Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[Orionthehunter]

Originally Posted by Orionthehunter

I also know that the conventional psychiatric wisdom is that Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is a pathology that is inherently disordered. But relying on this “conventional wisdom” makes me uncomfortable for several reasons.

fix:

Where have you seen this? Most of psychology thinks SSA is normal and good. Their association even endorses “gay” marriage.

Good point. My writing always doesn’t have the clarity I intend.

Conventional psychiatry believes that SSA is a pathology. The Church teaches that SSA is disordered. Relying on the conventional wisdom that it is a pathology is what makes me uncomfortable. I’m comfortable w/ the Churches view of its disorder. In this light and so clarified, now re-read my post.

 

[Libero]

I am not sure where you derive your “confidence” that the APA and the scientific community is immune from political pressure.

I have not claimed they have immunity, I have merely stated that I believe that pressure is not the only thing they took into consideration when removing homosexuality from the disorder list.

 

[felra]

Libero:

I have not claimed they have immunity, I have merely stated that I believe that pressure is not the only thing they took into consideration when removing homosexuality from the disorder list.

Here is another more historical read regarding the reasons for removal of “homosexuality” by the APA as a disorder from the DSM:

catholicsocialscientists.org/Symposium2–Nicolosi–mss.htm

The Removal of Homosexuality from the
Psychiatric Manual
-by Joseph Nicolosi
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality

---

**Discusses the American Psychiatric Association’s well-known removal of homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Argues that this was done because of political pressures, the overall influence of the sexual revolution, and problematic humanitarian motives. Asserts that now homosexuals who seek treatment for their condition are often denied help by psychologists and psychiatrists.

All three great pioneers of psychiatry–Freud, Jung and Adler–saw homosexuality as disordered.
Yet today, homosexuality is not to be found in the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.

 

[mairegrrrl]

"that a gay man is no more likely than a heterosexual man to perpetrate sexual activity with a child.”

The following article By Michael R. Stevenson, Ph.D.Understanding Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Gay Priests Are Not the Problem speaks volumes concerning certain persons obsession with making homosexuality=pedophilia. Clearly those persons are A. not schooled in modern psychiatric thought and B. are too closed-minded to read the issues. A depletion of homosexual men to the seminary will not solve the issue of sexual contact between men and pre-pubescent boys, please remember that physical maturation (boy to man) occurs normally after age 14. The only thing that may happen is for things to become more secretive since we as a Church are refusing to recognize the integrity of the call of homosexual men to the priesthood. If that occurs, then we are stifiling appropriate discussions surrounding sexual ethics.

What a sad day this has turned out to be.

 

[fix]

"that a gay man is no more likely than a heterosexual man to perpetrate sexual activity with a child.”

The following article Understanding Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Gay Priests Are Not the Problem By Michael R. Stevenson, Ph.D. speaks volumes concerning certain persons obsession with making homosexuality=pedophilia. Clearly those persons are A. not schooled in modern psychiatric thought and B. are too closed-minded to read the issues. A depletion of homosexual men to the seminary will not solve the issue of sexual contact between men and pre-pubescent boys, please remember that physical maturation (boy to man) occurs normally after age 14. The only thing that may happen is for things to become more secretive since we as a Church are refusing to recognize the integrity of the call of homosexual men to the priesthood. If that occurs, then we are stifiling appropriate discussions surrounding sexual ethics.

What a sad day this has turned out to be.

Thanks for the “gay” propaganda, but agit prop is no excuse for logic and morality.

The fact, alone, the author uses the term “gay” as he does is sufficient proof that he starts his understanding from a vantage point that rejects truth. He does no service to any involved in this discussion.

 

[mairegrrrl]

fix:

Thanks for the “gay” propaganda, but agit prop is no excuse for logic and morality.

I don’t understand your quote considering logic or morality. Your proposition that I have submitted “gay propaganda” is not only offensive but incorrect. I have submitted a logical argument that psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, etc. have discerned an erroenous link between homosexuality and pedophilia. Please tell me how that is lacking in logic. Also, how is my post “an excuse for morality?” I portend that the Vatican’s declaration will cause greater dis-ease concerning both logic and morality since people will read of an invisible connection between homosexuality and the current abuse crisis thus further subjecting persons of a homosexual state to disrespect and lack of Christian love by said persons.

 

[mercygate]

mairegrrrl:

. . . people will read of an invisible connection between homosexuality and the current abuse crisis thus further subjecting persons of a homosexual state to disrespect and lack of Christian love by said persons.

The scandals in the Catholic Church have not been mostly about pedophilia. About 80% of the charges were against priests who abused adolescent boys. That is a homosexual issue.

 

[mairegrrrl]

mercygate:

The scandals in the Catholic Church have not been mostly about pedophilia. About 80% of the charges were against priests who abused adolescent boys. That is a homosexual issue.

But adolescent does not equal post-pubescent. One can be a 16y/o adolescent and still going through puberty hence he is not fully a “man” hence it is pedophiliac activity and not homosexual activity.

 

[mercygate]

mairegrrrl:

But adolescent does not equal post-pubescent. One can be a 16y/o adolescent and still going through puberty hence he is not fully a “man” hence it is pedophiliac activity and not homosexual activity.

Source please?

 

[mairegrrrl]

mercygate:

Source please?

I think in part, language is a problem because we use the word adolescent as any youngperson when in fact it “Adolescence refers to the time between the beginning of sexual maturation (puberty) and adulthood.” (see nlm site below).

I just googled “age puberty boys” and a number of informational sites came up. Is this what you mean? If not, please let me know.

keepkidshealthy.com/development/puberty_boys.html

nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001950.htm

 

[mercygate]

mairegrrrl:

I think in part, language is a problem because we use the word adolescent as any youngperson when in fact it “Adolescence refers to the time between the beginning of sexual maturation (puberty) and adulthood.” (see nlm site below).

I just googled “age puberty boys” and a number of informational sites came up. Is this what you mean? If not, please let me know.

keepkidshealthy.com/development/puberty_boys.html

nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001950.htm

Thanks. It’s helpful to clear the language issue. So, 80% of the cases presented against Catholic Priests involved adolescent boys. Not pre-pubescent children of either gender. It’s pretty hard to detach from same-sex attraction.

 

[fix]

mairegrrrl:

I don’t understand your quote considering logic or morality. Your proposition that I have submitted “gay propaganda” is not only offensive but incorrect. I have submitted a logical argument that psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, etc. have discerned an erroenous link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

You submitted a link from a pro “gay” agenda group.

I portend that the Vatican’s declaration will cause greater dis-ease concerning both logic and morality since people will read of an invisible connection between homosexuality and the current abuse crisis thus further subjecting persons of a homosexual state to disrespect and lack of Christian love by said persons.

The Pope’s upcoming directive is wise, prudential and on the mark. The real problem is that too many in positions of authority have for too long embraced this “gay” agenda, rather then submit to just authority. The open dissent from moral teachings has helped usher in this crisis.

The abuse scandal is about homosexual conduct pure and simple. Many try to obfuscate that for their own agendas.

 

[Krasnaya_Kometa]

For freedom’s sake…

OK, I have mixed feelings about this. Here are the negatives:

1. What about men who like women? I like women but I’m not about to commit fornecation, which would be almost as bad. I’d rather cut it off. So who’s to say that someone with SSA would have sex with men?
2. I’m guessing 98% of all women who are raped are raped by men. Does that necessarily mean I’m going to rape someone?
3. It’s not a sin to “be gay”, only to give in to lust, which includes indulging in sexual fantasies (straight or otherwise) or acts (straight or otherwise).
4. This kind of negates the whole argument that gay people can, in fact, get married, because any single adult male can marry any unrelated and consenting single adult female, straight or otherwise.
5. Chaste men with SSA who cannot get married because they have no interest in women used to be able to turn to the Priesthood as their only option.
6. We don’t have enough Priests as it is.

HOWEVER! I do believe that as this came from the magestarium, it is inspired by God. So, while I may not understand it, I will support it. There have been a lot of instances where I didn’t agree with something but completely turned around. For instance, for a while, the Catholic Church; although I was a cradle Catholic, I was never that strong a Catholic, and for a while I was corrupted by the heretic Garner Ted Armstrong. But I came around and am as strong a Catholic as ever.

There are pluses:

1. People may feel uncomfortable around a priest with SSA, or may not trust his advice.
2. It will lower the rape rate (although banning guns would concievably lower crime as well, but I don’t agree with that).
3. Comparing gay to straight is unfair, since, while homosexual acts and other sins falling under Unnatural Vice are intrinsically wrong, heterosexual instances of fornecation, adultery, rape, and incest are only extrinsically wrong. In other words, the act itself - sex - is not wrong, but the circumstances - disconsent, not being married to each other, being married to someone else, being related too closely, etc. - make these cases wrong. But homosexuality, on the other hand, is intrinsically wrong - no circumstances could ever make it right. Therefore, camparing the two is unfair. It doesn’t matter that I like women yet stay chaste because that is normal.
4. Way too much chance for liberals to come in and preach this “feel good” nonsense about accepting everyone for who they are. For instance, prostitutes, gay people, and so on. But what they conviniently leave out is, yes, we need to accept the person, but NOT the behavior. A lot of these sermons are actually good, and people who are strong in their faith will understand the message and get something from it, but there is WAY too much possibility for misinterpretation, and that is scandal.
5. Err on the Conservative side.
6. People with SSA are likely troubled. While I understand that someone with a mental handicap can’t help it, and they may be the sweetest people ever, I simply can’t trust them with the souls of so many people.
7. It’s adverse effects are worldly, but the eternal effects, which is what it all comes down to, will most likely benefit from this.

Store your treasure in Heaven; even Job managed his suffering. 80 years of worldly suffering is better than an eternity of much worse suffering. It’s better to just roll with the punches and move on.

In short, while there are difficulties, in the end this will be for the best. Good job, Benedit XVI

 

[mairegrrrl]

mercygate:

Thanks. It’s helpful to clear the language issue. So, 80% of the cases presented against Catholic Priests involved adolescent boys. Not pre-pubescent children of either gender. It’s pretty hard to detach from same-sex attraction.

But you seem to be missing that adolescence is the time ranging from the beginning of puberty *until * sexual maturation. Therefore, it is not a homosexual activity because the activity is not occuring after sexual maturation.

fix:

The abuse scandal is about homosexual conduct pure and simple. Many try to obfuscate that for their own agendas.

There is nothing “pure and simple” about the abuse scandal. To reduce it to such negates the justice deserved by victims and punishment deserved by perpetrators. To say that it is just to punish homosexual priests is equivalent to belonging to a hate group who’s sole purpose it is to reduce the rights and privileges of those whom one despises and that my friend, is immoral.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

The real problem is that too many in positions of authority have for too long embraced this “gay” agenda, rather then submit to just authority.

This is an opinion. The problem is that 4% of the Priests chose to ignore their vow to be celibate and chose to sexually abuse minors. I know of not one person in “authority” in the Church who has advocated that it is o.k. to break the celibacy vow or abuse minors. Seeing “agendas” in others might indicate an agenda in and of itself.

fix:

The abuse scandal is about homosexual conduct pure and simple.

“Pure and simple” is purely simplistic. As a father of three girls, ignoring the 20% of the victims who were female is offensive to me.

fix:

Many try to obfuscate that for their own agendas.

This is an accusation of such broad dimensions to also be offensive. Fix’s accusation seems to imply that I and the others who have expressed opinions contrary to Fix’s have some pro-gay agenda which is patently false and one that I consider “false witness.” In all the posts that I’ve read, there are only one or two people who might have an “agenda” while the rest are just raising points and questions so they can both give another perspective and or get answers.

Unfortunately, I got drawn into this entire discussion because while all the focus is about the homosexuality, the female component of this scandal has gotten short shrift and the predation of these victims seems to me to look more like rape than illicit pursuit of sexual desire (hetero- or homosexual). I’ve stated this case so many times on this and other threads and my fears are born out. Not one person has ever responded to my comments about the female component or the predation/rape component. As long as the focus is only on one aspect and totally ignores the others, we will be disappointed with the end result.

 

[felra]

I don’t understand your quote considering logic or morality. Your proposition that I have submitted "gay propaganda"

is not only offensive but incorrect.
Can you say “hand caught in the cookie jar?”. Please explain yourself. Here is the profile of the article author:

**Michael R. Stevenson, Ph.D., **is Professor of Psychology at Ball State University where he serves as the Director of the Diversity Policy Institute Publication of his fourth book, Advocating Equality *for Lesbian, Gay, and *Bisexual Americans, co-edited with Jeanine C. Cogan, is expected in 2003.

I have submitted a logical argument that psychiatrists, psychologists, psychotherapists, etc. have discerned an erroenous link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

The author only introduces the limited occurrence of true pedophilia in the priest sex scandal as a segway stage setting to platform his gay agenda. He does this under the guise of scientific research, but in actuality his only intent/purpose is to refute, redefine and reframe the reality of homosexual predation by priests as the core phenomenon of the priest sex scandal. It is nothing more than the usual dribble, rant and litter of the gay agenda camp.

 

[mercygate]

mairegrrrl:

But you seem to be missing that adolescence is the time ranging from the beginning of puberty *until *sexual maturation. Therefore, it is not a homosexual activity because the activity is not occuring after sexual maturation.

This begs the question. 80% of the victims were teen-aged boys. BOYS. Considering that boys of 13 can and do father babies, technically defining them as “children” for purposes of addressing this problem is utterly obfuscatory.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

This is an opinion. The problem is that 4% of the Priests chose to ignore their vow to be celibate and chose to sexually abuse minors. I know of not one person in “authority” in the Church who has advocated that it is o.k. to break the celibacy vow or abuse minors. Seeing “agendas” in others might indicate an agenda in and of itself.

The problem of dissent, and its connection to this one scandal, is common knowledge and has been amply documented by many for all to see.

“Pure and simple” is purely simplistic. As a father of three girls, ignoring the 20% of the victims who were female is offensive to me.

No one is ignoring any victim, that is a straw man. The abuse crisis is overwhelmingly homosexual in nature. That is not my opinion, but it is simple to grasp for those who are open to truth and evidence.

This is an accusation of such broad dimensions to also be offensive. Fix’s accusation seems to imply that I and the others who have expressed opinions contrary to Fix’s have some pro-gay agenda which is patently false and one that I consider “false witness.” In all the posts that I’ve read, there are only one or two people who might have an “agenda” while the rest are just raising points and questions so they can both give another perspective and or get answers.

Please do not read more into my remark then is there. I was responding to a poster who posted a cite from a radical “gay” group.

Not one person has ever responded to my comments about the female component or the predation/rape component. As long as the focus is only on one aspect and totally ignores the others, we will be disappointed with the end result.

The female component is dwarfed in comparison to the homosexual component. If you have evidence about that component, please post it.

The homosexual component is emphasized with good reason. Most cases are homosexual in nature. There is a direct link between the acting out of this behavior and the dissent and rejection of Church authority. That is why it gets all the ink. That is why the Pope is publishing the directive he is.

 

[mairegrrrl]

Orionthehunter:

Unfortunately, I got drawn into this entire discussion because while all the focus is about the homosexuality, the female component of this scandal has gotten short shrift and the predation of these victims seems to me to look more like rape than illicit pursuit of sexual desire (hetero- or homosexual). I’ve stated this case so many times on this and other threads and my fears are born out. Not one person has ever responded to my comments about the female component or the predation/rape component. As long as the focus is only on one aspect and totally ignores the others, we will be disappointed with the end result.

Orion:

I agree (and empathize) with your feelings concerning the female victims. When I was of “altar server” age, one of our associates did not behave the most appropriately towards me (mostly verbal) and I know it happened because I was young and “weaker.” I distrusted “straight” priests because at 12y/o I saw myself as victim. Now, two of my closest friends are priests, one gay and one straight. They both know of “near incident” and both see pedophilia (in general) as power over another and not as a hetereosexual or homosexual activity. I point out the following article, By Jenny C, Roesler TA, Poyer KL from Pediatrics. 1994 Jul;94(1):45-6Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?. “CONCLUSIONS. The children in the group studied were unlikely to have been molested by identifiably gay or lesbian people.”

Yesterday as I was doing some research, I found a couple of interesting articles that dealt with the issue of pedophilia as a whole and discussed the overall trend that girls are subject to attack because they are seen as weaker. (I wish I could find the exact articles but I would encourage you to go to the Nat’l Library of Medicine’s database.)

An article of interest, By Freund K, Watson RJ. From J Sex Marital Ther. 1992 Spring;18(1):34-43.The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. Their conclusion:
[T]he resulting proportion of true pedophiles among persons with a homosexual erotic development is greater than that in persons who develop heterosexually. This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children. (emphasis mine)

 

[fix]

mairegrrrl:

There is nothing “pure and simple” about the abuse scandal. To reduce it to such negates the justice deserved by victims and punishment deserved by perpetrators. To say that it is just to punish homosexual priests is equivalent to belonging to a hate group who’s sole purpose it is to reduce the rights and privileges of those whom one despises and that my friend, is immoral.

Please do assign intentions to me that are false and misleading. My remark was in relation to your assertion that it is not primarily a homosexual abuse issue.

As for immorality, deceiving others, while promoting the culture of death is immoral. You are the one quoting homosexual activist groups as legitimate.

In addition, no one has called for “reducing” anyone’s rights.