Critics wield grand jury report to advance anti-gay, anti-Francis agenda

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/critics-wield-grand-jury-report-advance-anti-gay-anti-francis
MGB: Their agenda is anti-gay in particular, but it is more anti-sexuality. I have no problem with gay  or straight bishops or priests getting married, or in some of them being women. Indeed, in the early Church, the apostles (witnesses to the Resurrection) were married pairs and Paul also talks about bishops as being only once married. Conservatives should not wish for too much change in this regard. Liberals are even more ambitious.

I can see the point of getting younger bishops in charge, for they are not tainted by past abuse. Clearing out the entire St. John Paul cadre would be all right with me, but not because they are more conservative sexually. Indeed, a more liberal sexuality that does not feel that contact with a woman desecrates the Mass, which is what Sacred Continence is, is the first place to start and naturally leads to female ordination and allowable sexuality by clergy. Clericalism is simply a byproduct.

Certainly appointing those who would continue the asexual belief that their sexuality should be for all of the Church must be utterly stamped out and the doctrines associated with that repudiated. Their sexual ideal is not healthy for the rest of us and should not be imposed upon us. It is both misogynistic and Gnostic and must be rejected. Doing so will also take care of clerical culture. Francis is going nowhere. A wholesale sacking of the old guard will lead to spirit of Vatican II bishops.  Go ahead, make my day.

As for the right-wing media like Hewitt, Dougherty, EWTN and especially Church Militant and the Remnant (I thought they had gone under long ago). Ignore them. They have nothing to say that will protect children. Their asexual comrades in the Church would make matters worse, for they are largely sexually unformed and uninformed, as their bloviations highlight. I would say that both should be silenced in another age, but asexuals are simply differently made, not objectively disordered (as they might have been called in another age) and conservatives have a right to talk, just not a right to be quoted or linked to (especially the Remnant).

I will save discussions of lay custodianship for Church property and personnel for another day, except to say that such concepts are ancient, practiced long before the current Medieval model, whose day should have been done long ago. I agree that Busch is not the model for lay involvement, but the nuts and granola crown at many parishes is in no danger of imposing conservatism.