While it's true that you aren't safe anywhere, it certainly helps when the church you attend doesn't *fundamentally* attract f@gs and other degenerates.

The Novus Ordo is especially bad, not because it has some fallen human beings (because human beings are found everywhere) but because the Liturgy and new religion ITSELF fundamentally attracts these perverts. The new religion is sentimental, emotional, feminine, vapid, Protestant (rooted in heresy), cut off from Traditional morality and practice, etc.

You're right -- there's a difference between "we have a problem here" and "we could have a problem here on rare occasions, because human nature".

That's why you should always ask yourself, "is there some fundamental reason why THIS PARTICULAR GROUP would be a problem?

By the way, I realize Sean Johnson recently had a thread on the topic of what to call sɛҳuąƖ degenerates? -- 

but "SSA" certainly isn't it.

The thread is the first and last time I've seen the term used.

Any other term works better -- even "gαy" which is bad because it suggests they are happy people, but at least everyone knows what I'm talking about! The same can't be said for "SSA".

The disordered

bent minds - C.S. Lewis used "bent" to refer to one who has knowingly and unrelentingly given himself over to evil of all kinds; one for whom there is no hope of repentance.

disordered bent minds

I was trying to find a neutral term. What would you suggest?

Sodomite is probably best.  ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is probably acceptable.
Why were you looking for a "neutral term"?  How can you be "neutral" in regards to a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance?

Despite I am confident the priests are straight there are a number of single men I think are ssa who attend. They make up about 20 % of the congregation.
My bottom line question is should I try to drive these pervert out or - since they are 20% of the parish- should I leave and drive the extra hour to a independent chapel?
OR — as I’m beginning to fear is there nowhere I can be free of sodomites in the pews and altar and clergy?

What are sodomites doing in a Catholic Church? It is like if I showed up every Sunday with a harem of Playboy bunnies. Why would I go to mass? I think these sodomites are there because the priests welcome them and encourage them to come. The Novus Ordo world is all about welcoming you as you are. 

I would have confronted the priests from day one and have left that place after their first milquetoast response. Lot was not commanded to convert Gomorrah, but to leave it.  

I actually think that a great number of male ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs are drawn towards the Traditional Mass due to "queer eye" (to the OP's point).  

I have not ever seen more than one or two at a time in any SSPX chapel I have ever gone to, and even those left within 1-2 months. I am talking about just effeminate men, for it takes a little longer to see if they are sodomites. Not a one effeminate man can escape my eye. 

Let's do an exercise.

Let's pretend you are one of these Trad ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, who has a fetish for the Trad liturgy.

You have 4 options where you could go and plant yourself:

The local Sedevacantist chapel
The SSPX chapel
A small independent or Resistance chapel
The local Indult

Which of them would you be most likely to go with, and why?

I think that 99 times out of 100, the choice would be "Indult", and I'm not making this choice lightly. They have the most people, the most beautiful chapels/churches, and the most resources (best vestments, best lace, best equipment, most ornate altars, etc.)

AND, let's face it, any Indult or "approved by Rome" group is ALL ABOUT THE MASS. Not about the Faith. If they were about doctrine or the Faith as well as the Mass, they wouldn't place themselves under the heretics in Rome, least of all the Pope!

But for the most part, the Indult is all about "the Latin Mass" and how "it's better in Latin" and all that. When that is the be-all and end-all of your schtick, of course you're going to pull out all the stops and make your Mass as aesthetically awesome as possible.

Your reasoning is sound, Matthew. 

If anecdotal evidence counts for anything, the swishiest, most flamingly effeminate man I've ever had the displeasure to be personally introduced to was one who regularly served (sometimes as subdeacon!) at the indult Latin Mass at Holy Innocents in NYC.

This was about a decade ago. I extended my hand to him as I would to any man to whom I'm being introduced, and was met with a limp-wristed, well-manicured mitt, held out daintily toward me, palm straight down, in the manner of a refined lady expecting her hand to be taken and kissed! I did what I could to turn that into a normal handshake, but it was like gripping a fistful of cooked linguine. I chatted for a minute or two with him and his fellow acolytes. Words can scarcely describe the profound disgust and discomfiture I felt watching his posture and mannerisms, which were like that of a flirtatious girl attempting to look demure - hands clasped together, talking over the shoulder, eyelashes batting... the sort of thing I was accustomed to seeing the coquettish co-eds of my university days doing; only now it was a silver-haired man in his fifties doing it.

Later, I asked another of the acolytes "what the deal was" with (and at that point I pantomimed a limp wrist). He laughed knowingly and said, "Yeah, that's just Percy (not his real name). He's... kind of funny, yeah. But he's a great MC, and he sure knows his Latin! Anyway he keeps all that stuff to himself. We've never had a problem with him."

The indifference in his explanation was depressing, but eye-opening. Apparently the standards were so low that, so long as Percy "kept it to himself" (which, I guess meant not bringing his boyfriend to church?), it was fine to have him flitting and mincing around the Sanctuary, doing as much damage to the sanctity and solemnity of the Mass - to say nothing of potential future vocations in the pews - as Subdeacon Liberace would have. 

I have no idea whether or not Percy is still doing his thing at Holy Innocents, but if you've been there, and you've seen him, you'll no doubt know exactly who I'm talking about.

As for a good term.

SSA is probably too weak because many of them do not fight their inclinations.

Sodomite is too strong because some of the do in fact fight their inclinations and do not act on them.

I prefer the term homo or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ because that is neutral ... could be either of the above (SSA or Sodomite).

But Barnhardt's aberrosɛҳuąƖ might be better because it does underscore that this is in fact a grave disorder (and not just an objective alignment) ... except that it doesn't limit itself to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs (since other types of inclinations might be considered equally aberrant).