By Jim Russell
How many homosexual inclinations does it take before I get to be a member of the "LGBT community"?
This question actually gets to the heart of why homosexualists everywhere in the Church have for two decades sought to deny any relationship between clergy sex abuse and homosexuality.
Let me explain what I mean.
The "LGBT community" simply does not want people to draw a too-obvious conclusion: namely, that the homosexual inclination is the fundamental and common bond that links the "LGBT community" with clergy homosexual sex abuse.
Homosexualists want to cling to the false notion that the homosexual inclination is just as "pure" as is the God-given natural (other-sex) sexual inclination, rather than admitting that there is truly no distinction to be made between the homosexual inclination of a sex abuser and the homosexual inclination of someone who engages consensually in homosexual sex acts.
Of course, there is a distinction of category between abuse and consensual immoral activity. But this necessary distinction — which rightly can and must be made — is used by homosexualists to overshadow the reality that the homosexual inclination toward a homosexual sex act is undeniably present in both consensual and abusive homosexual sex acts.
While this may seem super-obvious to clear-thinking people who see the homosexual condition for what it truly is, for the homosexualist with an agenda, the muddled thinking that there is no relationship at all to be found between the "LGBT community" and the priest-predator of post-pubescent young men and boys has actually been remarkably successful as a propaganda tool, particularly even among Catholics — including our bishops, who have a vested interest in maintaining this façade.
Let's dig a little more deeply into just why this is such a successful sleight-of-hand.
This subterfuge rests on the very ideology of "orientation" itself. For centuries, what counted as "homosexuality" had everything to do with acts — things done. To "do" the perverted act of sodomy or some other deviant sexual behavior with someone of the same sex simply made someone culpable for homosexual sin.
The seismic shift into identity politics based on the false ideology of "orientation" and "gender" in which our attractions and emotions become "who we are" has turned clear thinking on this upside down.
Now an entire community and political juggernaut is built upon these pseudo-identities comprising the "LGBTQIA" acronym. Now the acts are justified as "pure" because of the so-called "God-created" condition of homosexuality. Instead of the sinner being judged by the act, the act is exonerated by the pseudo-identity of the sinner.
And any thought of examining the "inclination" that gives rise to both the false identity and the act is simply set aside. It's not necessary. The "being-based" ideology of "orientation" sweeps all that away, such that the "gay couple" is just as holy as the "straight couple," and no one dare say otherwise in public, or suffer the consequences.
This kind of presumed "purity" of the "LGBT community" therefore simply cannot risk having its core inclination associated with clergy sex abuse in any manner. In the machinations and propaganda of the homosexualist, the actual victims of homosexual clergy sex abuse are objectified and reduced to mere props to hold up the more important attempt to exonerate the community of being somehow connected to the perpetrator. This secondary abuse of victims is deeply repulsive.
But here is the truth, once we get back to looking at "acts" and not buying the false rhetoric of orientation ideology: Every single act of same-sex sexual abuse by clergy of young men and boys was absolutely the result of an intentional choice to act upon a single homosexual inclination, experienced in that moment of decision to abuse "this" boy at "this" time. This is undeniable fact.
This truth, once recognized, also undermines completely the whole notion of an "LGBTQIA community" — which is why I asked the question above about "how many" such inclinations make me "eligible" to be a part of that "community"? One? 12? 600?
Sexual attractions aren't some amorphous blob of feelings happening in the abstract. The homosexual inclination exists in reality only in real time and real space in response to real people. Entry into the "LGBT community" is a self-fulfilling prophecy — only when "I" decide that I've had enough such inclinations to count myself as "gay" might I then "come out" and be counted in this community.
But that community does not want you counted in it if you are a homosexually abusive priest. In that case, your choice of a male victim is "random" or "opportunistic" or based on "availability." You don't get to count yourself in the community after all, despite having at least one experience of the homosexual inclination — the one on which you based your choice to abuse "that" young man or boy right then, right there.
That particular experience of the homosexual inclination also isn't sufficient for you to build an "identity" on, we're told. Instead, we're told that "straight" men commit sodomy, too, and it doesn't mean they're "gay." Thus, the "LGBT community" polices its own via a double standard. You can "come out" any time even if you've experienced the homosexual inclination quite minimally — just as long as the experience didn't involve you as a sex abuser.
One clarification, though — it remains true that we can apply different healing approaches for those who experience the homosexual inclination differently. It may be deep-seated, transitory or even episodic. But we have to call it by its right name in all cases: it is the one and only "homosexual inclination" — period. And it's not pure at any point.
If we want the Church to truly heal from the abuse crisis, we must get back to the fundamental reality that we easily observe when about 80 percent of the clergy sex abuse is the perversion of homosexual abuse. We must, apparently, begin stating out loud what should be self-evident from the act itself.
We must state that the act of abuse arose from the homosexual inclination that the priest-perpetrator said "yes" to. We need to stop letting the "LGBT community" control the narrative by claiming these abusers are not really "one of us" — only because they've constructed a false ideology of "identity" based on the very same inclination the homosexually abusive priest felt.
The truth is much simpler — the same unholy homosexual inclination that gave rise to the "LGBT community" at its root also gave rise to every single act of homosexual clergy abuse. Let's never forget that.