F
fix
Guest
Why accept the APAs definitions when it is shown they embrace so many errors as truth?
- Status
R
Richardols
Guest
Did you indeed?
My statement: “Yes, indeed, your logic is sound. However, the logical converse may also be true - that the fact that it is no longer accepted means that it is not pathological.” (emphasis added here)
I have. Why don’t you? There it is, right here in this post.
R
Richardols
Guest
I believe that the medical community might disagree with your overly broad statement.
F
Fiat
Guest
Clearly you’re having some difficulty with the English language as suggested by your misreading of the word “pathology,” and now with your own posts. The word “may” is not a part of your “logical converse.” Thank you for reposting it here for all of us to see.
Your use of the word “may” occurs three words before your “logical converse,” and it is not a part of your “logical converse.”
Fiat
F
Fiat
Guest
Clearly you’re having some difficulty with the English language as suggested by your misreading of the word “pathology,” and now with your own posts. The word “may” is not a part of your “logical converse.” Thank you for reposting it here for all of us to see.
Your use of the word “may” occurs three words before your “logical converse,” and it is not a part of your “logical converse.”
Fiat
R
Richardols
Guest
Not at all. The logical converse is “the fact that it is no longer accepted means that it is not pathological.” (converse to your statement “the fact that is no longer accepted does not mean that it is not pathological.”
I said that the converse **may **be true, and may is appropriate and part of the statement.
Of course, if you want to change the subject to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin…
F
Fiat
Guest
You’re quite amusing. I hate to see this thread dragged through grammar and semiotics, but you still confuse yourself, friend. Your “logical converse” has absolutely nothing to do with the word “may.” You simply state your “logical converse” and argue that this converse MAY be true. Your converse has no use of the word may at all.
Concede your error and go in peace. I won’t let your mistake damage my opinion of you.
Fiat
R
Richardols
Guest
Yes. The “logical converse” is a simple statement, just as yours was a simple statement. The statement may be true. It may however be false. It was not necessary to include the word may in the statement.
Show some humility and concede your own error. God will bless you for it.
F
fix
Guest
As stated before, the medical communities and psychological communities both are in need of reform. Any group, or groups, that support murder of children as healthy and acceptable are not exactly to be trusted as fountains of truth on every issue. That is not to say they do not do much good, but it is to say they are wrong on many issues, including the pathologic nature of same sex attraction.
4
4_marks
Guest
Just checking.
C
CatQuilt
Guest
The APA in 1973 was under intense political pressure to remove homosexuality from the DSM. They attempted to do the same thing with pedophilia in the early 1990’s? (do a search on the Rind study or Rind report) but Dr Laura brought this out and it sank like a stone in a pond…
C
CatQuilt
Guest
Yes.
R
Riley259
Guest
Karl Keating had a couple of e-letters on this very topic and came up with a sensible solution: Grandfather in the current crop of gay priests who are definitely chaste but don’t accept future candidates for the priesthood who have same-sex attractions even if they pledge to be chaste. Frankly, there’s too much risk - they will attend seminary and live for a few years in close quarters with other males. This situation will definitely put them in a “near occasion of sin” predicament. Besides, since homosexuality is clearly disordered, their (the candidate’s) own psycho-sexual development is skewed to begin with and it would seem that you would want all candidates to be of optimal mental health in preparation for a life of celibacy. At first glance this may seem harsh but in the long run it would appear to be the best solution to promote the health of a vital, orthodox priesthood.
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040203.asp
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040210.asp
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040203.asp
catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040210.asp
M
miguel
Guest
4 marks:
Just trying to stay focused.:tiphat:Just checking.
F
fix
Guest
The Terri Shiavo case is a perfect example of the corruption of the medical profession. It is not just the lawyers and her husband. Plenty of “doctors” agree killing her is virtuous.
L
Lisa_N
Guest
Definitely sounds like a very workable and reasonable solution. I just do not see a reason to sniff out chaste, holy men who have been serving the Church for decades because they had suffered at some point in life with an attraction to men. But we would be foolish to think you could bring in new groups of candidates who were currently subject to this disorder and not have a repeat of the current scandal. Futher, once candidates know that the seminaries are no longer “lavender lounges” there will be a lot more interest on the part of dedicated heterosexual men. I do not know a single straight man who is comfortable in a group of homosexuals, particularly a situation where you are close both geographically and emotionally. It’s a powder keg waiting to blow up.
Lisa N
G
GloriaPatri4
Guest
NOR’s New Oxford Notes
New Oxford Notes Index
17 September 2004
Why won’t the Catholic bishops solve the 'gay priest problem?'
The solution to that problem is simple and self-evident, according to Karl Keating, a lucid and sensible thinker if ever there was one: “I know of homosexual priests who live chastely…. Such priests deserve our respect. On the other hand, there are homosexual priests who are ‘gays’ — they have chosen to live the homosexual lifestyle. It is from the ranks of these priests that most (not all, admittedly) of the abuse cases have arisen. The priestly scandal has not been so much about priests abusing children as about homosexual priests acting out their homosexuality with teenagers and young adults.” Keating then gives his solution:
"1. If a priest is ‘gay’ — living a homosexual lifestyle — he should be removed from ministry immediately….
The question is: Why do our bishops at the conference level seem unwilling to do what Keating proposes, what any conscientious Catholic would propose? It may have a lot to do with the Lavender Mafia and its allies in episcopal ranks.
You may remember the name of Joseph Kellenyi. He figured in Michael S. Rose’s book Goodbye, Good Men, and in two of Rose’s articles in the NOR (Dec. 2002 and June 2003). Kellenyi, who was once a seminarian at Mundelein in the Chicago area, makes the following statement about a conversation he had with the Rev. John F. Canary, the Rector of Mundelein Seminary, in August 1999:
“I told Rev. Canary that I had some problems with the Chicago Diocese. I told him that I perceived that while Cardinal Bernardin had probably lived a celibate life, and may not have abused Steven Cook, that he also was flamingly gay. I said that I perceived that under Bernardin’s regime, Chicago had become like Santa Rosa under Bishop Ziemann. I said that in Santa Rosa, those priests and seminarians not in the bishop’s gay clique were treated unjustly, and that the same was true of Chicago under Bernardin.** I said that I perceived that Bernardin fostered and promoted a network of gay priests and bishops, and that they protected each other, covered up each other’s ‘mistakes,’ and promoted one another to positions of responsibility in Chicago and the church at large**. I alluded to the fact that Bernardin had appointed Rev. Canary, and that he in turn had appointed the formation faculty. Rev. Canary’s response was ‘Your perception is accurate. The question is what are you going to do about it.’”
What a brazen challenge from Canary! But Canary obviously didn’t know with whom he was dealing, for Kellenyi did indeed do something about it.
click on link below to read article in its entirety
cruxnews.com/NORNotes/nor-17sept04.html
New Oxford Notes Index
17 September 2004
Why won’t the Catholic bishops solve the 'gay priest problem?'
The solution to that problem is simple and self-evident, according to Karl Keating, a lucid and sensible thinker if ever there was one: “I know of homosexual priests who live chastely…. Such priests deserve our respect. On the other hand, there are homosexual priests who are ‘gays’ — they have chosen to live the homosexual lifestyle. It is from the ranks of these priests that most (not all, admittedly) of the abuse cases have arisen. The priestly scandal has not been so much about priests abusing children as about homosexual priests acting out their homosexuality with teenagers and young adults.” Keating then gives his solution:
"1. If a priest is ‘gay’ — living a homosexual lifestyle — he should be removed from ministry immediately….
- If a priest is homosexual but not ‘gay’ — that is, if he is living chastely — let him continue in ministry until normal retirement.
- Exclude from seminary formation and ordination any homosexual, whether ‘gay’ or chaste…. The latter should not sign up for ‘guy-only’ work that will have him living with other men (thus putting him into near occasions of sin)…. He should be encouraged to serve the Church in other ways…. If the priesthood in this country were healthy, little or no harm would come from ordaining chaste homosexuals whose homosexuality is kept private. But we do not live in ordinary times."
The question is: Why do our bishops at the conference level seem unwilling to do what Keating proposes, what any conscientious Catholic would propose? It may have a lot to do with the Lavender Mafia and its allies in episcopal ranks.
You may remember the name of Joseph Kellenyi. He figured in Michael S. Rose’s book Goodbye, Good Men, and in two of Rose’s articles in the NOR (Dec. 2002 and June 2003). Kellenyi, who was once a seminarian at Mundelein in the Chicago area, makes the following statement about a conversation he had with the Rev. John F. Canary, the Rector of Mundelein Seminary, in August 1999:
“I told Rev. Canary that I had some problems with the Chicago Diocese. I told him that I perceived that while Cardinal Bernardin had probably lived a celibate life, and may not have abused Steven Cook, that he also was flamingly gay. I said that I perceived that under Bernardin’s regime, Chicago had become like Santa Rosa under Bishop Ziemann. I said that in Santa Rosa, those priests and seminarians not in the bishop’s gay clique were treated unjustly, and that the same was true of Chicago under Bernardin.** I said that I perceived that Bernardin fostered and promoted a network of gay priests and bishops, and that they protected each other, covered up each other’s ‘mistakes,’ and promoted one another to positions of responsibility in Chicago and the church at large**. I alluded to the fact that Bernardin had appointed Rev. Canary, and that he in turn had appointed the formation faculty. Rev. Canary’s response was ‘Your perception is accurate. The question is what are you going to do about it.’”
What a brazen challenge from Canary! But Canary obviously didn’t know with whom he was dealing, for Kellenyi did indeed do something about it.
click on link below to read article in its entirety
cruxnews.com/NORNotes/nor-17sept04.html
- Status