Time Online has an interesting article about the RCC's efforts to screen for homosexuality. Link. Excerpt:
Fifty years ago, Plante's sideline--he has done roughly 175 seminary evaluations since 1988, at about $450 apiece--did not exist. While seminaries have always screened candidates through interviews, personal references and, often, written spiritual autobiographies, the process has become increasingly complex and now takes one to three years. Testing by professional psychologists, introduced in the '50s, has proliferated in the past two decades as the American church has redefined spirituality from a narrow focus on piety and discipline to one "involving things like the psychological and social maturity on which spirituality builds," explains Charles Bouchard, president of the Aquinas Institute of Theology in St. Louis, Mo. Supporters of the added vetting believe that it may eventually be seen to have played a role in reducing priestly sexual abuse, which appears to have crested in the '80s.
Time, of course, likes homosexuality, so it's not a particularly balanced piece. Take, for instance, two references about homosexuals and children. Both say that psychologists are adamant that homosexuals are not more likely to abuse "kids" or "children." Either the writer is ignorant or disingenuous. The argument isn't that homosexuals were abusing children (though some were). It's that they were having relations with young men, in the 13-17 age group. It was a same-sex attraction, like many men find teenage girls attractive (the Traci Lords porn phenomenon comes immediately to mind).
I get tired of mentioning this, but the MSM persists in their argument that the priest scandal dealt only with pre-pubescent children, which simply wasn't the case.
