But how can homosexuality be the root cause of the sexual abuse crisis if homosexuals are not more likely to sexually abuse children or sexually harass adults.Thorolfr:
Except for a few extremists, I don’t think that was the point of what most people are trying to say.
The Catholic Medical Association is just that: an association of medical professionals who are also Catholics. They are still professionals whether or not you find them to be credible. They still see clinical value in the distinction whether or not you agree. The church also sees value in the distinction whether or not you agree.mrsdizzyd:
The article you posted, “The Distinction between Deep-Seated Homosexual Tendencies and Transitory Same-Sex Attractions in Candidates for Seminary and Religious Life,” is by two Catholic therapists, Peter Kleponis and Richard P. Fitzgibbons, and it’s published in Linacre Quarterly, which Wikipedia describes as, “the official journal of the Catholic Medical Association and primarily focuses on the relationship between medicine and spirituality.”
There’s nothing wrong with any of this, but the term “deep-seated” is obviously one that is derived from Church documents, not from psychology.
They should at least not rely on junk psychology or junk science. According to the abstract of the article you posted:
The theory that people become gay because they did not have positive male role models or had some sort of dysfunctional relationship with their fathers or other male members of their family has not been accepted by most psychologists for quite some time. There are lots of gay men who did not have dysfunctional childhoods and grew up in families with perfectly normal parents.
I’m not a medical professional. I have no idea what is accepted and what is not. I also have no idea what is junk science and what is not. I do know quite a few homosexual people who would totally disagree with the entire article.mrsdizzyd:
They should at least not rely on junk psychology or junk science. According to the abstract of the article you posted:
The theory that people become gay because they did not have positive male role models or had some sort of dysfunctional relationship with their fathers or other male members of their family has not been accepted by most psychologists for quite some time. There are lots of gay men who did not have dysfunctional childhoods and grew up in families with perfectly normal parents.
Thorolfr:
That is the wrong question. Who is more likely to abuse a post pubescent male teenager, who comprise 80% of the victims, a homosexual man or a heterosexual man?
Thorolfr:
Thorolfr:
That is the wrong question. Who is more likely to abuse a post pubescent male teenager, who comprise 80% of the victims, a homosexual man or a heterosexual man?
Then a majority solution to the problem would be to insure that the homosexual population in the priesthood was no larger than that found in society. Sounds like a good start.
As the title of the article mentioned above shows, they are trying to make a distinction between what are likely to be long lasting, firmly established and deeply ingrained homosexual tendencies (i.e. “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”) and transitory or fleeting homosexual tendencies which are likely to go away so that a person with these transitory or short lived homosexual tendencies will likely turn out heterosexual. Of course, this again pretends that homosexuality is different from heterosexuality because no one usually assumes that if someone has heterosexual tendencies that these might be transitory and that such a person could later turn homosexual.
The dorms I’m in have private bathrooms and showers.
It doesn’t make any difference to their point “that sexual abuse results from a complicated combination of factors including church secrecy, the training and sexual development of young priests, and the profound power gap between clergy and young parishioners.” Whether the victims were mostly 8 year olds or 14 year olds does not seem all that important to me. According to the John Jay Report, 47.2% of the victims were 12 and under and 60% were 13 and under. They are still mostly children. Perhaps a 14 year old is considered “pubescent,” but anyone who is attracted to 14 year olds does not have a normal adult sexuality.