There are no completely accurate statistics on the number of LGBT people in the US. When being interviewed, whether that is in the National Health Interview Survey designed by the CDC or in any other poll, many people would probably feel uncomfortable disclosing information about their sexuality, especially if there is still some stigma attached to it.
There is a vast difference between condoning a lifestyle, and admitting one has SSA. I don’t read the article to say that he condones the lifestyle.
And yet the CW is that everybody is, or should be, not only open about but proud of their sexuality.
I think it’s more important to not be ashamed of your sexuality. So if someone is gay, maybe they shouldn’t make a point of announcing it to everyone, but neither should they be ashamed if someone finds out.
Whether or not this individual is chaste is extremely to the point. As he is in the picture of the article, this is about a specific named priest. And it is clear that he is an older priest, which in turn makes clear that he was ordained before Pope Benedict issued his rule concerning admission of homosexuals to the priesthood.
Molestation of people who aren’t at least mid puberty isn’t something that is determined by sexuality, plenty of men who molest boys are married with kids.
The word is “pedophile” or “paedophile”.
Plenty of LGBT people find Gay Pride Parades distasteful just like plenty of heterosexuals find Mardi Gras distasteful.
The number is 1.7% and when you include bisexuals that is another 1.8% for a total of 3.5% and that is almost certainly an underestimate. For reference 1/4th of Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Ergo, not exclusively heterosexual! The alleged existence of “bi” doesn’t disprove the lopsided higher proportion of molestation by men on boys.
One should never scandalize parishioners, particularly children. I’m sorry but an article like that to me, is simply exhibitionism, no need to broadcast to the world.
Oh right, where are the dissenters? For such a minority they are certainly making a big noise.
The pathology of molesters of pubescent and pre-pubescent is substantially different from how heterosexuals and homosexuals think and act.
Define “scandal”
Where are the dissenters to the orgy of decadence and hedonism that is Mardi Gras?
There’s a lot of smug, unsubstantiated conviction in your assertions (not very Catholic IMO) but little proof or even common sense. Consider the social censure and even criminal penalties for adults attracted to young children of the opposite sex but not by those supporting NAMBLA. The whole schtick anyway is glorification of ripe, young male beauty.
Scandal is in anyway contributing to even one child getting the notion from a priest no less, that this behavior is in any way acceptable.If a priest has alcoholic, kleptomaniac, or any other personal issues, I do not want to know about it. I despise this “let it all hang out” attitude - childish and even narcissistic.
Mardi Gras is not a celebration of sex, but the last day of fun before 40 days of Lent. It is up to local authorities how much they want to reveal or suppress. I never read that gyrating women were ever singled out for approval by the Church.
NAMBLA has been dead for over a decade and unofficially dead even before that.
What behavior?
Okay, how about St. Patrick’s day which in the US functions as little more than an excuse for women to dress up in slutty leprechaun outfits and for men to completely hammered.
I don’t like the tone of this argument. Maybe you should come out and say what you are defending. A coming out statement by a priest for the world to see doesn’t impress me in the least. When we were kids we did not talk about certain subjects. It’s scandalous for a priest to broadcast that this behavior is identity, for one, and mislead children. Maybe you sneer at the St. Patrick’s Day parade but I don’t. Until the gay lobby got a choke hold in that, it used to be about celebrating a certain person and the heritage of the Irish people.
What behavior is he broadcasting as an identity?
No, I didn’t notice because I don’t read your posts unless they appear on a thread I am participating in. Just read the title of the thread, if you have any doubts as to “identity” vs. “behavior”.
Being gay isn’t a behavior
OK, what should he have said: “I’m attracted to men and I’m a priest, period”? Furthermore, “I was born that way”. Here is where we get into trouble because the 2nd follows from the 1st unless one admits of factors that enabled this to develop. The feeling is not strictly behavior but the common use is such it is difficult, if not impossible to separate.
While I am in question-asking mode, the term, “intrinsically disordered act” always gets me thinking. If acting on homosexal feelings i.e. having same sex physical relations, or deliberatley encouraging and enjoying lustful thoughts, is what is ‘disordered’ (as we are talking about an 'intrinsically dispordered act’) then is it fair / unfair to describe the man himself as ‘disordered’?
To me, living a celibate life when you have made a conscious decision to do so and feel called to it by God and drawn to that way of life (whether straight or gay) is a brave and noble thing to do and I have no doubt it can be very challenging at times.
In the Catholic teaching context, “disordered” is the extent to which we do not order our desires and will to objective truth.I have to admit to having skim-read a lot of this thread, but something has really shocked me!
There’s been much discussion about paedophilia and homosexuality and (unless I am misreading it) an assertion that an assault on a post-pubescent person is not paedophilia?
Does that mean that a man who assaults a 14 year old boy is physically mature is not abusing a child, while a man who assault a 14 year old boy who is still pre-pubescent is a paedophile? What about the emotional state of the child in both cases?
In days gone by, many priests joined seminaries as boys, so they made their decision before puberty and at a time when same sex attraction was such a secret topic, one could reasonably argue that a boy of even 13 or 14 who just didn’t find himself excited by girls would not immediately jump to the conclusion that he was gay. My father recalls many boys from poor homes who failed their 11+ and with it the chance to acquire an education and job prospects were told by their parents that they had a vocation and sent to seminary school because they would be fed, clothed and educated.
Another thing - perhaps someone can shed some light on this…
What does ‘deep-seated’ homosexual tendencies actually mean (I’m English, so of course, I am now giggling at this term!) We know that there are various levels of sexual attraction, with some people favouring exclusively one sex and others attratced to people of both genders. There are also people, straight and gay, who are addicted to sex and have to struggle much harder to contain their sexual drive. Does ‘deep-seated’ mean a man who would find celibacy too much of a challenge, as opposed to a man who is gay, but (like many straight men) has the mental and physiological capability to control his thoughts and urges? So, is saying those with ‘deep-seated’ tendencies similar to saying straight men with problems controlling their lust for women aren’t cut out to be priests?
What exactly do we mean by ‘disordered’ anyway? Do we mean ‘against the natural order’? I often wonder if this phrase somehow loses some meaning in translation because there is a risk of interpreting it as though the homosexual man is, in himself, somehow sub-human, rather than a human being lovingly created by God and with a purpose in life and a right to life.
Surely we can’t mean that?
I’ve always thought of it as meaning ‘against the norm’ - contrary to the way human bodies are designed to function and respond. That way, it is a defect for which the affected person is not responsible, any more than, say, a person on the autistic spectrum is responsible for his / her condition. It does not undemine the humanity of the person, or their ability to be a wonderful human being.
However, even though a homosexual person can’t help but be attracted to the same sex, as a human being with free will, he has the capability of controlling his behaviour and living according to the teaching of the Church.
However, to be living in the secular world as a cellibate person, knowing that you will never enjoy a physical relationship with a person with whom you can form that deep connection that marraige and physical intimacy bring…That’s a massive cross to bear! I am in awe of men and women who manage that! I don’t see them as ‘freaks’ or lesser beings, any more than I would say that about a person with any other condition imprinted in their DNA.
I have several gay and lesbian friends and I can confirm, for those who are worried, that it is definitely not contagious
There is more to sexuality than just sex.
Something can be child molestation without the perpetrator being a paedophile.I have to admit to having skim-read a lot of this thread, but something has really shocked me!
There’s been much discussion about paedophilia and homosexuality and (unless I am misreading it) an assertion that an assault on a post-pubescent person is not paedophilia?
Does that mean that a man who assaults a 14 year old boy is physically mature is not abusing a child, while a man who assault a 14 year old boy who is still pre-pubescent is a paedophile? What about the emotional state of the child in both cases?
In days gone by, many priests joined seminaries as boys, so they made their decision before puberty and at a time when same sex attraction was such a secret topic, one could reasonably argue that a boy of even 13 or 14 who just didn’t find himself excited by girls would not immediately jump to the conclusion that he was gay. My father recalls many boys from poor homes who failed their 11+ and with it the chance to acquire an education and job prospects were told by their parents that they had a vocation and sent to seminary school because they would be fed, clothed and educated.
Another thing - perhaps someone can shed some light on this…
What does ‘deep-seated’ homosexual tendencies actually mean (I’m English, so of course, I am now giggling at this term!) We know that there are various levels of sexual attraction, with some people favouring exclusively one sex and others attratced to people of both genders. There are also people, straight and gay, who are addicted to sex and have to struggle much harder to contain their sexual drive. Does ‘deep-seated’ mean a man who would find celibacy too much of a challenge, as opposed to a man who is gay, but (like many straight men) has the mental and physiological capability to control his thoughts and urges? So, is saying those with ‘deep-seated’ tendencies similar to saying straight men with problems controlling their lust for women aren’t cut out to be priests?
What exactly do we mean by ‘disordered’ anyway? Do we mean ‘against the natural order’? I often wonder if this phrase somehow loses some meaning in translation because there is a risk of interpreting it as though the homosexual man is, in himself, somehow sub-human, rather than a human being lovingly created by God and with a purpose in life and a right to life.
Surely we can’t mean that?
I’ve always thought of it as meaning ‘against the norm’ - contrary to the way human bodies are designed to function and respond. That way, it is a defect for which the affected person is not responsible, any more than, say, a person on the autistic spectrum is responsible for his / her condition. It does not undemine the humanity of the person, or their ability to be a wonderful human being.
However, even though a homosexual person can’t help but be attracted to the same sex, as a human being with free will, he has the capability of controlling his behaviour and living according to the teaching of the Church.
However, to be living in the secular world as a cellibate person, knowing that you will never enjoy a physical relationship with a person with whom you can form that deep connection that marraige and physical intimacy bring…That’s a massive cross to bear! I am in awe of men and women who manage that! I don’t see them as ‘freaks’ or lesser beings, any more than I would say that about a person with any other condition imprinted in their DNA.
I have several gay and lesbian friends and I can confirm, for those who are worried, that it is definitely not contagious
The disorder is not just about attraction or orientation but a package of values. If I haven’t witnessed it over and over personally, I wouldn’t have believed it but it is logical, considering the damage that this movement is wreaking in Western countries. When one (name removed by moderator)ut idea is changed, the whole setup likewise follows suit. The end result is the destruction of natural marriage which in turn will take down our civilization just as happened in the Fall of the Roman Empire.What does ‘deep-seated’ homosexual tendencies actually mean (I’m English, so of course, I am now giggling at this term!) We know that there are various levels of sexual attraction, with some people favouring exclusively one sex and others attratced to people of both genders. There are also people, straight and gay, who are addicted to sex and have to struggle much harder to contain their sexual drive. Does ‘deep-seated’ mean a man who would find celibacy too much of a challenge, as opposed to a man who is gay, but (like many straight men) has the mental and physiological capability to control his thoughts and urges? So, is saying those with ‘deep-seated’ tendencies similar to saying straight men with problems controlling their lust for women aren’t cut out to be priests?
What exactly do we mean by ‘disordered’ anyway? Do we mean ‘against the natural order’? I often wonder if this phrase somehow loses some meaning in translation because there is a risk of interpreting it as though the homosexual man is, in himself, somehow sub-human, rather than a human being lovingly created by God and with a purpose in life and a right to life.