The Blood is the Life, Part IV, or The Nature and Extent of the “Gay Mafia” in the RC Church
by Bernard Brandt
This is a continuation of an extended essay, in which I posit that the nature of the crisis in the Roman Catholic Church is an immune deficiency syndrome in the Body of Christ, or at least that part of it which is the Church Militant on Earth. I have earlier asserted that the hierarchical clergy, composed of deacons, priests, and bishops, serve the functions of the vessels, the blood, and the immune system of that Body (part I). Further, that much of the failure of the clergy to fulfill their functions directly relate to their knowledge of and ability to teach the Faith (part II). Most recently, I have indicated that most clergy appear to be ignorant of, and therefore unqualified to teach, those three fonts of the Holy Spirit: Sacred Scripture, Holy Tradition, and the Teaching Authority of the Church (part III).
This essay has been written for the purpose of forming a diagnosis of the ills of the Church, in the hopes that those wiser and more holy than I might be able to effect a cure, or at the very least, to prevent the damage from becoming worse. I have assumed, perhaps unwisely, that clergy and laity actually wish to effect a cure. But some ignorance is invincible: if people do not wish to be taught, they will refuse any attempts to disabuse them of that ignorance.
I believe that it was Mark Twain, or else a childhood friend whom Twain had known, who anticipated the concept of economic determinism with the quaint phrase, “cornpone opinions”: “You show me where a man gets his cornpone, and I’ll tell you what his opinions are.” I believe that corollary to this is another form of psychological determinism: “You show me what a man’s desires are, and I will tell you what he will be willing to learn, or to teach.”
My point in raising all of this is that in the last thirty years, there have been some disquieting rumors going around, to the effect that a substantial minority, and even a majority, of priests and bishops in the United States and Western Europe, are homosexual, and may even be actively gay. These rumors range from the estimates in a number of magazine articles, most lately of Vanity Fair, that ‘between 30 to 50 percent of RC priests are gay’; to veiled articles in conservative RC newspapers, all the way to books such as Goodbye, Good Men and The Changing Face of the Priesthood.
I believe that it should be therefore obvious that if the local parish priest or bishop frequents the local gay bar, he may perhaps be somewhat reluctant to teach the Catholic and Orthodox faith, which includes, inter alia, the inconvenient truth that his daily or weekly practice is a sin.
Of course, for those obtuse souls among the two or three readers whom I have, for whom ‘anecdotes do not equal data’, and who may have a vested interest in believing that their priests and bishops are holy in their lives and in their thoughts, my news may be unwelcome. “This is just rumor,” the wise will say. “You need to provide us with something a bit more substantial than that.”
All right, then. Here goes:
The Jay Report indicates that five percent of U.S. and European priests have been convicted of sexual abuse of minors. 80 percent of those convicted had molested boys. Now let’s unpack those figures.
By way of comparison, in the United States, as of 2013, there were 300,000 registered child abuse sexual offenders. 99+ percent of whom were male. 80 percent of them involved male on female abuse (or what I would call the “Humbert Humbert” scenario). The remaining 20 percent were of male on male abuse. In other words, only twenty percent of the general population of child abusers abused boys. But eighty percent of Catholic priests involved in child abuse abused males. Right there, I can see some problems for those who would like to say, “Move along; nothing to see here.”
But let’s just unpack those numbers a bit further. If, in 2013, we had 300,000 registered child abuse sexual offenders, and only 20% of them were involved in male on male abuse, then rounding things off, there were around 50,000 male on male child abusers. There was a total U.S. population of 340 million, of which about 170 million were male. If you eliminate those under the age of 15, and those over the age of 60, which appears to be the population of child abusers, you have a total eligible population of perhaps 100 million.
Now, I am a bear of very little brain, and mathematics is among the least of my skills. But if you divide one hundred million by 50,000, you will find that the number of male on male child abusers to the general U.S. population is one twentieth of one percent. By way of comparison, the number of male on male child abusers in the U.S. RC priesthood is five percent, or ONE HUNDRED TIMES that of the general U.S. population.
Now, how do we explain that?
Well, if I were your average member of the Westboro Baptist Church, I’d probably say that if male homosexuals comprise one percent of the U.S. male population, and if rates of male on male child abuse in the RC priesthood are one hundred times that of the U.S. male population, then the total number of papist gays in the RC priesthood and episcopate must be 100 percent of that population.
I would therefore like to offer an alternative explanation. It will, perhaps, be unpalatable to those who have an uncritical regard for the present RC clergy, but it is the nearest that I can see that covers all of the evidence.
What has happened for at least the last fifty years, and possibly quite longer, has been a concerted effort by active homosexuals to enter into the RC priesthood and episcopate, and to use whatever positions of responsibility that they have to assist other homosexuals to gain entry to that priesthood and episcopate. And, when members of that hidden fraternity have been revealed as active homosexuals, or as male on male paederasts, it has been the policy of other members to conceal that behavior or to transfer them to other parishes. I would estimate this cohort to be from 40 to 50 percent of the total RC presbyterate and episcopate.
I wish that I could say otherwise. But it is consistent with outside estimates by Vanity Fair and other periodicals. It is consistent with the observed practice of any number of priests and bishops who had been caught in transferring paedophile priests. And it is consistent with the testimony of Archbishop Rembert Weakland, whom I consider to be the ‘poster boy’ for this sort of behaviour. I will posit that the only way that a group of paederasts of any sort could have survived as priests in the Roman Catholic Church, and for the length of time reported in The Jay Report, is if there were a much larger cohort of priests and bishops who either sympathized with them, or could be blackmailed by them.
Of course, this would explain why a substantial portion of the RC priesthood and bishoprics appear reluctant to teach Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition. It would also explain why they appear so eager to dismiss other vows besides that of the priesthood, such as the recent Synod on Marriage and the Family.
And finally, I am, of course, awaiting other explanations which fit all of the evidence. But I am not holding my breath whilst I do so.