A Dangerous closet

  • Thread starter Thread starter Riley259
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What a crock. I would expect nothing less from the anti-Catholic Boston Globe.
From the article:
Contemporary researchers suggest that between 28 percent and 56 percent of the American priesthood is homosexual.
Click to expand...
What researchers? Does the article provide specifics of who these “researches” are and what their agenda is? Any footnotes citing sources? Nope. But hey, it’s the Boston Globe… no need to be accurate is there?

Wanna know why there are gay priests? Because as the secular collages and universities have gone since the 1930s, so has gone many Catholic seminaries; down the chute into theological relativism and political liberalism. It was given a big shove by the sexual revolution of the 1960s. And it is constanly helped along by the inflitrators within the church in the form of disenting archbishops, priests and “nuns.”

Read all about it: goodbyegoodmen.com/

But never fear. There are some very good, manly, heterosexual, celebate priests out there. There are are also some good celebate priests who may be homosexually inclined but who, throught the grace of Our Lord, have renounced the homosexual lifestyle and now live lives of courage, faith and celebacy.

God Bless all our good Priests who are FAITHFUL to the Magestirum.
 
I wonder how many of her fellow psychologists would agree with some of her conclusions:
  • Gay men are weaker when it comes to controlling sexual desires.
  • Gay men are more likely to sexually abuse minors.
Very interesting. In her zeal to bash the Church, she may have made some statements that will really tick off Gay rights advocates. It seems to me her conclusions should lead the psychological community to reclassify homosexuality as a disorder. Also, I think her percentages are probably off - it’s such a wide range, 28 to 56% (??), and she provides no back-up to the numbers.

Regardless though, I believe the Church may agree with some of her conclusions on gay men and their proclivities, because they are looking a lot closer at potential priests who have SSA. We had someone from Mt Angel Abbey and Seminary discuss this at one of our Knights of Columbus meetings a couple of years ago.
 
rlg94086 said:
I wonder how many of her fellow psychologists would agree with some of her conclusions:
  • Gay men are weaker when it comes to controlling sexual desires.
  • Gay men are more likely to sexually abuse minors.
Very interesting. In her zeal to bash the Church, she may have made some statements that will really tick off Gay rights advocates.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but they won’t raise so much of a whisper. She gets a pass because it’s the Boston Globe and the Globe mostly toes the party line. An ideological slip like this will be overlooked.
Regardless though, I believe the Church may agree with some of her conclusions on gay men and their proclivities, because they are looking a lot closer at potential priests who have SSA.
Click to expand...
No one with SSA should be allowed into the priesthood. Period. However, I would not advocate defrocking any priest who has overcome SSA, lives a celibate life and publically regjects the gay lifestyle. But something certainly needs to be done about priests who pubically advocate and accept the gay lifestyle. A sin is still a sin.
 
The article reminds me of Richard McBrien in my diocese’s newspaper.

Spout off a bunch of unsubstantiated garbage, maybe even throw in a fact or two, then label it “opinion” as if that makes it all OK.

This is pure garbage. Why I gave up on newspapers.
 
Chickamauga said:
No one with SSA should be allowed into the priesthood. Period. However, I would not advocate defrocking any priest who has overcome SSA, lives a celibate life and publically regjects the gay lifestyle. But something certainly needs to be done about priests who pubically advocate and accept the gay lifestyle. A sin is still a sin.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that is a small number of priests.
 
#1. The Church does not hypocritically ask priests to be homosexual while teaching that it’s wrong to engage in homosexual acts.
#2. I agree her stats on the number of gay priests are probably ridiculously blown out of proportion.
#3. Gay men are not drawn to the priesthood because they are extraordinarily spiritual. They are drawn because a). it’s a convenient excuse for not “finding the right girl” and b). seminary life with lots of other young men is undoubtedly appealing to many.
#4. I didn’t think seminaries taught that women were evil vixens waiting to lure you into temptation. I think she means Islam.
#5. She projects seminary life to be steeped in sexual repression and hypocrisy. I want to know how she knows how Church sexual teachings are presented in seminaries and the effects this has on seminarians. I think she has a pet theory that Catholicism is about repressed sexuality (tres original) and spells out how seminary life turns priests gay by demonizing women. Why is seminary life necessarily a homosocial environment? Because there are no women? Does that mean women’s colleges like Bryn Mawr create lesbians?

This woman is an anti-Catholic bigot with no evidence to support her beliefs, only modernist psychological theories that remain untested. Even if you could prove that seminaries nowadays have a homosocial atmosphere (I have read articles indicating this is the case), can you really blame Church teaching? How homosocial was seminary life before the 60’s sexual revolution changed so much?
The author is a very poor social scientist who is trying to use psychology to tear down the Church’s teachings on sexuality. With her shameful lack of evidence and obvious bias against the Church, I can with full confidence say her writing should be ignored and her soul should be prayed for. I would apply that strategy to every columnist in the Boston Globe, though now my bias is showing.:mad:
 
Chickamauga said:
What researchers? Does the article provide specifics of who these “researches” are and what their agenda is? Any footnotes citing sources?
Click to expand...
Actually, if you would do some research, you would find there is a good deal of research indicating that she is in the range concerning the number of homosexual priests. And one would not expect footnotes in an article in a paper, now, would one. Those are in reserch documents.
 
otjm said:
And one would not expect footnotes in an article in a paper, now, would one. Those are in research documents.
Click to expand...
But since the article is an excerpt from her book Perversion of Power: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church we could potentially look up her sources, should anyone care to make the effort.
 
dafalax said:
#1. The Church does not hypocritically ask priests to be homosexual while teaching that it’s wrong to engage in homosexual acts.
#2. I agree her stats on the number of gay priests are probably ridiculously blown out of proportion.
#3. Gay men are not drawn to the priesthood because they are extraordinarily spiritual. They are drawn because a). it’s a convenient excuse for not “finding the right girl” and b). seminary life with lots of other young men is undoubtedly appealing to many.
#4. I didn’t think seminaries taught that women were evil vixens waiting to lure you into temptation. I think she means Islam.
#5. She projects seminary life to be steeped in sexual repression and hypocrisy. I want to know how she knows how Church sexual teachings are presented in seminaries and the effects this has on seminarians. I think she has a pet theory that Catholicism is about repressed sexuality (tres original) and spells out how seminary life turns priests gay by demonizing women. Why is seminary life necessarily a homosocial environment? Because there are no women? Does that mean women’s colleges like Bryn Mawr create lesbians?

This woman is an anti-Catholic bigot with no evidence to support her beliefs, only modernist psychological theories that remain untested. Even if you could prove that seminaries nowadays have a homosocial atmosphere (I have read articles indicating this is the case), can you really blame Church teaching? How homosocial was seminary life before the 60’s sexual revolution changed so much?
The author is a very poor social scientist who is trying to use psychology to tear down the Church’s teachings on sexuality. With her shameful lack of evidence and obvious bias against the Church, I can with full confidence say her writing should be ignored and her soul should be prayed for. I would apply that strategy to every columnist in the Boston Globe, though now my bias is showing.:mad:
Click to expand...
There is a link at the end of her slanderous article. I think you should send this post her way.
 
Maybe I am wrong here. But, I don’t consider a priest as heterosexual or homosexual. A priest is expected to not have sexual relations period. So as far as I am concerned it is a non issue.
 
Chickamauga said:
What a crock. I would expect nothing less from the anti-Catholic Boston Globe.
Click to expand...
Why is the Globe considered anti-Catholic? I’m curious. I know it was one of the first to break the big abuse story and I know some of its journalists were really stonewalled by the Church and Card. Law, which could have led to some degree of hostility on the side of the journalists and editors.

My theory about why many gay men entered the seminaries was that they knew it wasn’t right to be gay so they figured the priesthood would take away that burden (of SSA) and temptation (to commit homosexual acts). They didn’t realize that priests were not neutered by ordination.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top