Gay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cestusdei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
cestusdei:
Ken, please give the evidence I requested.
Click to expand...
As I said before, I do not accept the logic you propose that failure to protest indicates acceptance.

But while we are speaking of evidence, can you provide evidence that Catholic priests who did not protest sexual abuse by priests oppose sex with altar boys? Given your notion that those who do not protest must support, I presume you beleive this. Feel free to use the above para as an answer.
 
Ptero said:
**For every Catholic priest, we may ask, what did you know, when did you know it, and what was your protest? However, even if they remained silent, it does not indicate they approved of the antics of their fellow priests or bishops.

Are you holding Catholic priests to a lower standard than homosexuals? The homosexuals would accept that challenge.**

Ironically, one could easily argue that the priest sex abuse scandel happened in a climate in which some of the seminaries and diocese included *active * homosexuals and other dissenters who supported the sexual revolution and were very much a part of the power structure both in the seminaries and as directors at diocesan vocation offices…sorto of makes you go hmmm.

So, no many of the priests involved in the scandel, even if not actually active homosexuals were part of an entire generation of priests who in many cases had to show agreement with the liberal sexual agenda at seminaries and later at the more liberal parisheses where they were placed or risk being ostracized or even dismissed from being ordained.

Again, I highly recommend reading “Goodbye Good Men.”

Evidently, according to the author Michael Rose, many many potential orthodox men seeking ordination, regardless of their orientation, with a clear calling to the priesthood were thwarted in their efforts to become a priest by the homosexual subculture that had developed in some of the seminaries. If a man did not show approval of the open homosexuality going on at the seminary he did not last there long especially if he protested or complained.

Do you still think there’s no connection between homosxuality and pedophilia (especially sexual relations between teen boys and men)?

And, yes, back in 1988 there was an attempt at reform, both of the seminaries and within the dioceses regarding sex abuse scandels at the parish level. Many more orthodox priests/bishops saw it coming and some diocese did in fact clean up their act. Fall River, MA was cited as a good example, but there were others.

So, it may be a hard pill to swallow, but a priestly/bishopric culture in which homosexuality was accepted is very much a part of the sex abuse scandel.
Click to expand...

When did the situation you describe prevail? Begin? Peak? End? Does it still exist?
 
Ptero, notice how he demands all kinds of details, but will not answer your questions or provide evidence? Then he changes the subject and does the same thing all over again. It is all one-sided. I have seen this tactic before.
 
40.png
cestusdei:
Ptero, notice how he demands all kinds of details, but will not answer your questions or provide evidence? Then he changes the subject and does the same thing all over again. It is all one-sided. I have seen this tactic before.
Click to expand...
You blinked first. I win.
 
When did the situation you describe prevail? Begin? Peak? End? Does it still exist?

According to the author:

Begin: 70’s

Peak: 80’s

End: Most of the seminaries have cleaned up their act, according to the author. He wrote his book before the scandel broke in 2002.

He also argues for a strong parallel to decrease in vocations as many bishops/priests in power would rather destroy the priesthood because they don’t agree with a lot of what the church teaches, so they thought they would force changes such as:

elimination of the discipline of celibacy

acceptance of the ordination of women

acceptance of homosexuality in the church

The parallel is pretty clear. In dioceses that teach and encourage orthodox catholic teachings vocations are up, in dioceses where dissent is taught, and accepted, vocations are clearly down.

Ptero, notice how he demands all kinds of details, but will not answer your questions or provide evidence? Then he changes the subject and does the same thing all over again. It is all one-sided. I have seen this tactic before.

Better known as “bait & switch.”
 
Ptero said:
When did the situation you describe prevail? Begin? Peak? End? Does it still exist?

According to the author:

Begin: 70’s

Peak: 80’s

End: Most of the seminaries have cleaned up their act, according to the author. He wrote his book before the scandel broke in 2002.

He also argues for a strong parallel to decrease in vocations as many bishops/priests in power would rather destroy the priesthood because they don’t agree with a lot of what the church teaches, so they thought they would force changes such as:

elimination of the discipline of celibacy

acceptance of the ordination of women

acceptance of homosexuality in the church

The parallel is pretty clear. In dioceses that teach and encourage orthodox catholic teachings vocations are up, in dioceses where dissent is taught, and accepted, vocations are clearly down.

Ptero, notice how he demands all kinds of details, but will not answer your questions or provide evidence? Then he changes the subject and does the same thing all over again. It is all one-sided. I have seen this tactic before.

Better known as “bait & switch.”
Click to expand...

If the theory is that an influx of gays due to conditions in seminaries caused the abuse problem, there are two questions.
  1. What percentage of all priests are gay?
  2. What percentage of gay priests were abusers?
I don’t know the overall percentage of gay priests, but if a small percent of the gay priests were abusers, would we be able to blame the problem on homoseuxality? These would be interesting numbers.

My second observation is that the John Jay USCCB report says, “The majority of priests with allegations of abuse from 1950-2002 were ordained between the 1950s and 1970s.” It goes on to say that 20% of the abusers were ordained prior to 1950.

So, your hypothesis is interesting, and deserves examination, but I don;t think we have reason to come to a conclusion.
 
How did this go from being a thread about homosexuals in society to homosexuals in the priesthood to specifically the abuse scandal in the priesthood?

Can we get back to the original topic?
 
40.png
Maggie:
How did this go from being a thread about homosexuals in society to homosexuals in the priesthood to specifically the abuse scandal in the priesthood?

Can we get back to the original topic?
Click to expand...
I’m responsible for that. Another poster insists that if all gays do not protest the positions of some gays, then all gays share those positions.

This relies on a principle that says if some people with a given characteristic have a position, then anyone with that characteristic who does not protest the position shares that position.

Often its instructive to apply these principles beyond the particular case to see if they work. So I observed that this principle would mean that any Catholic priest who did not protest the action of the abusive priests over a forty year period must support their abuse.

Since it is illogical to hold that anyone who does not protest something must approve of it, neither the quiet homosexuals not the quiet priests can be held to approve of the actions of some of the people with whom they share a characteristic.
 
Maggie, read the posts preceding yours. Ptero notes correctly the bait and switch. Many homosexuals attempt to derail the discussion by shifting the focus onto the scandals. You will also note the continous demands for more information while never providing counter evidence. It doesn’t matter how much evidence you provide it is never enough and then he simply ignores it or switches the topic. I have demanded specific evidence and it has not been forthcoming. Why? Because I am right and he knows it. He can’t win the debate, such as it is, so he shifts the topic yet again. It is an old trick and a deceptive one at that.
 
40.png
Ken:
I’m sure we might be able to find socially redeeming reasons for the marriage of infertile couples other than the hope that God will intervene. Are there any reasons other than the hope that a miracle will produce kids? If we were to rely on miracles, I suppose God to also cause a lesbian couple to conveive. But I wouldn’t count on it or design social policy around it.
Click to expand...
CCC 1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitatlity, and of sacrifice.

Marriage is centered around procreation and upbringing of children, but infertility does not diminish marriage unless it is chosen infertility. Homosexuals may not be able to choose their sexual orientation, but they can choose whether or not to have sex. Homosexual sex is just as much a chosen infertility as is artificial birth control and sterilization.

There are modern day cases in which infertile heterosexual couples conceive. I have not once heard of homosexual couples conceiving through sexual acts.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7789569&dopt=Abstract

Because it is possible for infertile heterosexual couples to conceive, an ‘infertile’ couple wishing to marry can still have children, thus they are still open to life. Perhaps one exception to this would be if the couple would not want to get married if they were fertile and could produce children, in which case they would not be open to life.

Yes, God could cause lesbian couples to conceive, but there is no evidence of this ever happening. Until there is evidence to support this, I have to cause to believe he will ever do so.

Peace
 
40.png
chemcatholic:
CCC 1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitatlity, and of sacrifice.

Marriage is centered around procreation and upbringing of children, but infertility does not diminish marriage unless it is chosen infertility. Homosexuals may not be able to choose their sexual orientation, but they can choose whether or not to have sex. Homosexual sex is just as much a chosen infertility as is artificial birth control and sterilization.

There are modern day cases in which infertile heterosexual couples conceive. I have not once heard of homosexual couples conceiving through sexual acts.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7789569&dopt=Abstract

Because it is possible for infertile heterosexual couples to conceive, an ‘infertile’ couple wishing to marry can still have children, thus they are still open to life. Perhaps one exception to this would be if the couple would not want to get married if they were fertile and could produce children, in which case they would not be open to life.

Yes, God could cause lesbian couples to conceive, but there is no evidence of this ever happening. Until there is evidence to support this, I have to cause to believe he will ever do so.

Peace
Click to expand...
CCC1654 is very interesting, but it does not tell us what benefit society gets from the marriage of two sixty-year-olds. What are they? Is the benefit the idea that the woman may conceive? Have you any more evidence of this than the lesbians conceiving?
 
40.png
Ken:
CCC1654 is very interesting, but it does not tell us what benefit society gets from the marriage of two sixty-year-olds. What are they? Is the benefit the idea that the woman may conceive? Have you any more evidence of this than the lesbians conceiving?
Click to expand...
One of the most important benefits- and example to society and children of what marriage is- union between a man and a woman. Consider, for a moment, the implications of homosexuals “married” to the current school system. Janey has two mommies (or whatever that noxious book is really called) will become normal liturature. Basic school books, even possibly math books with word problems, with be updated for diversity to include gay couples. It will be useless for those of us who believe what the Catholic church teaches to be true to complain if our kids go to public schools (mine do, we don’t have a Catholic school in town). Teachers who are gay, and I know of some- and that’s fine…for now, will be able to talk about their “spouse” in the same way I talked about my husband when I used to teach. (and, for those so inclined to make this sexual, I just mean in everyday conversation- so please don’t go there…). This will, in turn, have innocent children believing that it’s perfectly normal to ask johnny or janey out on a date. I’m sorry, I don’t want my children (or my potential grandchildren) exposed to homosexual “marriage” as if it’s morally licit. It is not. On the other hand, 2 sixty year olds of the opposite sex- while they probably aren’t abram and sarai- still give an example morally licit example of marriage

BTW- if there are responses to this post (which may or may not happen :rolleyes: ) and I don’t respond right away, it’s not because I don’t have a response- it’s because I can only post from home, after I’ve shooed my husband and children away from the computer…which doesn’t happen frequently…

Mel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top