Gay men can be Catholic priests if celibate-report

  • Thread starter Thread starter fix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
netmil(name removed by moderator):
A disorder is not evil.
That would be my impression as well. Obviously the inclination is objectively disordered because it is not ordered toward good as God has designed.

So, if it is not ordered toward good is it ordered toward evil? I ask because I just read on a site from a priest the following:
Code:
     ***Homosexuality: A Look at Catholic Teaching*** presents the evil called homosexuality
as it is taught in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You may be surprised at how strict the Church is on this teaching. She clearly states
that both the behavior and inclination are disordered (read evil).
For this reason it is not OK to be homosexual. It is not OK to be disordered. And to tell
someone that it is fine, is to leave them steeped in evil. Tell me how is this charity?
The Catechism also teaches that one can overcome this evil and be truly Chaste, not
only in deed, but in thought and belief also.
Homosexuality: A Look at Catholic Teaching explores how one can use prayer, Grace
and the sacraments to truly become properly ordered, chaste and holy.getholy.com/index.html
Perhaps someone can help clarify this and let me know if this priest has it wrong?
 
A disorder, while intrinsically evil, can lead to evil things.

Pedophilia is a disoder, and I daresay not too many people will defend that. What are the origins of these disorders? Where did they spawn from?

Also, why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah?

I feel for many homosexuals, because like many other members of certain groups, they are being used by those in power to further a heinous agenda. Those who push for homosexuality as an “acceptable alternate lifestyle” don’t care for homosexual individuals when it comes down to it. They have an agenda to accomplish, and use confusion and ignorance to meet their goals.
 
40.png
HappyCatholic01:
Pedophilia is a disoder, and I daresay not too many people will defend that.
I’ll defend people who have inclinations towards paedophilia and don’t act upon them or indulge them. Your base thoughts aren’t evil, unless you indulge them. If a paedophile looks at a young child and puts the thought out of his mind as quickly as possible, there is no evil in that. Fantasising would be wrong, the same as fantasising about heterosexual relations with a married woman is wrong. Acting on such inclinations is obviously completely wrong.

Mike
 
40.png
fix:
Perhaps someone can help clarify this and let me know if this priest has it wrong?
I seriously doubt that one can just “pray out the gay”. I do believe that same-sex attraction is a psychological disorder, and, while I do not discount the power of prayer, I think that if there is a “cure”, it would be through psychotherapy and possibly medication. Most likely, people with same-sex attraction cannot simply change their orientation, but just need to accept the orientation and live a life of chastity according to their state.
 
40.png
Benedictus:
I seriously doubt that one can just “pray out the gay”. I do believe that same-sex attraction is a psychological disorder, and, while I do not discount the power of prayer, I think that if there is a “cure”, it would be through psychotherapy and possibly medication. Most likely, people with same-sex attraction cannot simply change their orientation, but just need to accept the orientation and live a life of chastity according to their state.
My question was more specfic. I think it involves some theological distinctions that I am not familiar with. Inclinations, or passions, I have read are morally neutral. So, if this inclination is objectively disordered may we say the inclination is evil. Not saying the person is evil, but the inclination itself is evil?

Do you see my point?
 
40.png
Benedictus:
I’m not sure what my post has to do with giving a dog Communion. I successfully demonstrated how your reasoning was severely flawed, and your response seems to consist of posting an article about some nut job who gave a dog Communion.
And:
Psalm45:9:
The Church has decided that celibate men who have same sex attraction can be ordained. Gay men cannot be ordained.
And someone decided that abstaining alcoholics can be successful bartenders and wine cellar managers, and Brewery workers.
Ok, Let’s play statistics (fun for all):
Child Molestation by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals
Link to Original entire Artricle From Catholic Culture

In fact, a number of studies performed over a period spanning more than half a century — many of which were performed by homosexuals or their sympathizers— have shown that an extremely large percentage of sexually active homosexuals also participate in child sexual molestation.

This is not “homophobia” or “hatred,” this is simple scientific fact.

Now the Stats: …in my the next…cont’d.
 
For example;
  • A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles."5
  • Another 2000 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that". . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories" for sexual activity;’ These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old.6
  • Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%."7
  • A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that " . . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality."8
  • A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.9
  • In a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, sex researchers found that "The proportional prevalence of [male] offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent."10
  • Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals I have acted as “chicken hawks” — that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.11
  • In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.12
  • A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger.13
***There are occasional scientific attempts to deny or obscure the fact that a disproportionately high percentage of active homosexuals also molest children. These studies are invariably afflicted with one or more fatal flaws. ***

A typical example, oft-quoted by gay rights activists, is the July 1994 Pediatrics article by Jenny, Roesler and Poyer that finds that "Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community."14 The fatal flaw of this study is that it studied sexually abused children with a mean age of just 6.1 years. Children of this young age are usually targets of true pedophiles, those persons with no sexual attraction to adults of either sex. By contrast, homosexual pedophiles are usually classified as “ephebophiles,” persons sexually attracted to pubescent or post-pubescent underage children. …

More fun ahead…cont’d. in my next post…
 
Continued from:
Child Molestation by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals
Many experts have claimed that there is a much higher percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood than there is in the general population. Let us assume for a moment that the concentration of male homosexuals in the priesthood is four times greater than it is in the general population—about ten percent. Using the figures given in Table 3.5.4, we find that a homosexual priest is
(85.3%/10.0%)/(14.7%190.0%) = 52
times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual priest.

If we use the more reasonable assumption that five percent of all priests are homosexual ’ (still about twice the average in the general population), we see that a homosexual priest is

(85.3%/5.0%)1(14.7%/95.0%) = 110
times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual priest.

***It is well known (and logical) that homosexuals with a desire for young children purposefully seek employment that will bring them into proximity with the greatest number of children possible. The most “promising” jobs of this nature include clergymen working in youth ministry, Boy Scout leaders and schoolteachers. ***

This is primarily why homosexual teachers have been involved in more than eighty percent of all recorded cases of teacher/pupil sex. And it may also explain why homosexuals are trying so hard to force the Boy Scouts of America to accept practicing homosexuals as leaders. Some homosexuals may see such acceptance as one more step toward achieving general social recognition and approval for homosexual activity, and nothing more. For homosexual child molesters, however, such recognition by the Boy Scouts would provide more ready access to children they can abuse.

A nationwide survey of school principals showed that they received 13 times as many complaints about homosexuals sexually molesting students than they did about heterosexuals molesting students.24

***Other studies have shown that homosexual teachers are from 90 to 100 times more likely to molest students than heterosexual teachers.25 ***

And, for those whole love statistical analysis, there’s plenty for you as well…to deny.😛
 
More words, more numbers, but still the same fallacy. You are looking at things backwards.

You may be able to show that the probability that a priest is gay is high, given that he is an abuser, but, as I pointed out earlier, that doesn’t directly correlate into a high probability that a man is an abuser, given that he is gay. P(gay | abuser) may be high, but P(abuser | gay) is not.

You can’t discount the a priori probabilities, viz. P(gay) and P(abuser). If you factor those in, you’ll see that there is no reason for concern. To claim that gay priests are likely to be abusers is nothing but spreading FUD.
 
40.png
Benedictus:
More words, more numbers, but still the same fallacy. You are looking at things backwards.

You may be able to show that the probability that a priest is gay is high, given that he is an abuser, but, as I pointed out earlier, that doesn’t directly correlate into a high probability that a man is an abuser, given that he is gay. P(gay | abuser) may be high, but P(abuser | gay) is not.

You can’t discount the a priori probabilities, viz. P(gay) and P(abuser). If you factor those in, you’ll see that there is no reason for concern. To claim that gay priests are likely to be abusers is nothing but spreading FUD.
Did you ever teach at Camp Denial?
33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex.
Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.

Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1** in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor**, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor
Psychological Reports, 1986, v58, pp. 327-37.

73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age.
Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.

The recent John Jay College study that found most of the victims of clergy abuse since 1950 were adolescent boys. That is Male on Male= Homosexual.

Father Donald Cozzens, then rector of a Cleveland seminary, wrote that many seminary faculties included a disproportionate number of homosexuals. In his book, The Changing Face of the Priesthood, he commented that “straight men in a predominantly or significantly gay environment commonly experience self doubt.”
 
TNT said:
73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age.
Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.

LOL, and what % of straight men have had sex with girls under 19 years of age?

TNT, I notice that all those states are pretty old. Can’t you copy and past from some more resent research?

Adam
 
40.png
amarischuk:
LOL, and what % of straight men have had sex with girls under 19 years of age?

TNT, I notice that all those states are pretty old. Can’t you copy and past from some more resent research?

Adam
  1. Are we having a church problem with priests have sex with young girls. If so, where’s the documents?
    Why compare “straight men have had sex with girls under 19 years of age” ?? What’s that have to do with male on male sex in the church, which is the problem. Or do you even admit it’s a problem? So far, your answer would appear to be NO PROBLEM.
    Did 3 dioceses enter bankruptcy from priests having sex with young girls? Is that your best retort? A straw kitty kat?
  2. When the agenda or MO of the homosexuals changes, we’ll update the stats.
  3. You’re welcome to bring your own original stats. Got some? Present them. Got someone else’s that are as competent as what I bring, paste them in.
    We’ll wait to see your cards.
 
TNT, my reply shows that your ‘statistics’ do not indicate anything other than your inability to formulate a coherent argument. They are nothing but libel and smeers on homosexual peoples to try and display your pre-conceived assumptions that homosexual men are amoral or immoral.

Here is a site which deals with the issue at hand and some of you ‘statistics’ in general:
Do Any Studies Claim To Show That Homosexuals Are More Likely To Molest Children?

One individual has claimed to have data that prove homosexuals to be child molesters at a higher rate than heterosexuals. That person is Paul Cameron. As detailed elsewhere on this site, Cameron’s survey data are subject to so many methodological flaws as to be virtually meaningless. Even so, his assertions are often quoted by antigay organizations in their attempts to link homosexuality with child sexual abuse.

In a 1985 article published in Psychological Reports, Cameron purported to review published data to answer the question, “Do those who commit homosexual acts disproportionately incorporate children into their sexual practices?” (p. 1227). He concluded that “at least one-third of the sexual attacks upon youth are homosexual” (p. 1228) and that “those who are bi- to homosexual are proportionately much more apt to molest youth” than are heterosexuals (p. 1231).

Cameron’s claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. Moreover, a careful reading of Cameron’s paper reveals several false statements about the literature he claimed to have reviewed.

For example, he cited the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) study mentioned previously as evidencing a 3:2 ratio of “heterosexual” (i.e., female victim) to “homosexual” (i.e., male victim) molestations, and he noted that “54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners” (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females. The “54%” statistic reported by Cameron doesn’t appear anywhere in the Groth and Birnbaum (1978) article, nor does Cameron explain its derivation.

It also is noteworthy that, although Cameron assumed that the perpetrators of male-male molestations were all homosexual, he assumed that not all male-female molestations were committed by heterosexuals. **He incorporated a “bisexual correction” into his data manipulations to increase further his estimate of the risk posed to children by homosexual/bisexual men. **

In the latter half of his paper, Cameron considered whether “homosexual teachers have more frequent sexual interaction with their pupils” (p. 1231). Based on 30 instances of sexual contact between a teacher and pupil reported in ten different sources published between 1920 and 1982, Cameron concluded that “a pupil would appear about 90 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a homosexual practitioner” (p. 1232); the ratio rose to 100 times when Cameron added his bisexual correction.


A subsequent paper by Cameron and others (Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Forde, Larson, & Cameron, 1986) described data collected in a door-to-door survey in seven U.S. cities and towns, and generally repeated the conclusions reached in Cameron (1985). Even Cameron himself has admitted that his conclusions in this study are “based upon small numbers of data points” (Cameron, 2005, p. 230). As before, male-male sexual assaults were referred to as “homosexual” molestations (e.g., Abstract, p.327) and the perpetrators’ sexual orientation apparently was not assessed. This study also suffers from fatal methodological problems, which are detailed elsewhere on this site.
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
 
However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:
· **Pedophiles are invariably males: **Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.
· **Significant numbers of victims are males: **Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).
· **The 10 percent fallacy: **Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.
· **Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: **Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.
· **Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: **Such activists consider the defense of “boy-lovers” to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
· **Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: **Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote “intergenerational intimacy.”
MALE HOMOSEXUALS COMMIT A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES
Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.
The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.
 
oat soda:
it’s pretty clear in the catechism the church considers even the inclination of homosexuality a disorder and inhierently evil. there is no chance the vatican would allow anyone who objectively has this or any other serious disordered sexualities. the same can be said to personality and mental disorders. it’s common sense.
i figure the only people who support gay seminarians are either gay or think with their heart and not their head.
The fact that a gay priest has been celibate for 3 years really doesn’t prove much. The disorder is still there and that’s what concerns me. Studies show that it’s extremely more difficult for gay men to remain celibate than it is for straight men.

I’m for **fewer **priests in the Church, but better priests. A young man called in EWTN the other night and said that he was seriously considering becoming a priest but was afraid to because of all the gay priests that are in the Church. He didn’t want to be considered one of them.

.
 
40.png
amarischuk:
TNT, my reply shows that your ‘statistics’ do not indicate anything other than your inability to formulate a coherent argument. They are nothing but libel and smeers on homosexual peoples to try and display your pre-conceived assumptions that homosexual men are amoral or immoral.

Here is a site which deals with the issue at hand and some of you ‘statistics’ in general:
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Did 3 dioceses enter bankruptcy from priests having sex with young girls? Is that your best retort? A straw kitty kat?
My points are supported by the sex abuse history by gay priests. That is reality, not just statistical wonderings, pro or con.
**The empirical evidence supports my figures, not your denials.
That’s coherency, like it or not.
**BTW:
Finally, since no proofs on your position comes forth, the debate deteriorates into persanlity attacks aka:
“…libel and smeers on homosexual peoples to try and display your pre-conceived assumptions that homosexual men are amoral or immoral.”
Let us not throw another straw man. I have confined my position to "Homosexuals in the priesthood are MORE likely to abuse youth than heterosexuals ".
You have now tried to change it into:
“homosexual men are amoral or immoral.”

You still have not advanced any “logically coherent” studies, statistical or empirical, that supports your implications of “homosexual priests/teachers are not greater child adusers proportionately than heterosexual priests”.
**Or do you not hold that theory?

**
 
They are nothing but libel and smeers on homosexual peoples to try and display your pre-conceived assumptions that homosexual men are amoral or immoral.

Isn’t the church the one saying homsexuality is immoral?

You can disavow statistics all you want.

The fact is they don’t support your cause, so you want to say “those are old”, or “you have an anti-gay agenda”.

Of course we have an anti-gay agenda. I have an anti-everything agenda when it comes to things the Church opposes, or against anything related to the Clutre of Death. People who oppse this should be proud, and not be silenced as “bigoted”. Does that word even have any meaning anymore, it is thrown around so much…

The fact is, homsexulaity is a disorder. The Church says so. The statistics back that up. It is runs contrary to spawning life, which is called “natural law”.,

Anything that runs contrary to life is a tool of the devil. Satan himself promulgates the notion that “homosexuality is no big deal” because as the saying goes “the greatest trick the devil ever played on the world was getting them to think he didn’t exist.”
 
40.png
TNT:
The recent John Jay College study that found most of the victims of clergy abuse since 1950 were adolescent boys. That is Male on Male= Homosexual.
TNT said:
"Homosexuals in the priesthood are MORE likely to abuse youth than heterosexuals ".
You have now tried to change it into:
“homosexual men are amoral or immoral.”

Did you even bother to read my post? The statistics you provided do not deal with homosexuality and you wrongly assume that the abusing priests (because the abused mostly boys) are homosexual (have same sex attractions to men over women):
Cameron’s claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals. … (Cameron) noted that “54% of all the molestations in this study were performed by bisexual or homosexual practitioners” (p. 1231). However, Groth and Birnbaum reported that none of the men in their sample had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation, and that none of the 22 bisexual men were more attracted to adult males than to adult females.
psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainb…olestation.html

The Vatican is willing to allow homosexual men into the priesthood, the studies you are providing fail to distinguish between homosexual men and pedophiles/ephebophiles. The Vatican is not contemplating allowing the latter two groups in.

And HappyCatholic
Of course we have an anti-gay agenda. I have an anti-everything agenda when it comes to things the Church opposes, or against anything related to the Clutre of Death. People who oppse this should be proud, and not be silenced as “bigoted”.
The thread is about the Vatican allowing homosexual men into the priesthood if they can show an sustained ability to remain celibate and chaste (the same requirements for heterosexual men). TNT is suggesting that the way to stop the sexual abuse problem is by banning homosexual men from the priesthood. Who here is on the side of the Church and who here is not? You are not only taking a bigoted approach to the issue but you are also not even following the magisterium you claim to love so much.

Adam
 
Actually, I don’t recall commenting on allowing homosexual’s into the Priesthood.

I merely commented on the validity of the statistics, and the connections therein. And nothing I said was not in keeping with the Magesterium, as the Magesterium didn;t address these statistics specifically, they just said celibacy was a requirement for gay men who were going to attend Seminary for a period of time. I checked again, and didn’t comment on their decision.

I stand by their decisions as always, and said nothing to contradict as such. If I did, feel free to show where. And good use of the word “bigot” again, it has SO much meaning anymore.

Maybe that word offends you, but after many people being called bigots for so long, it really has lost all meaning and iys true connotation.

I daresay I am bigoted against a lot of things; so are you.

What’s your point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top