Interesting article from a gay man about the abuse

  • Thread starter Thread starter bmaz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joline said:
Unconscious homophobia does seem to restrict some of us seeing similar pastoral possibilities for loyal gay Catholics…other than what works for you and good Catholic marriages.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the Pope will allow sexually active same sex marriages to continue and even be able to receive the Eucharist?
 
I returned to the Church about 12 years ago after a 24 year absence. Is the abuse higher among Catholic priests vs other denominations or activities or does it just seem that way due to media coverage or some other reason?

Also, are any of you (or people you know In real life) thinking about leaving the Catholic Church over this?
 
Last edited:
If the Catholic Church did make it a part of their teaching to endorse what the abusers did, then I would leave.

However they did not. What they did wrong was the systematic cover up and refusal to deal with childhood sexual abuse. However looking at society in the 60s and 70s it was par for the course for society to look the other way in the case of sexual abuse.

Abuse was swept under the rug and the victims blamed and shamed. One need not look further than the family and how cases of incest were often kept quiet, seeking to protect the abuser rather than help the victim.

Would I consider leaving the Church for this? No. Why?

Because the Church is more than the abusive priests, it is more than the bishops who failed in their jobs.

The Church also consists of the faithful, laity and clergy. It is just like the field of wheat in the parable of Jesus. The field that contains wheat that bears good fruit and the tares that bears bad fruit.

You go to any human institution and you’ll likely see the same thing. Good and bad in the same organization.
 
Hope1960 said:
Also, are any of you (or people you know In real life) thinking about leaving the Catholic Church over this?
Click to expand...
Anyone who is going to leave over this makes me wonder what made them join (or stay joined) in the first place.

There will always be nominalism.
 
Last edited:
PJH_74 said:
Hysteria was used to write of the emotions of women period. Women could do virtually do nothing, sign a contract or even talk to their doctor without her husband making the final decision.
Click to expand...
The word itself has to do with women. I believe it means womb as it is the same root as hysterectomy.
 
All priests are bound to chastity, are they not? In that case, it doesn’t really matter if the repressed homosexual desire of a gay priest comes to the fore in his 30’s or later. But I gather you’re talking about the impossibility of total filtering out of gay seminarians before ordination. In this I agree it cannot be a full proof method. The question is should it be used at all? Yes, the Church does not need any more pedophiles, but gay does not mean pedophile.

Your second point is more controversial because it really is contrary to Church teaching, as you must know. That is, as reasonable as a same-sex relationship might be as opposed to having promiscuous sex with several partners, same-sex relationship does not equate to marriage for three reasons: one is that sex outside of marriage is forbidden; the second is sex is prohibited between two men (or two women); and the third is that gay marriage is impossible. The Church is not ever likely to change this teaching. If you go on a Jewish Forum–even an Orthodox one–the question will probably receive more consideration.
 
Last edited:
As I had already explained to Ex Nihilo, the problem I have with his posts lies with his view that people who have SSA also have an inclination to pedophilia.

I don’t know what emotions have to do with this.
 
Maybe you are correct; maybe I because I “ask the question” you cannot assist my understanding where the term homophobia fits in. Although I can assure you I am open to dialogue and open to being corrected on any matter when I see where I am misunderstanding.

Having said that, I still don’t get it. Although I do think I am closer to understanding following your kind attempts to explain.

I still do not get it. Where is the fear? I have my thoughts and theories on the homosexual lifestyle and it’s recent (last decade, let’s loosely say - if you’ll allow me) change in magnitude-in -numbers and acceptance/lack-of-acceptance (mostly - by far- acceptance) in that loose time frame.

Where fear factors in, I just do not see. Perhaps you are attempting to tell me that because of the confusing and unique complication(s) of this phenomenon (when viewed in recent times) that people are afraid as to what to think and believe. If that is what you mean than I understand. I myself fall into this category (however the use of fear is lose here). We are told that the homosexual community is simply trying to exercise their (for believers in God) God-given right to love who they choose. When one accepts this viewpoint I can see why the term “fear” may come into play when contrasted to Catholic teaching on the matter. Because, on face value, it seems not only logical, but also is in line with much of what Jesus had to preach.

BUT - and it is a big BUT, this reasoning must accept the premise of this viewpoint as reality.

Am I better understand the use of the term “phobia” now? I feel it is a foul term (as commonly used) to make people who do not necessarily fall in line with the, “I should be able to love whoever I choose” perspective (and of course we can love whoever we choose) feel as though they are inordinately unreasonable (do to their inordinate fears?) at understanding the views they disagree with.
 
Pederasty would be the thing I think there is more of an inclination to. Pedophilia is a related but different issue.
 
A criminal sexual deviant is a criminal sexual deviant and will abuse in the most convenient and easiest way possible . Whether its a person who molests little children or the elderly or kids at a daycare. Who molests the elderly? Usually its care workers. Who molests children at day cares? Its usually day care workers and owners. Who molested alter boys and seminarians… the ones who were always in closest proximity to them. To me, the issue really isn’t about homosexuality at all but about the lack of charity one has for their neighbour. As priests were around men more than 90% (I don’t know the actual number) of the time, it makes sense the most victims would be men and boys (altar servers) This, to me, has less to do with homosexuality as it has to do with opportunity. Just my 2 cents.
 
My take on this is that presumably those priests involved in abuse of boys and young men, have deep seated SSA. Therefore it follows to me that they either down -played or out right lied about this to get ordained, as otherwise they would have not been admitted to the priesthood.

If they are living in a state of sin like this, then that is how the devil gets a foothold and they are more vulnerable to their own desires and the evil one and thus we see them falling prey to temptation with vulnerable parisioners such as boys, or young men struggling with their own SSA.
The lie is like setting a foundation of disobedience on which their calling is at risk of the sort of things that we are now seeing.
 
I would say therefore it is better with men with SSA to remain laity and work out their chastity in the world. Just to clarify I am not equating gay men as abusers as a matter of course - I just think when we lie and don’t confess it that gives the devil a foothold in our lives and make us more likely to fall to sin
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top