A priest friend of mine sent a link to a piece at his site: Padre Peregrino.
I think he over estimates the number of priests who are homosexual. However, I will agree that the percentage is probably higher among bishops and, at least once, seminary faculties. And let’s not even start on religious, especially Jesuits.
“Padre Peregrino” has some good observations. Inter alia… the title:
WHY DID SO MANY GAY MEN ENTER THE PRIESTHOOD IN THE 20TH CENTURY?
From the start he makes a good observation… which in a way echoes one of the readings from Ambrose today in Matins about the Apostles. Christ chose guys who weren’t soft of nuanced.
Jesus Christ chose twelve fishermen as His first Catholic bishops. Let that reality set in for a minute: Tough, blue-collar workers who never made it to rabbi-school were chosen as Apostles. To be sure, neither were they impious doofuses. They were tough, blue-collar workers who took their faith seriously, even when they had to say things to Our Lord like “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.”—Luke 5:8. They thought in black-and-whites like that, not Hegelian greys.
He goes on…
In a little known passage from the Gospels, Jesus contrasts his saintly second-cousin John the Baptist to the filthy Herod who would one day kill the Baptist. St. Matthew writes: “As they went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John: ‘What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What then did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. What then did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet.’”—Mt 11:7-8 ESV. [Matthew has the Lord repeat the word.]
That word translated above “soft” in Greek is μαλακοῖς, and Jesus is saying that John the Baptist would never be caught in soft garments like rich kings. But the adjective μαλακοῖς (pronounced malakois) which is indeed accurately translated as “soft,” also has a very telling etymology. μαλακοῖς comes from the noun μαλακός (pronounced malakos) and my Greek-English dictionary defines it as this: “μαλακός—soft, soft to the touch, metaph. in a bad sense, effeminate, of a catamite, of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man, of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness, of a male prostitute.”
He is right. Malakós does have that connotation: effeminate passive homosexual male.
So we have the examples of rough blue collar guys, etc., for bishops and ascetic John for priests.
I liked this line…
If a priest is not allowed to do the Mass of Vatican II according to the rules of Vatican II in a conservative diocese, under five conservative pastors…then there is no order to the Novus Ordo.
Let me write that again with no exaggeration: Even in conservative dioceses, there is no order to the Novus Ordo liturgy. This means the Mass of Vatican II was not just mis-implemented. It was written to have no order. The Dutch, Dominican Father of Vatican II, Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx said: “We have used ambiguous phrases during the Council and we know how we will interpret them afterwards.”—Fr. Schillebeeckx, Open Letter to Confused Catholics,” pg.106.
Ahhhh… Schillebeeckx! We had a steady stream of his fluid dreck in my US seminary. What a load of crap that was. Hardly a surprise from that faculty. Of course we were also forbidden to use the word “priest”, which we called “The P Word”. We were to say “ordained minister” or “non-ordained minister”. EVERYONE is a minster! Which, come to think of it, was a welcoming and soft point of homosexualist activist Jesuit James Martin’s talk in Ireland.
The post goes on to talk about what I too have written about: homosexuals self-perpetuated themselves and advanced each other up the hierarchical ladder. That’s why there is a high percentage among those who have power.
He did a good job with his post. He hits it hard.