Homophobic reaction to the abuse crisis discouraging me - what should I do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil19034 said:
While I cannot answer for everyone, please keep in mind that the MAJORITY of people who are calling this a homosexual problem are not referring to chaste homosexuals. We are referring to the active homosexuals who are not chaste and who are deliberately trying to change Church teaching.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case, they need to be clear about it. Let them say “active homosexual problem.” Let them go even further—more specific, and say “abusive active homosexual problem.” For even sexually active homosexuals/those who embrace their sexuality can still live out their sexuality in a non-abusive way. Consider gay couples for example.

The overall problem is that is makes homosexual persons out to be deranged and perverted people who are prone to commit the worst of sexual crimes.

We don’t call rape or all the abuse in the political and entertainment world a “heterosexual problem,” do we?

That’s what a priest’s burning of a rainbow flag, in response to the abuse crisis, looks like: “a homosexual problem.”

In other words, when talking about “homosexual abuse,” these Catholic circles seem to be focused on the homosexual part of it more than the abuse part of it. And that’s a shame.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
The overall problem is that is makes homosexual persons out to be deranged and perverted people who are prone to commit the worst of sexual crimes.
Click to expand...
One has to be frank about the homosexual /LGBT situation. Studies have shown that the active homosexual has 20,000 sexual partners by the time they reach 30; thus at a time when the media, the culture, the government, the education system and peer pressure are all ganging up on society to embrace homosexuality as a natural positive virtue, the Church nes to speak loud and clear to its members, especially for the sake of children and future generations to prevent their mindsets from being brainwashed and ushered into the lifestyle, or from slowly being deceived that homosexual activity is not sinful; to be aware against the wolves inside the Church trying to subvert Church teaching…
 
Last edited:
One has to be frank about the homosexual /LGBT situation. Studies have shown that the active homosexual has 20,000 sexual partners by the time they reach 30
Click to expand...
Aight, if you want to call us all out as deranged and perverted in order to be “frank,” go right ahead. And continue to push LGBT people out of the Church. Then again, that’s just want you want, no?
20,000 sexual partners by the time they reach 30
Click to expand...
Also this is absolutely ridiculous. I don’t even know 20,000 people – let alone gay people!
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
Also this is absolutely ridiculous. I don’t even know 20,000 people – let alone gay people!
Click to expand...
The 20,000 figure is an average, it doesn’t mean every single homosexual.

There are some gays who are chaste as well, and others with more than 20,000 partners.
 
20,000 is such a laughable number. That would mean you’re doing literally nothing but having sex with anonymous people in some kind of assembly line.
 
Last edited:
4 different people each and every day for 14-15 years? On the average? The mind boggles.
 
The ideal is for single people to be chaste no matter what their preference is. It can be noted that those with SSA have a particularly heavy burden because their preference is outside the norm and has been persecuted in most religions.
 
StephieNorthCo said:
4 different people each and every day for 14-15 years? On the average? The mind boggles.
Click to expand...
I think we’d want to see the survey on this, it does seem pretty high.

Maybe the survey was just of gay prostitutes or some other highly active group?
 
Shakuhachi said:
The ideal is for single people to be chaste no matter what their preference is. It can be noted that those with SSA have a particularly heavy burden because their preference is outside the norm and has been persecuted in most religions.
Click to expand...
What you have written here does not convey the same meaning as “intrinsically disordered”.
 
catholic1seeks said:
If that’s the case, they need to be clear about it. Let them say “active homosexual problem.”
Click to expand...
I have heard the ones I listen to on Catholic radio clarify it.

As I have mentioned to you before, it also depends on what people mean by the words they choose. To SOME people, to be “homosexual” means you are actively engaging in the homosexual acts and chaste people would only be called “same sex attracted.” To others, “homosexual” means chaste or unchaste, but living the “gay culture.” Finally, to others, “homosexual” is the same things as “same sex attracted.” In my experience, most members of the Catholic media use “same sex attracted” to indicate chaste individuals.
Let them go even further—more specific, and say “abusive active homosexual problem.” For even sexually active homosexuals/those who embrace their sexuality can still live out their sexuality in a non-abusive way. Consider gay couples for example.
Click to expand...
OK, this is where I’m going to disagree with you. No priest (unless he was married before becoming a priest) should be engaged in sexual activity.

Engaging in fornication or homosexual acts will send the person to hell, if they don’t repent & change their lives. And a priest engaging in such acts is even worse.

We need a ZERO TOLERANCE policy regarding unchaste activity within the clergy. Any priest today caught with porn or sexually activity with another person should be kicked out of the seminary and should be suspended from the priesthood.

It’s not just homosexual… it’s all unchaste behavior.

To me, a priest having consensual sex with a woman is just big a scandal as a priest having sex with a 16 year old boy. The only difference is one is most likely statutory rape. But they are still both a major scandal.

According to the John Jay Report, of all the known sexual crimes committed within the Catholic Church, only a very small % was pedophilia. The majority was pederasty, with a some being specifically suffering from hetrosexual Hebephilia or Ephebophilia.

But the fact is, the vast majority of the sexual abuse is classified as pederasty, which is when an adult has a homosexual relationship with a someone between the ages of 11 and 19.

NOTE: the age ends at 19. So when you have a priest or bishop committing pederasty against a 18 or 19 year old seminarian, it’s NO different that him committing it against a 16 year old.

So maybe we should call it a “pederasty” issue, but the fact is a priest having pederasty against a 19 year old is just as bad as a clergy member having homosexual relations with a 50 year old.

NONE of it should happen because all clergy should be CHASTE. And yes, we are all called to be Chaste, but the facts are we lay people EXPECT our clergy to be more holy that we are. And maybe that’s clericalism, but I don’t care. I expect my deacon, priest & bishop to be better Catholics than I am.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Augustinian said:
40.png
StephieNorthCo:
4 different people each and every day for 14-15 years? On the average? The mind boggles.
Click to expand...
I think we’d want to see the survey on this, it does seem pretty high.

Maybe the survey was just of gay prostitutes or some other highly active group?
Click to expand...
It’s more likely that that number was based on an assumption of unprotected sex in a highly promiscuous environment and hinged in the idea that when you have unprotected sex you, in effect, have sex with everyone they have ever had sex with. In other words, the researchers likely did not mean for it to be taken literally.
 
Last edited:
Did I post anything contrary TO that?

Have I EVER posted anything like that?

And you are replying to me BECAUSE…?

Specifically, WHAT did I post that compelled you to “but in” (sic)?
 
I know. Do we call people with addictions intrinsically disordered? I Don’t know. I haven’t looked it up. But I think we can look at both crosses in the same way.
 
OK, this is where I’m going to disagree with you. No priest (unless he was married before becoming a priest) should be engaged in sexual activity.
Click to expand...
Of course. I’m sorry if the context wasn’t clear.

But I’m talking about gay/SSA people more generally. The danger is making all gay people, of whatever “lifestyle,” out to be deranged, perverted, and prone to sexual abuse and crimes, just because they experience same-sex attraction.

I know of gay couples who, even if against traditional Christian ethics in their sexual lives, are still responsible, mature, and committed in that particular lifestyle. They just happen to have a same-sex romantic partner instead. Again, point out it’s against Catholic teaching. But that’s not the point I’m currently making.

You can be gay and chaste and celibate.
You can be gay and have a committed sexual partner.
You can be gay and have a civil partnership/marriage.
You can be a gay priest committed to Catholic teaching and morality.
You can be young, gay, and experimental and make mistakes like any other person.

You can also be a gay priest and abuse other people.
You can be a promiscuous gay person.
You can be a perverted gay person.
You can be a gay prostitute.

The point is, the outcry from certain Catholic circles is making all gay people out to be the latter range of options. At least, that’s what it sounds like to me. That’s the problem of calling the abuse “homosexual” over and over again with no clarification.

Again, we don’t call rape and all the political and entertainment abuse “heterosexual.” Why? Because we know to focus on the abuse part.
 
Last edited:
Shakuhachi said:
I know. Do we call people with addictions intrinsically disordered? I Don’t know. I haven’t looked it up. But I think we can look at both crosses in the same way.
Click to expand...
The catechism is not calling the people disordered. It’s the inclinations that are intrinsically disordered.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top