Editor’s Note: This article I do not recommend except for those who have a strong faith, because what it discusses is truly the most vile aspect of clerical corruption. I publish it, however, because what it says is confirmed for me by my experience working side by side with male religious and male clergy during 40 years or so.
I would add that the more hostile clergy are to the observance of chastity and the pursuit of holiness, the more likely they are to be corrupted by such vices. And if Bishops are notorious for anything everywhere in the West, today, they are most notorious for being opposed to any proposal of the foundation of a religious community dedicated to chastity and holiness.
Thus, it is entirely true, that if they do not care who is the pope, especially if the claimant is pro-sodomy, it is chiefly because they themselves are steeped in this horrible vice and are intimate participants in these corrupt networks.
Finally, if men who become priests or religious (monks or friars etc.) are not intent on physical mortification, such as fasting and abstinence, there is no possible way in this world, that they will achieve personal sanctification. Thus, the clear sign of an authentic formation program is that they live a mortified life of penance and prayer, not that they achieve great things or become experts in some exterior practice, whether that be ritual performances or works of mercy.
+ + +
+ + + + + + +
The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present
This is Br. Bugnolo's English Translation, of Saint Bonaventure's encylopedic book of theology on the Trinity: With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about
God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!
+ + +
This formulation of Martel seems half-baked and or overly simplistic, irresponsible and dangerous. I have met people who seem to take delight in this conclusion to justify themselves some how. Something is “off” about it, but i can’t say exactly what. Perhaps it should be put into the context of other religions and their statistics.
“By forbidding priests to marry, the Church has become sociologically homosexual; and that by imposing a continence that is against nature, and a secretive culture, it is partly responsible for countless instances of sexual abuse that are undermining it from within.”
Gomulka holds this thesis, but it is false. The Church does not forbid priests to marry, strictly speaking: She only ordains as priests men who have for the of God have renounced marriage. That is why priests cannot marry, but married men sometimes become priests, in the Eastern Rites. If the Church’s clergy today are populated by unworthy men, it is because unworthy men have allowed them to populate it. The continence of clerical celibacy is not contrary to nature, but above nature. To say it is contrary would be to say that chastity is contrary to nature, and only a sex-addict would say that. Nor does it promote a secretive culture, that is as absurd as saying that matrimony promotes abuse. It is not responsible for any abuse, abuse is the responsibility of men who break their promises to God. But abuse is far more common among married and single people than priests.
Thanks again for a thoroughly satisfying clarification. Too bad Gomulka’s article lacked that clarity. It would have greatly improved his piece.