Catholic League: There's a Homosexual Crisis in the Priesthood, Never was a

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pro_Life_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
johnstown_johnn said:
If a bishop rescinds his vow of chastity and gets married and leaves Holy Orders it does NOT impact by losing other souls.

For a molestation of adolescents by deviate priests SOULS ARE LOST. The comparison is as different as apples and oranges.

The problem begins with the interviewers of seminarian candidates; The INTERVIEWERS SHOULD BE SCREENED BEFORE THEY INTERVIEW SEMINARIAN CANDIDATES.

Therin lies the problem. The bishops are responsible for who gets admitted in the seminaries via their “interviewers.” We have to go to the very SOURCE if we are ever going to get a handle on this abomination.:knight2:
Click to expand...
Then I guess there were no souls lost when Luther left the Church.:rolleyes: There are no souls lost except that of an unrepentant sinner. Since all sins can be forgiven except one we must never say that any souls is permanently lost. And again the abomination is the act not same sex attraction.
 
johnstown_johnn said:
There are recent cases of schoolteachers having sexual engagements with teenage students. They, when convicted, do jail time. Priests who exploit adolescents and teenagers deserve jail along with any bishop involved in coverup. IMO.

Funny, it’s like the secular courts and laws that mete out justice to perverted clergy and at the same time some bishops aid in covering up. The hierarchy should be the overlords against exploitation by perverts. IMO. IT should never get to the secular courts…it should be prevented as early as the interviews of candidates for seminary. IMO.

Some bishops say, "It’s alright for homosexuals to become priests…just as long as they are celebate. Can you believe this?

Lawsuit after lawsuit and still some bishops retain that notion.
Click to expand...
Public employee+no deep pockets= JAIL TIME (when not a wink wink situation)

clergy+no deep pockets= JAIL TIME & counseling & probation

CATHOLIC PRIEST+DEEP POCKETS= lots of money for all

No one with abuser tendencies sexual, verbal or physical should be even considered for the PRIESTHOOD of HOLY MOTHER CHURCH. We can’t be that desperate.
 
goofyjim said:
Then I guess there were no souls lost when Luther left the Church.:rolleyes: There are no souls lost except that of an unrepentant sinner. Since all sins can be forgiven except one we must never say that any souls is permanently lost. And again the abomination is the act not same sex attraction.
Click to expand...
Same-sex attraction is reason enough to prevent one from entering seminary. It is a disorder so much so that it is a preoccupation that overcomes service to God.

All who read “Goodbye, Good Men,” by Michael Rose discovered that some seminaries have a homosexual culture and are an abomination because acting out and overt deviant behavior has taken place in some seminaries.

It all comes down to the BISHOPS and their responsibilities.

Like St. Athanasius wrote, “…the floor of Hell is lined with the skulls of bishops…” When much is given (authority to bishops) much is expected.

Good and holy bishops are placed in a higher elevation in Heaven; conversely, the opposite have a berths in Hell.

In the end there will only be Heaven or Hell. We are put on this earth for a purpose and it is to obey and please God. To do otherwise is perilous for one’s eternity.
 
johnstown_johnn said:
Same-sex attraction is reason enough to prevent one from entering seminary. It is a disorder so much so that it is a preoccupation that overcomes service to God.

All who read “Goodbye, Good Men,” by Michael Rose discovered that some seminaries have a homosexual culture and are an abomination because acting out and overt deviant behavior has taken place in some seminaries.

It all comes down to the BISHOPS and their responsibilities.

Like St. Athanasius wrote, “…the floor of Hell is lined with the skulls of bishops…” When much is given (authority to bishops) much is expected.

Good and holy bishops are placed in a higher elevation in Heaven; conversely, the opposite have a berths in Hell.

In the end there will only be Heaven or Hell. We are put on this earth for a purpose and it is to obey and please God. To do otherwise is perilous for one’s eternity.
Click to expand...
You are so wrong. I will pray for you.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Public employee+no deep pockets= JAIL TIME (when not a wink wink situation)

clergy+no deep pockets= JAIL TIME & counseling & probation

CATHOLIC PRIEST+DEEP POCKETS= lots of money for all

No one with abuser tendencies sexual, verbal or physical should be even considered for the PRIESTHOOD of HOLY MOTHER CHURCH. We can’t be that desperate.
Click to expand...
Yet same sex attraction is not an abuser tendency. That is where so many have it wrong.
 
goofyjim said:
…What about married men that abuse their children? They are heterosexual and are doing that practically as often as those in the homosexual world on a percentage basis.
Click to expand...
No, married men do not prey on children at the same rates. A male sexual predator is something like 20 times more likely to be homosexual or bisexual than he is to be heterosexual.

That aside, there is a fundamental point being lost: No one has a right to ordination. The Church is responsible for overseeing a man’s call to the priesthood in order to ensure that such a call is truly from God. The shepherds of the Church are also responsible for enforcing the laws of the Church. Those laws currently forbid homosexual persons from ordination, and they have for quite a while.

For seminaries/bishops to ordain homosexual persons contrary to Church law is to commit the sin of disobedience (and, by using a sacrament as part of this sin, quite possibly committing the sin of sacrilege as well). Is it any wonder that so many priests ordained within such a rebellious environment have in turn decided that their own vows of chastity and obedience are optional?

– Mark L. Chance.
 
mlchance said:
No, married men do not prey on children at the same rates. A male sexual predator is something like 20 times more likely to be homosexual or bisexual than he is to be heterosexual.

That aside, there is a fundamental point being lost: No one has a right to ordination. The Church is responsible for overseeing a man’s call to the priesthood in order to ensure that such a call is truly from God. The shepherds of the Church are also responsible for enforcing the laws of the Church. Those laws currently forbid homosexual persons from ordination, and they have for quite a while.

For seminaries/bishops to ordain homosexual persons contrary to Church law is to commit the sin of disobedience. Is it any wonder that so many priests ordained within such a rebellious environment have in turn decided that their own vows of chastity and obedience are optional?

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
That is not how I read the document from Benedict XVI. I interpreted it as saying that those who promote the agenda cannot be ordained but if they have been free from any relations for at least three years and show some stability they do not need to be excluded. Therefore he does leave it to the individual bishops and formation directors to determine the suitability of candidates. And they should be taken on a case by case basis. There are too many that assume those with same sex attraction are not capable of this or are automatic abusers. This is so untrue. There are many faithful Courage members who dream of the priesthood but now will never get the chance. I pray that sometime in the future, when we get beyond this, some of them will.
 
Goofyjim says:

“They try to distort statistics for a foregone conclusion.”

I respectfully ask you Jim, where in Dr. Clowes article are the statistics distorted? Dr. Clowes uses sound, unbiased scientific evidence to reach a logical conclusion. Yet, you dismiss these conclusions without trying to show any evidence to the contrary.

Could it be that your foregone conclusion about Dr. Clowes’ conclusion might be distorted?

What evidence can you show the readers of this thread that Dr. Clowes is wrong?

Peace to you,
Kevirish01
 
goofyjim said:
That is not how I read the document from Benedict XVI…
Click to expand...
Benedict XVI laid out the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. The general prohibition against ordaining homosexual men is still in place. If the Church sees fit to make justifiable exceptions, so be it. I’ve never argued otherwise.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
Kevirish01 said:
Goofyjim says:

“They try to distort statistics for a foregone conclusion.”

I respectfully ask you Jim, where in Dr. Clowes article are the statistics distorted? Dr. Clowes uses sound, unbiased scientific evidence to reach a logical conclusion. Yet, you dismiss these conclusions without trying to show any evidence to the contrary.

Could it be that your foregone conclusion about Dr. Clowes’ conclusion might be distorted?

What evidence can you show the readers of this thread that Dr. Clowes is wrong?

Peace to you,
Kevirish01
Click to expand...
Because he didn’t include me and others like myself in the study. There are untold numbers like myself who experience same sex attraction but have never once considered preying on children. If we were included that would throw the statistics way off his conclusions.😛
 
goofyjim said:
Because he didn’t include me and others like myself in the study. There are untold numbers like myself who experience same sex attraction but have never once considered preying on children. If we were included that would throw the statistics way off his conclusions.
Click to expand...
If that is the sum of your argument against the study, you’ll hardly have cause to be upset when people dismiss you out of hand.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
KathleenElsie said:
You are so wrong.

NO ATTRACTION NO ABUSE it is as simple as this.
Click to expand...
I have the attraction. Am I an abuser? No. Therefore I am not wrong. It is a select few who abuse. Whether they are same sex attracted or opposite sex attracted is inconsequential.
 
mlchance said:
If that is the sum of your argument against the study, you’ll hardly have cause to be upset when people dismiss you out of hand.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
And this continues the blatant misperceptions about those with same sex attractions. To throw the false accusations of them being potential child abusers.
 
goofyjim said:
And this continues the blatant misperceptions about those with same sex attractions. To throw the false accusations of them being potential child abusers.
Click to expand...
If anyone were actually doing that, you’d have a point. No one in this thread has said that “homosexual = child abuser,” and your persistent efforts to say otherwise are dishonest.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
CollegeKid said:
Turning men with SSA away from seminary is not only another consequence of an earlier precedent…
Click to expand...
Men with SSA are not barred from the priesthood. Men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” are. Big difference.
 
mlchance said:
If anyone were actually doing that, you’d have a point. No one in this thread has said that “homosexual = child abuser,” and your persistent efforts to say otherwise are dishonest.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t take a long search back in this thread to find someone who said that no attraction no abuse. This implies the reverse. That if you have the attraction you will abuse. This is so wrong it is beyond ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top