E
exnihilo
Guest
That is a fair point. But, if homosexuality does incline one towards other sexual disorders then it would be wrong and even cruel to act as if that weren’t true.
- Status
P
PetraG
Guest
In the case of child abusers, some are interested in children of both sexes. Children have to be protected from predators without prejudice concerning what sort of proclivity the offending adult might have with other adults.
The problem the original article points to, however, is predatory behavior of males in position of authority and trust against younger adult males under their jurisdiction. That is a different matter than child abuse, just as serious sexual predators in the workplace are in a different category than pedophiles and criminals who commit ambush rapes on strangers.
Last edited:
L
Lea101
Guest
Who said anything about welcoming though?
I’m saying it makes no sense to tell someone they’re sinning if they don’t even believe in God, religion or whatever. It’s like how if a Muslim were to tell you that you’re sinning by having wine. It would only make sense to you if you’re Muslim. Obviously immoral sex acts are different than dietary restrictions because of natural law and all of that, but if you’re talking to someone that doesn’t even believe in that or isn’t even aware of it…it is practically useless if you put yourself in their shoes.
I’m saying it makes no sense to tell someone they’re sinning if they don’t even believe in God, religion or whatever. It’s like how if a Muslim were to tell you that you’re sinning by having wine. It would only make sense to you if you’re Muslim. Obviously immoral sex acts are different than dietary restrictions because of natural law and all of that, but if you’re talking to someone that doesn’t even believe in that or isn’t even aware of it…it is practically useless if you put yourself in their shoes.
Last edited:
I
Inquisitor85
Guest
They’re not, you’re not understanding my point. There is innate homosexuality where people, for the lack of a better term, choose same sex partners. There is also situational homosexuality where heterosexual people will have sex with people of the same sex when there is a lack of other outlets. Here’s a wiki article to outline my point.
en.m.wikipedia.org
Situational sexual behavior - Wikipedia
Last edited:
T
Thorolfr
Guest
A lot of parades started off as religious processions or celebrations such as Mardi Gras and St. Patrick’s Day. The first St. Patrick’s day parade was in New York City in 1762. And St. Patrick’s day parade is definitely a parade about pride in being Irish.
Last edited:
L
Lea101
Guest
I agree.
My point is that basically people of all orientations can become sexual abusers and we need to protect children from all of them rather than just looking at one group of people unnecessarily.
There are definitely different types of sexual abusers (you have sadistic, exploitative, fixated etc). There are different ‘causes’ for different types. My hope is that Catholics do not ‘dumb’ themselves down and only focus on one type and then stereotype a whole group of people unfairly.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
You have no evidence that homosexuality inclines gay people to be sexual predators.Lea101:
That is a fair point. But, if homosexuality does incline one towards other sexual disorders then it would be wrong and even cruel to act as if that weren’t true.
P
PetraG
Guest
Yes, exactly: sexual immorality involving unnatural acts is different even than sexual immorality involving inappropriate acts of a natural kind. When a couple engages in the marital act prior to getting married, that is a different matter than if one of the couple were engaging in homosexual acts. In one case, there is a lack of self-restraint with regards to an inclination that could have an appropriate expression and in the other case the situation has to do with an inclination that has no legitimate expression.
Contemporary Christians in democracies are voters and in many countries are endowed with protected free speech and therefore we have some membership in the ruling class. We have a duty because of that stature to express and contend in favor of societal expectations that are in accord with natural law. It is called natural law not because it is according to our fallen nature but because the truth of it actually is apparent to those who operate on a natural level. There is no necessary reason that people living on a natural plane have to be wedded to an individualistic and licentious philosophy of law. That is the water we swim in, but it is not the only way a non-believer can possibly be led to think. Humans aren’t by their natures utterly given over to every vice and incapable of understanding moral law in any way, as if they were animals with no capacity for understanding or self-mastery.
D
DaveBj
Guest
. . . as long as the priest also advises the gay man that all sexual activity, homosexual or heterosexual, outside the bounds of a heterosexual marriage, is a mortal sin.
D
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
This is such a great article. I love to see this kind of honesty and integrity in people. Unfortunately it is rare.
P
PetraG
Guest
Do you think that the participants of the 1762 St. Patrick’s Day parade would recognize the parades we have now?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
As happens in prisons, to give one example.
L
Lea101
Guest
Yes it would be wrong. Key word being ‘if’, though. So far we don’t have much facts to make that assumption. Without any reliable facts, it’s a hurtful and unfair statement to make towards a group of people that includes faithful and decent individuals.
P
PetraG
Guest
Yes, absolutely. When we decide we know what a sexual abuser “looks like” or “doesn’t look like” and use a recognition system that is too narrow, we give room for predators to operate. We need a recognition system that is appropriate, neither too narrow nor too indiscriminate.
L
Lea101
Guest
You would have to convince someone about Natural Law and basically everything you said before going up to someone and saying ‘gay sex is wrong’. Same goes for Ivf, birth control etc. Otherwise, you would look like a total weirdo.
If someone who’s an atheist believes that gay sex is not immoral, a different kind of conversation needs to occur first Vs someone who’s Christian but believes it’s alright. Feel your audience before preaching, and don’t get shocked when they don’t hold the same views as you do.
If someone who’s an atheist believes that gay sex is not immoral, a different kind of conversation needs to occur first Vs someone who’s Christian but believes it’s alright. Feel your audience before preaching, and don’t get shocked when they don’t hold the same views as you do.
L
Lea101
Guest
Hopefully this happens soon.
C
Catholicwife32
Guest
This article saddens me.Some telling things. “the psychic energy needed to contain homosexual drives is far greater than that needed by the straying heterosexual,” says Fr. James Lloyd.
Contain? Psychic energy? What Fr. Lloyd is describing is repression of our sexual drives. Repression does NOT WORK. Chastity is NOT about repression. Chastity is enabled through self-knowledge and is cultivated from experience. Through trial and error, you cultivate the virtue of chastity through the knowledge you gain by making mistakes. There is no chastity learned by simply shaming yourself out of making mistakes.
Society puts a whole lot of pressure on homosexuals for remotely making sexual mistakes than it does on heterosexuals. As such, it encourages gross amounts of repression that make it harder for people to learn how to manage their sexual drives. But it also fails heterosexuals too because we also give chastity advice that presumes sexual urges are universal. Men’s drives are presumed to be stronger than women’s. As such, a woman who has a strong sex drive is considered less feminine and is slut-shamed. This discourages women with strong sexual drives to remain in the Church because they are not expected to have the struggles with chastity in the first place. Thus they are left with abandoning chastity and the Church.
In the meantime, because we consider men basically victims to their sex-drives, we put SO MUCH responsibility on women to keep men chaste. Men are held socially responsible for the sins of men. And indeed, so much of helping men heterosexual men remain chaste–especially heterosexual priests–is about segregated the sexes in addition to modesty.
In the meantime, we use marriage as a tool to manage male sexual desires further by making the wife a way to manage his sexual urge. In the past (and still circulated in some circles) is the idea that the wife is culpable for any sins against chastity her husband commits if she refuses his sexual advances. The woman is treated as the only appropriate sexual vessel for men. This fuels marital rape. The woman who is shamed into sexual submission is being raped by her husband which thus fuels the idea that women do not like sex. It’s because we’re not making love but are being objectified by our spouses.
So much of this is tied to purity culture which we WRONGFULLY assume is about chastity. Purity culture views sexual inexperience as a virtue and does not recognize that chastity is cultivated over time through making mistakes. Indeed, you do not begin as a chaste person. You DEVELOP chastity. Cultivating chastity is kind of like learning how to ride a bike. You WILL fall off and skin your knee. If you fear these mistakes, you will never learn it.
The big thing about homosexuals in the priesthood is that the priesthood is a boys club. Imagine if the priesthood was coed. Imagine if women were seminarians. Imagine if they were assigned roommates in such dorms type settings. Imagine that restrooms and showers weren’t segregated by sex. What do you expect would happen?
T
Thorolfr
Guest
I wouldn’t necessarily call a man who mostly preys on female children and has little interest in women “heterosexual” since, as some psychologists have pointed out, such a person doesn’t really have an adult sexual orientation. Such a person might not have developed a capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults and are kind of in a separate category from others who are called “heterosexual.” The same logic applies to men who are mostly attracted to male children. I wouldn’t call them “homosexual.” And some people try to make a distinction between whether the children are pre-pubescent or post-pubescent, but I still don’t think someone is normal if they’re mostly attracted to children who are 13 or 14.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Most of these things would require a lot of convincing and explanation even for other Christians who aren’t Catholic. The notion that all sex even between husbands and wives must end in intercourse would not find much support from most Protestants, for example.
P
PetraG
Guest
People trying to convince me that sex between persons of the same sex is fine are not in the least bit worried about whether I’m going to think they are “total weirdos,” nor are they going to think they are shoving their “atheist ideologies” on me. I think that as long as I’m willing to listen to them–that is, as long as I’m not calling them names or accusing them of bad intentions–we’ll be able to talk. Mutually attempting the socratic method can actually be mutually profitable. If we both start with the idea that the other is ignorant, well, we can work with that as long as we each believe the other to be willing to learn.
I don’t have to use the term “natural law” or get others to sign on for some particular philosophy lock, stock and barrel. I am only saying that the truths we are talking about are accessible by human intellect without recourse to divine revelation. People can (and have) arrived at these truths independently of an assent to an monotheistic understanding.
Last edited:
- Status