Friday, October 14, 2005

moral muddle

A headline like only the NY Post can run.

It's hard to understand how such a relevant and earth shattering bit of news was frontpage fodder in only one newspaper.

This guy Enright claims that he was abused by a priest at summer camp in 1961 and as a result became a homosexual. This will not sit well with the purveyors of the 'born-that-way' theory in the rainbow lobby.

He is demanding $5 million from the Diocese of Albany.
For the privilege of being gay.

We had our mandatory seminar on child abuse here in the archdiocese this week. They gave us a program called VIRTUS. One of the points made was that the majority of child abuse incidents are not comitted by homosexuals.

I believe that to be true.

I also believe to be true the fact that the vast majority of sex crimes against children perpetrated by Catholic priests since the '60s and '70s have involved young males. The list of accusers who have brought complaints against roughly 600 priests in the USA bears this out.

When a male has sexual contact with another male it is, by definition, a homo-sexual act. Is it not?

Does the horrible fact that the act was comitted against a child or an adolescent make it less 'homo-sexual'? Are the sick people who prey on children oblivious to their sex? If so, why such drastic disparity in numbers? I think it is fair to say that a person can commit a homosexual act without being a homosexual. But is it logical to reject a priori all relation between homosexuality and sexual abuse among priests when over 90% of the cases brought to light (many of them repeat offenders!) clearly establish boys as the victims of preference?

The Exorcist just can't shake the uncomfortable feeling that while outrage against predatory priests is VERY politically correct, suggesting that homosexuality in the clergy might be part of the problem is MOST DEFINITELY not.

In the end, what matters is protecting the kids.