Dominican Sister of St. Cecilia under fire by students for talk on homosexuality
- Status
R
Rin
Guest
I agree it’s not often used, but at least it is a word that mostly every English speaker would understand without explanation, it is in people’s passive vocabulary. As for the verb version, you have a good point. I guess “joined in Holy Matrimony” sounds a bit unnatural in daily speech?I guess I would think of “matrimony” as a new vocabulary, since we don’t generally use it in everyday life. I don’t even know how it would work: “My wife and I are matrimonied”?
But still, my point stands - there are existing terms that very specifically denote the Catholic notion of marriage, and they should be used more often for that purpose.
(Additionally: You have some very good points around the use/meaning/semantics of the word “marriage”. But that’s it for now, I’m going to bed
)
J
Joie_de_Vivre
Guest
The principal was bewildered by Fr. Rocky deviating substantially from usual stuff even after allowances for the format…
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I’m impressed!
When studying sexuality, getting objective information versus anecdotal evidence is important.
Even if there is general agreement with an organization, it’s always important to keep tabs on whom you affiliate with/support.
P
Path_Finder
Guest
The principal’s name seems to be Carradini:
renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/140417 which quotes the below article, apparently the lecture was recorded for Father Rocky’s show.
lifesitenews.com/news/another-catholic-school-embroiled-in-battle-over-church-teaching-on-sexuali
So another unclear situation.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Yep, you’d be surprised at how accepting of religion most of the community is. The only exceptions are when people use religion in hateful ways (WBC, FRC, hate crimes), use religion to incite violence against gays and lesbians (macro scale in foreign countries, isolated incidents in the US), or deny basic necessities to gays and lesbians based on their sexuality based on their religious beliefs (food, housing; this also applies to parents kicking out their minor children). In fact, a huge chunk of the LGBT population is religious; they just find ways to reconcile their physical relationships and religion (liberal Protestantism being the largest sect, though there are some Catholics who unfortunately believe the Church just “isn’t there yet.”) His comments were taken extremely poorly at the event.
I agree, but you also have to agree that objective information is virtually impossible to find. Everyone has an agenda on the issue. In light of that, I typically defer to my anecdotal knowledge, having been a member of the community for years.
I suppose so. I like the It Gets Better project, because it can be turned into anything that someone wants it to be. A Catholic can even use it to spread a Catholic anti-suicide message to struggling LGBT kids. Though I like the Trevor Project better, as it provides stronger crisis management.
Also, as an aside to your post, I also don’t support the Human Rights Campaign (they campaign for legal SS’M") but I do support their Time to Thrive campaign, which seeks to end harassment, violence, suicide, and hate crimes against LGBT Americans. In fact, I admire Ellen Page for her coming out speech, because she was one of the few celebrities who did it for a noble purpose (she came out at last year’s Time to Thrive event in order to help kids know that there were others who felt SSAs like they did and to not despair or fear the world). So sometimes a person or entity (referencing Dan Savage & the HRC, not Ellen Page) who normally does bad works can still come up with a good project worth supporting.
H
Hopey
Guest
Happy Easter!
I guess I don’t quite understand why someone would in any form or fashion support Savage because in my book he is similar to WBC. He is violent, with words, against Christians who hold that the acts are wrong and marriage is between a man and woman. He has set them up as bigots.
What you have said would be similar if I took something from the late Fred Phelps, a programs that might agree with a doctrine we have, and use it.
Or, that is how it is in my book.
I couldn’t support WBC for many reasons no matter if they get some things right.
As to the research, and assuming it may be some of what Sr used, the reason they went out of the country was to get a larger group to research, in a place that had ss’m’ for awhile.
The Church will always witness to a marriage being between a man and a woman. They strongly believe that a mother and father are important in a child’s life. This is being erased and done away with, quickly. We were told a lie by the psychological association that divorce didn’t have an impact, negative, on the children. That as long as the parents were happy, the children would be. We know that is a lie but it is similar to what is being sold here in the US - mother/father are optional.
Now, the Church is going to keep studying this because that is part of what she does. She knows the family life, or demise of it, effects a lot of things - collapse in societies even.
So, it is not unusual for them the underscore a point with data/stats. A lot of youth, and older, want you to “Prove IT”, it being a negative impact on person, etc.
Those are some reasons behind using the stats. It isn’t going out to find something wrong with anyone. It also tells them if what they knew to be true, marriage and family life - importance of healthy one, is reflected in the studies. IOW, they aren’t picking on one group - or two. They would do similar things if speaking of poverty, crime, abortion, etc.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
While we’re talking about Savage, let me tell you all the thing that entertains me about the man. As you probably know, he writes a sex column where he answers all sorts of questions that Catholics probably shouldn’t be reading about. Anyway, there have been a number of questions posed to Savage about the situation of people who have an unwanted attraction to children. Savage’s advice might sound familiar: he says that the attraction to children is disordered, but that people who have this attraction aren’t evil; rather, they should receive psychological and social support so that they can cope with having an attraction that it is wrong to pursue – or so that their attraction can be treated and go away.
In other words, Savage’s view on pedophilia is pretty much exactly the Catholic view on homosexuality. From the comment boxes, it appears that he gets a lot of flak about that – mostly from people who say that pedophiles deserve absolutely no sympathy (even if they are chaste, apparently), but also from people that roundly criticize him for separating attraction from action, something that many gay activists are loathe to do. After all, if we separate attraction from action, then the Christian viewpoint on homosexuality gets a great deal more traction.
So anyway, I think it’s worth acknowledging that Savage has precisely the right view on that particular issue.
In other words, Savage’s view on pedophilia is pretty much exactly the Catholic view on homosexuality. From the comment boxes, it appears that he gets a lot of flak about that – mostly from people who say that pedophiles deserve absolutely no sympathy (even if they are chaste, apparently), but also from people that roundly criticize him for separating attraction from action, something that many gay activists are loathe to do. After all, if we separate attraction from action, then the Christian viewpoint on homosexuality gets a great deal more traction.
So anyway, I think it’s worth acknowledging that Savage has precisely the right view on that particular issue.
H
Hopey
Guest
Except the Church know from experience that true pedophilia does not and can not go away. They have been there and done that.While we’re talking about Savage, let me tell you all the thing that entertains me about the man. As you probably know, he writes a sex column where he answers all sorts of questions that Catholics probably shouldn’t be reading about. Anyway, there have been a number of questions posed to Savage about the situation of people who have an unwanted attraction to children. Savage’s advice might sound familiar: he says that the attraction to children is disordered, but that people who have this attraction aren’t evil; rather, they should receive psychological and social support so that they can cope with having an attraction that it is wrong to pursue – or so that their attraction can be treated and go away.
In other words, Savage’s view on pedophilia is pretty much exactly the Catholic view on homosexuality. From the comment boxes, it appears that he gets a lot of flak about that – mostly from people who say that pedophiles deserve absolutely no sympathy (even if they are chaste, apparently), but also from people that roundly criticize him for separating attraction from action, something that many gay activists are loathe to do. After all, if we separate attraction from action, then the Christian viewpoint on homosexuality gets a great deal more traction.
So anyway, I think it’s worth acknowledging that Savage has precisely the right view on that particular issue.
That is also why they acknowledge that for some with ssa, it is an acceptance but not acting on the attraction.
All it is going to take is the rolling back of age of consent.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
The Church knows no such thing. The Church knows that, if a person has abused children, they are likely to abuse children again. The Church does not know anything about people who experience an attraction to children, but have not acted upon it. Nobody does, since these things aren’t discussed.
I’m not sure what you mean by these two comments.
H
Hopey
Guest
Unless those in authority are willfully blind, they do know and should know that true pedophilia, attraction to prepubescent children, can not be “fixed” and fixed meaning the attraction changes, but they have to be in no position around children. None. Zero.The Church knows no such thing. The Church knows that, if a person has abused children, they are likely to abuse children again. The Church does not know anything about people who experience an attraction to children, but have not acted upon it. Nobody does, since these things aren’t discussed.
I’m not sure what you mean by these two comments.
They have tried to rehabilitate those with this attraction and the conclusion is, now finally, they can never be around children alone nor in a position of authority with them. I feel confident in saying those with this attraction who haven’t acted on it will be the very few exception. Very few. They have too much data on what happens when you try to rehabilitate a pedophile and leave out what the Church has done in the past - you can never leave them alone with children - never. In past history, those who committed sexual crimes against children had to never wear their cincture again, and always had someone with them so as to never be alone - not excluding penance for the rest of their lives.
What I mean by the last one, is the Church doesn’t force someone to “change” something, but there will be things, attractions to whatever, and for whatever reason, will have to be an acceptance to the person, a trial, a cross for them.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Well, I don’t think you understand the situations Dan Savage was addressing, I guess. Think for a moment about the group of people that we know of as “pedophiles”. How do we know about these people? Because they have committed crimes against children. How do we know there is great difficulty keeping them from committing more crimes? Because we have observed it.
But we don’t know anything about people who feel attraction to children, but haven’t committed crimes. You talk about data about attempts to rehabilitate pedophiles, but we don’t have any such data. We only have data about attempts to rehabilitate sex offenders.
In essence, you are saying the same thing Savage’s critics from the left are saying: that, in the case of pedophilia, there is no distinction between temptation and action. But that is simply a lie. I don’t see why it would be any different from homosexual temptation, which it is completely possible to experience but not to act on.
H
Hopey
Guest
I do believe you are wrong in that treating sex offenders who were priests, they made a distinction as to what they were doing - sex with adult male/female, sex with teen, sex with prepubescent child. For that, they did make a distinction so we do know those who did go to be rehabilitated, meaning to overcome their attraction, not act on it, were not successful.Well, I don’t think you understand the situations Dan Savage was addressing, I guess. Think for a moment about the group of people that we know of as “pedophiles”. How do we know about these people? Because they have committed crimes against children. How do we know there is great difficulty keeping them from committing more crimes? Because we have observed it.
But we don’t know anything about people who feel attraction to children, but haven’t committed crimes. You talk about data about attempts to rehabilitate pedophiles, but we don’t have any such data. We only have data about attempts to rehabilitate sex offenders.
In essence, you are saying the same thing Savage’s critics from the left are saying: that, in the case of pedophilia, there is no distinction between temptation and action. But that is simply a lie. I don’t see why it would be any different from homosexual temptation, which it is completely possible to experience but not to act on.
If you are to base what the pedophiles say in therapy, it isn’t just the attraction but when they are able to act on it. That is why I say those would be very few as in their own nature, it is just a matter of opportunity. What was suggested, by some in the Church, those who committed these crimes should be sent to an island for a life of penance and to keep them away from children. I wonder if they have changed their minds on rejecting that idea.
So, in what is reported, there is something different in the pedophile as far as attraction and not acting on it - comparing it to others who may not act on something. They need for their own sake and for children’s sake to be removed from children/always supervised.
So, yeah, we do have that data, unfortunately.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Sorry, but I must be being unclear. The studies that we have are on people who have committed sex crimes. Savage’s article is about people who have not committed sex crimes – who may have never had sex with anyone at all – but who experience some level of attraction to children. We do not have research on how likely these latter people are to abuse children. Why not? Well, surely because they aren’t willing to tell anyone about the attraction.
It’s a bit like doing a study on people tempted to murder, but only studying actual murderers. Sure, it’ll seem like pretty much every person tempted to murder is a habitual murderer, then – but only because you haven’t talked to the not-inconsiderable number of people who have so far resisted their murderous tendencies.
I don’t have any problem with your suggestions about isolating sex offenders from children, by the way, although the island idea might be a bit over the top.
At any rate, Happy Easter! I’m cooped up at home this Easter, because of a stomach bug. Thanks for keeping me company, as it were.
R
Rin
Guest
Edit: Almost forgot - Happy Easter! Christus resurrexit!
Actually, according to an interview I read with a psychiatrist who works with (and does research on) pedophiles, the majority of “true” pedophiles never fall into child abuse. Many of them are actually willing to speak to health professionals about their affliction, but obviously, they rarely present themselves on the front pages of the tabloids…
However, the medical definition of pedophilia is not the same as the popular one. People generally mean “someone who abuses a legal minor” when they say “pedophile”, which leads to the absurd consequence that someone who has sex with a 17-years old in some states in the US is seen as a pedophile, while someone who has sex with a 15-years old in Sweden is not. In reality neither of them is; we are biologically programmed to be attracted toward people as they become fertile, but in modern times programmed by society to leave them alone. And thank God for that - the older practice of marrying away daughters when they became 14 (or even younger) can’t possibly have been healthy.
The medical definition is, perhaps overly simplified, someone who is sexually (and often romantically) primarily or exclusively attracted to pre-pubescent children, or in some cases, children in the earliest phases of puberty. The majority (!) of those who abuse minors do not fall in this category; generally abusers get their “kick” from the difference in power potential and the situation of abuse in itself, and the age of their victim is generally chosen on basis of “convenience” more than physical attraction. Their condition is not that of pedophilia, but of psychopathy. They might not even have the slightest attraction towards children except when their need to exert power sets in.
On the other hand, most pedophiles are not psychopaths. They (generally) very well know the damage they would do if they ever were to live out their attractions, and hence they have incentive to abstain. And according to the professional I mentioned, most of them succeed, though they may need therapy to cope. And obviously, as has been mentioned, they need to avoid being alone with children.
So in a lot of ways, the situation of “true” pedophiles is similar to the situation of gay people according to the Church - both have attractions they can’t help, and both need to abstain. But for the pedophile, there is the added burden that any lapse whatsoever would be a criminal offense, and do terrible damage to a child. For a gay person, it’s simply a matter of confession. Which is why I refuse any and all comparison of homosexual acts to pedophile acts; their situation may be similar with regards to Church teaching and practice, but the consequences are so vastly different that any comparison will simply kill any fruitful debate on homosexuality. Which is why I think pedophilia should be added to Godwin’s law; mentioning pedophilia in debates about sexuality is similar to mentioning Hitler in debates about politics.
Just to conclude; I’m not trying to make light of or defend pedophilia, it is truly a horrific condition and not least a torment for those who suffer from it. And if acted upon, an atrocity towards the victim. But to properly treat a problem, it needs to be properly diagnosed. And since the underlying causes and courses of treatment are radically different between “true” pedophiles and psychopaths who just happen to choose children because they’re easy targets, this distinction is important to prevent future abuse.
Actually, according to an interview I read with a psychiatrist who works with (and does research on) pedophiles, the majority of “true” pedophiles never fall into child abuse. Many of them are actually willing to speak to health professionals about their affliction, but obviously, they rarely present themselves on the front pages of the tabloids…
However, the medical definition of pedophilia is not the same as the popular one. People generally mean “someone who abuses a legal minor” when they say “pedophile”, which leads to the absurd consequence that someone who has sex with a 17-years old in some states in the US is seen as a pedophile, while someone who has sex with a 15-years old in Sweden is not. In reality neither of them is; we are biologically programmed to be attracted toward people as they become fertile, but in modern times programmed by society to leave them alone. And thank God for that - the older practice of marrying away daughters when they became 14 (or even younger) can’t possibly have been healthy.
The medical definition is, perhaps overly simplified, someone who is sexually (and often romantically) primarily or exclusively attracted to pre-pubescent children, or in some cases, children in the earliest phases of puberty. The majority (!) of those who abuse minors do not fall in this category; generally abusers get their “kick” from the difference in power potential and the situation of abuse in itself, and the age of their victim is generally chosen on basis of “convenience” more than physical attraction. Their condition is not that of pedophilia, but of psychopathy. They might not even have the slightest attraction towards children except when their need to exert power sets in.
On the other hand, most pedophiles are not psychopaths. They (generally) very well know the damage they would do if they ever were to live out their attractions, and hence they have incentive to abstain. And according to the professional I mentioned, most of them succeed, though they may need therapy to cope. And obviously, as has been mentioned, they need to avoid being alone with children.
So in a lot of ways, the situation of “true” pedophiles is similar to the situation of gay people according to the Church - both have attractions they can’t help, and both need to abstain. But for the pedophile, there is the added burden that any lapse whatsoever would be a criminal offense, and do terrible damage to a child. For a gay person, it’s simply a matter of confession. Which is why I refuse any and all comparison of homosexual acts to pedophile acts; their situation may be similar with regards to Church teaching and practice, but the consequences are so vastly different that any comparison will simply kill any fruitful debate on homosexuality. Which is why I think pedophilia should be added to Godwin’s law; mentioning pedophilia in debates about sexuality is similar to mentioning Hitler in debates about politics.
Just to conclude; I’m not trying to make light of or defend pedophilia, it is truly a horrific condition and not least a torment for those who suffer from it. And if acted upon, an atrocity towards the victim. But to properly treat a problem, it needs to be properly diagnosed. And since the underlying causes and courses of treatment are radically different between “true” pedophiles and psychopaths who just happen to choose children because they’re easy targets, this distinction is important to prevent future abuse.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I think that’s significantly understating the harms of homosexual sodomy. As a person with SSA, I can tell you that there are a number of such harms that people usually don’t think about. Indulging in sex with another man has the consequence of leading to sexual/moral confusion in oneself and one’s sex partner; it has the consequence of making one to focus on pleasure instead of happiness; it has the consequence of continuing any patterns of shame and self-destructiveness that one has – and any such patterns in one’s partner. And it might have the consequence of leading to disease.
It’s not like you just confess, and the temporal consequences are gone. I do think, mind you, that these consequences may be less for those in stable and monogamous gay relationships.
Personally, I think Godwin’s law is silly. There are cases where it is unhelpful to bring up Hitler, and there are cases where it is helpful. I would think the same thing about pedophilia, in debates about sexuality.
At any rate, Happy Easter!
P
Path_Finder
Guest
I’ve read one of Savage’s columns on the mentioned topics. I’ve seen where he is coming from and the dilemma posed and all of the questions it raises. DS apparently can carry out some rational discussion.
R
Rin
Guest
I’m aware there are temporal consequences of homosexual acts, just like there are of heterosexual acts outside marriage (and even some [things that most people today would consider] heterosexual acts within marriage!). They may be different, but yet, a lapse does in no way cause anything even remotely resembling the mark placed on the mind of an abused child. Which is what I wanted to illustrate.
I also think many people (not you, from what I’ve seen) overstate the temporal consequences of homosexual acts, to an extent where some gay people may end up hopeless and conclude there is no longer any point in even trying to abstain; the damage is already done. It is important to convey that this is never the case. This is a very difficult line to balance.
I do agree its application is sometimes silly - obviously, when the comparison is valid, it does not apply. One example is the current goings-on in Ukraine; Putin’s strategy is actually a photocopy of Hitler’s land acquisitions before WW2. Yet, some people try to apply Godwin’s law to those who point this out, which is silly.
Yet, the majority of comparisons between homosexuality and pedophilia are invalid, and often, even when they may be valid, people pose them in a way which is doomed to be taken as implication of something worse - like the “all gays are pederasts” myth. Which is why I think any serious debate about sexuality generally (not always) is over when pedophilia enters the picture.
To you too!At any rate, Happy Easter!
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Agreed.
I think pretty much all sin works this way. Thieves justify their own thievery by saying that they’re already beyond help, so they might as well continue. My own take on this is that we should just about never try to convince strangers of their own guilt, since that just pushes them further into such rationalizations. But when we are close to a person, we can express to them the severity of their sin without rejecting them – instead, we offer unconditional acceptance and love, but beg them to stop hurting themselves and others.
H
Hopey
Guest
I pray you get better quickly.Sorry, but I must be being unclear. The studies that we have are on people who have committed sex crimes. Savage’s article is about people who have not committed sex crimes – who may have never had sex with anyone at all – but who experience some level of attraction to children. We do not have research on how likely these latter people are to abuse children. Why not? Well, surely because they aren’t willing to tell anyone about the attraction.
It’s a bit like doing a study on people tempted to murder, but only studying actual murderers. Sure, it’ll seem like pretty much every person tempted to murder is a habitual murderer, then – but only because you haven’t talked to the not-inconsiderable number of people who have so far resisted their murderous tendencies.
I don’t have any problem with your suggestions about isolating sex offenders from children, by the way, although the island idea might be a bit over the top.
At any rate, Happy Easter! I’m cooped up at home this Easter, because of a stomach bug. Thanks for keeping me company, as it were.
I think the island would be appropriate especially for those who are truly repentant and want to keep others, children, out of harm - because they know the damage they can do.
I do not know of any who had those desires who didn’t act on them - those in the pedophilia group which are very very small but the number of victims are very very high. Consider that the majority of sex offending priests were homosexual in nature BUT the ones with the most victim (least amount) were pedophiles. It goes with the territory.
Also, comparing them to psychopaths is accurate in my book because both have zero rehabilitation. One dr has made ground in trying to identify them so people can protect themselves (not all are murders but can destroy your life very well all the same). They also, like pedophilia, have tried to correct the common misunderstanding of true psychopath is like. EG, not all people who are narcissistic are psychopaths. But EVERY psychopath has that trait.
- Status