Dear Gay Catholics, don’t go to NewAdvent.org for your news

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
catholic1seeks said:
But why do we blame homosexuality (as an inclination) in itself for these horrible same-sex acts, and NOT heterosexuality itself for horrible opposite-sex acts?

It’s because, sadly, many in the church regard homosexuality as inherently sinful: That is, they may say that same-sex attraction is “not sinful.” They may say only the “acts” are sinful. But often, what they really mean is that same-sex attraction inclines one to deviancy. So the homosexual is ultimately viewed as “sinner” — it’s just a matter of degree, of how bad.

So a person like me, a Catholic who is also SSA and tries to follow church teaching as best I can, reads these articles as ESSENTIALLY saying that I am bound to mess up horribly. That I have a pre-disposition to pedophilia, or molestation, or sexual abuse. That I’m not able to pursue chastity as nobly as the straight person is.

That I’m objectively disordered beyond my same-sex attraction: That I’m more or less inevitably ordered to engage in some horrendous deviant sexual act.

That’s what is sounds like to me.
Click to expand...
The notion that people who are gay are more inclined to deviancy and sexual abuse is the message that Daniel Mattson tries to send in a recent article, “Why Men Like Me Should Not Be Priests,” that someone posted in another thread:
men with homosexual tendencies find it particularly difficult to live out the demands of chastity. The vast majority of scandals in the Church since 2002 involve homosexual priests profoundly failing in chastity. This is no surprise to me. Chastity, I’m convinced (and the evidence bears this out), is much harder for men with a homosexual inclination than for others.

Fr. James Lloyd, C.S.P., a priest with a PhD in psychology from NYU, has worked with homosexual men (including priests) for more than 30 years as a clinical psychologist. On the subject of chastity and homosexual priests, he says, “It is clear enough from clinical evidence that the psychic energy needed to contain homosexual drives is far greater than that needed by the straying heterosexual.”
Click to expand...
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/why-men-like-me-should-not-be-priests

So, according to Mattson, gay men are different than straight men because they have an insatiable drive to have as much sex as possible, a drive that it is almost impossible for them to contain. Maybe Mattson is thinking of himself and believes that his own insatiable drives are shared by all gay men.
 
Last edited:
redbetta said:
A practicing Catholic cannot act on their same sex attraction, so, it would be superficial and pointless to identify yourself based on your sexual preferences. To do so gives off the impression that you are trying to have it both ways to a lot of people.
Click to expand...
For most gay people, their sexual orientation is not a “preference”. It’s not like someone is eating a bowl of ice cream and thinks to himself, “I have a preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream, but if there’s no chocolate ice cream, I could also have a bowl of vanilla ice cream instead.” The use of the word “preference” just shows a shallow and superficial understanding of gay people and trivializes the feelings that they have.
 
Thorolfr said:
The notion that people who are gay are more inclined to deviancy and sexual abuse
Click to expand...
This isn’t a unique notion, this gentleman isn’t the only one who came to this conclusion. I’m not a homosexual myself and when I was a much younger man , homosexuals tried to recruit me a number of times. Considering the fact that I am straight, and this was in a previous era, they were really risking getting beat up- people weren’t nearly as accepting of homosexuality as they are today back in the 1970’s.

That tells me that they were to take huge risks for their sexual preference, and a huge drive to satisfy it.
 
Nuance is meant to be reality. It’s meant to be what keeps us from tarring the innocent with the guilty, or even the less-guilty (those violating their vows with consenting adult partners) with those guilty of the crimes of abuse.
 
Augustinian said:
I’m not a homosexual myself and when I was a much younger man , homosexuals tried to recruit me a number of times. Considering the fact that I am straight, and this was in a previous era, they were really risking getting beat up- people weren’t nearly as accepting of homosexuality as they are today back in the 1970’s.
Click to expand...
So, how exactly did they try to “recruit” you? If you’re not homosexual, what did they want to recruit you to do? And even if someone is homosexual, what would they recruit that person to do? It’s not as if gay people are an army that needs recruits.
 
Last edited:
Think I’m going to check out of CAF. As I’m gay and really have found it the most toxic place for my faith at the moment. There’s a part of me which really wants to run back to the Anglican Church - beautiful liturgy, great music, and no one saying that my sexuality is the problem for abuse of the vulnerable.
 
You find CAF the most toxic place for your faith?. How many internet forums have you been to? This place is mild compared to many others. But people have limits and don’t want to deal with people constantly pushing an agenda.
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
So, how exactly did they try to “recruit” you? If you’re not homosexual, what did they want to recruit you to do? And even if someone is homosexual, what would they recruit that person to do? It’s not as if gay people are an army that needs recruits.
Click to expand...
I was asked to participate in sodomy. Homosexuals have always looked for people outside their preference to come on over.

Apparently homosexuals disagree , otherwise why would they reach out to Straight people to spread their message? I don’t think I’m unique among straight, normal men- they have reached out to plenty of men.
 
There’s a time for nuance (with this problem 1970s, 80s, 90,s etc) and there’s a time for “let your yes mean yes and your no mean no.”

We’re well passed nuance.

Nuance is moving abusive priests quietly around to different parishes. 300 pages of nuance.

Now it’s time to see how bad the problem really is.
 
Bruised_Reed said:
Does saying they were trying to recruit you feel less threatening to you than saying that gay men found you attractive and were hitting on you?
Click to expand...
I am someone who tries to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I would be very angry at someone if I thought they were confusing me with a homosexual. It is definitely less infuriating and requires less response to conclude that I was being recruited.
 
I’m not able to find any of what you describe in their articles. Could you be referring to another site?
 
dumbox said:
Nuance is moving abusive priests quietly around to different parishes. 300 pages of nuance.
Click to expand...
That is…literally not what the word means. At all.

Keep in mind in the secular realm, it’s quite common for pedophiles to have relationships with adult women, and show no attraction to adult men, while still targeting underaged boys.
Augustinian said:
I am someone who tries to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I would be very angry at someone if I thought they were confusing me with a homosexual. It is definitely less infuriating and requires less response to conclude that I was being recruited.
Click to expand...
If someone doesn’t think being gay is wrong, though, they’re not going to think that you should be insulted by someone thinking that you’re homosexual (because otherwise they’d be insulted themselves by someone thinking they are what they actually are).
 
Last edited:
Well, it’s what happened. Taking a soft approach again and again and again, when the sharp knife of laicization was needed. Too nuanced an approach.

I am blown away at how many different sources are pointing to the root cause…and they tally at 80% of the problem.

Forcing oneself upon a 17 year old girl is considered statutory RAPE not pedaphilia.

At least the same standard should be held for young men.

Enough with the “over-fitting” too large a category of pedaphilia. It’s a lie.
 
Last edited:
The “soft approach” and the “nuanced approach” aren’t the same thing like you’re making them out to be.

A soft approach ignores the guilty because it’s uncomfortable or embarrassing.

A nuanced approach targets the guilty while avoiding targeting the innocent.

Heterosexual men do often target underage boys - it’s seen often in the secular realm where teachers or others who work with children frequently also have normal heterosexual marriages.

Also, most pedophiles target whoever’s there. Given the timing of the abuse crisis, the vast majority of children that priests had access to were boys and not girls. Boys served at the altar; girls didn’t. A family would think nothing of having the priest alone with a boy, but would be wary if he wanted to be alone with a girl.
 
“…do often…” are weasel words. If data collected since 2002 show anything it’s shown that priestly abuse occurs from very very few priests.

Pennsylvannia was a 70 year summary, and it distorts the size of the problem today.

Nevertheless…since 2002…again and again and again, what’s been shown with data - though with a lot of nuanced language dressed up around it - is that 80% of the new cases occur from same sex attracted priests, chasing down or luring post-pubescent young MEN
 
Last edited:
dumbox said:
If data collected since 2002 show anything it’s shown that priestly abuse occurs from very very few priests.
Click to expand...
That’s not in conflict from what I said. What I said was that among pedophiles, we see certain patterns - one being that they go after whoever’s available, and another being that many are or have been in heterosexual relationships while going after underaged boys.

Beware of “security theater.” It’s easy to find a simple problem where we can blame people we consider “outside” and consider the problem solved if we get rid of the outsiders, but it doesn’t actually make people safer.
 
Pedaphiles go after little children and infants.

Most of the problem (90%, USCCB, multiple year reports) are post-pubescent. Those aren’t pedaphiles.

And unfortunate for the agenda types, they are same sex attracted.

That’s not in doubt and shouldn’t be nuanced away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top