These instances of rejection of final rights - were perhaps some of these cases due to the fear of transmission prior to common understanding of the means of transmission? Same for the Bible studies?
Again with the term "queer", this masks the important distinction mentioned above, because its use presents certain actions as morally-neutral. Many of us view(ed) the AIDS crisis as being used as a justification for sinful actions. I'm sure you're familiar with the Stop the Church event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_the_Church). It is rather obvious, based on who organized this event and others like it that they were opposed to actual teachings of the Church, such as its condemnation of sodomy, contraception (even as a prophylactic against contracting diseases) and even abortion.
Well for starters, while obviously both are sinful, for a priest to break his vow of celibacy with a woman would require fewer conceptually-separate sinful actions than for a priest to break his vow of celibacy with a man. The former would at least require betraying an oath to God, fornication, and scandal, while the latter would require the addition of sodomy. Therefore, the latter is a graver moral evil.
(Additional note: while Dante Alighieri is not an approved moral theologian, many Catholics see his breakdown of Hell in the Inferno to be quite valuable; Dante places sodomites in the seventh circle with usurers and blasphemers, while those simply guilty of lust are placed in the second circle).
[
EDIT: For more info on this particular aspect of Dante's breakdown of Hell, I made a video on this topic, if you are interested:
But as far as the investigation, many of us (again, I am representing a certain demographic within the Church, not an aggregate of every card-carrying Catholic) see the problem of homosexual clergy as far more interrelated with other present scandals, such as the sexual abuse crisis, widespread poor catechizing of the youth, general moral flimsiness, and the desire to displace the Tridentine form of the Mass. It's sort of a guilt-by-association thing, sure, but most investigative work in general works on heuristics. Of course, there isn't a necessary link between so-called "homosexual" inclination and behavior on the one hand and pederasty on the other. But there are a few things to keep in mind:
1) This association is actually ancient - it isn't merely some prejudice from puritanical 1950s America. You find it in Plato and Aristotle, despite the overgeneralizations people make about Ancient Greece (much of which is based on very little evidence).
2) It doesn't follow that just because homosexuality is not a consistent predictor of pederasty in the broader population that this lack of pattern is maintained among homosexual clergy.
I would add that most people I speak to in the Church are consistently disfavorable toward priests that have children out of wedlock. But it doesn't really seem to be as major of an issue at present.
Because if my instincts cannot be altered to the point of having "neutral" heuristic judgment (again, whatever the heck that is even supposed to entail and even supposing that that is an ideal) then it is literally a benefit to their community if I am not regularly among them. My presence among them would necessarily be parasitic (regardless of my intentions, because we are talking about inflicting harm unconsciously). That is, so long as I am otherwise giving to their community as much as anyone else in that community.
Even though I don't think it is necessary to make an appeal to the destiny of an ethnic minority, I would nevertheless maintain that Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision and really the whole paradigm of "civil rights" beginning with the Fourteenth Amendment was and has been objectively bad for blacks in America considered collectively. We romanticize decisions like Brown vs. Board and the forced integration that came thereafter because of cherry-picked pictures of well-to-do white ladies screaming at a little black girl in Little Rock, but the fact of the matter was that most black parents wanted their children to attend all-black schools, and these schools basically went out of existence and many black teachers were left without jobs because they couldn't get hired at the integrated schools that stayed open that were by-and-large white-administrated. Of course, the civil rights apologist would say that this was because federal government had not yet gone far enough, but the federal government is necessarily slow and there is little incentive for a holistic program of forced integration on behalf of the executive branch. But there is just enough incentive to dish out these measures when it appeases some short term interest a particular critical mass, and this kind of high(center)-low(periphery) cooperation against the middle(subsidiary) is quite commonplace throughout Western history. The fact of the matter is that the history of civil rights in America is a sequence of not-having-gone-far-enough-yet that stretches to nowhere. This is why I prefer the Malcolm X approach, despite some of his own flaws. Blacks do not have a position of national sovereignty. They have a position of being dispersed into the urban areas of major cities and integrated (often initially by force of higher power) into what were originally WASP institutions. Their dependencies on white institutions is what has utterly screwed them for decades now.
You're talking about the "majority demographic" like they're some kind of parental figure. Like they have some kind of, uh, burden or something. No matter. By refusing to engage people who wouldn't even dream of extending their scrutiny of my theorized unconscious "biases" to themselves, I am doing more to advance the cause of muhnorities than ten Martin Luther Kings combined. I am ousting myself - a racist - from their community! What could be better than that?
These are good distinctions. But I think maybe the central question or line of questioning I was driving at was this: what is it that makes some given discriminatory judgment borne of animosity or pure arbitration without reason? How could we even consistently determine something like that? Even about ourselves? If it must be borne of explicable reasons, to whom must we justify ourselves with these reasons?
Personally, instead of dealing with this litany of issues I'd rather do what I normally do and just lol at people who charge me with waaaacism for whatever bizarre reason they happen to concoct today.
A few questions that are never really addressed in these discussions about "bias", "discrimination", "race", etc.:
What is discrimination at a fundamental level? The term originally means to perceive something as validly distinct - e.g. to discriminate between truthhood and falsity, between up and down, between black and white. The term is most often now used with the implicit qualification of "unjust", "unwarranted", "unreal" or "quasi". So-called "racial discrimination" is a charge made when there appears to be some kind of injustice in the evaluation. So does this mean the mark of racial/ethnic/(even religious)/whatever stock is to be totally unrecognized as a heuristic in all judgments? Or just some? If just some, which ones? Why? Where is the line drawn? How many cycles of flawed attempts at psychological programming (the unintended consequences of which are perhaps not even entirely observed or taken into consideration) do we need to go through before ditching this endeavour? As it pertains to law enforcement, is it easier to simply admit that our current system can't be reformed through psy-ops, and that maybe we need to revert to a more subsidiarian/local principle of security in general?