Bishop meeting to avoid gay issue

[TPJCatholic]

Lisa,

I feel there is a very good chance that the Church will continue to fade into a state we will not recognized until the newer, younger, and more orthdox crop of Priests start taking over as Bishops. I really believe that we do not have enough American Bishops on our side of the faith at this time. There are plenty of good Bishops, just not enough at this time to swing this back to whre they belong. Either this will take 10-20 years, or else there will be a Divine action to speed things up.

 

[miguel]

fix:

We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function.

No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.

It happens that with some bishops there is a certain lack of a sense of individual responsibility, and the delegation of his inalienable powers as shepherd and teacher to the structures of the local conference leads to letting what should remain very personal lapse into anonymity.

I know bishops who privately confess that they would have decided differently than they did at a conference if they had had to decide by themselves.

I remember him making this point 20 years ago in “The Ratzinger Report”.

 

[Brad]

KathleenElsie:

The money is just a small part of it. What do we think of the harm it is doing in the eyes of the world not to mention the faith of our children who hear of these things?:banghead:

Actually the money is a pretty big part of it. It represents the sacrifice and good works of several generations of faithful that trusted their Church to do much good in the world through them. For many that were old and sick, this was all they could give to the Church. And these sacrifices were spit upon by the immoral deviancy within the church.

 

[miguel]

TPJCatholic:

…I think it is quite probable that the Bishops know what they must do, yet they do not want to draw great attention to it because the media and gay groups will eat them for lunch if they make it too public.

I hope you’re right about the Bishops. As far as being eaten for lunch, that could easily be avoided by simply pointing out, as frequently as necessary, that 81% of the clergy sex abuse victims were male. How do gays and their media allies respond to that? It’s an embarrassment to them. It also lends credence to Catholic teaching that the homosexual inclination is a disorder. And it illustrates the folly of ignoring this when it comes to seminary admissions policy.

 

[GWitherow]

What options do the Bishops think they have? Are they willing to do the following?

1. Ordain openly homosexual men to the priesthood who have promised to be chaste? Imagine the headlines; “Catholic Church moves to ordain homosexual priests”.
2. How about promoting men to bishops who are openly homosexual but have promised to be chaste? Imagine the headlines; “Catholic Church moves to ordain homosexual bishop”.
3. How about promoting a pope who is openly homosexual but has promised to be chaste? Imagine the headlines; “Catholic Church moves to ordain a homosexual pope”.

This is insanity. This is suicide.

Do we dare let our young boys go on weekend retreats with priests while our bishops try to conjure up moral clarity?

The trust between the laity and the bishops snaps over issues like this.

 

[siamesecat]

miguel:

I hope you’re right about the Bishops. As far as being eaten for lunch, that could easily be avoided by simply pointing out, as frequently as necessary, that 81% of the clergy sex abuse victims were male. How do gays and their media allies respond to that? It’s an embarrassment to them. It also lends credence to Catholic teaching that the homosexual inclination is a disorder. And it illustrates the folly of ignoring this when it comes to seminary admissions policy.

Yes most of them were gay men. But I don’t see that as being the fact that gay men have a tendency to molest children. These pedophiles chose the priesthood over other jobs to get direct access to young boys. That is why so many of them were gay men. Its not a percentage of the population, its the fact that obviously there will be a bias. These men were drawn to the job for a reason.

 

[siamesecat]

Well is the molesting teens vs. molesting kids that big a difference? These were predatory homosexuals and some were pedophiles. Its not different from a predatory heterosexual. How many men do you know that are attracted to teenage women? Its not that much of a revelation.

 

[Brad]

siamesecat:

Well is the molesting teens vs. molesting kids that big a difference? These were predatory homosexuals and some were pedophiles. Its not different from a predatory heterosexual. How many men do you know that are attracted to teenage women? Its not that much of a revelation.

It’s key data. There were almost a negligible number of cases of abuse of girls over 12, a small number of cases of abuse of girls under 12, and an overwhelming number of cases of abuse of boys, especially over 12. Predatory homosexuality was the problem, NOT predatory heterosexuality.

By the way, attraction does not mean abuse.

 

[miguel]

siamesecat:

Yes most of them were gay men. But I don’t see that as being the fact that gay men have a tendency to molest children. These pedophiles chose the priesthood over other jobs to get direct access to young boys. That is why so many of them were gay men. Its not a percentage of the population, its the fact that obviously there will be a bias. These men were drawn to the job for a reason.

usccb.org/ocyp/webstudy.shtml

 

[Brad]

siamesecat:

Yes most of them were gay men. But I don’t see that as being the fact that gay men have a tendency to molest children. These pedophiles chose the priesthood over other jobs to get direct access to young boys. That is why so many of them were gay men. Its not a percentage of the population, its the fact that obviously there will be a bias. These men were drawn to the job for a reason.

Non-biased studies show homosexuals are, on average, 7 times more promiscuous than heterosexuals and average multiple times more partners. This is reflected in the priest scandal. It is also reflected in our school system, although it is not widely discussed in the media.

What is not reflected in the priest scandal are a bunch of heterosexual priests or educators that chose their professions to gain access to young girls.

It shows a special kind of sexual deviancy to choose your life profession based on your sexual obsession.

 

[Lisa_N]

siamesecat:

Well is the molesting teens vs. molesting kids that big a difference? .

YES! Thankfully despite NAMBLA’s effort to the contrary, pedophelia is considered a serious and virtually untreatable mental illness. Homosexuality is considered by the APA NOT to be a mental illness.

No one is going to argue that any pedophile should be run to ground and taken to prison. OTOH what one might consider reasonable people see no problem with homosexuals infiltrating the Boy Scouts, church youth programs AND the priesthood. We have already seen what happens when homosexuals are given the opportunity to prey upon young men. They are not into kiddies, they want young men. It is very much of that culture to want youth but not infancy.

By perpetuating the myth that the Church was beset with a bunch of pedophiles, the presence of homosexuals will not be questioned even though THEY were the issue.

There is a HUGE difference. I hope you understand it now.

siamesecat:

These were predatory homosexuals and some were pedophiles. Its not different from a predatory heterosexual. How many men do you know that are attracted to teenage women? Its not that much of a revelation.

Attraction to teenage girls is NOT pedophelia either. A pedophile is attracted to a little child, someone who is not even near puberty. They don’t WANT the sexually mature individual, they want a little child.

Read the Jay report and absorb it. You seem not to understand the reality of the situation.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

siamesecat:

Yes most of them were gay men. But I don’t see that as being the fact that gay men have a tendency to molest children. These pedophiles chose the priesthood over other jobs to get direct access to young boys. That is why so many of them were gay men. Its not a percentage of the population, its the fact that obviously there will be a bias. These men were drawn to the job for a reason.

I disagree completely. It is NOT easy to become a priest. It IS easy for a homosexual to find willing partners. It is IMO patently ridiculous to say someone would go to the extent of seminary and the kind of sacrifices needed to become a priest in order to have access to young men. Every teacher, every scoutmaster, every youth team coach has access to young men. It’s a lot easier to access youth in other professions.

I suspect that there were a number of forces, one of which was the deliberate (if you believe the book Goodbye Good Men) targeting of homosexual applicants for seminaries and the discouraging of orthodox, straight applicants. Further in the time period when a large number of priests left for marriage, it would obviously tend to leave behind the homosexuals who could continue to ‘practice their perversion’ from behind the collar. It’s a bit harder for a priest to have female sexual partner. Rather hard to sneak them into the seminary or rectory dontcha know.

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

YES! Thankfully despite NAMBLA’s effort to the contrary, pedophelia is considered a serious and virtually untreatable mental illness. Homosexuality is considered by the APA NOT to be a mental illness.

No one is going to argue that any pedophile should be run to ground and taken to prison. OTOH what one might consider reasonable people see no problem with homosexuals infiltrating the Boy Scouts, church youth programs AND the priesthood. We have already seen what happens when homosexuals are given the opportunity to prey upon young men. They are not into kiddies, they want young men. It is very much of that culture to want youth but not infancy.

By perpetuating the myth that the Church was beset with a bunch of pedophiles, the presence of homosexuals will not be questioned even though THEY were the issue.

There is a HUGE difference. I hope you understand it now.

Attraction to teenage girls is NOT pedophelia either. A pedophile is attracted to a little child, someone who is not even near puberty. They don’t WANT the sexually mature individual, they want a little child.

Read the Jay report and absorb it. You seem not to understand the reality of the situation.

Lisa N

There may be a big difference in today’s culture but sexual deviancy unchecked in one area leads to sexual deviancy in more and more areas. That is why we have groups such as NAMBLA. The older boys were not enough. More twisted desires devlop. It is related to why the homsexual education train is hell-bent on cultivating the minds of the very very young. Minds they want for later but some don’t want to wait for maturity if they don’t have to.

 

[Catholic29]

fix:

U.S. Catholic bishops will sidestep the issue of whether homosexual men should become priests at their semiannual meeting, which begins tomorrow, despite the Vatican’s concern about the role of homosexuals in the church’s massive sex-abuse scandal.

washtimes.com/national/20050614-114626-2482r.htm

And dealing with parishes that overtly support the homosexual lifestyle wouldn’t be a bad idea either. Just a thought…

Here is a thread dicussing one such parish here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=59785

And a list of them nationally: catholiclesbians.org/pastoral/pastoral_orgs.html

This info just proves there is much validity in the issues being discussed here.

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

I disagree completely. It is NOT easy to become a priest. It IS easy for a homosexual to find willing partners. It is IMO patently ridiculous to say someone would go to the extent of seminary and the kind of sacrifices needed to become a priest in order to have access to young men. Every teacher, every scoutmaster, every youth team coach has access to young men. It’s a lot easier to access youth in other professions.

I suspect that there were a number of forces, one of which was the deliberate (if you believe the book Goodbye Good Men) targeting of homosexual applicants for seminaries and the discouraging of orthodox, straight applicants. Further in the time period when a large number of priests left for marriage, it would obviously tend to leave behind the homosexuals who could continue to ‘practice their perversion’ from behind the collar. It’s a bit harder for a priest to have female sexual partner. Rather hard to sneak them into the seminary or rectory dontcha know.

Lisa N

Michael Rose has done extensive and ongoing research on the homosexual subculture in the church. Whereas it is difficult to say whether priests actually chose the seminaries for access, it is not difficult to determine that they were prefferred seminarians at many seminaries and that sexual freedom was encouraged in these same seminaries. I also have limited firsthand knowledge of this happening. I have to conclude that some seminarians must have chosen the seminary for access to partners in the seminary and then became priests that could not escape their sexual obsessions.

 

[Lisa_N]

Brad:

Michael Rose has done extensive and ongoing research on the homosexual subculture in the church. Whereas it is difficult to say whether priests actually chose the seminaries for access, it is not difficult to determine that they were prefferred seminarians at many seminaries and that sexual freedom was encouraged in these same seminaries. I also have limited firsthand knowledge of this happening. I have to conclude that some seminarians must have chosen the seminary for access to partners in the seminary and then became priests that could not escape their sexual obsessions.

Brad I understand the appeal of the priesthood to a homosexual, particularly in the days the abusers were ordained. It was a lot easier than explaining why “a nice boy like you” hasn’t married. Plus there was certainly prestige, honor, and all those cool clothes. Given the education and other requirements, it’s hard for me to believe that someone would go through all that just for the boy toys in the room next door.

I do understand the sort of groupthink that has homosexuals flocking to certain ‘safe’ professions where they can be with their own kind so to speak and their excesses are rarely questioned.

You may be right but it sure is hard to believe. We have ten young men entering the seminary from this diocese and I believe they are straight, orthodox and will be fabulous priests some day. The screening process is apparently very rigorous as one young man from our parish was recently accepted. He told us about the various mental and psychological exams needed and if this young man is a homosexual I’ll eat next week’s bulletin with no water.

I am hopeful the tide is turning but I still think the Church needs to point out that homosexuality has NOT been a positive influence in the Church and we need to remain adamant about the disordered thinking that creates this perversion.

Lisa N

 

[m134e5]

Lisa N:

…If something like Courage works in the lay population, why not offer it (confidentially of course) to priests who are sincere about giving this up…I don’t see why the Bishops will not face the issue. Regardless of their own sexual issues, the only way to solve a problem is to admit it exists and then address it appropriately. Further I think it will benefit the Church by telling the public that the problem is NOT pedophelia but is homosexuality. The public thinks priests molested six year olds. That perception needs to be eradicated.

Men who struggle with homosexual temptations are just as capable of being chaste as anyone else- otherwise why would God require them to be chaste?

Homosexuality is not a sin. Acting on it is a mortal sin. Many people think “well that’s obvious”- but it is NOT obvious to someone who struggles with it and only hears people talk as if everyone with the struggle commits the sin. People should be more considerate as to how others perceive things. I’ve heard countless stories from men with this struggle- both active and chaste- that churches (moreso in evangelical churches, but I’ve heard stories from Catholics too, and I see on this board that Catholics are just as responsible) only made them ashamed before God, and pushed them away- they believed they were an abomination before God- that it was their very being that was evil- even if they were totally chaste, so what did they do? They may have torn themselves up about it for years- until they finally figured “well, I’m going to go to hell anyway, so I might as well have fun on my way there”.

On a final note, homosexuality (the condition) is NOT the problem in the priest scandal. So what if most of the offenders were attracted to men? There are plenty who struggle with the same temptation who are not. The problem is priests who are not faithful to the Church- who is their bride.

 

[Lisa_N]

m134e5:

Men who struggle with homosexual temptations are just as capable of being chaste as anyone else- otherwise why would God require them to be chaste?.

Statistics state otherwise. Homosexuality is associated with substantially more promiscuity and anonymous encounters in comparison to heterosexuality.

m134e5:

Homosexuality is not a sin. Acting on it is a mortal sin. Many people think “well that’s obvious”- but it is NOT obvious to someone who struggles with it and only hears people talk as if everyone with the struggle commits the sin…

Well I certainly have not heard of anyone who intended to be the new Thought Police. If a man is struggling, who even knows about it? What people object to is the acting out, particularly in settings like the Church. I am sure there are thousands of priests who struggle every day with SSA or alcoholism or other mental health issues. So far the Church has not been sued for a priest’s evil thoughts.

m134e5:

People should be more considerate as to how others perceive things. I’ve heard countless stories from men with this struggle- both active and chaste- that churches (moreso in evangelical churches, but I’ve heard stories from Catholics too, and I see on this board that Catholics are just as responsible) only made them ashamed before God, and pushed them away- they believed they were an abomination before God- that it was their very being that was evil- even if they were totally chaste, so what did they do? They may have torn themselves up about it for years- until they finally figured “well, I’m going to go to hell anyway, so I might as well have fun on my way there”.

Sorry lame excuse. I have not seen any posts on this board where people were unable to distinguish between a chaste individual and an active homosexual trying to justify his perverted and sinful acts. There IS a difference. If they are hanging a hair shirt on their bodies because of THEIR perception, it’s hardly the fault of anyone else. We can be our own worst enemies to that end.

m134e5:

On a final note, homosexuality (the condition) is NOT the problem in the priest scandal. So what if most of the offenders were attracted to men? There are plenty who struggle with the same temptation who are not. The problem is priests who are not faithful to the Church- who is their bride.

Hair splitting. The question is whether the problem is pedophelia or homosexuality. I say the latter. If these men were not homosexuals we would not have had mult million dollar lawsuits that have bankrupted several dioceses. Think about it, how many HETEROSEXUAL priests have created this havoc? The incidence of heterosexual abuse has remained static over the decades. Check the Jay report. The incidence of homosexual abuse spiked greatly in the 60s. Coincidence? I think not.

Lisa N

 

[m134e5]

Lisa N:

Statistics state otherwise. Homosexuality is associated with substantially more promiscuity and anonymous encounters in comparison to heterosexuality.

There are lots of very promiscuous heterosexual men and women too. You don’t have specific cruising spots for heterosexuals as you do for homosexuals (well, in some places you do), because homosexuals are a minority (I don’t approve of their behavior, so I’m sorry if this sounds like I’m equating them with black people or hispanics).
Lisa N:

Well I certainly have not heard of anyone who intended to be the new Thought Police. If a man is struggling, who even knows about it? What people object to is the acting out, particularly in settings like the Church. I am sure there are thousands of priests who struggle every day with SSA or alcoholism or other mental health issues. So far the Church has not been sued for a priest’s evil thoughts.

If people are ashamed of themselves for something, they tend to think others see it too, and even if they don’t know what it is, they tend to think others see them as bad as they are, or that they simply don’t know them well enough.
Lisa N:

Sorry lame excuse. I have not seen any posts on this board where people were unable to distinguish between a chaste individual and an active homosexual trying to justify his perverted and sinful acts. There IS a difference. If they are hanging a hair shirt on their bodies because of THEIR perception, it’s hardly the fault of anyone else. We can be our own worst enemies to that end.

Most people assume that no homosexual is chaste- many people who are chaste choose not to tell anyone about their struggle. It is important to clearly make the distinction known, so that those who struggle with homosexuality know they are just as valuable to God as one who does not struggle with homosexuality.
Lisa N:

Hair splitting. The question is whether the problem is pedophelia or homosexuality. I say the latter. If these men were not homosexuals we would not have had mult million dollar lawsuits that have bankrupted several dioceses. Think about it, how many HETEROSEXUAL priests have created this havoc? The incidence of heterosexual abuse has remained static over the decades. Check the Jay report. The incidence of homosexual abuse spiked greatly in the 60s. Coincidence? I think not.

Lisa N

Did the incidence of homosexual abuse spike in the 60’s, or did the reports of those incidents spke in the 60’s?

It may seem like hair splitting to some, but did anyone ever think that we have groups like the rainbow sash movement because they feel their very existance as human beings and children of God is being challenged by otherwise well-informed Catholics?

If you prevent men who struggle with homosexuality and are chaste from being priests or religious, then you just might be banning them from the kind of life- the focus on prayer and spirituality and the Sacraments- that will help save their souls.

The priesthood isn’t only a vocation of service to others- it is something to which God calls certain people, knowing that they themselves would grow in holiness better in that state of life- while at the same time guiding others.

 

[Lisa_N]

m134e5:

There are lots of very promiscuous heterosexual men and women too. You don’t have specific cruising spots for heterosexuals as you do for homosexuals (well, in some places you do), because homosexuals are a minority (I don’t approve of their behavior, so I’m sorry if this sounds like I’m equating them with black people or hispanics)…

Again you are trying to equate anecdotal information with statistics. Check out some of the studies and you will see that homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Think about it, since for them sex has no procreative element and no real benefit in being monogamous or chaste, it’s ‘the more the merrier.’ AIDS did not spread across this country through married people catching it from toilet seats.

m134e5:

If people are ashamed of themselves for something, they tend to think others see it too, and even if they don’t know what it is, they tend to think others see them as bad as they are, or that they simply don’t know them well enough…

And this is my problem because? IOW how someone feels about themself may be neither rational nor a result of outside forces.

m134e5:

Most people assume that no homosexual is chaste- many people who are chaste choose not to tell anyone about their struggle. It is important to clearly make the distinction known, so that those who struggle with homosexuality know they are just as valuable to God as one who does not struggle with homosexuality…

Since statistically homosexuals are more promiscuous, thinking that chaste behavior is unusual does not seem that irrational. I am sure that there are many chaste homosexuals and in fact probably many chaste homosexual priests. However their struggle should not be public knowledge. It is not my business. This is one of those things about the homosexual community I cannot fathom, the desire to ‘spill their guts’ on every occasion. Frankly I am not the slightest bit interested.

m134e5:

Did the incidence of homosexual abuse spike in the 60’s, or did the reports of those incidents spke in the 60’s?.

Presumably both. The incidence increased dramatically and the Jay report states that 75% of the incidents occurred between l960 and l984. I believe that were the number of abusive priests continuing to increase, there would have been higher numbers reported in the l990s when the door was open.

m134e5:

It may seem like hair splitting to some, but did anyone ever think that we have groups like the rainbow sash movement because they feel their very existance as human beings and children of God is being challenged by otherwise well-informed Catholics?.

The Church’s position on homosexuality is clear, compassionate and speaks the truth. The reality is the Rainbow Sash group wants to dispute the teachings, commit sinful behavior and STILL be considered faithful Catholics. Doesn’t work that way. Show me an organization of CHASTE homosexuals who is denied association or demeaned? The problem is that they do not accept the Church’s teachings because it interferes with their fun. They want the CHURCH to change it’s teachings so they can have their cake and eat it too.

m134e5:

If you prevent men who struggle with homosexuality and are chaste from being priests or religious, then you just might be banning them from the kind of life- the focus on prayer and spirituality and the Sacraments- that will help save their souls…

Did I ever say that chaste and holy people of any sexual orientation should be banned or thrown out? The Church does have a statement about not ordaining homosexuals but that does indicate an ACTIVE homosexual doesn’t it? We are not talking about chaste homosexuals, they aren’t the once who preyed on the young men.

m134e5:

The priesthood isn’t only a vocation of service to others- it is something to which God calls certain people, knowing that they themselves would grow in holiness better in that state of life- while at the same time guiding others.

You can’t go into the priesthood hoping it will fix what ails you. Seminarians must be of sound mind and not fighting any mental health issues whether it’s alcoholism, addiction, homosexuality, depression, or bipolar disease. The candidate should deal with his struggles before becoming a priest, not afterward. A priest’s life is so demanding that a fragile man is not going to serve God or his parish.

Lisa N