was not said to be homosexual , domination is a form of machismo (or whatever that is in Portugese). The opprobrium was attached to the submissive partner. Any one know what the thinking is in Chile, or Argentina?

  22. defenderofTruth says:

    Not very charitable, but…of course he knows “hundreds of gay priests”. The question is if he knows any straight ones.

  23. tho says:

    What is wrong with Father Martin, doesn’t he realize what “intrinsically disordered” means? By his way of thinking the CCC is homophobic. Isn’t there something in Holy Scripture about serving two masters?

  24. HobokenZephyr says:

    I am of the opinion that we should consider the theological and moral instruction of Dean Martin, and perhaps Billy Martin or Rowan & Martin, as superior to Jesuit Father James Martin. But maybe that’s just me.

  25. Dimitri_Cavalli says:

    What makes sexuality analagous to race?

    To this day, no one has found the elusive “gay gene.” If such a gene exists, it would need to be explained how and why it’s passed on to offspring through heterosexual activity.

    Every homosexual ows his or her existence to heterosexual activity. Even test tube babies are conceived by joining a male sperm with a female egg.

    What happens when you join two sperm together or two eggs?

  26. Joy65 says:

    What really bugs me is that if any good holy devout Priest said anything even near what a certain Priests continually says about Homophobia and other nonsense that Priest would be reprimanded and told to keep his opinions to himself. But this certain Priest can say whatever he wants publicly and doesn’t seem to receive any kind of correction or reprimand at all from his superiors. SAD and truly wrong. AND as a Priest SOME misguided people may think he is speaking for the Church.

    semperficatholic says “This “man/whatever” is sick, sick, sick. Anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence, like me, can see the wolf behind the sheep’s clothing. Never forget what de Sales said, “It is an act of charity to cry out against the wolf when he is among the sheep.” We have so many to cry out about. ”

    WE can cry out against the wolf but will we be heard?

    fmsb78 says: “To be a priest according the Sacred Heart of Jesus, it’s necessary to man up, to be a true man all the way because of the permanent state of denial of oneself, the mortification, the never ending crosses and love for the poor sinners. ”

    So true. Why do so many people assume WRONGLY that a man who is answering God’s call can’t be completely heterosexual and renounce ANY sexual relations completely and be fine with that and be perfectly happy? There ARE devout holy good TRUE Priests wh0 don’t have anything in common with those wo preyed on innocents.

  27. Kathleen10 says:

    There has been research done on the psychology of many types of people and their disorders, homosexuals included. Some studies say the homosexual is typically an emotional narcissist, someone who cares far more for their own wellbeing than the wellbeing of others, to a disordered degree. It has been said that Nazi Germany was heavily involved in homosexuality, and that is why young German boys were conscripted into some type of youth group which put homosexuals in close contact with handsome young German boys. There is a book called The Pink Swastika, but I have never read that.
    I believe it was Joseph Sciambra who said homosexual men are playing out some baggage between themselves and their dads, and that it is about power and authority and hope for love and dominance, some combo platter of those issues they are always trying to work out. It sounds miserable and one can feel empathy for that, especially when we see all the absent dads today.
    Cops report the most violent assaults are domestic assaults, with homosexual assaults super violent. There is a high amount of domestic assaults in homes where the adults are homosexuals.
    Homosexual activity seems driven, obsessive. Heterosexual men and women don’t frequent bathrooms looking for anyone or anything to have sex with, or highway rest stops. Not too far from our house is an area in the woods where men are reported to go to have sex with each other, anonymously. Naked men are found in the woods. Read Joseph Sciambra’s accounts, especially his in-depth account of his life in San Francisco, if you can take it, I had to be careful when scanning it. It’s awful. It is an expose of the most depraved and perverted acts of reveling in random, public sex to a shocking degree. These acts are happening everywhere and one can only say they are clearly Satanic. After a person has experienced such depravity, the soul sinks further, and what was exciting before loses it’s cache, and one must find something even more depraved, much like drug use. This obsession easily explains why then a boy or a teen would be a sexual target.
    Now this is the man you want to make a Catholic priest? Put him in close proximity with other men, some of whom will be junior to his status? You want him to be a chaste, moral and disciplined man, who will care that you or your family need him for spiritual care? He is going to put you first, while he sits at the hospital with you and counsels you or provides you sacraments?
    He is going to be faithful to Christ and to the Church and what she teaches?
    We have no control over the church, obviously. But we have lived our lives telling ourselves that even though we knew the church had homosexuality it was not a problem and the church was the church. We have just had it absolutely driven home in no uncertain terms this is not the case.
    I don’t know what the answer is, I only know what it’s not. It is not pretending that homosexuality in the church does not matter.

  28. Uxixu says:

    While poor Fr. Martin is quite absurd and I would quite urge the next pope to issue a Syllabus against sexual immorality, renewing not just the condemnation of sodomy but the ancient disciplines we learned so much the hard way with St. Peter Damian, Pope St. Leo IX, and Horrendum illud scelus of Pope St. Pius V… to add to it no fault divorce to say nothing of abortion and all those who publicly support such degradation of the human soul (obviously politicians voting to enable any of the above).

    I would also urge that discipline should be vigorously enforced against any and ALL clerics who have violated their vow of chastity in any way. Any acts of sodomy should result in the censure of St. Peter Damian (and St. Basil) with public degradation and laicization to spend the rest of their lives in a monastery in penance (or if they choose to defy penance, excommunication and return to the secular world to whatever they see fit). IOW, don’t give them a talking point (even though they’ll probably try to claim it anyway). Apparently, from reading Ed Peters’ blog, regarding former Cardinal McCarrick, while canons on sacrilege could be extended it does not appear that clerics committing fornication or adultery or sodomy are not explicit violations of themselves in canon law.

  29. bibi1003 says:

    Defender of Truth, another question is, how WELL does he “know” them?

  30. defenderofTruth says:

    I wasn’t going to go there…

  31. AveMariaGratiaPlena says:

    Does Martin ever think or talk or write of anything besides homosexuals? Dude is obsessed.

  32. The Masked Chicken says:

    I have been hesitating to make this comment for the better part of a week and, even now, I might be totally wrong, but I suppose I should make it, if only to bring a bad idea into the open so that it can be dispensed with.

    I have been studying the mathematics of group laughter for about a year and the models indicate that for certain types of person-to-person interactions, the simple breathing of one person can become affected by the laughter of a person nearby so as to turn the breathing into laughter (sort of how yawning is contagious).

    Anyways, that got me thinking about the Tanganynika Laughter Epidemic of 1962:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanganyika_laughter_epidemic

    I decided to try mathematically modeling the epidemic using the tools of mathematical epidemiology. I have been studying the subject for a few weeks. It occurred to me that the homosexual networks of the abuse crisis are very similar to the network models used to describe the transmission of HIV in a similar population.

    Then, it occurred to me a week ago that the homosexual abuse crisis is not a primary infection, but a secondary, opportunistic infection like that which often occurs and kills with full-blown AIDS (the primary infection is a topic for another comment, but it has to do with the deviation from orthodoxy and orthopraxis due to private judgment, I think).

    I decided to try to treat the abuse data with the known mathematical models for the spread of an infection. There are three types of models: continuous, which use ordinary differential equations, discrete models, that use Markov chains, and the newer discrete network models that use statistical mechanics. The discrete models require some background in statistical mechanics and can be complicated. I decided to first of all try my luck with the older simpler models.

    These models were developed in 1927 by Kermack and McKormick, who won the Nobel Prize in medicine for developing them. Their model for the spread of an infection breaks up the population into three classes or compartments into which people are put: the susceptible, S, the Infected, I, and the Recovered, R. The model is known as the SIR model and it has been used successfully, with some additions, to model everything from the spread of measles to HIV. The most important measure is called the Reproduction Number, Ro. If Ro 1, the disease will become an epidemic. For the measles, prior to vaccination, Ro was about 18.

    There are various variations of the SIR model. If an incubation period is added, the model is SEIR, where E is the group of infected, but not yet contagious people. If the recovered group can lose their immunity, such as with the flu, the model becomes SEIRS, where the second S is for the re-infected. One can factor in the effects of vaccination or the birth and death of the population. In seminaries, this corresponds to the rate of those entering or leaving the seminary.

    In any case, I tried a simple SIR model because there is no incubation period for abuse – once it occurs, the person is, “infected.”. Homosexual-to-homosexual activity does not spread the disease, because they are both in population I and already infected.

    For this model, I looked up the data, starting in 1975. In that year, there were about 18,000 parishes in the U. S., with about 1.7 priests per parish. I rounded that to 2 and assumed that each priest had 2 altar boys. Thus, 4 x 18,000 is about 70,000 altar boys, which I took to be the number of susceptible individuals, S, in the model. I assumed no recovered individuals at the start of the year, given how hard abuse is to overcome. I assumed only 2 homosexual priests willing to abuse an altar boy to start with. Infection = abuse, in this model. I assumed that in 1975 most homosexual priests were, still, celibate (because the old days were not so degenerated from memory), so, instead of 4% homosexual activity, I assumed 1.5%. It would grow as time went on, I assume. I assumed a 1% recovery rate among the abused, which seems right, given how tough this type of abuse is to deal with.

    It turns out that a mathematician at Arizona State University has an applet that runs the SIR model, online, so I used it, instead of writing my own code.

    I plugged in the data and started the model with day 1 = Jan. 1, 1975 and ran the model for 3600 days, or about 10 years.

    And, there it was:

    http://www.public.asu.edu/~hnesse/classes/sir.html

    If one plugs in beta = .015, gamma = .01, initial S = 70,000, I = 2, R = 0, and time = 3600, you will see the infected curve start to rise after 1000 days, peak at 1800 days, and slowly fall to 3600 days. The total number of infected is about 5000. If more intital infected are used, the number of infected rises to about 10,000. These numbers match the abuse data for the period. I am scared.

    Here’s the point – treated as an infectious disease spread, the abuse peaked from 1975 to 1985 and then dwindled to a much smaller steady rate – on its own accord.

    If this analysis is even close to being true, the the Dallas Charter was, essentially, worthless. The disease has already settled down to a constant rate. It is true that the Dallas Charter may have had a preventative effect, which further reduced the abuse rate, but the bishops were far too late to prevent the epidemic – the Dallas Charter should have been in place in 1970 to do any large good.

    In any case, I don’t know of anyone who has thought to mathematically model the abuse crisis, so I thought I would start the ball rolling.

    If I get the chance, I would like to extend this methodology to explain how the liberal faction was able to “infect” Vatican II and how it came to manifest itself in the Church. It is a tale of herd immunty destroyed by two World Wars. I think the infectious model would explain a lot about the history of the Church from 1800 – 2018. If one can identify the pathogen, it has the potential to be a captivating study.

    The Chicken

  33. RAve says:

    Question for any priest: why would a priest know the sexual desires of hundreds of priest acquaintences and friends? How often do priests get together and talk about their own sexual tastes and desires? Is that dinner conversation? Car talk? Chit chat while jogging? Banter around your holy water coolers? I have found such chatter can be, or lead to, a near occasion of sin. Is that not the case for priests? And what about “gay” priests – wouldn’t two gay priests talking togerhee about their own sexual tastes and desires be a near occasion of sin between them?

    On closer investigation, his statement is very creepy as well as a source of sadness and worry – though I’m sure in his mind it makes everyone feel good and relaxed knowing about hundreds of striving “gay” priests serving the Church who are all chatting with each other about sex.

  34. AnthonyJ says:

    It is obvious why he is obsessed with homosexuals, just as an alcoholic would be obsessed with whiskey.

    AveMariaGratiaPlena
    31 August 2018
    Does Martin ever think or talk or write of anything besides homosexuals? Dude is obsessed.

  35. RichR says:

    If a nun came to a parish and was placed in the rectory with the pastor, eyebrows would raise and many would protest the impropriety. Naturally, because people would assume both are heterosexuals who, since they are living together, are now in an occasion of sin and scandal. Forget vows. You don’t place temptation before people like that.

    Why is this different with homosexual priests living together in a rectory? It’s not. It’s still a temptation when your job requires you living together in rectories or communities.

    This is one of the BIG elephants in the living room that no one wants to talk about. If you’re homosexual, you should not enter the priesthood or religious life for your own soul’s sake.

  36. Charles E Flynn says:

    From https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/01/martins-cozy-with-proximate-occasions-of-sin/ :

    First of all, I don’t want to hear about “gay priests.” I don’t want to hear about “straight priests.” I don’t want to hear about any priests who spend time focusing on their “sexual identity.” I want priests who focus on serving God and who focus on leading his people to Heaven. Anyone doing less than that shouldn’t be a priest. So, if your focus is on you and your sexual inclinations, please leave.

  37. veritas vincit says:

    Fr. Martin is either hopelessly confused or perhaps deliberately dishonest. He starts out by defining “gay priests” as celibate priests with a same-sex attraction. Then he goes on to complain about “rage against gay priests and the supposed ‘homosexual subculture’ or ‘Lavender Mafia'”. That subculture is not composed of celibate priests, homosexual or otherwise, but rather sexually active priests.

    Between the two alternatives above, my money is on the latter.

  38. Adelle Cecilia says:

    Fr. Martin is now pushing this Crux article as “proof” of Abp Vigano being “discredited daily: https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/09/01/former-nuncio-now-says-sanctions-against-mccarrick-were-private/

  39. maternalView says:

    I’ve been called a homophobe simply because I believe homosexual behavior is a sin and those who engage in it are sinners. So in my mind the word doesn’t mean much.

    As far as the identifier “gay” preceding the word priest. This suggest to me an ongoing attachment that has not been properly dealt with. If one were to hear a priest talking about being a “straight ” priest I think it would raise questions about his loyalty and devotion to his vocation.

  40. Arthur McGowan says:

    The katholyks invented and embraced the “seamless garment” because they never cared about unborn babies. We are seeing them use the same “seamless garment” again, because they also don’t care about the rape of boys (and some girls), and young men.

  41. Pingback: Viganò Watch: Monday First Edition – Big Pulpit