Guard Our Priesthood. Get better Priests

[Biedrik]

If your argument is in opposition to my argument, then this is insinuative, and borderline ad hominem.

Where exactly is there something ad hominem?

 

[Baelor]

Yes, I’ve heard his name dragged through the mud too.

If you think that merely have SSA means is equivalent to being dragged through the mud, then I will pray for you, that you fall in line with Christ’s teaching through the Church.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

The problem is the use of a broad definition of “Gay”.

If a person suffers some form of SSA but does not act on it then they are not a homosexual. I would not call them “Gay”.

There are some people out there that believe that everyone one whats to be a priest must be a homosexual.

There are some who have experienced some sort of SSA (though not acting on it) who are so repulsed and in denial that they attack anything that even hints at SSA being something that might be something that everyone experiences at one point in their life.

No man who is sexually active should be considered as a candidate for religious life/priesthood. No man who has recently been sexually active or in a relationship should be considered. No man who actively supports any sinful life style (homosexual lifestyle is one but not the only one) should not be considered.

A man who suffers from some sort of SSA which is determined not to be “deep seated” (which means he is not acting out on it or supporting the life style) should not automatically be removed from consideration just as a man who has had heterosexual sex outside of marriage (fornication) or had heterosexual sex with a married woman (adultery) should not be removed from consideration.

Someone who supports that no man suffering from SSA (in any degree) should not be considered for the priesthood/religious life should then also support that any man who has had sex outside of marriage (either fornication or adultery) should not be considered.

Thank you for explaining this better.

 

[DasErlibnis]

I would never say that Saint Francis was gay, nor David and Samuel. I’m simply saying that out of twenty thousand Saints, one of them had to have this. God calls all to the Priesthood and Religious life, regardless of attraction.

I implied that there was something gay about being a Priest? Have you even looked at my signature? I want to be a Priest. I’m not a homosexual, trust me. But I do believe that God calls all to the Priesthood and Religious life, and that their sexual orientation is irrelevant. Everyone that joins the Religious life and Priesthood must sacrifice their sexuality. A man that has a sexual orientation to a woman has as much lust as a man that has a sexual orientation to another man, and they can both fulfill the temptation just as easy.

The statement that since most of the canonized saints are priests and religious, so surely one must have had SSA is an implication. If you meant to give no inference, then I shall recant.

And further, that you said “sexual orientation is irrelevant” is not consistent with historic Church teaching dating all the way back to the bible. It is very relevant. But I would add that one having SSA does not necessarily have a wrong “orientation” of “preference” but that that person has a disordered condition which can be overcome and should be overcome before entering seminary. Ergo, no person with SSA should enter seminary. It is also my thought that some person who may have a random (and passing) desire is not a person having SSA. That SSA is persistent. And that persistence is the quantitative subject which is being put to the microscope.

Quote Saint Augustin (who overcame lust):

“The Truth is that disordered lust springs from a perverted will; when lust is pandered to ,a habit is formed; when habit is not checked; it hardens into compulsion” (8.5.10).

To both yours and Byzcaths statement that all are tempted and all must avoid temptation in any form is wholly agreed by us all.

To you and Byzcath that that there is nothing gay about entering priesthood is perfectly acceptable and right and just and I’ve never accused anyone of being gay for entering seminary. It is further agreed that there ARE this’d who think otherwise. I am not one of them.

To Byzcath that those who argue against deep-seated SSA must surely have their own SSA they struggle with, that is a typical fallacy and defense designed to shift burdens. Fail. But at least you qualified it with “some”. So its not a total fail, but it is also not worth saying. And it should be mentioned that except by yourself, no one else has accused any arguing person of having SSA.

To Baelor that having SSA is equal to being dragged through the mud, huh? That was not said. What was said is that I have heard St. Francis’ name dragged through the mud for allegedly having SSA. The comment was a reference to that is supposedly inevitable that some saint has had SSA and that St. Francis is an example, which I deny that he is.

Others in defense of gay-don have said also that David and Samuel were gay together, and that is also categorically rejected.

To Biedrik that an ad hominem attack was made was a comparison to the non-descript language used first by Byzcath and then forwarded by me to demonstrate that if he considered my comment as disrespectful, then because he first used the same “passive” language, his comment is equally, and more disrespectful, because it both came first and then that he attempted to play victim to it. When the case is not so, it is not the case that my language (and neither did I firstly presume his language) to be disrespectful. But since it was he who first categorized it as disrespectful, then he must be also guilty. Ergo, the pot calling the kettle black.

Lastly, the burden falls back to Teutonic. If it is your claim that some saint, who, by virtue of being a priest or religious, is necessarily SSA, then you must provide a cause more sufficient than that he was a priest if religious. If you leave it to category, then it is categorically rejected. That’s a very very large claim to be taken seriously or dismissed as just unintelligible. So, name names. Better not to speak than to make wild accusations.

So, since the erroneous claim have been accounted for, and those things which can be agreed upon are agreed upon, then I return to Teutonic, and for the benefit of clarity, I will repost his comment:

Last I heard, there are over twenty thousand Saints, most of them being Priests and Religious. Therefore [sic] Isn’t it a bit far-fetched to say that not one of them had same sex attraction? -Teutonic

 

[Baelor]

To Baelor that having SSA is equal to being dragged through the mud, huh? That was not said. What was said is that I have heard St. Francis’ name dragged through the mud for allegedly having SSA. The comment was a reference to that is supposedly inevitable that some saint has had SSA and that St. Francis is an example, which I deny that he is.

Actually, you just agreed with my claim of what you said.

If St. Francis’ name is being dragged through the mud because he is claimed to have SSA, then you have established a causal link between the two that is logically an equivalence. If you reject the idea that being considered to have SSA is being dragged through the mud, then claiming that St. Francis (or any other saint) had SSA cannot possible be dragging his name through the mud, since you have established that SSA is not capable of doing that.

St. Francis is an example, which I deny that he is

On what factual basis?

Lastly, the burden falls back to Teutonic. If it is your claim that some saint, who, by virtue of being a priest or religious, is necessarily SSA, then you must provide a cause more sufficient than that he was a priest if religious.

I will provide an outline of a statistical method. Find the probability that a given person has SSA. In fact, let us say that there is a binary: straight or not straight. Let us say that the probability of a given person being straight is 99%, which is an overestimate according to most psychologists/sociologists/etc. Let us bump it up to 99.9% for the religious, especially given societal and historical norms of the time (assuming you reject natural homosexuality).

The probability that none of 20,000 are non-straight is (.999)^20000, or 2.04063119*(10^-9), which is very small. Alternatively, the probability that at least one of them is non-straight is 1 - 2.04063119*(10^-9), or 0.999999998.

 

[DasErlibnis]

Dude! You’re not reading, your injecting. Re-read it. I’m saying IT’S NOT FACTUAL!

“Same team, Farva.”

 

[DasErlibnis]

Being dragged through the mud is another expression for slander. The point is not that having SSA is dragging through the mud, it is clearly written, twice now, that being falsely accused is being dragged through the mud.

I can’t explain it to you again. If you repeat exactly what you just said, then i can only presume that you will not understand it at all.

 

[Baelor]

Dude! You’re not reading, your injecting. Re-read it. I’m saying IT’S NOT FACTUAL!

“Same team, Farva.”

I am asking whether you have a factual basis for claiming that St. Francis is straight. Do you?

Being dragged through the mud is another expression for slander. The point is not that having SSA is dragging through the mud, it is clearly written, twice now, that being falsely accused is being dragged through the mud.

But false accusations are not equivalent to dragging someone through the mud. If I claimed that St. Francis was from Norway when he was not, no one in their right mind would claim that I am dragging him through the mud. I would be wrong, but I would not be slandering him, because slander is “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” If you believe that SSA is damaging to a person’s reputation, then I hope we can pray together for a day that that is not the case.

I can’t explain it to you again. If you repeat exactly what you just said, then i can only presume that you will not understand it at all.

You are completely missing the point. See above.

 

[DasErlibnis]

You can’t process a theory regarding history using statistics. Statistics do not prove a causality. But It’s just not intelligible to assume a statistic in the first place.

Besides, the whole point of being a Saint is not that you lived, but that you overcame. And the model for that is Saint Augustin. He didn’t say “I’ll get over it later…” (Even if he did say “make me chaste, just not yet.” He wasn’t yet ordained. )Ergo, no Saint did not overcome SSA. The probability just fell to Zero.

 

[DasErlibnis]

I am asking whether you have a factual basis for claiming that St. Francis is straight. Do you?

Yes. He is a Saint.

But false accusations are not equivalent to dragging someone through the mud. If I claimed that St. Francis was from Norway when he was not, no one in their right mind would claim that I am dragging him through the mud. I would be wrong, but I would not be slandering him, because slander is “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” If you believe that SSA is damaging to a person’s reputation, then I hope we can pray together for a day that that is not the case.

And yes, false accusations are PRECISELY what dragging someone’s name through the mud is. Those, AND ALSO, the repeated exercise of recalling some bad deed which is historical.

You are completely missing the point. See above.

We’re done. There is an obvious impasse. I say cat, and you say I said dog. This doesn’t work.

 

[Baelor]

You can’t process a theory regarding history using statistics. Statistics do not prove a causality. But It’s just not intelligible to assume a statistic in the first place.

Uh…yes, you can. It’s called social science. Statistics do not prove causality. But I can certainly make reasonable assumptions and pump out numbers that are meaningful. If you deny this, you are in general denial.

Let us review this case. Note that my basis is my very simplistic statistical model:

1. Can I claim definitively that any given saint had SSA? No.
2. Can I claim definitively that at least one saint had SSA? No.
3. Can I claim definitively that it is more likely that at least one saint had SSA than the alternative? Yes.
4. Can I assign a probability to my answer for 3)? Yes.

This is the basis for statistics. There is nothing wrong with using statistics. People use them all the time, with great success. It is perfectly intelligible. Furthermore, it is helpful because one thinks about what factors must go into creating the statistic in the first place, perhaps prompting thought about things that we would otherwise simply disregard or not consider. Expanding thought is a good thing, in general.

Ergo, no Saint did not overcome SSA. The probability just fell to Zero.

No, it did not, because we have not established that SSA can be eliminated. The Church certainly does not claim this.

We’re done. There is an obvious impasse. I say cat, and you say I said dog. This doesn’t work.

Incorrect. The impasse comes with you not admitting the fact that you are wrong. I will even distil the conversation to factoids, for your benefit and for all those here:

• Claiming St. Francis had SSA is dragging his name through the mud
• Dragging one’s name through the mud has a negative connotation and is in the same class as slander

These were your claims. The following are the consequences.

• Definition: Slander is “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation”
• Therefore, claiming someone has SSA (when not true) is “damaging to a person’s reputation”

There are two possible conclusions:

• Most people have a problem with SSA, which they should not have because the Church does not teach this, in which case we should work toward a world in which this is not the case
• Or, you personally have a problem with SSA, which explains your initial statement about St. Francis, SSA, and the mud

Because slander was only brought up later, my guess is that the second one is correct, but I cannot prove your intentions definitively.

This is, of course ignoring the obvious problem of how you know that St. Francis did not have SSA.

 

[DasErlibnis]

I’m a sensible man. So I’m not going to entertain stupid theories about the statistical probability that some saint at some time in history had SSA. It’s just assinine.

Your conclusions are non-sequitor

“Most people have a problem with SSA” or “that I must have SSA because I know that st Francis did not”

Nice try boudreaux. In no world do either of those carry any validity.

Seriously. You’ve completely lost whatever foothold of logic you thought you were standing on.

And you’re not clever. Not even with your smily face. But thanks for the slander.

By the way, its not called a claim, its called a premise. And its not called a consequence, its called a conclusion. You’ll learn little grasshopper, maybe. Statistics and Logic are not the same. And “pumping out numbers” makes the numbers decidedly - not meaningful. Statistics have also been shown, with great effect, to be senseless. Logic does not recognize statistics.

“Bleibt ist bleibt, nein kumpf fur das.”

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

I’m a sensible man. So I’m not going to entertain stupid theories about the statistical probability that some saint at some time in history had SSA. It’s just assinine.

Your conclusions are non-sequitor

“Most people have a problem with SSA” or “that I must have SSA because I know that st Francis did not”

Nice try boudreaux. In no world do either of those carry any validity.

Seriously. You’ve completely lost whatever foothold of logic you thought you were standing on.

And you’re not clever. Not even with your smily face. But thanks for the slander.

By the way, its not called a claim, its called a premise. And its not called a consequence, its called a conclusion. You’ll learn little grasshopper, maybe. Statistics and Logic are not the same. And “pumping out numbers” makes the numbers decidedly - not meaningful. Statistics have also been shown, with great effect, to be senseless. Logic does not recognize statistics.

“Bleibt ist bleibt, nein kumpf fur das.”

So, let’s get this straight: You believe that there’s no possible way that any Saint could’ve had SSA? That is not an intelligent nor logical belief. God calls all to become Saints, regardless of what sexual orientation they have. To quote Brother Jay from this site: “You do not become a Religious because you’re worthy. You become a Religious because you hear him say ‘Come, follow me.’”

 

[DasErlibnis]

Have had? Or have overcome?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Suffering from SSA is not a sin.

It seems that there is an issue with differentiating SSA from homosexual acts.

Homosexual acts are sinful.

It seems that some here believe that just suffering from SSA is sinful or that those who suffer from SSA are automatically engaging in homosexual acts. Both of which are false.

Which we all know is not so.

SSA is disordered but is no way a sin.

As for sexuality being binary, the prevalent thought on that today is that it is not.

I am so grateful that other even minded individuals have started to reply to this issue.

 

[Baelor]

I’m a sensible man. So I’m not going to entertain stupid theories about the statistical probability that some saint at some time in history had SSA. It’s just assinine.

Perhaps the stupidity in this discussion does not lie with my very reasonable statistical argument, but rather with something that you must confront. Also, it is spelled asinine. The fact that you are unable to actually interact with my posts in any meaningful way just demonstrates that you cannot assault them on any substantial basis. That means that their content stands.

For the record, if you bump up the percentage to 99.99%, there is still only a 13.5% chance that no saint was non-straight.

Your conclusions are non-sequitor

“Most people have a problem with SSA” or “that I must have SSA because I know that st Francis did not”

Actually, they are not. They follow directly, which is why I summarized the argument.

The next comment on this from you should be an explanation of why they are non sequiturs (note that there is a ‘u,’ not an ‘o’), or what alternate solutions there are, so that my allegedly false dichotomy is unmasked for what it is.

Nice try boudreaux. In no world do either of those carry any validity.

They do in this one.

Seriously. You’ve completely lost whatever foothold of logic you thought you were standing on.

No.

By the way, its not called a claim, its called a premise.

You made a claim.

And its not called a consequence, its called a conclusion.

Consequence: “a result or effect of an action or condition”

Hmmm…I am right again! Imagine that. It seems there is a correlation between thought and quality of post.

Anyway, call them what you like. At no point am I trying to use a particular terminology, and note that I never claimed to. So, whatever. Call it a conclusion if that makes you feel better. That does not change the fact that the content, interestingly, has not be treated in any manner by you. I wonder why that is.

Statistics and Logic are not the same.

Quote me where I equate them.

And “pumping out numbers” makes the numbers decidedly - not meaningful. Statistics have also been shown, with great effect, to be senseless.

Source?

Logic does not recognize statistics.

Nothing in my post requires them to. You presented neither statistics nor logic, so there is no conflict.

“Bleibt ist bleibt, nein kumpf fur das.”

Was bedeutet “kumpf?” Mein Deutsch is nicht so gut. Je crois plutot qu’on devrait parler en francais, ou, encore mieux, en anglais – que les autres puissent comprendre.

You are way out of your league here. It comes down to a very simple choice on your part – point out the flaw in my statistical model very clearly and concisely, or point out which part of my argument regarding St. Francis is flawed. You have, for the record, done neither, which means your rantings are completely vacuous, and my original posts are still in play because they have not been disproved or discredited.

ByzCath:

As for sexuality being binary, the prevalent thought on that today is that it is not.

You are correct. If it is a reference to my post, it was just to make the application of the binomial distribution possible.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You are correct. If it is a reference to my post, it was just to make the application of the binomial distribution possible.

Yes I am fully aware of that. I just thought that the point needed to be expressly stated as some posters here might have either missed it or they might actually think that sexuality is binary.

I like your posts very much and would not attempt to correct you in any way as you are making perfect sense.

 

[Baelor]

Thanks for the clarification! Your caution is (clearly, from this thread) justified and appropriate.

 

[DasErlibnis]

Lol. Keep trying…

Imaginary statistics are not reasonable.

 

[Baelor]

Okay. I accept your concession that you cannot on a rational and valid basis disagree with anything in particular in my post.