« That ho got what she deserves | Main | The pursuit of happiness »




The so-called “studies” that supporters of the gay-agenda point to as evidence that it was straight priests and not gay priests that sexually abused adolescent boys is beyond laughable. The studies have been manufactured by supporters of the gay agenda for the explicit purpose of furthering the gay agenda. It would truly take someone with the mental capacity of a nincompoop to actually believe it.
Do you really believe that the fact (and it is a fact) that virtually no priests in the Church have been identified as being abusers of young boys since the policy of culling out gays from the priesthood and rejecting homosexuals for the seminaries since 2002 was merely a coincidence? And do you also refuse to believe that the fact (and it too is a fact) that there were dramatically fewer instances of sexual abuse of young boys by Catholic priests prior to the institution of the pro-homosexual-priest agenda inspired and perpetrated by the Vatican II promoters? Of course I recognize that you will not accept those facts because they are inconsistent with your gay agenda. But I will tell you this, and you can take it to the bank: the One, True, Catholic and Apostolic Church will not be destroyed by you or your homosexual apologists. It may, indeed, struggle, but in the end, the Church will be standing and Satan will not!

Laurie Essig

I cannot speak to whether the Church or Satan will win nor the homosexual agenda since although I'd love to be a part of it, I haven't received instructions from the gays yet as to what is and is not on it, but your facts are wrong.
First of all, nearly all abusers of children are men. If the Church really wanted to stop child sexual abuse, they'd let women be priests. Two, the studies you cite as unscientific are all published in highly respected peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to conservative Christian propaganda published by "think tanks").


I respectfully disagree with Ms. Essig. I think its OK the catholic church wants to keep gay or gay friendly people from the priesthood. Let's be honest. The rules of the catholic church and many other religions say that gay sex is a very serious sin. If you want to be part of their club, you have to follow their rules. You have to believe what they believe. Would you want them to accept priests who openly declared that Jesus isn't really God, that he didn't rise from the dead to redeem humans, or that the Eucharist is just a piece of bread?

Don't they have a right to require that you believe certain things to be a priest?

Laurie Essig

The Catholic Church can demand whatever they want to demand of those who wish to follow them- wear silly costumes and hats, bless motorcycles, believe in a zombie and eat his symbolic flesh on their knees.

But surely that does not excuse conflating pedophilia with homosexuality ? Nor the arrogance of pretending as if a purge of gay priests is going to solve the problem?


First of all, priests take vows of celibacy, poverty and obedience, so I really don't understand why they are being screened for any sort of sexuality. But if you really want to ask the determinant question of prospective priests here it is:
"When you break your vow of celibacy you will most likely break it with:
a) a consenting adult.
b) a consenting child.
c) a troubled parishioner who came to you for help.
d) a non-consenting person.

Please, let's remember that Jesus taught a doctrine of acceptance, forgiveness and love. His followers included the likes of a prostitute, a couple of revolutionaries, a Roman collaborator and a traitor. The Jesus I love could never reject a homosexual, merely for their sexual predeliction.

And, Laurie, much evil has been done both in the name of Marx and of Jesus, but that shouldn't blind us to the value of their teachings. As you ask people to consider the teachings of Marx you would best succeed by considering the teachings of Jesus. Afterall, Marx was a the grandson of two Orthodox rabbis and of Christian-convert parents trying to reconcile his religious identity, as I read his journey. Tragically, his solution was mandatory Christianity, based on economic principles, not spiritual principles.

I'm sorry you don't see the relationship between the doctrine of Jesus and that of Karl Marx. A great many Catholic priests, including El Salvador's Archbishop Romero, gave their lives in Latin America in service to liberation theology, a blend of the two doctrines.


Conflating the two is offensive, but no more offensive to me than calling homosexuality a sin. But then again, I'm also rather tired of indulging the fantasies of those who think they can be gay and belong to these conservative religions.

Laurie Essig

Bob- I see lots of similarities between the communist-oriented Jesus (who rightfully preached against usury and greed) and the religious nature of Karl Marx (who truly believed we were ethically bound to one another).

However, I am not, despite all rumors to the contrary, a Marxist-- nor a Christian. I respect much of the teachings associated with both men, but truly am far too much of an anarchist to be a disciple of either.

I think you said it best in a much earlier post- Christianity and Communism are both good ideas. Too bad they've never been tried out.


Amen and Right On.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad