Catholic clergy surveillance org 'outs gay priests' A Catholic clergy conformance organization has reportedly been buying up tracking data from mobile apps to identify gay priests, and providing that information to bishops around America. The group, Catholic Laity and Clergy for Renewal (CLCR), was formed in Colorado in 2019 and relocated its principal office to Casper, Wyoming …
An example of this was done by a couple of Catholic reporters in the US last year. A new Catholc journal called "The Pillar" bought tracking data from Grindr and found that it was being heavily used in a particular church residence.
It resulted in the resignation of the gentleman from a significant position in the Catholic hierarchy in the US and ended his chances to become a bishop. The account can be found at https://www.pillarcatholic.com/pillar-investigates-usccb-gen-sec/
Yes, one of the reporters also lives in Colorado.
There are lots of questions about privacy here and apps selling data.
I am a recovered Catholic; but with my Irish heritage, a recovered Cat Lick.
The institution of enforced chastity had nothing to do with morality.
The key problem was that the serfs were set to have the first (male) inherit the lot; the second goes to service the army of the (land)lord; and the third goes to the church.
Process wise, the second almost always died before the parents.
So the inheritance was split between the primary, tertiary, and surviving others.
The one given to the church's family would process inheritance in a similar fashion.
This hurt the church's reach, so preventing the priest from having a family insured that all inheritance eventually fell into the church.
It is a nice example of how, despite so much evidence, the church isn't stupid. They are just playing a different game than you.
And you thought MicroSoft were evil.
> [Enforcing celibacy to prevent] the priest from having a family insured that all inheritance eventually fell into the church.
Interesting, but ironically- in the context of the original discussion- that's the one thing that *wouldn't* historically have been a risk with gay priests.
Indeed, purely from that specific angle, you'd have thought it might be in their own interest to encourage homosexuality as a "safe" outlet for sexual frustration.
A lot of evils and troubles are stemming directly from the strictures that (a) priests should be celibate and (b) priests have to be male. It has much more to do with control and imposition than any spiritual function. There's plenty of evidence that the books / gospels of the New Testament were cherry-picked from many different available ones, and the 'rejected' ones (many of which were rediscovered in the dead sea scrolls) describe an early church that was far more woman-friendly than that imposed later on (4th to 6th century AD) by Rome.
In any case, outing anyone is really not OK.
Collecting and reselling this type of personal information is really not OK
There's quite a bit of evidence that suggests that at about 30,000 years ago women were worshiped as the most significant humans ... virtually all prehistoric statues are women, not men https://mymodernmet.com/the-venus-of-willendorf/
/joke I wasn't thinking about that yesterday but I made up, and told a joke ... Walk around the neighborhood and you see cats and dogs, the dogs run out and bark at you, the cats just sit there and purr. Have men evolved from dogs, and women evolved from cats?
There's plenty of evidence that the books / gospels of the New Testament were cherry-picked from many different available ones...
The Dead Sea Scrolls didn't contain any candidate New Testament texts, most of them are too early and the rest are mostly of a secular nature.
What they did show, since it is Catholism at issue specifically here, is the heritage of many Old Testament books. A Protestant Bible has a section in the middle labelled "Apocrypha", neither Old or New Testament and not considered divine work. Catholic Bibles include them in the main body of the Old Testament. The Protestant argument for exclusion centred on they must be more recent since they had never been found in Hebrew.
Until the Dead Sea Scrolls found many of them in Hebrew...
Yes, the Churches (any Church) have a lot to apologise for, but making up fantasy to suit an ad hoc argument does not really advance your cause.
Ah but Catholic priests do not take the vow of chastity, they take the vow of celibacy.
It's the nuns that take the vow of chastity, demonstrating once again the positively Midieval mindset of the Roman Catholic Church. Men ? Don't marry, but you can diddle. Women ? Ain't nobody touching you but the Holy Ghost in your dreams.
Personally, I couldn't care less if a priest is gay or not.
Just leave the children alone.
"seeks to help clergy live by the church's teachings"
I don't think so. This isn't about evil priests harming anyone, and as far as I'm concerned celibacy is about making sure that all property acquired by the Catholic church remains in the church and is never diverted to heirs. You don't act like a devil to do holy things. This smacks of everything foul about religion. The priests are generally the best thing about the church with few exceptions and digging up their dirty laundry just because you can is vile. This is no public service; it is stroking someone's self-righteous ego.
Look at the person most hypocritical in the general area... bishops, cardinals, large families with 'traditional roots' that are also of said religion, etc etc etc...
You'll be surprised by what you find.
I'll just point at the dynasty that Alex Murdaugh stems from (yes, that lawyer dude recently convicted in South Carolina of murdering his wife and son over his shady dealings and his debts) - Same deal there, just nothing to do with Catholicism.
Look at the person most hypocritical in the general area... bishops, cardinals, large families with 'traditional roots' that are also of said religion, etc etc etc...
Nothing necessarily strange about that. As Monty Python explained, every sperm is sacred. Sex is for procreation only, because that way you can grow your flock. Or sell indulgences for impure thoughts or acts. Ok, so they eventually banned that one, and it's just a few Hail Marys. Plus because procreation only, birth control is also banned. So Catholic families tend to end up large, despite any problems that might cause. So that's kind of up to the Pope to change, or other versions of Christianity are available. Fundamentally though, it's not our job to judge each other, that's up to the Big Guy and is true for many religions. Perhaps these outraged outers will meet their makers, get reminded about throwing stones, and discover their souls now weigh somewhat more than a feather.
"and is never diverted to heirs."
There's almost always heirs in the bloodline. The "employer" is very far down that list. It's certainly not a given that the church will get the inheritance. Although I'd imagine there's great pressure on the employees to stipulate the church as the prime or only benefactor in their wills.
"Pope Francis suggested gay priests should be celibate or leave the church."
I am pretty sure a Jesuit such his Holiness would know the difference between celibacy and chastity.
I would think these quasi-religous KKK types would better apply their efforts to eradicating the kiddie fiddlers and other abusers from their Church. Perhaps a task for the (Spanish) Inquisition.
It is 2023, which means that many priests currently in service could have been ordained as far back as the 70s. As the stigma of being gay gradually recedes (and you can be certain that in some conservative* communities that stigma is still strong), less and less gay men will take refuge in the church to cover their sexual orientation. But also, less and less people will want to become priests. Churches in 'the west' are already having to 'import' priests from 3rd-world countries. Ultimately the church will die out unless it allows female priests and/or married priests
*I mean it in the mentality sense not the political sense although there surely is quite some overlap there
Thanks for that last remark.
I'm neither religious or gay but I obviously have friends and neighbors in both camps. I cannot say strongly enough that the idea that all gay people are pedophiles is total crap. This 'nudge-nudge' type BS is propagated people people who don't understand the relationships involved in pair bonding and are probably hideously insecure in their own sexuality.
I think Pope Francis has the right approach -- its a sort of "Don't ask / Don't tell" approach that recognizes how frail human will can be but at the same time recommends that if sex is a world you can't live without then you're probably better off not in the clergy (or join the Orthodox mob -- their priests not only can marry but are encouraged to).
I feel that some commenters are rather missing the point, with their desire to slag off the Catholic church.
This is about privacy, not the moral status of the church or of individuals. In this case, an organisation is "digging dirt" on individuals who may be doing something that is not illegal, but contrary to their employer's policies and feeding said information to the employer.
If the article had been about people digging online for information about, say, women seeking an abortion, then feeding the information to an employer or another third party, I'm pretty sure the vitriol would be directed differently.
Incidentally, also, although I believe the Anglican church does allow clergy to enter same sex civil partnerships, they would in those circumstances also be expected to remain celibate.
It is about privacy, but it is also about the catholic church. To clarify, I quote you:
>In this case, an organisation is "digging dirt" on individuals who may be doing something that is not illegal, but contrary to their employer's policies and feeding said information to the employer.
If that employer was, I dunno, a mega-tech such as IBM, Alphabet, Meta or MS, and that employer had a policy that explicitly discriminated against gay people, you can bet that said employer would have extreme amounts of vitriol directed at it.
Similarly, when the problem is that someone is violating the privacy of women seeking an abortion in a state where it's illegal, there's usually plenty of vitriol directed at that state's government.
The fact that this comments page is chock full of vitriol directed at the catholic church is simply because it's well deserved, and another society that behaved in the same way would get the same slagging off.
Privacy is not an absolute right. Sometimes there is a public interest in breaching privacy. Catholic priests are influential people who promote and raise funds for an anti-gay, anti-consensual sex organisation. They're also quite insistent on the importance of personal behaviour. If their personal behaviour contradicts what they preach - there could be a legitimate public interest in exposing that.
This is a case where an enterprise has a mandatory policy for its staff. The management have confirmed the policy but aren't strictly enforcing it. A 3rd party, who is presumably a customer of the enterprise, feels so strongly about the policy that they are paying to detect breaches of that policy outside of the workplace and publishing those breaches to pressure management to apply it in the case of individual staff so detected.
The question is, if you were in a similar situation, would you be happy with this arrangement? (let's say your employer had a no drugs policy but you lived in a country where they could not require urine samples and you smoked up at weekends). If not, what would you do about it?
It's very difficult to ignore religion for the sake of argument, because if you ignore religion, you end up in a completely different situation: if it was a regular for-profit company adopting a policy similar to the catholic church, the employee would simply sue for discrimination well before any 3rd party even had a chance to come into play.
The drugs example is also not terribly helpful, because drugs are illegal or at least regulated almost everywhere, and can easily be argued to impact your workplace performance. None of that applies to being gay. I'm not saying whether I'd be fine or not with such a policy, only that it is a poor metaphor for the original situation. Too many critical differences.
Overall, I don't think "ignore religion" leads anywhere useful, unless we also imagine that organized religions have to play by the same rules as every other employer. I'd love that idea, but it would be an entirely different discussion. As things stand now, the fact that this employer is an organized religion cannot really be separated from the matter at hand.
It really is extremely hard to get your head around the fact that the most "devout" followers of a religion, are more likely to diverge 180 degrees from the teachings of their prophet and saviour.
Jesus, supposedly, did not preach hate. In fact quite the opposite. Yet his hardcore fans are nothing but soulless, hate-filled, misanthropes.
"Hello. How can we help you?"
"Well I'm starting this new business up and could do with some help with the PR"
"Well, you have come to the right place. We at 'Chew it and Spit PR offices' are the world leaders in advising in these matters, so what is it you're selling?"
"A new religion. Well, a newer version of an older religion I suppose"
"Ooo. Let's just stick with new religion, don't want the two business models getting confused. Has it got a name?"
"I was thinking, 'Bugger You All' "
"Ah, I don't know."
"Well, with all this hate going on in the world, I thought I'd capitalise on it and get some of that market"
"It's been played to death has that one. All the major religions have focussed on that tribal us and them exclusivity thing. You're gonna have to come up with something new"
"You've taken the wind out of my sails, I'm not sure what to suggest"
"Tell you what, the whole love thing hasn't been tapped into yet. Now that would make your religion stand out a mile from the others"
"Love?"
"Yeah, love. Instead of hating anyone who isn't in your gang, you love them. Then they might think about joining"
"Oh yeah, that's a great idea"
"OK, so what about a better name than 'Bugger you all'. What's your name?"
"Jesus"
"Err, err. You're not giving me anything here. Middle name?"
"Christ"
"Err, yeah, that might have some mileage. Tell you what, I'll get an opinion group together and they can brainstorm some ideas for a name. Some play on Christ might fit the bill. We'll see"
"Now what are your policies? The tenets of your religion?"
"Beating on queers. That's got to be top of the list"
"Err. Can I stop you there. That isn't really well thought through. Don't forget we're coming from an all inclusive love angle. You can't go beating on anyone."
"Alright then. You're making this very difficult and all I want is some easy money"
"It's not going to be easy Jesus, I'm thinking to really sell this business, you might need to make some personal sacrifices"
"Like what?"
"Well I can see the big picture here, and you being nailed to a cross and crucified would mega-boost the ratings"
"Whoa. You can stop right there. You're mad. I'm taking my business elsewhere"
"Fine, but I should point out, a lot of the makings of this new religion is my IP, and the streets are full of down and outs that would die for this opportunity"
"Fine, you do that. I'm off to the stoning to cheer myself up"
And so the PR company that had up to that point concentrated on manufacturing boy bands started a new department manufacturing religious ideology and the rest as they say is history...rewritten and edited to suit the narrative through the ages.
The piece doesn't really come with an editorial. El Reg's opinion in this matter is not stated. It is as you put it, copied from other sources, and presented as such.
The discerning reader can form their own opinions. And as this publication tends to attract a higher than average cohort of discerning readers, I think it can be said that this article is unlikely to change the perceptions of those readers, as to the crazed minds of religious zealots.
No - you will find that they are not targeting gay priests as the headline and story suggest. With 5 seconds of research they would have found out that they are looking at all dating apps, not just gay ones. This does change the story quite bit from "evil homophobes attacking innocent priests" to "uptight Christians trying to keep their clergy on the straight and narrow".
Or is that too subtle for a discerning reader?
I remember as a lad, hitch-hiking my way down to Bristol and in the pouring rain got a lift in a very nice Jag. The driver told me he was a senior cleric for an evangelical church and his role was to mentor and support the other clerics through times of crisis, which normally revolved around their sexual urges and how they might better suppress them.
Twenty minutes into the journey he pulled off of the motorway and dropped me at the services, as it was clear his offer of dropping me right at my intended destination so long as I sucked his cock was never going to happen.
I imagine he's now some high ranking Bishop and continues to this day to abuse those who are seeking solace and guidance.
My first question would be - who says the Bishops doing the investigations are beyond reproach themselves ? Seems to me after reading a lot of incidents regarding the sexual exploits of far too many Catholic priests that the whole structure is suspect. I would not be trusting any of them at this point as their profession appears to have been used as a system where they can easily hide, hence all of them are now suspect ! The idea that any of them would be posing as representatives of a higher order of values makes me really mad - HOW DARE YOU !!!
It turns out this effort is not actually directed at gay clergy, but ALL clergy who use dating/hookup apps. So it is not about outing gay clergy but misbehaving clergy.
If this were about corporate executives misappropriating funds or embezzling money this effort would be seen as very clever.
Holy shit…
How can this be legal?
Also:
“On Wednesday, FBI Director Christopher Wray confirmed for the first time at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing that the agency has in the past "purchased some such information for a specific national security pilot project, but that's not been active for some time."”
Project “Treadstone”, presumably?
Are they outing just the homo-priest, are are they outing the kiddie-fondler priests as well?
The churches as a whole are clearly just a foundation for men (and women) clergy who don't have the ability to have real relationships with people.
In a few years, I fully expect that we'll be having the lesbian clergy up before the public for fondling 6 year old girls.....
Although we're supposed to have a separation of church and state in the US the Catholic Church does exert an outside influence through lobbying efforts and its presence on the courts. (The Supreme Court has a bunch of Catholics as members and they're not like Biden who is Catholic but 'normal' -- these people are serious extremists). The US Conference of Bishops is also an extreme right wing organization (they'd say "of course not" but judge them by their actions).
So its not surprising that groups of Catholics see nothing wrong in acting like a fascist secret police. Individual Catholics are OK but as an organization they're a nasty piece of work. They don't like that wimp Pope Francis much, either -- he's far too liberal for them.
The Supreme Court has a bunch of Catholics as members
Six of nine: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomeyer, Kavanaugh, and Bryant. But the latter two have only been on the bench a few years, and it's hard to see Sotomeyer joining the other five in some sort of Catholic cabal.
And this is a historical aberration. Only 15 of the 115 SCOTUS judges have been Catholic, so nearly half of them are presently on the bench.
I'd argue more for undue organized-Christianity influence of various competing sects in US Federal and state government. The pressures applied by various Evangelical organizations since the late nineteenth century are well documented, for example. That's not to give the Roman Catholic Church a pass – they put their thumb on the scales whenever they can – but it's a scrum, not a coordinated movement. And even in the RCC there are many differences of opinion; it's not nearly so consistent as it likes to pretend.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
