Why Pope Benedict Makes a Distinction Between Pedophilia and Homosexuality

.
Tom Hoopes, Editor of the National Catholic Register posted the following on their fabulous Pope2008 web page today. This is mandatory reading.

Pope Benedict XVI will address the abuse crisis for the second time when he meets with the bishops today. The first time, of course, was yesterday on Shepherd One.

"I would not speak in this moment about homosexuality, but pedophilia, [which] is another thing. We will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry, this is absolutely incompatible."

Why did he say he wouldn't speak "in this moment" about homosexuality? Because he was following a long line of Holy See decisions on the problem, decisions he doesn't wish to abandon.

In 2004, the Vatican's Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies distinguished between candidates with a "deep-seated homosexual tendency" and those who had experienced a "transitory problem," perhaps in adolescence. The Congregation for Catholic Education taught:

"In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.'"

In other words: Homosexual experimentation in your past doesn't bar you from being a priest. But if you are part of the gay scene, and self-identify as "gay" as part of who you are ... then the seminary's not for you.

This 2004 teaching was nothing new. In a 2002 speech, Pope John Paul II linked the abuse scandals with seminary instruction and called for the exclusion of seminary candidates with observable “deviations in their affections.”

And, lest we forget, his words echoed a 1961 instruction to the superiors of religious communities on “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders.”

Now, all of this sounds terribly old-fashioned and fuddy duddy to our culture today. But don't forget the February 2004 study commissioned by the bishops. After an exhaustive review of sex abuse in the priesthood, among the 2004 John Jay study's findings was the revelation that the majority of sexual abuse by clergy took place during the 1960s and ’70s, with 81% of the victims being males between the ages of 11 and 17.

National Review Board member Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, described that finding as “remarkable.”

“I'm amazed that this fundamental bombshell has not been the subject of greater interest and discussion,” he told Tim Drake. “I'm astonished that people throughout America are not talking about it, thinking about it, and wondering about what the mechanisms were that set this alight.

“If you collect all of the seminary graduates between 1970 and 1973, 10-11% of them abused children,” said McHugh. “That's an amazing fact. This behavior was homosexual predation on American Catholic youth, yet it's not being discussed.”

To clarify (Liberals you don't have to plug your ears because you won't believe what you read anyway), while there was a severe pedophile problem in the Church in the 50s, 60s, 70s and even 80s, the real problem was homosexual priests preying on post-pubescent boys (those who could get an erection, to be blunt). Homosexual employees and agents of the Church has caused irreparable damage and even death to thousands of boys and young men. Billions of dollars have been paid in financial reparation, but no reparation can be found on earth for the physical and psychological damage that was done by those homosexuals.

And they want us to hire more?