Read our posting policy Add a comment
Is it not a fair statement to say that historically most cultures were in irreversible decline when homosexuality attained an open and even celebrated status?

The Church should have put the gay community front and center as an integral in the unholy man-child love scandal, including financial settlements. Did the Church score points with the gay community by not doing so? Certainly not! The Church could've saved face and a lot of parishioner contributions. Instead, she caves meekly and mildly and upsets everyone.
Posted by: j17ghs
August 12, 2007 11:48 PM EDT
"We know just the mention of this will upset some of our readers;"

I'm not upset, but currious. When is it salacious idle chatter (gossip) to pass on this information in a broadly distributed public forum? When is it important enough to provide people with the facts so they may follow up and spend their energy on what maybe a rumor with little substance? I don't have an answer, but I trust the editors have truely thought about this and we see their conclusion. My question is how was that decision made and what was its basis? Thanks.
Posted by: chaosmt
November 10, 2006 02:44 PM EST
I remember learning when I studied moral theology, I think it was a "dictum" of some sort from St. Ignatius of Loyola as well, that to reveal a mortal sin of another person without grave cause is a mortal sin. Having lived in Rome for over 13 years I know all about horrid and salacious rumors or stories concerning highly placed men of the Church. What is the point in repeating these stories anywhere? Unless and until they are part of a morally certain public forum, the very mention of them is highly questionable. If they are false, the repetition of them causes enormous damage to the reputation of the Church and of innocent men. Why would NOR even print these kinds of things about the Holy Father and others? The problem of homosexuality in the clergy can be well addressed without turning the issue into a form of "McCarthyism" where everyone is accused of being homosexual! Posted by: skysix
November 15, 2006 11:47 AM EST
Better to read the book first and see the context, before making an objection, even if quoting, with all do respect, a saint. Posted by: fallace@optonline.net
November 21, 2006 12:37 PM EST
This is a tough discussion because we understand that Cardinal Newman was distinctly camp. If you accept that the "New Oxford Review" draws its inspiration from his conversion, is there "guilt by association here"? My understanding is that St. Thomas Aquinas was tempted with homosexual sins and there have been rumours in respect of Paul VI for years. There is further problem in so much as male, celibate and obviously heterosexual clergy/bishops have also revealed themselves to be incredibly naif in issues relating to sexual deviancy. This was manifest in there inability to deal with the recent crises in these Church. The less celibacy problems you have, the less you understand the nature of the problem I would suggest. Posted by: caesium
November 23, 2006 03:50 AM EST
I made something of a mess with the post above. Trying to say that perhaps ordinary bishops i.e. properly celibate ones, become confused when dealing with sexual corruption. In other words I am suggesting that those of us who have struggled with this area have perhaps more to say on the subject and I would include homosexual priests, bishops and even Popes who have struggled too. JPII seemed not to have a clue as to how to deal with this problem for example. Perhaps this confirms his undoubtedly masculine, heterosexual tendencies. Just indulging in some psychobabble of the sort inflicting on us by 'counselling clergymen' these last 40 years. It's a shame that more don't blog on this controversial subject. Just to confirm the previous post that I suspect that B16 is no more camp than Newman. Not sure about the expensive taste in shoes. As for the funny hat he wore at Christmas, I took that as him having a seasonal joke and no more than that. Posted by: caesium
November 23, 2006 11:46 AM EST
Pope Benedict referred to homosexual activity in the clergy as "filth", an excellent choice of words. However, he has done nothing to clean up the filth, so I must make my own choice of words, and refer to him as a COWARD. JPII ignored the infestation of active homosexuals in the priesthood, almost as a matter of honor. He too, was a COWARD. Posted by: Caroline
November 23, 2006 04:28 PM EST
Caroline is correct and bolder than skysix...who, hopefully is not clergy/military. Reread Sep06 "A Layman Advises Laymen to Hide.."Archbishop Chaput just spoke of cowards in the voting booth.Aquinas encouraged us to point the 'filth' in prelates even in public. Skysix' wimpyness fails the long-view test and leads us to another Reformation. Francis of Assisi was tougher thn Chaput mentions
and was not naive to Satan being on lips halfopen to pronounce the words of Truth.These Bishops are a dismal herd (read Ratzinger again on American Bishops) who crawls upon the political tundra like beasts. Why bother with them when the earth will soon cover them and Christ will never ask you their names? They will meet their fate alone.
Seek Christ above all and become His saint!
Grant Hill
Posted by: GrantHill
November 24, 2006 12:44 PM EST
I really like NOR but I think it is very, very wrong to even imply that Pope Benedict is a homosexual----is there no decency left at all? Unless there is clear, solid evidence of such behavior, a rumor or gossip should not be repeated about the Holy Father, who is the Vicar of Christ. I have read much of Engels' book. Some of the info. is well-documented, some of it is speculation, second- and third-hand, nothing definitive. It is really appalling to read this garbage in what I thought was a decent publication. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Pope Benedict is homosexual and yet, there you are, printing and suggesting that he just might be. I am thoroughly disappointed in the editorial judgment of NOR. I will keep reading the magazine but I think, on this topic, NOR is way off base. Maria Duce! Posted by: Chapman
December 08, 2006 10:23 AM EST
Labeling people Gay Is dangerous road to take because its people we care about.

We also care about all people like Alcoholics addicted to liquor, and Muslims caught up in their Islam terrorist cult.

Its time to condemn their criminal actions. These people should be thrown in jail for their actions if they are violating laws.

The Homosexual (Gay)lifestyle identified by their sex(Homosexual ORAL and ANAL SEX)is the "overwhelming" cause of HIV/AIDS deaths. It is the cause of their early deaths as well as their partners. In most cases they should be tried as murderer's of their own partners.
The inherent narcissism of Gays resulted in their being the focal point in our liturgy as they removed the Tabernacle and sit where it was. They face the congregation at all times) like look at me) . They let the Eucharist be handled by just anybody. They are replacing altar boys with girls. There will come the day only Altar girls will be on the Altar like so many of our services are only attended by woman. No respect for the reception of the Eucharist as we stand (show disrespect by not kneeling)and take the Body of Christ in our dirty hands.

Could these Homosexuals have done more harm. Oh Yes! The liturgy has been violated in many ways by the Gay Priests from words to deeds. And to boot they sexually abused our children )diverted money to lawsuits rather than Chairty), not Protestant children but Catholic Children as they are deep into pornography that consumes their relationship with their congregation to but mere objects.

The tactics should, not be condemning the person in total, but the actions that are criminal and heretical.

A goal should be,, to point out the harm they are doing to themselves and others, and to have them leave this lifestyle and lawfully (Church and Civil) prosecute as necessary


Posted by: paulc37
December 08, 2006 02:13 PM EST
I've always thought your repetetive treatment of the homosexual problem among the clergy in the Catholic Church to be an obsession, but I was willing to be charitable and treat most of it as highbrow gossip. However, your review of Randy Engel's book, "The Rite of Sodomy..." has hit a low that is fathoms deep. After trashing hierarchy and lowerarchy, Engels goes for the Pope himself, and your article offers the following dodge (but just as damning as Engel's comments):

"We know just the mention of this will upset some of our readers; however, there is no need to jump to conclusions about this. Let's hope he's straight as an arrow."

Why do I have the feeling that if Our Lord were to appear today, your Review would give extensive coverage to the problem of gluttons and drunkards among His followers? Have you no shame?
Posted by: wmendenhall
December 26, 2006 10:14 PM EST
Wow. We haven't learned a thing, have we? NOR is a voice in the wilderness, and like all prophets it is getting calumny and the cold shoulder as its reward.

Given what has happened to us these last 30-40 years (near wholesale abandonment of tradition for the mess of pottage that is modernity- Esau, anyone?) shouldn't we be wary? What are the motives of our leadership? Should anyone be spared the gimlet eye?

Back in 2002, when the worst of the abuse scandal was breaking, I watched a online clip of a reporter from some network affiliate somewhere approach Cardinal Ratzinger after he had left one of those meetings they convened back then in Rome to discuss the problem. The reporter asked a question like "why are priests sodomizing boys?" or something along those lines, but equally 'impertinent' to a prince of the Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger responded by hitting the reporter on the arm with a limp wristed slap.

My mind nearly broke, with that slap. It was then that I stepped back, and saw that the supposed Rottweiler had, in 26 years as Grand Inquisitor, formally excommunicated only 24 people in a communion of over a billion. Less than one a year. In a Church overrun with heresy and insanity.

Picking Levada - from San Fran in more ways than one, was just as loopy.

I don't think it at all uncharitable, insubordinate or judgmental to be very cautious - even suspicious when a man with such authority behaves in such a manner. Conspiracies do exist. Sometimes right in your face.

Scrutinize the fruit, and be careful what you eat.
Posted by: chascurtis
January 09, 2007 02:42 PM EST
Doubt that Pope Benedict 16th picks out or buys his own shoes himself. Also, regarding Pope Paul 6th, his "Humanae Vitae" and his "Credo of the People of God" cannot be the works of a homosexual. Smarten up, Nor - Herb Flanagan Posted by: Berto
March 23, 2007 06:11 AM EDT
"that to reveal a mortal sin of another person without grave cause is a mortal sin". -- Nov 15, 2006 post.

If someone is openly displaying homosexual behavior in public, e.g., touching, hugging, cuddled against each other with hands on laps, etc., then playing the Holy Joe role at Sunday Mass and is a director of a ministry (lay person) or is a priest, this has to be reveled to the proper Church authority before irreparable damage is done. This is grave cause.

Chris L
Posted by: clandr56
July 15, 2007 06:14 PM EDT
Makes me wonder as my faith is shaken to the core...is there right? ...is there wrong? ...or is there just relativism?

I'm not sure anymore.
Posted by: gespin3549
November 23, 2007 05:35 PM EST
"Paul VI was a homosexual"

Where is the proof of this statement? How can an active homosexual get elected as pope if the conclave is directed by the Holy Spirit?
I am trying to deal with an active homosexual in charge of a ministry at our church and the pastor is aware of it. I am confused as to the validity of holy orders if it has been infiltrated by Satan himself.

“God makes some of His intentions plain just through the way He made us---He stamps them in the “blueprint,” the plan of our physical and emotional design. Why else would Paul call homosexual intercourse “against nature”? (Rom. I:26-27). I observed to a homosexual activist with whom I was debating that our bodies have a language of their own, that we say things to each other by what we do with them. What does it mean then, I asked him, when a man puts the part of himself which represents the generation of life into the cavity of decay and expulsion? Seeing the answer all too well, he refused to reply. Permit me to spell it out. It means “Life, be swallowed up by death.” “The revenge of Conscience” J. Budziszewski
Posted by: clandr56
December 20, 2007 06:50 PM EST
I had been unaware of the book till now. Somehow I missed the book review. I do not mix much with the clergy, but it startled me that I knew so many who were outed during the big scandal and who had served in my Parish. The characteristic behavior was there and the rumors, but I did not pick up on it. There is a difference though between suspected behavior and reality. Simply, it is seriously wrong to make accusations by name without the most explicit verification, and then only if absolutely needed. I do not intend to read the book, but I hope the accusations are more than rumors.

This all began in the late 50s when Psychologists gained control of the acceptance of seminary students. I spent nearly 7 years in seminary life in the 40s and 50s with hundreds of men who returned from the WWII. There was not one single solitary event that ever happened to my knowledge. Many men left after testing a vocation, but never for a sinful reason. I wish I had more confidence about the future. We are in the middle of a plague. But there are so many good men already in the Priesthood and over time this too may pass. We need strong, courageous and large families that raise pure, sexually mature and holy men. Unfortunately the fertility rate among Catholics looks just like the rest of the world and population collapse us nearly upon us. It surely makes me wonder.
Posted by: benbernie
January 05, 2009 08:11 PM EST
Add a comment