Guest Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) Healthy people don't make jumps like that. It frustrates me when people act like we're so uncontrollably sexual that if we don't find an adult willing to have sex with us, we'll jump the nearest thing to us. Self-control is a thing. no and I repeat NOOOO straight man does that...straight men never entertain the idea of fooling around with another male...let alone a little boy... Edited February 27, 2014 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I love the female body enough for myself and many others...But if all the females were removed tommorow and only males were left I wouldn't start checking guys out...Straight men don't do that only gay... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 no and I repeat NOOOO straight man does that...straight men never entertain the idea of fooling around with another male...let alone a little boy... And I know you probably didin't intend it... but since that's how I read it, let's be clear that gay guys aren't into little boys either. Going after pre-pubescent boys Sandusky-style is not considered to be a "gay thing". However, from all that I've read, pre-pubescent children were a minority of abuse victims, something less than 20%-30%. Most of the victims were post-pubescent males (teenagers), which means the abuse wasn't pedophilia so much as predatory. I love the female body enough for myself and many others...But if all the females were removed tommorow and only males were left I wouldn't start checking guys out...Straight men don't do that only gay... Yes, you are correct, this is not how male sexuality works. A man without a woman masturbates, he does not check out other guys. However, I've noticed that a lot of women - even some very worldly cosmopolitan women - assumed the opposite about male sexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 And I know you probably didin't intend it... but since that's how I read it, let's be clear that gay guys aren't into little boys either. Going after pre-pubescent boys Sandusky-style is not considered to be a "gay thing". ok i didn't know that...i thought most dudes who messed around with boys and teenage boys were gay...you're saying they're not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 ok i didn't know that...i thought most dudes who messed around with boys and teenage boys were gay...you're saying they're not ? I'm not a psychiatrist, but my understanding is that there is a big difference between going after prepubescent vs post-pubescent minors. They are distinct behaviors and the actors have different and distinct profiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eliakim Posted March 6, 2014 Author Share Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Here's a question: do you think it is worse (more homosexual activity in the seminaries) than past ages? I have heard cases as early as the sixth century... Edited March 6, 2014 by Eliakim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freudianslippers Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 The inclination toward homosexuality is NOT a sin, but it is disordered to nature. The fact of the matter is not one of homophobia, but it is the understanding of the Church that sexual disorders disqualify one from being considered for the Priesthood. Other disorders can disqualify people, but it is not as widely talked about or recognized. Just as an example of another sexual disordered if a Man was addicted to say pornography and he was unable or unwilling to combat and overcome it, it's pretty much going to be an issue. Yes, celibacy is hard, yes we go through a lot of formation to be able to live and share our sexuality in a celibate way and yes it is similar to the growth we need to help our homosexual members with. Not being a Priest does not mean one can not do good things and comfort. In fact it is the LAITY who are the evangelizers of the Church, too many people look towards the ordained as a power and position thing. It's really about a SERVICE thing.. Homosexuals can join some religious communities depending on each's charism and rule and so forth. Just like each community has their own age restrictions or rules As for Married Priests yes the Catholic Church has had married Priests in the past and it has married priests today too. I don't think the current discipline ought to change in this matter. What would it take for it to change? i dunno a massive shift in the World wide Catholic culture that would allow a deep understanding that a dual Vocation Priest/husband has. Parishes that were more willing to not have Fr around because he's off being a good Dad too, but a family who is willing to not have Dad around because he's being a priest at the Hospital. A Culture that understands the unique, yet non consecrated role the Wife of a priest plays in a community. The Eastern Churches have not lost this tradition for the most part...the Western Churches have. Okay, this is by far the best response, in my not so humble opinion. And thank you. I dunno about anyone else but your words give me food for thought. Certainly better than the traditional, "You're just stupid, you don't know what you're talking about" response that is so typical of people on this site. Not every homosexual has uncontrollable urges though. And it's insulting to think they're responsible for children being hurt. That's plain ridiculous. There are heterosexual priests who struggle with celibacy. Temptation is not a reason to refuse a person. Or you'd have even fewer priests. Just typing as I think... It makes sense that boy scouts should not admit girls. It makes sense that not everyone can do everything. And in a Church which has many members who would be downright freaked out by going to a homosexual for spiritual help, I understand that it would not work. Discrimination really isn't always bad. BUT I think they shouldn't be in seminaries because of the many people who make assumptions about them, who judge them based on something they were born with, something in their dna. "OOH! He'll be tempted!" (Like no one else would be...) I have many gay friends, one of whom "discovered" it after being married with kids. He and his wife were amicably divorced, she is very accepting. He is terrified his kids will be gay like him because of the constant harassment and bullying from his "Christian" coworkers. He sees it as a scourge and is ashamed of himself. Most people do not have the SLIGHTEST idea of what it is like to be an outsider on this scale. I find the words, "entrenched in the seminaries" to be so offensive. Like they're there to hurt you, or harass you. It's not a sexual orientation thing. If someone wants to hurt you, it's not because of their sexual orientation. And as for married priests, I know Protestants have similar problems in the smaller Churches. I don't think celibacy is necessarily the problem. I also don't think it helps much. Maybe a more comprehensive screening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Here's a question: do you think it is worse (more homosexual activity in the seminaries) than past ages? I have heard cases as early as the sixth century... I think having a respectable position where one doesn't have to marry and will be able to live with men has always and will always be attractive to homosexuals. I think it just was policed less during a few decades recently, but that is being rectified. Here is a review of a book covering the topic in the 11th century: https://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=1113-gardiner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Eliakim, you wrote: "I find the words, "entrenched in the seminaries" to be so offensive. Like they're there to hurt you, or harass you. It's not a sexual orientation thing. If someone wants to hurt you, it's not because of their sexual orientation." YOu're the one who titled the thread! Why did you write a title you find to be offensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Eliakim, you wrote: "I find the words, "entrenched in the seminaries" to be so offensive. Like they're there to hurt you, or harass you. It's not a sexual orientation thing. If someone wants to hurt you, it's not because of their sexual orientation." YOu're the one who titled the thread! Why did you write a title you find to be offensive? No, was freudianslippers who said that I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Eliakim wrote: " I have many gay friends, one of whom "discovered" it after being married with kids." I'm glad you used scare quotes on "discovered," because I don't believe for a minute that he "discovered" his homosexuality at that late stage of his life and sexual experience. He might have been in denial up to that point, he might have struggled against it until society said it was all the hip and trendy thing to do, but I don't believe he began having his first attractions to other men after he was married and had kids. That's the "gay ray" theory - "I was just walking down the street, living my normal life, when all of a sudden I was hit with the gay ray, and now I have to get a divorce, etc.." I don't believe it's in the DNA either. I don't know the origins of homosexuality in everybody or in anybody, but I don't believe it's in the DNA or in the gay ray. I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 No, was freudianslippers who said that I think. Eliakim's name is under the title. Where did Freudianslippers mention it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I find the words, "entrenched in the seminaries" to be so offensive. Like they're there to hurt you, or harass you. It's not a sexual orientation thing. If someone wants to hurt you, it's not because of their sexual orientation. ^^^ Eliakim's name is under the title. Where did Freudianslippers mention it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigi Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 ^^^ Ah! Now I get it! It was late, I was tired, and I was trying to read too fast - scanning the screen rather than actually reading. Sorry for the confusion, you guys. And thanks for straightening me out, ND. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Wednesday Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Sourcing from the Daily Mail? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now