What the Priest Scandal Is – and Is Not – About
by Anthony Esolen, Crisis Magazine:
[…] for the time being I’ll let matters take their course and see what specifics are brought to light.
But many of my fellow Catholics, and plenty of people who detest the Church, and some who are a little of this and a little of that, have said things that ought to be addressed.
First, some people say that to focus on the homosexual nature of the crimes is unjust to the girls and women who were victims, and that in any case it is not to the point.
[…] Second, the whole of the meta-crime was homosexual. That is, we do not have examples of womanizing priests or priests with fetishes for girls going out of their way to recruit other such priests, forming a tight little cabal, covering for one another, suborning young men into this wicked way of life, issuing veiled threats against anyone who would go public, and snubbing those who did not approve. There was no network of abusers of girls. This network was about men who wanted to do things with boys and men.
[…] Fifth, who’s kidding whom? I’ve seen an “icon” of the homosexual predator Harvey Milk, whose name also graces a Navy ship. Exactly what did McCarrick do that was worse than what Mr. Milk did all the time? On the contrary, if McCarrick was a predator, Milk was evil incarnate. He groomed boys, “helping” them when they were on the streets, taking them in, seducing them, entering into a relationship with them, and then dumping them when he got bored with them. Yet he is celebrated. So is Sir John Gielgud, an actor whose considerable skills I admire; he, too, did that sort of thing, and the old boys in film covered for him.
(Pictured: Harvey Milk)
Related Posts
Tags
Share This
