Is promoting homosexuality "social justice"?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I highly doubt it, and I would never insinuate such a thing. I just think gay people are an easy scapegoat for people not wanting to address the fact that we, as a Church, allowed child predators to infiltrate our priesthood.

Preposterous…don’t include me in your “we as a Church”

Who, in the Church, allowed child predators to infiltrate our priesthood???

Non other than gay child predators who had risen to positions of authority within the Church.

 

[Rau]

Who, in the Church, allowed child predators to infiltrate our priesthood???

Non other than gay child predators who had risen to positions of authority within the Church.

I think no one sought to permit an infiltration. But many, including Bishops, failed to take action against the predators. Where leaders are seen to have grossly failed, we the Church should feel moved to demand their removal or other corrective action, and if we do not, we share responsibility from that point.

 

[Rau]

I am not counting financial settlements nor am I diminishing the suffering of abused girls.

I was focusing on the hundreds of abuses by gay and pedophile priests. At lease until you began what seems to be a smoke screen.

I only sought to correct your overstatement. To be honest, I am not sure what thesis you are trying to make by focussing on a subset of the abuses, which leaves me I’ll-equipped to put up any smoke-screens!

What is your thesis? Is it that pedophiles more often go for same sex, or that gay persons are more likely to be pedophiles, or is it something specific to priests?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I highly doubt it, and I would never insinuate such a thing. I just think gay people are an easy scapegoat for people not wanting to address the fact that we, as a Church, allowed child predators to infiltrate our priesthood.

I never said you insinuated anyhing of the sort, I was perhaps making a veiled comment on projecting.

Pardon my plebeian status, but to claim that sodomy is sterile is totally absurd.

The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.
catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

In other words…YUK!

Now, if you are alluding to the fact that sodomy will not impregnate a female, while true, that has no bearing on our discussion. Homosexuals obviously do not engage in sodomy for procreation purposes.

Dude, I’m talking about Catholic theology.

If a word is defined by usage…it can mean anything.

A Homosexual is a person who defines himself or herself by the participation in or desire to participate in such conduct.

There, you have it. A definition even a plebe can understand.

That’s not the standard usage.

Your grasp of the obvious is astounding. I was simply defining the word.

Now that we have our terms correctly defined…we can continue our discussion.

:banghead:

As long as it meets our definition. You may use the word in any fashion you like.

By “our” what you mean is your definition that the vast majority does not share.

Barney is not exactly a strawman. He is my example of a gay man. An “every-gay-man” so to say. He can be an unassuming gentleman or a flaming drag queen…a guy who deals with his problems or a radical gay activist. We will see him again.

Oh, sorry about the dots…I’ll work on that.

So Barney has nothing to do with how celibate gay Catholic are really like.

 

[estesbob]

Of course it wasn’t a pedophile problem. It was a hebephile problem. We allowed, through too much trust, hebephiles to infiltrate the Church to get access to young, pubescent boys and girls.

More semantics game…It was a problem with homosexual Priests. The number of girls abused wss let’s than 15% of the total.

 

[estesbob]

I highly doubt it, and I would never insinuate such a thing. I just think gay people are an easy scapegoat for people not wanting to address the fact that we, as a Church, allowed child predators to infiltrate our priesthood.

It not a matter of scapegoating Unless one recognizes what the problem is there can be no solution…

 

[Rau]

More semantics game…It was a problem with homosexual Priests. The number of girls abused wss let’s than 15% of the total.

Might this skew to young boys be reflective, at least partially, of the dominance of boys amongst altar servers when these offences were prevalent?

 

[SMGS127]

More semantics game…It was a problem with homosexual Priests. The number of girls abused wss let’s than 15% of the total.

The gender of pedophilic or hebephilic abuse victims does not have any correlation with the adult sexual orientation of said abusers outside the fact that such abusers are significantly more likely to not have an adult sexual orientation. I am not saying girls were abused at the same rates; I am saying that the vast majority of the abuse was not homosexual (or heterosexual) but hebephilic in nature. In fact, at least 77% of the abuse of male children involved hebephilic or pedophilic abuse.

It not a matter of scapegoating Unless one recognizes what the problem is there can be no solution…

Yes, and the problem had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with allowing hebephilic child predators into an environment where they dealt with pubescent children, especially male pubescent children, on a private basis fairly often. That sort of situation lends itself attractive to hebephilic child predators, especially those attracted to boys, who normally could not get access to those children, and we as a Church did not take adequate precautions.

If we allow those who wish to scapegoat the issue onto a group of individuals who were not responsible for said issue, such as homosexuals, we completely ignore the real issue at hand and open the door for it to re-emerge in the future while we’re all congratulating and high-fiving each other on taking our anger out on the innocent.

 

[Rau]

Is there any data on the prevalence of consensual homosexual activity by the priests who engaged in the child abuse?

 

[estesbob]

The gender of pedophilic or hebephilic abuse victims does not have any correlation with the adult sexual orientation of said abusers outside the fact that such abusers are significantly more likely to not have an adult sexual orientation. I am not saying girls were abused at the same rates; I am saying that the vast majority of the abuse was not homosexual (or heterosexual) but hebephilic in nature. In fact, at least 77% of the abuse of male children involved hebephilic or pedophilic abuse.

Yes, and the problem had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with allowing hebephilic child predators into an environment where they dealt with pubescent children, especially male pubescent children, on a private basis fairly often. That sort of situation lends itself attractive to hebephilic child predators, especially those attracted to boys, who normally could not get access to those children, and we as a Church did not take adequate precautions.

If we allow those who wish to scapegoat the issue onto a group of individuals who were not responsible for said issue, such as homosexuals, we completely ignore the real issue at hand and open the door for it to re-emerge in the future while we’re all congratulating and high-fiving each other on taking our anger out on the innocent.

Nearly 90% of the abuse was male on male and you want to dismiss homosexuality as a factor. The real problem is the church gave in to the current culture and allowed an influx of homosexuals into the priesthood. Then they covered up their actions. Both of these issues need to be addressed. Arguing semantics does neither

 

[kozlosap]

The gender of pedophilic or hebephilic abuse victims does not have any correlation with the adult sexual orientation of said abusers outside the fact that such abusers are significantly more likely to not have an adult sexual orientation. I am not saying girls were abused at the same rates; I am saying that the vast majority of the abuse was not homosexual (or heterosexual) but hebephilic in nature. In fact, at least 77% of the abuse of male children involved hebephilic or pedophilic abuse.

Yes, and the problem had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with allowing hebephilic child predators into an environment where they dealt with pubescent children, especially male pubescent children, on a private basis fairly often. That sort of situation lends itself attractive to hebephilic child predators, especially those attracted to boys, who normally could not get access to those children, and we as a Church did not take adequate precautions.

If we allow those who wish to scapegoat the issue onto a group of individuals who were not responsible for said issue, such as homosexuals, we completely ignore the real issue at hand and open the door for it to re-emerge in the future while we’re all congratulating and high-fiving each other on taking our anger out on the innocent.

:thank you for such an eloquent and very precise description of the scapegoat mentality that runs rampant on some of these threads!!