Help with Homosexualism and the Catholic Church

[djeter]

dj808: There is no “precise view of sex” in the article. Nowhere does Dr. Schindler discuss anything related to sexual orientation or gender

Having falsely accused me of using the word “sexuality” to mean “sexual orientation”, now you are accusing me of using “sex” to mean “sexual orientation”. By “precise view of sex” I mean “particular detailed interpretation of sexual nature (and its privileged expression in male-female spousal relationship)”.

Schindler’s Third Principle does not address sexuality, except as leading to the Fourth Principle. This expands on the significance of the “spousal” relationship, and the concomitant potential for parenthood. It effectively has nothing to say either to the homosexual or to the celibate. The Fifth Principle elaborates a theory of the ontological-spiritual significance of sexual difference. The Sixth Principle discusses love and the role of the human as creature, and though it gives pre-eminence to filial and spousal relations, it regards them as “uniquely privileged”, not as the sole expression of the giftedness of creation.

Following John Paul II, I have proposed that the physical-sexual difference, precisely in and as physical-sexual, symbolizes an ontological-spiritual and also psychological difference. (Schindler)

It is this proposal that is compromised by the mere existence of human persons who do not fall into the unambiguous categories of male and female. Rare though they may be, they challenge the notion that maleness/femaleness must have a parallel “ontological-spiritual” dimension with regard to the indiviual human person, whatever spiritual aspect they may have in the field of generalized spiritual anthropology. If, it appears, Schindler’s theory requires that physically male/female persons must be psychologically and spiritually male/female, he denies them the “complex or differentiated unity” which he himself invokes against nominalists.

***The posting by fermat adds nothing but a lengthy restatement of the observation that the Roman Catholic Church regards homosexual acts as sinful.***You do not address at all my suggestion that homosexuals, as embodied souls whose bodies are “good qua ens”, must partake in this bodily expression of divine generosity through love of another person, presumably because it is inconsistent with the doctrine of the sinfulness homosexual acts, and so morally or juridically unthinkable, even if the theology of man as embodied soul and corporeal imago Dei were to offer an opening in that direction.

You keep saying that the embodied soul is the basis of “the resurrection of the dead" but you have nowhere demonstrated this. Schindler’s presentation does not entail that male-female duality or “spousal” relations are fundamental to the Catholic concept of the embodied soul; in fact (in the passages I have emboldened above) he specifically states that sexual nature is secondary to human nature.

“Catholic homosexualists” would obviously have to reject specific Biblically-grounded moral teachings of the Church; but to say that they would have to reject the credal belief in the resurrection is nonsensical, and Schindler’s article does not support it.

***I doubt the Catholic Homosexual would find any solace in an answer that essentially rejects the teachings. ***

I have no words of solace for Roman Catholic homosexuals in the current circumstances. They must either suppress their sexual nature and accept compulsory celibacy, which for heterosexuals is either a free choice or a special vocation; or they must appeal to conscience against the teachings of the Church concerning the physical expression of homosexuality; or they must live out their Catholic faith outside the Roman Church (perhaps becoming Affirming Catholic Episcopalians). But this arises from the moral teaching of the church as quoted from the Catechism, not from any supposed credal implications of John Paul II’s theology of the embodied soul and its exaltation of the male-female relationship. With respect to this, the homosexual is in the same position as the celibate: outside the loop.

Only an atheist could contest any of it.

I think that’s a silly statement. I am sure there are serioous theologians in the Anglican, Protestant, and even Orthodox Churches who would be more able than I to contest it from a theistic position.

Message edited by its author, Today, 11:07pm.

For those who are helping me deal with my problem here I hope you can find this stuff. Somewhere along the line we have been joined with a group who want to litigate the John Jay Report again. I really only asked that the subject of the thread deal with the Homosexualist’s response from Library Thing. So if you could devote your posts to the exchanges between myself and MyopicBookworm that would be greatly appreciated.

 

[inocente]

I was recently on a forum that pitted myself (the lone Catholic AKA Homophobe, if you know what I mean) and while I was presenting a Church related argument (George Weigel’s point that the priest abuse crisis was not pedophilia (which is a media code word) but homosexual assault (ouch must not say, no matter what the John Jay Report figures say).

Hang on, I’m confused. Maybe it’s just your wording, can you clear it up?

I had a quick look around at George Weigel’s comments but all he seemed to say was that he thought the most prevalent form of reported sexual abuse was man on boy/youth, not that it was exclusively that. I can’t even find an online dictionary definition of “homosexual assault”. Any journalist who used what phrase would either be incompetent or be deliberately obfuscating.

You said “pedophilia” is a media code word, yet it’s in all dictionaries and clearly means a sexual interest in children. The little known words hebephilia or ephebophilia may be technically more correct in some cases, but pedophilia conveys the meaning – this is about a recognized psychiatric disorder and the criminal act of an adult preying on a minor who cannot legally consent.

Surely wherever this happens our focus should be on the victims and stopping it ever happening again. I’m convinced you would do far better to openly admit what happened, that you are hurt and confused that it could ever have happened, and report on what the Church is doing to help the victims and prevent any reoccurrence rather than on what to others might look like word-smithing.

See my point?

I pointed them to an essay about the embodied person by David L Schindler and spoke to them about how Homosexualism (a word I like that refers to those who promote the normalcy and goodness of homosexuality) contradicts Catholic values.

Now there’s another word “homosexualism”. I only found definitions of the word in the Urban Dictionary, and only one loosely supports your intended meaning (you could always log on there and add your own definition ).

I take you to mean someone who doesn’t think they have a disorder while by “homosexual” you mean someone who thinks they do, but to many that attempt to change the language might be a red rag to a bull. Again, see my point?

 

[djeter]

And some sadder news to report Myopic Bookworm has attracted the support of a warm and fuzzy Catholic, johnthefireman. His contribution here:

9 Thanks, MyopicBookworm.

You keep saying that the embodied soul is the basis of “the resurrection of the dead" but you have nowhere demonstrated this

I think this is what was niggling at me most as I read and reread dj’s posts. Whatever arguments could be made against homosexual acts, I don’t think it has anything to do with the resurrection.

dj, you have quoted extensively from a single theologian, and contended that only an atheist could contest it. I agree with MyopicBookworm that there are many serious theologians who could contest it, probably including Catholics. The fact that the Church has a teaching on something doesn’t prevent theologians from examining it and contesting it, based on their hermeneutical exploration of scripture, tradition and magisterium, which can lead to development in Church doctrine.

I will not enter into a detailed response, as I haven’t read any of those other theologians, and I doubt if I could do it as thoroughly as MyopicBookworm.

---

My reply here:

DJ: There is a step in between going from homosexual acts to resurrection and that involves sin and its influence on the body/soul and spirit.

The relationship of the three was shown by Dr. Kreeft earlier here:
"The soul as it were lends its spiritual meaning to the body as body, even as the body simultaneously contributes to what now becomes, in man, a distinct kind of spirit: a spirit whose nature it is to be embodied.

And he continues: Thus Catholics believe that a human spirit exists for a body; it was made to exist in matter as its life-giving principle. This means that all those parts of human life that seem most essentially spiritual, like knowing and choosing also involve the body; the spirit experiences through the body. And so human life involves a most intimate relation between these two sides of our being: matter needs spirit to bind it into a functioning unity; spirit needs matter to release its potential for pursuing and enjoying all the goods, moral and intellectual, proper to human life.

That is why Catholics look forward to the resurrection of the body. It is part of their belief that the soul without the body is incomplete; that the full and complete person is present on the last day when matter and spirit, transformed and redeemed, are joined together in the resurrection of the just."

If this “niggles” at you, I’m afraid I can’t help you. I could have chosen the more involved language of the Catechism but I liked Dr. Kreeft’s explanation for its brevity and conciseness.

So the niggle either arises from your understanding of bodily resurrection or from your understanding of sin and its effects on the body. I assume you get that. Whether it be porn stimulated masturbation or homosexual acts the Church has always condemned these acts as promoting “disorder.” Does that narrow things down at all or clear things up?

dj​

If you have anything to add to my comments, I will pass it along. Thanks

dj

And NO if you think I’m going to pass along any arguments here that do not agree with what I am saying. I came to the Caholic Answers Forum for help to defend the faith. Proving the faith is wrong in condemning homosexual acts was not the point of my request for help. If you want to join the Hmosexualists on Libary Thing and attack me, be my guest (the links are above), but I will not carry your water.

 

[djeter]

This is my reply to MyopicBookworm’s 2nd posting:

MyopicBookworm: I used the word “gender” only incidentally in connection with the name of a psychological condition (gender dysphoria) which might just as well be called something like “sexual misassignment”. I speak of biological sexuality, and of whatever psychological characteristic is taken (by Schindler and the authorities he cites) to correspond to it; I do not speak of gender, which is (as you seem to be saying) largely a social construct. And when I refer to “sexuality”, just as in your text, I mean sexual nature, not sexual orientation.​

DJ: I hope this doesn’t degenerate into a He-Said-She-Said thing where you say something then disagree with my reading of it. That will get us nowhere. But here goes:

“I used the word “gender” only incidentally in connection with the name of a psychological condition (gender dysphoria) which might just as well be called something like “sexual misassignment”. I speak of biological sexuality, and of whatever psychological characteristic is taken (by Schindler and the authorities he cites) to correspond to it; I do not speak of gender, which is (as you seem to be saying) largely a social construct. And when I refer to “sexuality”, just as in your text, I mean sexual nature, not sexual orientation.”

This is not over your using the word “gender” but your constant reference to gender related terms that Schindler’s summary of John Paul II’s TOB does not refer to. To whit:

MyopicBookworm: “(2) On being created homosexual.

What I am in my original constitution as a person has always-already been given to me by God (Schindler).

If you believe that the created order reflects in any sense the will of a Creator, then homosexuals are created as such. How should such a person go about being human?”

1. No where will you find, either in scripture or in John Paul II’s writings, a reference to “God creating homosexuals.” Dr. Schindler and John Paul II speak of “The Yahwist text of Genesis 2.” If you could show the truth of that assertion the whole Church edifice would come tumbling down and this year’s gay pride parades would all have you as honorary gala chair. Are you really that delusionary? Granted in your heart of hearts as a Homosexualist you may believe that but the point of this exchange involves Catholic Teachings and you should know THERE AIN’T NONE. Don’t go south on me here.
2. Now in the above you did not use the term “gender” but “homosexual” is clearly a gender derived term. “I do not speak of gender, which is (as you seem to be saying) largely a social construct. And when I refer to “sexuality”, just as in your text, I mean sexual nature, not sexual orientation.” You can speak of the sexual nature of a homosexual but the term is in reference to a gender-based distinction NOT to a biological one. The biological “homosexual” is a figment of Homosexualist imagination and certainly does not exist in any Catholic theological writings

MyopicBookworm: {I}t is the fact that the human person is not “self-designing” that requires us to take serious account of the fact that homosexual orientation is not a free choice.

The point Schindler and John Paul II were making about self-designing freedom” is here: “The soul is “the principle of unity of the human being, whereby it exists as a whole — corpore et anima minus — as a person” ( Veritatis splendor, 48). “It is in the unity of body and soul that the person is the subject of his…acts” (VS, 48). “The human person cannot be reduced to a freedom which is self-designing, but entails a particular spiritual and bodily structure” (VS. 48).

These statements, first of all, affirm the unity of the human being as a dual, or differentiated, unity of body and soul. The soul as it were lends its spiritual meaning to the body as body, even as the body simultaneously contributes to what now becomes, in man, a distinct kind of spirit: a spirit whose nature it is to be embodied.”

The quotes from Veritatis splendor are being critical of human anthropologies and and “the errors carried in “Enlightened”-liberal assumptions” (read your homosexualism)that specifically deny this “dual, or differentiated, unity of body and soul.”

Fr. Noriega restates this point here: “The problem is properly located in the relationship between corporal-anatomical identity and personal-relational identity, or, in other words, it is the question of the foundation of personal-relational identity, and what role the body plays in that identity (the body and the unity of the body and soul, once again). This is where we see the greatest weakness of this (homosexualist) approach: it reflects a dualistic anthropological understanding that is incapable of taking up the subjectivity of one’s “own body” as an expression of the person.

This fragmentation between the I and the body makes it radically difficult for the experience of the body to be significant at a psychological level. The original passivity inscribed in one’s own body, inasmuch as the body is both a web of functions and a tissue of reactions to the environment, is disjoined from any personal value that this passivity might have for one’s freedom. By the same token, freedom’s entrance into the world of relations is no longer based on any meaning discovered in reality, but on some partial experience that the subject projects onto reality.”

 

[djeter]

Here is another example of relationality impacting the psychological reality of our lives:

"There are advantages to locating the issue of identity in the area of relationality. But this cannot be done at the cost of expunging the role of corporeity in structuring the person’s subjectivity. If the I cannot understand itself without the you, it is necessary to see what this relationship is founded on. In this way, for example, for a person to recognize himself as a son and to place himself in a father-son relationship, it is necessary that this relationship be built on the fact of having been generated, or as the case may be, adopted, by another. The way a person assumes this foundation and builds a relationship constitutes the relational identity. The child can thus recognize himself in the unconditional love of his parents. If another child, say a close friend from school were to attempt to have the same relationship with this father as the son had, this relationship would lack a basic foundation: it would be a fiction.

However sympathetic this adult might be, he would not be the child’s father. Even if the child behaved as though he were the son, he would not be such: the foundation is lacking. To feel like someone’s son does not suffice to be his son."

So once again we are back to “the self-designing freedom” of your homosexualism where one guy is the wife and the other guy is the husband – a fiction as great as your close friend claiming your father as his own.

To repeat: your assertion that the person is not “self designing” is not the point. Of course attempts are made to “self-design”. The reason they fail is because of the conception of the human being, a reality (Truth) that the Church recognizes (defends). It in no way contributes to our having to regard homosexual orientation as not being a free choice. It has nothing to do with such a conclusion: sheer delusion on your part. “Homosexual orientation is not a free choice” is more of the “God created homosexuals” nonsense. Which is not to say it isn’t difficult or even impossible. Jesus gives us more than enough examples of dealing with the impossibility of overcoming sin in this world. I showed one in Read the the Parable of the Rich Young Man in a previous post on the other thread yesterday.

“Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, “Then who can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”
Verses 24-26.

From gluttonous behemoth to raving gay sex addict, Jesus loves you and his Church waits to help you realize that imago dei within you. You probably can’t overcome your sin without his help. But the Church and the Living Christ are there to help you. The love of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Answer. The Homosexualist wouldn’t give this as an answer.

The Homosexualist answer is this: “They must either suppress their sexual nature and accept compulsory celibacy, which for heterosexuals is either a free choice or a special vocation; or they must appeal to conscience against the teachings of the Church concerning the physical expression of homosexuality; or they must live out their Catholic faith outside the Roman Church (perhaps becoming Affirming Catholic Episcopalians). But this arises from the moral teaching of the church as quoted from the Catechism, not from any supposed credal {sic} implications of John Paul II’s theology of the embodied soul {sic Theology of the Body} and its exaltation of the male-female relationship. With respect to this, the homosexual is in the same position as the celibate: outside the loop.” Of course I disagree with you on much of what you write there, but your answer is unmistakable: you have come to condemn the Church rather than seek understanding." Join us in denying the sin, it says. Unite with us in our miserable idea of who you are.

dj

 

[djeter]

Hang on, I’m confused. Maybe it’s just your wording, can you clear it up?

I had a quick look around at George Weigel’s comments but all he seemed to say was that he thought the most prevalent form of reported sexual abuse was man on boy/youth, not that it was exclusively that. I can’t even find an online dictionary definition of “homosexual assault”. Any journalist who used what phrase would either be incompetent or be deliberately obfuscating.

You said “pedophilia” is a media code word, yet it’s in all dictionaries and clearly means a sexual interest in children. The little known words hebephilia or ephebophilia may be technically more correct in some cases, but pedophilia conveys the meaning – this is about a recognized psychiatric disorder and the criminal act of an adult preying on a minor who cannot legally consent.

Surely wherever this happens our focus should be on the victims and stopping it ever happening again. I’m convinced you would do far better to openly admit what happened, that you are hurt and confused that it could ever have happened, and report on what the Church is doing to help the victims and prevent any reoccurrence rather than on what to others might look like word-smithing.

See my point?

Now there’s another word “homosexualism”. I only found definitions of the word in the Urban Dictionary, and only one loosely supports your intended meaning (you could always log on there and add your own definition ).

I take you to mean someone who doesn’t think they have a disorder while by “homosexual” you mean someone who thinks they do, but to many that attempt to change the language might be a red rag to a bull. Again, see my point?

Please, inocente, you have seized upon ancillary issues, nothing about what I am asking help for. If you want to read the whole thing go to Library Thing. Homosexualism is a legitimate term and if you understand the meaning (which you appear not to) is more than convenient for Catholics to use. We oppose Homosexualist who attempt to legitimize the homosexual agenda and lifestyle while holding homosexuals (who may or may not be Homosexualists) as blameless. The Church condemns the sin (acts) not the sinner. Encouraging others to commit those acts (Homosexualism) would also be a sin. George Weigel’s comments and visual images of the John Jay Report which show the overwhelming nature of the homosexual (no not pedophilia) assaults are here and here.

I have made it absolutely clear that I am not discussing this issue so this is my final word. Please lay off. Thanks. If you can help me with my debate problem, I would be much appreciated.

---

I’m convinced you would do far better to openly admit what happened, that you are hurt and confused that it could ever have happened, and report on what the Church is doing to help the victims and prevent any reoccurrence rather than on what to others might look like word-smithing.

You have totally misread the posts and your condescension here is resented and hurtful. Do NOT continue this line of advice. I think you owe me an apology.

dj

 

[LemonAndLime]

Hang on, I’m confused. Maybe it’s just your wording, can you clear it up?

I had a quick look around at George Weigel’s comments but all he seemed to say was that he thought the most prevalent form of reported sexual abuse was man on boy/youth, not that it was exclusively that. I can’t even find an online dictionary definition of “homosexual assault”. Any journalist who used what phrase would either be incompetent or be deliberately obfuscating.

You said “pedophilia” is a media code word, yet it’s in all dictionaries and clearly means a sexual interest in children. The little known words hebephilia or ephebophilia may be technically more correct in some cases, but pedophilia conveys the meaning – this is about a recognized psychiatric disorder and the criminal act of an adult preying on a minor who cannot legally consent.

Surely wherever this happens our focus should be on the victims and stopping it ever happening again. I’m convinced you would do far better to openly admit what happened, that you are hurt and confused that it could ever have happened, and report on what the Church is doing to help the victims and prevent any reoccurrence rather than on what to others might look like word-smithing.

See my point?

Now there’s another word “homosexualism”. I only found definitions of the word in the Urban Dictionary, and only one loosely supports your intended meaning (you could always log on there and add your own definition ).

I take you to mean someone who doesn’t think they have a disorder while by “homosexual” you mean someone who thinks they do, but to many that attempt to change the language might be a red rag to a bull. Again, see my point?

I completely agree with you, but I think the purpose of this thread was a very shakey-set up so that the OP can essentially have a rant after they were frustrated by the responses they got on a different thread/forum.

He has ignored my posts because they’re not what he wants to talk about, suggesting that I am unintelligent and need to be shorted out. That in itself suggests he wants to have a rant, so I am going to leave this thread and let him do it.

 

[Hadrianus]

If people find the philosophy of personalism helpful for them, then by all means use it. But I have yet to meet anyone who did not already accept Catholic teaching who was persuaded by it.

In debating with homosexual activists, the brighter ones anyway, the classic Catholic understanding of nature and grace as presented by St Thomas and others will make more sense to them. A person is such by virtue of possessing a rational nature. Human persons, unlike pure spirits, are composed of both spirit and matter. Human nature being subject to sin, however, suffers from a weakening of the intellect and a corruption of the will as well as a disordering of the passions.

It is Catholic doctrine that all human beings are subject to this, but the effects are different both in kind and degree in different individuals. Human sexuality is particularly disorded in the sense of the concupiscence of the flesh which turns the individual from the spiritual to the material and away from the rational to the irrational. Hence all people are called to chastity in various ways, and as St Paul teaches perpetual continence is the highest state.

The Church blesses marriage because it is ordered towards life and the family and confers sacramental grace towards this end.

This is very simply expressed and one could elaborate and refine the arguments, but this is a sold basis to begin with and avoids the theology of the body discourse which is not only a very recent development, but also one which doesn’t appeal all that much to single people.

In any debate on the Catholic understanding of sex it is also necessary to make clear that it must be seen in the totality of the Catholic Faith. Otherwise the best one can do is demonstrate that the Catholic understanding is reasonable, but it will not in itself be persuasive.

 

[inocente]

Please, inocente, you have seized upon ancillary issues, nothing about what I am asking help for. If you want to read the whole thing go to Library Thing. Homosexualism is a legitimate term and if you understand the meaning (which you appear not to) is more than convenient for Catholics to use. We oppose Homosexualist who attempt to legitimize the homosexual agenda and lifestyle while holding homosexuals (who may or may not be Homosexualists) as blameless. The Church condemns the sin (acts) not the sinner. Encouraging others to commit those acts (Homosexualism) would also be a sin. George Weigel’s comments and visual images of the John Jay Report which show the overwhelming nature of the homosexual (no not pedophilia) assaults are here and here.

That was unexpected!

I was commenting on your OP, on a matter being discussed on this thread and in the thread title.

I had no more luck finding “homosexualism” in the CCC, vatican.va, or in Catholic commentaries than in online dictionaries. Why not use “homosexual activist” instead, as CAF does? - catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

This isn’t just being pedantic. In the case of the scandal, using the term “homosexual assault” could be taken to deny that some assaults were men on girls, as if those victims no longer matter statistically, and doesn’t convey the essential, prime fact that this is about assaults by adults on minors who could not give their consent. If that hurts you, it was far more hurtful to the victims and their families. These are not statistics, they are real people, real brothers and sisters in Christ.

I can see from your writing that you’re intelligent and your heart is in the right place but if anything I’ve said is condescending then it still needed to be said. This isn’t a private forum, others are looking in.

 

[LemonAndLime]

That was unexpected!

I was commenting on your OP, on a matter being discussed on this thread and in the thread title.

I had no more luck finding “homosexualism” in the CCC, vatican.va, or in Catholic commentaries than in online dictionaries. Why not use “homosexual activist” instead, as CAF does? - catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

This isn’t just being pedantic. In the case of the scandal, using the term “homosexual assault” could be taken to deny that some assaults were men on girls, as if those victims no longer matter statistically, and doesn’t convey the essential, prime fact that this is about assaults by adults on minors who could not give their consent. If that hurts you, it was far more hurtful to the victims and their families. These are not statistics, they are real people, real brothers and sisters in Christ.

I can see from your writing that you’re intelligent and your heart is in the right place but if anything I’ve said is condescending then it still needed to be said. This isn’t a private forum, others are looking in.

I think it is very telling that people are loathe to accuse their Priests of being paedophiles, but are much more willing to describe them as homosexuals who raped. They talk about a “homosexualist agenda” - what I see here is an anti-homosexualist agenda, which has even gone as far as to try to use the sex abuse scandal as a platform for further a political objective - to make homosexuals seem more evil.

Raping a CHILD aged between 12-14 is still raping a CHILD. Not a “post-puberesent”. Wordplay in an effort to make the crimes seem worse is an insult. As the above poster has maintained - saying it is a homosexual problem does make the female victims seem non-existant.

 

[chrysostim83]

“Catholic homosexualists” would obviously have to reject specific Biblically-grounded moral teachings of the Church; but to say that they would have to reject the credal belief in the resurrection is nonsensical, and Schindler’s article does not support it.

Just wanted to remark that, as far as I can tell, your conversation with BookWorm (or whatever) would have been more productive if you had explicitly deployed a careful argument showing that so-called homosexualism is logically inconsistent with the resurrection of the dead. I, for one, don’t see how you connect the dots there. Is it that, as you see it, treating biological sex as unimportant to the choice of one’s sexual partner somehow trivializes man’s nature as an embodied person? Well, trivialization isn’t the same as denial, and anyway, the argument makes it sound like so-called bisexualists would have trouble accepting the resurrection of the dead; homosexualists, on the contrary, would say that the sex of their partners is a very important consideration as a matter of fact if not of principle. So is the issue that homosexualists would deny that biological sex is important in principle? Well, so what if they do? As embodied persons, humans presumably have many other physical characteristics that are important in principle even to homosexualists, so even here there’s room to accept the resurrection of the dead.

But there’s one further problem which it might pay to consider. The resurrection of the dead is revealed and it’s not really the kind of teaching that has a rational basis. The fact that man is an embodied person goes together very, very nicely with the teaching, sure, but it’s not as if the teaching could be deduced from Aristotle’s or Thomas’s metaphysics or even the revealed doctrine that man’s spirit and body are so closely joined that they must be considered a unity. So in this case, it would not be irrational in the least to deny this “basis” for the resurrection while still affirming the resurrection itself.

So, unless you have a pretty powerful argument for the position you’ve taken, I think it might be reasonable to back out of the conversation with BookWorm, and start investigating other ways it would be difficult to be a Catholic so-called homosexualist.

 

[JHow]

I think it is very telling that people are loathe to accuse their Priests of being paedophiles, but are much more willing to describe them as homosexuals who raped.

It is you who are refusing to acknowledge the homosexual nature of the offenses - that is what the argument is about. “Pedophilia” tells us about the age differences, “homosexual” tells us about the sexes of those involed. The vast majority of the offenses were male-male, or man-boy, if you prefer. I am happy to use the term “pedophila”, if you will admit that incidence of man-boy events was greater than in the general population (per the report, which you should read). How is use of the term “homosexual” incorrect? It simply is not - and it is not evidence of an “agenda” on my part, regardless.

They talk about a “homosexualist agenda” - what I see here is an anti-homosexualist agenda, which has even gone as far as to try to use the sex abuse scandal as a platform for further a political objective - to make homosexuals seem more evil.

I have suggested no policy or political action based on the facts represented in the John Jay study. It is beside the point to talk of an agenda. An agenda is a list of policy items that one would like to see carried out. This debate has been free of such a list to this point.

Raping a CHILD aged between 12-14 is still raping a CHILD. Not a “post-puberesent”. Wordplay in an effort to make the crimes seem worse is an insult.

I am glad to see you are finally using the term “POST-pubescent”, since in earlier posts you had this reversed. If this is “wordplay”, it is only so by virture of quoting the John Jay report, which summarized the chapter on victim characteristics as follows:

The study produced some important findings about the nature of child sexual abuse in
the Catholic Church.
• Unlike in the general population, more males than females were allegedly. In
fact, there was a significant difference between genders, with four out of five
alleged victims being male.
• The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small
percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.
• The allegations of sexual abuse involved a variety of sexual acts, and most of the
priests involved were alleged to have committed multiple acts per victim.
Indeed, much of the sexual abuse reported involved serious sexual offenses.
• According to the allegations of sexual abuse, the most frequent context of the
sexual incidents occurred during a social event. Additionally, many of the priests
with allegations of abuse socialized with the family of the alleged victim.
• The most common place of occurrence was the residence of the priest though
incidents of abuse allegedly occurred in a wide variety of locations.

As the above poster has maintained - saying it is a homosexual problem does make the female victims seem non-existant.

I am not suggesting that the plight of the female victims be minimized. I am saying that the overwhelming majority were male, to an extraordinary degree. In the general population, this is reversed, and females are by far the most common victims. My simple point is that given that there are limited time and resources to be devoted to correcting a problem, should we not focus on the most common type of abuse first? If boys are particularly at risk, how is it a sleight to girls to make note of this fact and to pay particular attention to what is happening with the boys?

Finally, please stop accusing me and other posters of trying to somehow “minimize” the impact of the scandal. This is a false charge. I, for instance have faced the facts, having read the John Jay report, which you clearly have not, preferring to fret over the reputation of homosexuals, possibly damaged by the priest scandal.

 

[Hadrianus]

Most people whatever their views on homosexuality would consider sexual assault upon a 14 year old to be immoral. The priests who engaged in this behavior had a very distorted moral sense which is what we associate with pedophilia.

 

[LemonAndLime]

It is you who are refusing to acknowledge the homosexual nature of the offenses - that is what the argument is about. “Pedophilia” tells us about the age differences, “homosexual” tells us about the sexes of those involed. The vast majority of the offenses were male-male, or man-boy, if you prefer. I am happy to use the term “pedophila”, if you will admit that incidence of man-boy events was greater than in the general population (per the report, which you should read). How is use of the term “homosexual” incorrect? It simply is not - and it is not evidence of an “agenda” on my part, regardless.

I do not think it is necessary to describe the sexual assaults as homosexual or heterosexual, as the perpetrators clearly were not acting within the normal behaviours of either sexual orientation. To describe them using either term implies that their behaviour belongs to that sexual orientation, which to me is playing with words. Yes the majority of the assaults were male-male/man-boy - but why is it really necessary to say its a homosexual problem? Why can’t you see that comes across as politically motivated?

I am not suggesting that the plight of the female victims be minimized. I am saying that the overwhelming majority were male, to an extraordinary degree. In the general population, this is reversed, and females are by far the most common victims. My simple point is that given that there are limited time and resources to be devoted to correcting a problem, should we not focus on the most common type of abuse first? If boys are particularly at risk, how is it a sleight to girls to make note of this fact and to pay particular attention to what is happening with the boys?

I agree, but if that is the case - why is it necessary to refer to it as a homosexual problem?

Finally, please stop accusing me and other posters of trying to somehow “minimize” the impact of the scandal. This is a false charge. I, for instance have faced the facts, having read the John Jay report, which you clearly have not, preferring to fret over the reputation of homosexuals, possibly damaged by the priest scandal.

I have not failed to face the facts. I just do not see why it is necessary to describe it as a homosexual problem considering the politically charged atmosphere around using that term. I do apologise however if I have offended you.

 

[CradleCath]

A majority of the offenses were homosexual in nature - this is a statement of arithmetic, not a judgement about the nature of homosexuals.

As to your victim of opportunity hypothesis, 40% of the crimes reported (by far the largest category) took place at the priests home/parish residence. It is not the case that altar servers were being grabbed on-duty, so to speak. The locations suggest a high degree of familiarity between victim and perp. and (in the words of the report) “grooming”. These were not crimes of opportunity.

Please. Read the report.

You are absolutely correct. These were not “crimes of opportunity”. Pederasty is alive & well today & grooming is part of the process. I confess that I haven’t read every post in this thread, but your message struck a chord in me. Back in 2,002…I read a statement given by a victim of clerical abuse. His name is Craig Martin his statement is found at:

bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/timeline/2002-06-13-Martin-Statement.htm

He finds it more comfortable to address his abuse while calling himself, John:

A Sports Illustrated article from September 13, 1999 entitled “Every Parent’s Nightmare,” best describes why John was in a position to be hurt.

“While society has no trouble envisioning the violent molester and the child who is forced to submit to a sexual predator, many people are baffled by how adult seducers are able to get [kids] to go along with them voluntarily.** These men seduce children, in this case boys, in exactly the same way that men and women have been seducing each other since the dawn of mankind. In other words, they flirt with them, laugh at their jokes, and shower them with attention, with gifts, with affection. They size up their weaknesses, their vulnerabilities, their needs. They will target the kids who are more vulnerable.”**

The most amazing part of when I allowed John to talk about his abuser was how this man offered kindness and love; how this man became John’s best friend. John showed very little anger toward his abuser. I was amazed at who John directed his sorrow to. He directed his sorrow not at his abuser, but at his parents. John tells a story of how his abuser wants to take John fishing. The abuser asks John’s parents if it is OK. John’s parents thought it was a great idea for John to go on a fishing trip with this Catholic priest. John talks of how his relationship with his parents changed, how he no longer trusted them. He feels he is alone."

This man, Craig, at the end of his statement does NOT thing litigation is the answer. He simply wants to see the Church change the practice of Bishops allowing pederasts into the priesthood.

nambla.org/pederasty.htm

 

[djeter]

Just wanted to remark that, as far as I can tell, your conversation with BookWorm (or whatever) would have been more productive if you had explicitly deployed a careful argument showing that so-called homosexualism is logically inconsistent with the resurrection of the dead. I, for one, don’t see how you connect the dots there. Is it that, as you see it, treating biological sex as unimportant to the choice of one’s sexual partner somehow trivializes man’s nature as an embodied person? Well, trivialization isn’t the same as denial, and anyway, the argument makes it sound like so-called bisexualists would have trouble accepting the resurrection of the dead; homosexualists, on the contrary, would say that the sex of their partners is a very important consideration as a matter of fact if not of principle. So is the issue that homosexualists would deny that biological sex is important in principle? Well, so what if they do? As embodied persons, humans presumably have many other physical characteristics that are important in principle even to homosexualists, so even here there’s room to accept the resurrection of the dead.

But there’s one further problem which it might pay to consider. The resurrection of the dead is revealed and it’s not really the kind of teaching that has a rational basis. The fact that man is an embodied person goes together very, very nicely with the teaching, sure, but it’s not as if the teaching could be deduced from Aristotle’s or Thomas’s metaphysics or even the revealed doctrine that man’s spirit and body are so closely joined that they must be considered a unity. So in this case, it would not be irrational in the least to deny this “basis” for the resurrection while still affirming the resurrection itself.

So, unless you have a pretty powerful argument for the position you’ve taken, I think it might be reasonable to back out of the conversation with BookWorm, and start investigating other ways it would be difficult to be a Catholic so-called homosexualist.

The resurrection part of this simply flows from an understanding of the embodied soul and Christ’s warnings concerning sin, i.e., that it harms your immortal soul and displeases God the father. So we should not sin.

dj