The agenda behind the Pope's call to penance

The Pope has called for penance and "solidarity" because the press has noticed the abuse crisis.

Excuse my cynicism.

first of all, why should I do "penance" for someone else's sins? (we do reparation for sins, which is something quite different).

the crisis has been around quite a long time (indeed, most of the cases in the abuse report predate 2002).

But this NYT article from 2002 shows how he will quickly use it: not to reform the church into holiness, but to weaken church traditions to make the newfangled NWO reform church as merely another do gooder NGO where any type of sex is okay.

Deep in the article, which condemns the church considering gay sex a sin, we see this:

I interviewed several dozen gay priests across America. With assurances of anonymity (lest their bishops punish them for coming out of the closet), they promptly began discussing their sex lives. I asked why, if they could not practice celibacy, they didn't leave the priesthood. Most saw themselves as leading the church toward the reform of outdated moral teachings -- including celibacy.

yup. moral teachings are sooo out of date, so let's change them.

and notice: His opinion is based on a small survey of a few cherry picked gay priest he knew. Not from a scientific survey.

Hmm... sounds like Cardinal McC and Wuerl's approach to pro abortion politicians, and Wuerl's easy going approach to tolerating gay priests cruising in the bars of Pittsburgh at a time when the abuse crisis was exploding and we in Altoona diocese were getting it publicized in the local papers, but couldn't get anything done.

What's wrong with this picture?

Well, most of this article quotes unscientific estimates and data: So let's see what Andrew Greeley, who is a trained sociologist, found with his real data from scientific survveys (as opposed to estimates that were made to push an agenda)...
this is also an article from 2004.

so celibacy causes the problem? Not quite:

Patently, most men who leave the priesthood do not leave because of celibacy. They must also dislike the work of the priest to the extent that they say they would not choose again to be a priest.

so why don't happy priests say anything when the activists push this agenda?

Despite the happiness and maturity of most celibate priests, few of them are willing to speak out in its defense. Hence there is little resistance to the constant propaganda that celibates are inadequate human beings and that celibacy causes child abuse. The proper response to these attacks would have to come from priests themselves and especially from the organized priest groups such as the National Federation of Priests’ Councils.

Yet these groups are committed to the abolition of the celibacy rule ..

Whence the destructive smoke and mirrors? I suggest that they come from the loud attacks on the current condition of the priesthood by a small minority of former priests, by the tiny minority of active priests who are unhappy, and by the anger of some members of the lay elite.

Those who are happy in the priesthood and those who understand and apparently embrace celibacy have been intimidated into silence by the anticelibacy crusade. ..

The real cause of the vocation shortage is the reticence of those who are happy in the priesthood and not excessively burdened by celibacy. They may complain about the shortage of priests, but they are not ready yet to do battle with the anticelibacy ideologues, to recruit young men to what is a happy and satisfying life. Nor are they ready to speak, individually or collectively, about the joys of being a priest, joys about which there can be no doubt after studying the results of the two Times studies. If the celibacy rule is abolished, fine. But let it be abolished for good reasons—that it is right and proper and good for married men to be in the priesthood, not because celibacy has driven out of the priesthood most of those who have left and not because celibacy as such is the cause of the vocation crisis. These two reasons are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Greeley is supportive of priests: however, he is sarcastic about bishops:

 More often, however, episcopal appointments are the result of a mix of cronyism and silent incompetence disguised as virtue.

So what about gay priests, or rather, men with same sex attraction who are priests?

again, the statistics show something different from the propaganda: Greeley pointed out elsewhere that the statistics on the number of gay priests is exaggerated by those with an agenda, (i.e. 70 percent were heterosexual, and only 16percent were homosexuals) and that most of them keep their vows of celibacy. (72% of priests are celibate heterosexuals and 10 percent are celibate homosexuals, and 18 percent admit they don't keep their vows, but only 3% are actively pushing to get rid of celibacy).


 again from the outtake of that book:

It would be a wise policy for church leaders to tone down the hysteria and leave homosexual priests alone, so long as they avoid the gay “scene” and the gay “lifestyle.” Yet perhaps priests who are homosexual should avoid blatant manifestations of homosexual friendship groups, which create the impression of homosexual subcultures.

the problem? That more aggresive gay priests with an agenda will seduce or try to corrupt these vulnerable priests, so they can be blackmailed into silence.

(of course, we lay folks know women who brag about seducing priests too, but that's another story for another time).

so never mind the nuances.

The problem is not priests who keep their vows, but that the power hungry bishops and their friends who are ignoring the immoral behavior under the advice of their lawyers and often because they are friends in a clique.

I have written enough about the coverups, and the bishops who are still there who ignored immoral lifestyles of each other (because they didn't involve underaged children).

But the pedophile cases in the report are old, even if the bishops who let the abuse go on are still around. So fire the bishops.

Except they will be replace by Pope Francis with bishops who will push his "reform" agenda. And that agenda ignores the moral underpinnings of sexual self control in favor of a Kinsey like approach.

why do I suspect the Pope will use this scandal to "reform" the church?

Because of the upcoming "inclusive" (i.e.gay friendly) "meeting of families" in Ireland has all the usual suspects running it.

---------------
update: I noted earlier that the Pope's idea that he can change dogma about the death penalty by fiat was not about the death penalty but trying to get people used to his changing dogma by fiat.

And of course, immediately the Gay lobby in the church said: Hey change that dogma about us too.

But it gets worse: Lancet says: hey now change the law against abortion.

you can see where this is heading...