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

[goofyjim]

If the desire remains how is that not deep seated?

As stated in another thread, or this one since I have lost track, it is concupiscence which remains with us until the day we die. It does not mean that one is being unchaste or disobedient to God or anyone else. And it certainly is not any indicator of one being a child abuser. We are just so caught up in the paranoia right now that that is what some want to believe. I have pointed out time and time again that I do not subscribe to gay agenda but I also do not subscribe to the fearmongering some studies produce.

 

[fix]

As stated in another thread, or this one since I have lost track, it is concupiscence which remains with us until the day we die. It does not mean that one is being unchaste or disobedient to God or anyone else. And it certainly is not any indicator of one being a child abuser. We are just so caught up in the paranoia right now that that is what some want to believe. I have pointed out time and time again that I do not subscribe to gay agenda but I also do not subscribe to the fearmongering some studies produce.

Concupiscence is one thing, but a strong tendency like ssa is a separate category that deserves attention especially when it concerns the priesthood. I have not read the Vatican directive recently but if is says strong seated tendency that would seem to mean still having the desire. Not simply not acting on it, but still experiencing it.

This is true of other tendencies as well.

 

[mlchance]

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.

No, it doesn’t. You infer the reverse, constantly and without justification. The reverse itself is neither implied nor logically required. For example, if I say all husbands are men, it doesn’t imply that all men are husbands. Again, your persistent mischaracterization of what people are actually saying is dishonest.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[goofyjim]

No, it doesn’t. You infer the reverse, constantly and without justification. The reverse itself is neither implied nor logically required. For example, if I say all husbands are men, it doesn’t imply that all men are husbands. Again, your persistent mischaracterization of what people are actually saying is dishonest.

– Mark L. Chance.

And there are alot of dishonest things said about those with SSA. I am not being dishonest. It is simply what I am seeing in these posts. Unless one can read the mind of every person with SSA and then tell that they are attracted to children, then one will never be able to draw any conclusion as to the rate of those with SSA who are child abusers. By being open about my SSA I am more honest than alot of people.

 

[KathleenElsie]

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.

Where did I say everyone? It is possible that the majority of persons with SSA never act upon their disordered desires. But, IMHO we should never take the chance with our young people. I don’t play Russian roulette even though the odds are 1 in 6. I just stated a fact. NO ATTRACTION=NO ABUSE. I did not say ATTRACTION=ABUSE but you tend to put words (or take them out of) our mouths.

Oh and in a seminary there are no women living in the dorms so to speak.

 

[KathleenElsie]

And there are alot of dishonest things said about those with SSA. I am not being dishonest. It is simply what I am seeing in these posts. Unless one can read the mind of every person with SSA and then tell that they are attracted to children, then one will never be able to draw any conclusion as to the rate of those with SSA who are child abusers. By being open about my SSA I am more honest than alot of people.

Abusers of children take many forms.But the situation we are looking at is strictly a sexual situation. That is if you can believe the statistics is 80%+ male on male. The majority of them were 12 to 16 years old. This is sexual in nature.

I am the survivor of opposite sex sexual abuse. I was 5 years old. This is a totally different situation and I won’t go into it. When someone harms someone of the opposite sex it is not sexual but power. The sexual part of it was not the main object, the proof of power over someone weaker is. The very young child can not say no as they feel powerless or are tooo young to tell.

 

[goofyjim]

This is very dangerous ground which is why the bishops have been so slow to take a public response to the findings of the John Jay report. It would be VERY easy for church leaders and conservative catholics to take a scapegoating approach here and blame the entire fiasco on “the gays.” This would be horrendous, because the truth is FAR more nuanced and subtle than a simple scapegoat sound bite.

On the other hand, the League has a very good point. New Ulm, get yourself a dictionary and read the definition of pedophilia. It is specifically the molestation of a young child, pre-puberty. The definition of the word simply does not apply to molestation of a 13 year old by an adult man. Look at the statistics! Pedophilia is not sex-specific as the abusers consider their victims somewhat androgenously. In true pedophilia, the victims would not have been 81% pubescent boys!

What happened is mostly more aptly described as a “pederasty.” Its an old and unpleasant reality in human nature, and it DOES have homosexual implications. But beware the scapegoat. None of this lets the bishops off the hook for their appalling judgement in transferring perpetrators, nor does this imply that if we just had a nice witchhunt and drummed out all the gays, the rectories would become a safe place to let our kids stay.

Instead, the bishops have some soul searching to do on how to respond. The Vatican directive against ordaining those with deap seated SSA is an incomplete step. We as a church need to change how we perceive and treat those with SSA’s. Did these priests REALLY get ordained in order to have lots of opportunity? Or did they not understand their feelings, hide them out of shame, seek the priesthood as an attempt to be right with God and not have to live singly among whispers, and then eventually succumb to temptations that they could never admit to a spiritual director and get help for before those temptations putresced into abusive behavior? We as a church need to do more to make guys like goofyjim (SSA but committed to chastity) feel welcome, normal parts of our catholic community without having to be secretive about their condition. We don’t ostracise recovering alcoholics for their struggles, why is SSA so different?

I wanted to thank you for your charity in the midst of the lack thereof. But I am leaving this thread now and I am going to make every effort to remain off of the forums altogether.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Good post!

The post above reminds me of a passage in St. John’s Gospel where he mentioned …“Judas was a THIEF from the beginning”. This quote was when Judas protested the expensive balm the contrite women annointed the Savior.

And yet that THIEF was the holder of the purse. I see a correlation with this passage and the topic at hand.

 

[estesbob]

Abusers of children take many forms.But the situation we are looking at is strictly a sexual situation. That is if you can believe the statistics is 80%+ male on male. The majority of them were 12 to 16 years old. This is sexual in nature.

I am the survivor of opposite sex sexual abuse. I was 5 years old. This is a totally different situation and I won’t go into it. When someone harms someone of the opposite sex it is not sexual but power. The sexual part of it was not the main object, the proof of power over someone weaker is. The very young child can not say no as they feel powerless or are tooo young to tell.

81% of those abused were male 90% of those abused were over the age of 9. 74% were over the age of 11. Puberty begins bwetween 9 and 11… The average age of the ones molested increased by almost two years from the 50s thru the 90s. The increase in the average age abused started at the same time(mid 60s) that the influx of homosexuals into the seminaries. There is no doubt we have/had a homosexual crisis in the Priesthood.

All the figures i gave above can been found in the “Jay Report”

 

[cmudd]

Am I the only who finds it odd that 12-16 year olds are considered children with unformed minds who desperately need the utmost protection from The Golden Compass, Bratz Dolls, television, public libraries, and the elderly lesbian couple across the street - but when there’s a predatory priest involved, suddenly they’re not children, it’s not child abuse, not a big deal (other than the boohooing about having to pay up in court).

Sickening.

Nox,

There is an effort here to correctly identify the problem. It has been called a pedophile problem in the press and in other places, but that is not the case. The vast majority of these cases involve pubescent and older boys. Pedophilia involves pre-pubescent children.

What is the difference? Well, pedophilia is spacifically the sexual attraction to young, pre-pubescent children. That is not what happened (in the majority of cases) in the Church. The problem was with homosexual priest commiting acts of rape and sexual assault on minors. This is NOT PEDOPHILIA or PEDERASTY. It is a different issue. One that adds to the overwhelming evidence that men with SSA need to be excluded from the priesthood.

No one is saying that it is not a big deal. In fact, it is a far bigger deal than many want to admit.

 

[TMC]

This is very dangerous ground which is why the bishops have been so slow to take a public response to the findings of the John Jay report. It would be VERY easy for church leaders and conservative catholics to take a scapegoating approach here and blame the entire fiasco on “the gays.” This would be horrendous, because the truth is FAR more nuanced and subtle than a simple scapegoat sound bite.

On the other hand, the League has a very good point. New Ulm, get yourself a dictionary and read the definition of pedophilia. It is specifically the molestation of a young child, pre-puberty. The definition of the word simply does not apply to molestation of a 13 year old by an adult man. Look at the statistics! Pedophilia is not sex-specific as the abusers consider their victims somewhat androgenously. In true pedophilia, the victims would not have been 81% pubescent boys!

What happened is mostly more aptly described as a “pederasty.” Its an old and unpleasant reality in human nature, and it DOES have homosexual implications. But beware the scapegoat. None of this lets the bishops off the hook for their appalling judgement in transferring perpetrators, nor does this imply that if we just had a nice witchhunt and drummed out all the gays, the rectories would become a safe place to let our kids stay.

Instead, the bishops have some soul searching to do on how to respond. The Vatican directive against ordaining those with deap seated SSA is an incomplete step. We as a church need to change how we perceive and treat those with SSA’s. Did these priests REALLY get ordained in order to have lots of opportunity? Or did they not understand their feelings, hide them out of shame, seek the priesthood as an attempt to be right with God and not have to live singly among whispers, and then eventually succumb to temptations that they could never admit to a spiritual director and get help for before those temptations putresced into abusive behavior? We as a church need to do more to make guys like goofyjim (SSA but committed to chastity) feel welcome, normal parts of our catholic community without having to be secretive about their condition. We don’t ostracise recovering alcoholics for their struggles, why is SSA so different?

You are right about pedophilia vs pederasty, and most of the points you make are excelleng. But I question whether pederasty really has much to do with sexual orientation. Many, if not most, pederasts are hetero in their general orientation, and in some cultures men with wives and children will partake in pederasty. It has to do with power, and sometimes with cultural traditions, and so forth. For the abusing priests it may also have to do with accessibility. Or they may see pederasty as not really breaking their vow because it is not real sex. There are myriad reasons for this abuse, but chief among them has been the secretive nature of the Church and the lack of a real response to the problems.

I think the Catholic League is trying to suggest that this isn’t really the Church’s fault, it is the fault of the evil homosexual agenda. Even if that were true, which I don’t believe, how does it make it better. We don’t have a problem with pedophiles, just homosexual rapists? Is that the message?

 

[estesbob]

Yo

I think the Catholic League is trying to suggest that this isn’t really the Church’s fault, it is the fault of the evil homosexual agenda. Even if that were true, which I don’t believe, how does it make it better. We don’t have a problem with pedophiles, just homosexual rapists? Is that the message?

It is the Churchs fault for allowing an influx of homosexuals into the seminary and then doing nothing when they statred to abuse. The homosexual rights crowd has made the situation worse by claiming homosexuality had nothng to do with the abuses which is clearly falase The message is that homosexuality is not compatible with the Priesthood. Being a Priest is not a right. I dropped out of the Seminary becuase I knew I could not lead a celibate life(my children are glad I did, BTW

 

[fix]

YBut I question whether pederasty really has much to do with sexual orientation. Many, if not most, pederasts are hetero in their general orientation, and in some cultures men with wives and children will partake in pederasty. It has to do with power, and sometimes with cultural traditions, and so forth.

Uh huh. Right. And the story about Sodom was really about not being hospitable?

 

[iamrefreshed]

We have a legitimate ministry to homosexual persons called Courage just waiting to expand. Unfortunately it cannot do that without priests to minister to it and the comfy cozy heterosexual priests are not likely to do that. It takes a priest who can empathize completely with what that person goes through and still offer practical and spiritual ways to avoid the lifestyle.

This thinking would seem to me to be severely flawed.

What makes you think a ‘comfy heterosexual priest’ somehow has an easier time with his celebacy than a priest with SSA?

Is this what you meant to say?

 

[cmudd]

And there are alot of dishonest things said about those with SSA. I am not being dishonest. It is simply what I am seeing in these posts. Unless one can read the mind of every person with SSA and then tell that they are attracted to children, then one will never be able to draw any conclusion as to the rate of those with SSA who are child abusers. By being open about my SSA I am more honest than alot of people.

Jim,

What is at issue here for you? Have you asked yourself why it is so important for the Church to admit these men to Holy Orders? It seems like more of a political correctness thing, if I can be honest.

Here are some thoughts:

1. Those who suffer from SSA have a profound sexual disorder (be it psychological, genetic, etc.). Are these the type of men we need in the seminaries? My uncle has severe schizophrenia. With medication, he seems quite normal. He is a great Catholic man and lives an extremely chaste life. Should he be allowed into the priesthood? He is alright now, but if he gets too stressed, he may have a breakdown. Would prudence suggest that he be placed in a situation that can be highly stressful?
2. Can these men live chaste lives? Certainly! All things are possible in Christ. But why put a man in a situation where he will be forced to battle his temptations daily.
3. Men with SSA (far more so than women) are prone to hyper-sexual activity (satyriasis). When one pairs the naturally increased libido of males with a sexual disorder, it seems to me that you are creating the “perfect storm” for sexual acting-out.
4. You have a very incorrect understanding of the vow of chastity that a priest takes. It is not simply a swearing off of sexual intimacy and trying to live a chaste life. When a man forgoes marriage to become a priest, he is sacrificing nature’s dictates and therefore, his own family, in order to become more like the ultimate chaste Victim, Jesus Christ. When a man with SSA accepts his vow of chastity, he is not forgoing nature and a potential family; he is entering a life-long fight against the tendency to commit grave moral sin. You see, his vow is highly utilitarian. He is not sacrificing his desires to have a family of his own, he is sacrificing something that is inherently disordered and already against God’s law.

Jim, at the end of the day, it comes down to suitability. Does God call men with SSA to the priesthood? I leave that to Holy Mother Church to decide; and She has said the God does not call these men. Who are we to say is God is calling a man to the priesthood? Again, leave it to Holy Mother Church. And try reading BXVI’s letter again. He differentiates between those who may have been emotionally confused or immature and those who have a real tendency toward SSA. If you saw in that letter, that the Pope’s intent was to show how certain men with SSA can become priests, I think you are missing the point.

People with severe disorders do not need the rigors of the religious life; and we do not need to put them there. Stop looking for loopholes!

Again, I am not condemning those with SSA, nor am I saying that all people with SSA are predators, but all men with SSA do have a severe disorder that needs to be addressed and treated, not hoisted upon the faithful.

 

[TMC]

Uh huh. Right. And the story about Sodom was really about not being hospitable?

Sodom was not about pederasty, it was about rape. Pederasty is sex between adult men and adolescent boys, almost always boys that are in a mentor/student or authoritarian/subordinate relationship with the adult. It was common in ancient times, especially in Greece. It remains common in a lot of parts of the Middle East. Some Middle Easterners that would cut your heart out for suggesting they were gay will have sex with a fourteen year old boy they are ‘mentoring.’ It is not a simple gay/hetero issue. It is very complex.

Pederasty is a very bad thing, but it is a different kind of very bad thing then pedophilia and adult homosexual rape. There are probably some of each going on, but it seems to me that there is a lot of adult abuse of adolescent boys,in their charge, which does sound like pederasty. Figuring out what is actually going on is an important part of fixing it. Pederasty can be motivated by same sex attraction, but like rape and pedophilia it can be motivated by other issues. It is not a simple problem. If we run out all the SSA priests and we still have abuse, that will be a terrible thing. If the only issue was SSA, most priests could fulfill their desires like any other single gay man. But they don’t, they abuse adolescents. There is a reason for that, and I don’t think we really know what it is. I’m hoping the Church is seriously studying this issue, but I fear it is not.

 

[goofyjim]

Jim,

What is at issue here for you? Have you asked yourself why it is so important for the Church to admit these men to Holy Orders? It seems like more of a political correctness thing, if I can be honest.

Here are some thoughts:

1. Those who suffer from SSA have a profound sexual disorder (be it psychological, genetic, etc.). Are these the type of men we need in the seminaries? My uncle has severe schizophrenia. With medication, he seems quite normal. He is a great Catholic man and lives an extremely chaste life. Should he be allowed into the priesthood? He is alright now, but if he gets too stressed, he may have a breakdown. Would prudence suggest that he be placed in a situation that can be highly stressful?
2. Can these men live chaste lives? Certainly! All things are possible in Christ. But why put a man in a situation where he will be forced to battle his temptations daily.
3. Men with SSA (far more so than women) are prone to hyper-sexual activity (satyriasis). When one pairs the naturally increased libido of males with a sexual disorder, it seems to me that you are creating the “perfect storm” for sexual acting-out.
4. You have a very incorrect understanding of the vow of chastity that a priest takes. It is not simply a swearing off of sexual intimacy and trying to live a chaste life. When a man forgoes marriage to become a priest, he is sacrificing nature’s dictates and therefore, his own family, in order to become more like the ultimate chaste Victim, Jesus Christ. When a man with SSA accepts his vow of chastity, he is not forgoing nature and a potential family; he is entering a life-long fight against the tendency to commit grave moral sin. You see, his vow is highly utilitarian. He is not sacrificing his desires to have a family of his own, he is sacrificing something that is inherently disordered and already against God’s law.

Jim, at the end of the day, it comes down to suitability. Does God call men with SSA to the priesthood? I leave that to Holy Mother Church to decide; and She has said the God does not call these men. Who are we to say is God is calling a man to the priesthood? Again, leave it to Holy Mother Church. And try reading BXVI’s letter again. He differentiates between those who may have been emotionally confused or immature and those who have a real tendency toward SSA. If you saw in that letter, that the Pope’s intent was to show how certain men with SSA can become priests, I think you are missing the point.

People with severe disorders do not need the rigors of the religious life; and we do not need to put them there. Stop looking for loopholes!

Again, I am not condemning those with SSA, nor am I saying that all people with SSA are predators, but all men with SSA do have a severe disorder that needs to be addressed and treated, not hoisted upon the faithful.

If you were to check the DSM we all have some disorder. So if disorders disqualified one for the priesthood then there would be noone left. SSA is not that “severe” unless one is unable to commit to chastity. I have remained chaste my whole life and have very strongly felt the call to religious life yet am told I do not qualify. I don’t push the gay agenda, I don’t go against Church teaching whatsoever. Yet, again there are those in this thread that make the erroneous assumption that I would.

 

[goofyjim]

Good post!

The post above reminds me of a passage in St. John’s Gospel where he mentioned …“Judas was a THIEF from the beginning”. This quote was when Judas protested the expensive balm the contrite women annointed the Savior.

And yet that THIEF was the holder of the purse. I see a correlation with this passage and the topic at hand.

Now what are you implying here?

 

[goofyjim]

Gee, we’re told that we’re not suitable for marriage or the priesthood leaving us with no vocation because the Church doesn’t consider the single life a vocation. It’s no wonder so many with SSA give up even though they never act out. Well if I am the last one left I won’t go anywhere until my natural death, no matter how many hate me and cast eyes of suspicion. I maintain innocence. I will not give into the lifestyle but I won’t listen any accusations of “more likely to abuse children” either.

 

[TMC]

Sodom was not about pederasty, it was about rape. Pederasty is sex between adult men and adolescent boys, almost always boys that are in a mentor/student or authoritarian/subordinate relationship with the adult. It was common in ancient times, especially in Greece. It remains common in a lot of parts of the Middle East. Some Middle Easterners that would cut your heart out for suggesting they were gay will have sex with a fourteen year old boy they are ‘mentoring.’ It is not a simple gay/hetero issue. It is very complex.

Pederasty is a very bad thing, but it is a different kind of very bad thing then pedophilia and adult homosexual rape. There are probably some of each going on, but it seems to me that there is a lot of adult abuse of adolescent boys,in their charge, which does sound like pederasty. Figuring out what is actually going on is an important part of fixing it. Pederasty can be motivated by same sex attraction, but like rape and pedophilia it can be motivated by other issues. It is not a simple problem. If we run out all the SSA priests and we still have abuse, that will be a terrible thing. If the only issue was SSA, most priests could fulfill their desires like any other single gay man. But they don’t, they abuse adolescents. There is a reason for that, and I don’t think we really know what it is. I’m hoping the Church is seriously studying this issue, but I fear it is not.

Just realized this sounds like I don’t think pederasty or pedophilia are rape, they are actually a worse form of rape but its important to make a distinction, I think.