Homosexuality & The Priesthood

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1864172' date='May 11 2009, 12:41 PM']If that's your point on #3, what's the difference from putting a heterosexual priest around tennage girls in catholic school girl unifroms, since a just barley legal look is big in society today and that's a big thing the porn industry pushes in society today. I really don't see any difference beweetn a gay priest and straight priest when it comes to #3.[/quote]

Or trying to drive around town about 3pm...

I never understood why those skirts are actually required outfits. I hear they're supposed to be knee-length...

[ariaane]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1864179' date='May 11 2009, 05:53 PM']That's interesting. I didn't know that. I knew from my Criminal Law classes that most pedophiles are hetero, and just assumed that applied to the clergy abuse scandal as well. I should know better than to make assumptions. I suspect I never looked at the numbers because like a lot of Catholics, I dealt with the abuse scandal by trying not to think about it too much. I guess it is time to get over that because to fix a problem, you really need to understand how it was allowed to happen in the first place.[/quote]

I very much doubt that [b]most paedophiles[/b] are heterosexual.

What often is not taken into consideration is [b]ratio[/b], when we look at statistical occurrences of child abuse amongst heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Of course, there will be more instances of child abuse amongst the heterosexual demographic, [b]because heterosexuals comprise over 96%[/b] of the worlds population (The 10% of the world is gay statistic is nothing but a myth that originates from Kinsey’s faulty studies- and many homosexuals acknowledge this today).

What needs to be looked at are the number of child abuse cases in [b]relation to the size[/b] of the homosexual demographic. When this is done, I’m pretty certain the conclusions you have will be different.

The media, of course, will not report the truth about the child abuse cases lest they offend the liberal and homosexual demographic who are prone to erupt whenever a bad word is spoken about homosexuals.

Even instances where known homosexual paedohiles have raped and killed boys, such as the Jesse Dhirsking case (sp), the media remains silent. I even stumbled upon a gay blog which legitimised this homosexual rape of the 12 year old boy claiming the boy had consented to being mutilated and sodomised, and his death was accidental. Yes, a homosexual male wrote such revisionist reporting publicly. And was he challenged by the homosexual community? I doubt it...

I say what I say because of I think society needs to upfront and [b]honest about the tendency of male homosexuals (and I’m not talking about lesbians here) to be obsessed with all things young and male.[/b] I don’t see the same trend amongst lesbian women.

Keep in mind that NAMBLA (man-boy love organisation) was born from the homosexual rights movement, and was only disowned by the homosexual community when they began to receive negative press from the public. Again, this is something that some homosexual organisations do admit.

And yes, I do agree that we have to stop with the political correctness and call a spade a spade. [b]I consider the welfare of young males- and their souls (keep in mind that many abused boys have probably left the Church, thus endangering their salvation)- more important than offending homosexual males, be they young boy lovers or not.[/b]

[CatherineM]

[quote name='ariaane' post='1864201' date='May 11 2009, 11:20 AM']I very much doubt that [b]most paedophiles[/b] are heterosexual.[/quote]

When it comes to pre-pubescent children, it really isn't about gender anyway. It is about the age of the child. Once a child hits puberty, then the statistics change, but of course at that point, the abuser is not technically a pedophile, it's called hebephilia. In the real world though, we don't really make that distinction. Studies done in penitentiaries of those convicted of child molestation have shown they are typically heterosexual [i]with adults[/i].

[franciscanheart]

i cannot believe you are sitting here claiming that homosexuals are pedophiles. this is disgusting.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864141' date='May 11 2009, 09:39 AM']i know i'm late to the game but i'm confused. two posters in the first two pages of this thread spoke to having issues with the homosexual [b]civil[/b] union teachings of the Church. why civil? what difference does it make if the Church will allow Her people to marry civilly and not sacramentally? how do you have one without the other?

so confused.[/quote]

Again I will state that I no longer support homosexual unions of any kind. Anyway, the term "homosexual marriage" implies a union before God in a Church. The term "homosexual civil union" implies more of a legal union by a justice of the peace. I always had wondered why the homosexual couple could not have the latter; while I never agreed with homosexual activity and knew it was contrary to nature and God (still do believe this), I never understood why the couple could not be joint (not [i]married[/i] but [i]joint[/i]) under the law. Marriage would mean that the Church approves of their relationship, which is of course not the case nor ever will be. A civil union, however, is not a Sacrament (not sure if this is true, but this was my line of thought).

Edited May 11, 2009 by HisChildForever

[franciscanheart]

i'm really not here to tell anyone they're wrong. i was just seeking clarification. thanks, HCF.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864216' date='May 11 2009, 01:58 PM']i cannot believe you are sitting here claiming that homosexuals are pedophiles. this is disgusting.[/quote]
That is not what is being said. Statistically the "sex abuse" scandal was priests and teenage boys - that is not pedophilia - that is homosex.

[ariaane]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864216' date='May 11 2009, 06:58 PM']i cannot believe you are sitting here claiming that homosexuals are pedophiles. this is disgusting.[/quote]

I really am not trying to say that all homosexuals are paedophiles. I would have made this distinction in my post, but I thought that people would have guessed that this is not what I was getting at.

It is homosexual MALES which I am focusing on alone. It was [b]predominantly [/b]homosexual males who were responsible for the abuse in the Church, and studies prove this.

But I digress, why would it be considered offensive to label homosexuals as paedophiles, and not heterosexuals?

Is the dignity of homosexuals greater than that of heterosexuals?

It is this defensiveness of homosexuals which contributed to the [b]ongoing[/b] sexual abuse of young males within the Church, because everyone wilfully chose to ignore the elephant in the room. It aint helping...

[ariaane]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1864211' date='May 11 2009, 06:45 PM']When it comes to pre-pubescent children, it really isn't about gender anyway. It is about the age of the child.[/quote]

You’re correct.

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1864211' date='May 11 2009, 06:45 PM']Once a child hits puberty, then the statistics change, but of course at that point, the abuser is not technically a pedophile, it's called hebephilia. In the real world though, we don't really make that distinction. Studies done in penitentiaries of those convicted of child molestation have shown they are typically heterosexual [i]with adults[/i].[/quote]


Of course they are typically heterosexual. The great majority of the people on this planet are overwhelmingly heterosexual. Again, ratio is what I’m interested in looking at.

Mind you on, [url="http://www.realcatholic.com"]www.realcatholic.com[/url], under the Biblical Sexuality videos, the theologian actually did cite a statistic that showed that 60% of child molestation is committed by homosexuals. He did not name the source however.

A further question is: As a statistic, how many child molestation cases which involve hebephilia involve homosexual males?

I’m willing to bet it is quite high.

Again, I am not lumping all homosexuals in the same boat. Lesbians don't seem to have this "post pubescent but underage" child-attraction problem.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='ariaane' post='1864231' date='May 11 2009, 12:38 PM'][color="#8B0000"][b]But I digress, why would it be considered offensive to label homosexuals as paedophiles, and not heterosexuals? [/b][/color]

[color="#008000"][i]Is the dignity of homosexuals greater than that of heterosexuals? [/i]
[/color]

[color="#000080"]It is this defensiveness of homosexuals which contributed to the [b]ongoing[/b] sexual abuse of young males within the Church, because everyone wilfully chose to ignore the elephant in the room. It aint helping...[/color][/quote]
((i'll be using the bold, italic, and neither to address your points. my bold correlates with your bold, etc.)) --- edit: nevermind. forgot it italicizes everything. now i'll use color...

[color="#8B0000"][b]are you flooping kidding me?[/b][/color]

[color="#008000"][i]who said anything about greater dignity? it only seems to be implied (and not talked about) with heterosexuals (meaning it seems you give them that). the way people around here (not necessarily you, although i didn't agree with the way things were being stated by you either) are talking about people who are attracted to people of the same sex (and who feel about them in a way that isn't JUST sexual) is absolutely disgusting. no one has asked for a greater respect of homosexuals or said that their human dignity is any more than any one else's. i'm just saying that lumping any one group of people into such a horrible category is just disrespectful, disturbing, and disgusting.[/i][/color]

[color="#000080"]NOT ONLY HOMOSEXUALS MOLESTED CHILDREN IN THE CHURCH!! (Sorry, would have bolded but I didn't want to confuse anyone.) How about we look at the fact that not every single case has to do with homosexual men? If it were every case that involved a homosexual man, you'd have a case. But it didn't and you don't. YES, there is a problem in the Church. But it isn't with homosexuals!!

Where are our seminaries failing us? Where is the system failing us?

Get rid of every single homosexual person on the planet and molestation will STILL happen. It's a human problem, not a homosexual human problem.

Ugh.[/color]

[havok579257]

[quote name='ariaane' post='1864187' date='May 11 2009, 12:01 PM']Point taken.

However, a heterosexual priest must be in contact with heterosexual females at some point.
Priests have to hear peoples confessions, and that includes school girls, sometimes in school uniforms.

Not to mention that there is difference between a priest teaching a class with young girls in a [b]public setting[/b] and him [b]living with young girls[/b].

Often, priests live in shared houses sometimes called presbyteries. When the lights go out, who is to stay that only licit behaviour will occur between SSA priests who share the same home...

For this reason, nuns and priests do not share the same living quarters, and [b]rightfully[/b] so.[/quote]


Ok, but how does this point prove homosexual priests are more prone to molest little boys over heterosexual priests molesting little girls. Your points highlight that a gay priest will be living with ohter adult men, not little boys, which was what you were trying to say.

If you want to say its harder for a homosexual men to control his sexual urges around other male priests, then that's one thing.

Its completly another to say a homosexual priest will have a harder time controling his desires because he is around little boys, since heterosexual priests are around little grils just as much. So the entire pedophelia thing swings both ways here.

Although when you get around adult men and women, that's a different story since male priests are around other male priests more than they are around nuns I would think.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1864276' date='May 11 2009, 02:47 PM']Ok, but how does this point prove homosexual priests are more prone to molest little boys over heterosexual priests molesting little girls. Your points highlight that a gay priest will be living with ohter adult men, not little boys, which was what you were trying to say.

If you want to say its harder for a homosexual men to control his sexual urges around other male priests, then that's one thing.

Its completly another to say a homosexual priest will have a harder time controling his desires because he is around little boys, since heterosexual priests are around little grils just as much. So the entire pedophelia thing swings both ways here.

Although when you get around adult men and women, that's a different story since male priests are around other male priests more than they are around nuns I would think.[/quote]
Yes. Ugh. I'm so tired of hearing people equate homosexuality and pedophilia.

[cmotherofpirl]

"NOT ONLY HOMOSEXUALS MOLESTED CHILDREN IN THE CHURCH!! (Sorry, would have bolded but I didn't want to confuse anyone.) How about we look at the fact that not every single case has to do with homosexual men? If it were every case that involved a homosexual man, you'd have a case. But it didn't and you don't. YES, there is a problem in the Church. But it isn't with homosexuals!!
Where are our seminaries failing us? Where is the system failing us?
Get rid of every single homosexual person on the planet and molestation will STILL happen. It's a human problem, not a homosexual human problem."


Men molest little girls are the time.
But in the Catholic Church it was different. Not every single case - but a MAJORITY of the abuse cases involved priests and young teenage males - that is not pedophilia, that is homosex.

[ariaane]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864275' date='May 11 2009, 09:46 PM'][color="#008000"][i]who said anything about greater dignity?[/quote]

It was implied. When it comes to calling a spade a spade, it seems that homosexuals are a protected class, and I don’t see why.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864275' date='May 11 2009, 09:46 PM']it only seems to be implied (and not talked about) with heterosexuals (meaning it seems you give them that). the way people around here (not necessarily you, although i didn't agree with the way things were being stated by you either) are talking about people who are attracted to people of the same sex (and who feel about them in a way that isn't JUST sexual) is absolutely disgusting. no one has asked for a greater respect of homosexuals or said that their human dignity is any more than any one else's. i'm just saying that lumping any one group of people into such a horrible category is just disrespectful, disturbing, and disgusting.[/i][/quote]

That’s understandable.

Yet, no one blinked an eye when it was stated by another poster that most paedophiles are heterosexuals.

Why the fuss when such a statement is made, but this time in regards to homosexuals?


[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864275' date='May 11 2009, 09:46 PM'][color="#000080"](Sorry, would have bolded but I didn't want to confuse anyone.)[/quote]

[color="#0000FF"][b]MOST [/b][/color]child abuse cases involved homosexual priests molesting post pubescent children.

[b]The studies have been done. And the undisputable conclusions have been drawn. [/b]


[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864275' date='May 11 2009, 09:46 PM']How about we look at the fact that not every single case has to do with homosexual men?[/quote]

Again, [b]MOST [/b]cases involved homosexual priests raping post pubescent boys.

Lets look at things this way: If there hadn't been a single homosexual priest, then there'd be 80% less child abuse cases.

Now, if we're going to minimise [b]dramatically[/b] the rate of child abuse, do we focus on the people causing 20% of the abuses, or the people causing 80% of the abuses?


[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864275' date='May 11 2009, 09:46 PM']YES, there is a problem in the Church. But it isn't with homosexuals!![/quote]

I beg to differ, along with many other Catholics.

Homosexuality is one of the biggest problems facing the Latin rite Churches. I’m not surprised that there is a slow exodus from the Western to the Eastern Churches by the orthodox who are tired of the scandal.

The child abuse cases were predominantly homosexual rape of children.

Watered down homilies and inability to teach orthodoxy within the faith seems to be the hallmark of priests with SSA. Homosexually orientated priests are not alone with teaching heterodoxy, but it is rare, in my opinion and many others, that known homosexual orientated priests stay faithful to Rome’s teachings.

Not too long ago, there was a priest who “came out of the closet” in the middle of a homily, and now he is leading a gay rights movement which is causing a backlash against the Catholic Church. Said priest has had his duties removed but the damage has been done. Not to mention that his "coming out of the closet" has vindicated all the pro homosexual activity CINO's who are demanding the Church changes her teaching on homosexualty (which she can't do as dogma is unchangeable although its understanding may develop).

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864275' date='May 11 2009, 09:46 PM']Where are our seminaries failing us? Where is the system failing us?[/quote]

Just a rough and incomplete brainstorm:

1. Too much modernism
2. Homosexuality running rampant in seminaries (read the book “Goodbye Good Men” by Michael S Rose, and see for yourself how young orthodox men are being driven out from seminaries due to rampant homosexuality within formation institutions)
3. Modern feminism- which seems to always go hand in hand with homosexuality.
4. Women who won’t give it up [i]already[/i], and just accept that the Church will never ordain women
5. Not enough fellowship amongst the laity
6. Too much political correctness by priests

In summary, much of the problems in the Church are the cause of CINO’s (Catholic In Name Only) who are attacking the Church from within.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864275' date='May 11 2009, 09:46 PM']Get rid of every single homosexual person on the planet and molestation will STILL happen. It's a human problem, not a homosexual human problem.[/quote]

I have never said otherwise

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1864189' date='May 11 2009, 12:02 PM']Or trying to drive around town about 3pm...

I never understood why those skirts are actually required outfits. I hear they're supposed to be knee-length...[/quote]

At my school the girls' skirts usually are around knee length or not too much higher... not an occasion of sin at all...

[havok579257]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1864304' date='May 11 2009, 04:30 PM']At my school the girls' skirts usually are around knee length or not too much higher... not an occasion of sin at all...[/quote]


not an occasion to sin at all? Hardly. Catholic school girl adult outfits sell like crazy. To say just because the skirt is not higher than the knee means its not an occassion to sin is insane. Its the outfit which is a near occasion to sin, not the length of the outfit. Just look at older nurse outfits, not scrubs. Those things are below the knee but that doesn't stop people from lusting after them.

[havok579257]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1864298' date='May 11 2009, 04:23 PM']"NOT ONLY HOMOSEXUALS MOLESTED CHILDREN IN THE CHURCH!! (Sorry, would have bolded but I didn't want to confuse anyone.) How about we look at the fact that not every single case has to do with homosexual men? If it were every case that involved a homosexual man, you'd have a case. But it didn't and you don't. YES, there is a problem in the Church. But it isn't with homosexuals!!
Where are our seminaries failing us? Where is the system failing us?
Get rid of every single homosexual person on the planet and molestation will STILL happen. It's a human problem, not a homosexual human problem."


Men molest little girls are the time.
But in the Catholic Church it was different. Not every single case - but a MAJORITY of the abuse cases involved priests and young teenage males - that is not pedophilia, that is homosex.[/quote]


No, that's pedophelia. Pedophillia is anytime and adult molests or has sex with a child, be it man on boy, women on boy, man on girl or women on girl. homosex is 2 men either 2 adult men or 2 teenage boys having sex with each other.

[ariaane]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1864326' date='May 11 2009, 10:53 PM']No, that's pedophelia. Pedophillia is anytime and adult molests or has sex with a child, be it man on boy, women on boy, man on girl or women on girl. homosex is 2 men either 2 adult men or 2 teenage boys having sex with each other.[/quote]

That is not the definition of paedophilia.

Paedophilia deals with sexual acts between adults and children who [b]have not reached the point of puberty.[/b]

An adult having sex with a child who is past the age of puberty, but is still under the age of consent, can be classed as child molestation but [i]not [/i]paedophilia.

The case in the Catholic Church involved predominantly SSAD men and child molestation of boys past the age of puberty.

[ariaane]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1864276' date='May 11 2009, 09:47 PM']Ok, but how does this point prove homosexual priests are more prone to molest little boys over heterosexual priests molesting little girls. Your points highlight that a gay priest will be living with ohter adult men, not little boys, which was what you were trying to say.[/quote]

I have explained to you using several reasons why I’m opposed to homosexual priests.

1. The occasion of sin that homosexuals priests will be placed in by living with other men
2. The threatening of the safety of post pubescent males.

Both my reasons apply.

[quote name='havok579257' post='1864276' date='May 11 2009, 09:47 PM']If you want to say its harder for a homosexual men to control his sexual urges around other male priests, then that's one thing.

Its completly another to say a homosexual priest will have a harder time controling his desires because he is around little boys, [b]since heterosexual priests are around little grils just as much.[/b] So the entire pedophelia thing swings both ways here.[/quote]

[b]Altar servers are predominantly males[/b], post pubescent males, as the tradition of altar boys is meant to be conducive in encouraging boys to become future priests..

We already know from the John Jay study that the child abuse cases in the Church was predominantly abuse of pubescent males by SSAD priests.

Why place vulnerable and unsuspecting males, who are often altar servers and choir boys, in an environment where there is an [b]increased likelihood[/b] of them being molested?

[b][color="#000080"]Let’s stop looking at this as “lets protect homosexuals from being offended” but start looking at things through a “what will keep these young males the most safe”.
[/color][/b]
It is the children who matter most, and not the hurt feelings of homosexuals priests.

(This is the thing [b]I hate most[/b] about the homosexual agenda: When it comes to homosexual adoption, the desires of self serving homosexuals preceeds the needs of vulnerable children)

Keep in mind that there is already a shortage of priests, and altar server boys often make up males who later enter into the priesthood. If we leave them to be devoured by wolves, not only is this unfair to them as children, but [b]who will be our future priests[/b]?

[Guest]

That's why priest should be allowed to marry. One so it attracts more straight men. 2 so the single priest that aren't married aren't assumed gay and child molestors. I know most priest aren't gay but now'a days everyone judges them as if they are. If married priest were thrown in the mix I think this would cease a little bit.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Guest