The scales are beginning to fall from my eyes on the level of homosexuality among Catholic clergy. I always knew that a significant minority were of a gay inclination, if chastely, and that a small minority were sexually active homosexuals. However, it is becoming apparent that, particularly since the 1960s and 1970s, a homosexual subculture has appeared in many seminaries, by which I mean openly and actively homosexual, calling each other by girls' names, and so on. It appears that the St. Andrews seminary in Scotland that Cardinal O'Brien once ran had such a culture, and others like it. I am beginning to comprehend the scale of the problem, the infiltration of the Church by a homosexual subculture which is both hypocritical (many of them are the loudest in condemning gay marriage and the like) and extremely damaging to the moral authority of the Church. It is nothing short of a disgrace.
It has also become apparent that a significant number of clergy are so liberal and relativist in their approach to Catholic teaching, and so many among them practicing homosexuals, including in high places, that there is a need now to act to counter this sect. While not blaming child-abuse on homosexuality, which would be absurd, it is apparent that the specifically ephebophile abuse (the majority of abuse cases) is in part down to those who for some reason believe that there is no hypocrisy in being a Catholic priest or higher and preaching against homosexual activity while indulging it in themselves. I didn't used to believe there was any link at all, believing it a silly and unfair thing to say, but unfortunately I was wrong. When you have clergy who think nothing in engaging in hypocritical homosexual activity, combined with secrecy, repression, and a position of authority over young pubescent or adolescent boys, you see ephebophile abuse occurring. I would believe that there is a need now to seriously consider allowing some clergy to marry, which has only ever been an ecclesiastical disciplinary injunction and not a point of doctrine. It is also apparent that there needs to be a purge of those who scandalize the Church with their behaviour. The reforms of the 1960s and 1970s have somehow convinced a significant number of clergy, even in the Vatican itself, that such behaviour is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic priest, which it most certainly is not.
The Church is going to see mass apostasy in Europe and America if this situation continues - for who wants to listen to a sermon from people who take no heed of the Church's teachings themselves. The O'Brien affair has convinced me that there needs to be an urgent purging of clergy (and I don't just mean homosexual clergy), but also that the abuse of the reform process brought about after the Second Vatican Council has been an unmitigated disaster.
In relation to the alleged homosexuality of Pope Paul VI and Benedict XVI, there is virtually nothing but gossip and hearsay to back up the former, while the latter, if he was born with a gay inclination at all, has never been alleged to have acted on it in any way (if it is true at all, which it might well not be). I don't believe it fair to insinuate about them on the basis of mere opinion and gossip. More to the point, I actually now see that Benedict himself had realised the scale of the problem and that was why he went about trying to purge this subculture by preventing apparently gay seminarians from entering the priesthood (which I had thought unfair, but now, seeing the scale of the problem he was confronted with, can understand).
This is not a post about or against gay people or saying gay people have a tendency towards ephebophilia, not in the least. It is specifically about the warped sexuality and psychosexual immaturity of those gay clerics who abuse their position because of a mixture of repression, power, and secrecy, combined with the new liberalism and relativism that has become apparent among clergy since the 1960s.
I think that married clergy is now a necessity.