Pope approves barring gay seminarians

[mairegrrrl]

fix:

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.

If promoting the basic human rights of a group is illegimate EDIT,which is more inline with promoting a culture of death than those of homosexual activist groups who promote an equality of personhood. As a heterosexual, Catholic woman, it is not only my right but my duty to see that the rights of others are not trampled upon by said persons.

In response to Felra, “hand in the cookie jar?” EDIT

Please pardon my insolence but your charge that this is the usual dribble and rant falls onto burning eartips. I give you another article (and yes it is from 1978 but still valid in the eyes of sexual ethicists). It’s conclusion: “The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.” Source: By Groth AN, Birnbaum HJ From Arch Sex Behav. 1978 May;7(3):175-81Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons

 

[fix]

mairegrrrl:

If promoting the basic human rights of a group is illegimate, I hope you can climb back into your mirage of white supremacy which is more inline with promoting a culture of death than those of homosexual activist groups who promote an equality of personhood. As a heterosexual, Catholic woman, it is not only my right but my duty to see that the rights of others are not trampled upon by said persons.

This is outrageous and I am asking the moderator to have it deleted.

 

[felra]

mairegrrrl:

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, Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? By Jenny C, Roesler TA, Poyer KL from Pediatrics. 1994 Jul;94(1):45-6. “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, The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. By Freund K, Watson RJ. From J Sex Marital Ther. 1992 Spring;18(1):34-43. 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)

Your point? Like the author of the original article that you cited, you attempt to segregate the focus of the priest sex scandal on the small percentage of cases that were actually clinically pedophile (against pre-pubescent children) as the only clinical phenomenon. Then you attempt (like the article author) to clinically/scientifically convince that the rest (80% majority) of sexual offense by priest against puberty males is not actually a phenomena of homosexual predation and abuse. This again is simply the bias (and ruthless) agenda of the radical gay activists parading as social/psychological scientists. Again: The priest sex scandal was largely the phenomena of homosexual predation against vulnerable adolescents.

 

[Orionthehunter]

fix:

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.

I guess anyone who has an opinion other than fix is a dissenter. I would tremble in fear if I tried to be my own Magisterium.

fix:

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.

I guess a simple apology or clarification was impossible from fix. I think that saying it was homosexual activity “pure and simple” sure looks like you you are ignoring the female component. And for me it is not “so simple to grasp” so I guess I’m not open to truth and evidence. Furthermore, I can’t even get you to really acknowledge the female component. Your use of “overwelmingly” indicates that the female component is insignificant.

I’m not even going to get into asking why you fail to even acknowledge that this is also about having power over the victims (i.e. rape). I’m starting to get a suspicion but I don’t make accusations w/o proof and the accusation serving a purpose. Ooops. Is that an accusation?

fix:

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.

First, I guess then I wouldn’t have said “many” as many is a long ways from “one” especially when the many people on these posts might represent 50-100 people.

fix:

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

Now you use “dwarfed”! You just don’t know how to stop adding insult to injury.

fix:

The homosexual component is emphasized with good reason. Most are cases of a homosexual nature.

Emphasised is one thing. Totally ignoring the other as you are totally intent to do is wrong and irresponsible. While there are many who have posted on this subject with whom I have slight disagreement and am mostly just trying to get them to look at the issue differently, I’m getting an indication of somehting that might be in your heart with which my disagreement is more than slight.

fix:

There is a direct link between the acting out of this behavior and the dissent and rejection of Church authority.

This is so over the top. The spectrum of people advocating that celibate homosexuals can be Priests, thru the people who have advocated that SSA is of such a serious disorder/challenge to make such a person able to be a Priest will also disagree with you. The reprehensible conduct of these Priests (sexual abuse of minors) is unrelated to the various agendas of dissent and rejections of Church authority. NAMBLA is possibly the only group in the world who thinks this is good and not evil. Even the most dissenting Catholic groups are appalled by this conduct.

 

[mairegrrrl]

fix:

This is outrageous and I am asking the moderator to have it deleted.

EDIT
To use an extreme model is to make an extreme point. You have pointedly said promoting a “gay agenda” is equal to promoting the culture of death. Did not the death of Matthew Shephard shake you to the very core? If not, then I make my claim that you have neglected to see the intrinisic goodness of every human–gay/straight, male/female, Christian/Gentile and that is more outrageous than mine.

felra:

Then you attempt (like the article author) to clinically/scientifically convince that the rest (80% majority) of sexual offense by priest against puberty males is not actually a phenomena of homosexual predation and abuse.

Those articles are not “gay propaganda” rather, written by very well respected researchers and academians. Case studies have been done (as I have linked to in those articles) and have illustrated time and again the erroneous link b/w pedophilia and homosexuality. Felra, scholarly articles of refute? I would be most inclined to read them.

Note: I will be in meetings for the next 4 hours and please do not take offense that I will not be able to respond.

 

[Orionthehunter]

felra:

Your point? Like the author of the original article that you cited, you attempt to segregate the focus of the priest sex scandal on the small percentage of cases that were actually clinically pedophile (against pre-pubescent children) as the only clinical phenomenon. Then you attempt (like the article author) to clinically/scientifically convince that the rest (80% majority) of sexual offense by priest against puberty males is not actually a phenomena of homosexual predation and abuse. This again is simply the bias (and ruthless) agenda of the radical gay activists parading as social/psychological scientists. Again: The priest sex scandal was largely the phenomena of homosexual predation against vulnerable adolescents.

Felra, I agree with you totally (your math of 80% might be slightly off after we back out pedophilia as I haven’t done the math but your point is accurate). Regarding your final comment, I guess in the end I see this problem as having three components:

1. Largest component: Homosexual predation as you state
2. Heterosexual predation.
3. Predation where the predator was after prey without regard to the gender of the victim. So many of my comments is my fear this might be larger than we currently imagine. My rationale is simple (but unsubstantiated and untrained): Predation is such a vile and base “disorder” (to use a word that might be over-used and misused by me and others ) that this disorder may transcend the sexual orientation (hetero or homosexual) of the predator.

Regardless of the percentage of each of these components, the current first step announced by Cardinal O’Brien does nothing to address these other two components. And I fear that as our knowledge gets better, these two components might add up to be almost equal to the first component.

P.S. Just so you understand my math of above, if #3 is 33%, statistically, #1 will drop to 54% and #2 will drop to 13% but #2+#3 will now equal 46% and we essentially have taken a step that only impacts a little over half of the problem.

 

[Libero]

Some interesting posts,

I however fail to see some of the ‘logic’ that supports the ban.

Many people on this site are continuously using the idea that most abuses by priests were comitted on adolescent boys, not young children. Has anyone ever wondered why, and actually thought about this comment rather than just through it around the thread? The fact is that it would be far easier for a priest to abuse a a teenage boy than it would be to abuse a three year old child. It would be far easier for a priest to create circumstances where he could abuse teenagers than he could to abuse younge children/todlers. How many four year old alter servers have you seen?

Perhaps people seem to believe that because a person is a homosexual, then they are incapable of resisting temptation. That they are instead sex driven people that cant resist the chance of intercourse. This is not a proper reason for the ban.

What is next, banning all homosexual boys from catholic high schools? That is a situation where developed homosexuals would come into close proximity to many other boys of the same age. There is very rarely a case of abuse in this situation. Developed homosexuals are spending 7 hours a day with other people of the same sex, at an age where hormones are bringing strong urges to themselves. I attend a single sex boys school, therre are some homosexuals there, however they have never acted in ways that are unacceptable and tried to abuse other students.

And this whole sex scandal thing, I have said it before and I shall say it again. If the topic of scandal in the catholic church enters a conversation, nearly all non catholics will instantly start to talk about paedophillia, not homosexuality.

Many of the reasons for supporting this ban create an untrue image of a homosexual person, taking in a distorted view of the type of people that most homosexual people are.

 

[fix]

Orionthehunter:

I guess anyone who has an opinion other than fix is a dissenter. I would tremble in fear if I tried to be my own Magisterium.

Perhaps you can read my posts with greater comprehension? My remark was referring the fact that many felt free to act out in the way they did because there is a toleration of defiance to Church teaching. This is not a novel idea. Many commentators, priests, laity, etc have drawn the same conclusion.

I guess a simple apology or clarification was impossible from fix. I think that saying it was homosexual activity “pure and simple” sure looks like you you are ignoring the female component. And for me it is not “so simple to grasp” so I guess I’m not open to truth and evidence. Furthermore, I can’t even get you to really acknowledge the female component. Your use of “overwelmingly” indicates that the female component is insignificant.

You may draw any inferences you like, but that does not make them accurate. I could say that you minimize the same sex abuse aspect and fail to draw the appropriate concluions and ignore all the suffering of those folks. Why must you place the two things at odds? Both are important, but one is of greater prevalance. Why deny the obvious?

I’m not even going to get into asking why you fail to even acknowledge that this is also about having power over the victims (i.e. rape). I’m starting to get a suspicion but I don’t make accusations w/o proof and the accusation serving a purpose. Ooops. Is that an accusation?

That power plays a role in no way negates my position.

Now you use “dwarfed”! You just don’t know how to stop adding insult to injury.

Huh? Why must you minimize the obvious to further your position?

Emphasised is one thing. Totally ignoring the other as you are totally intent to do is wrong and irresponsible. While there are many who have posted on this subject with whom I have slight disagreement and am mostly just trying to get them to look at the issue differently, I’m getting an indication of somehting that might be in your heart with which my disagreement is more than slight.

You are reading hearts, now? What your words say to me is that you reject the position of many in authority within the Church that the abuse scandal is primarily one of dissent and homosexual predation. I am aligning myself with those in the Church who disagree with you. Please see the new coming directive from the pontiff. Take it up with him.

This is so over the top. The spectrum of people advocating that celibate homosexuals can be Priests, thru the people who have advocated that SSA is of such a serious disorder/challenge to make such a person able to be a Priest will also disagree with you. The reprehensible conduct of these Priests (sexual abuse of minors) is unrelated to the various agendas of dissent and rejections of Church authority. NAMBLA is possibly the only group in the world who thinks this is good and not evil. Even the most dissenting Catholic groups are appalled by this conduct.

Many solid priests have stated that the poor formation in many seminaries, the open rebellion of theologians, the atmosphere of contempt for Church doctrines have helped promote a culture that allowed some “gay” priests to act out.

 

[CanoeCamper55]

I find it very sad that some people who claim to be Catholic would rather follow some psychologist’s research than the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, in matters of morality.

In my opinion, the Church’s sex abuse crisis was in part caused by people in the Church who have been deceived by the “gay rights” movement and defend homosexuality as a normal orientation, rather than a real disorder.

You have two choices:

1. Stand with the Pope and agree with the ban. (I do)
2. Stand with those who defend homosexuality as normal.

 

[fix]

mairegrrrl:

To use an extreme model is to make an extreme point. You have pointedly said promoting a “gay agenda” is equal to promoting the culture of death. Did not the death of Matthew Shephard shake you to the very core? If not, then I make my claim that you have neglected to see the intrinisic goodness of every human–gay/straight, male/female, Christian/Gentile and that is more outrageous than mine.

You are a propagandist. I have never denied the intrinsic worth of anyone. Those are your words that you used as a cudgel to silence those who reject the culture of death.

The “gay” agenda is part of the culture of death. By your own words you embrace it.

Why interject the Shephard case? That was a horrible crime, but not a “gay” crime. It has been revealed that at least one of the killers was “gay”, or “bisexual”. It was a drug deal gone bad. By bringing up that case you show your hand.

 

[Libero]

You have two choices:

1. Stand with the Pope and agree with the ban. (I do)
2. Stand with those who defend homosexuality as normal.

These are not the only two choices, there are other approaches to homosexuality, that whilst they do not accept it as normal, also do not go as far as to say that all homosexuals should be banned from seminary.

 

[fix]

fix:

Many solid priests have stated that the poor formation in many seminaries, the open rebellion of theologians, the atmosphere of contempt for Church doctrines have helped promote a culture that allowed some “gay” priests to act out.

The current crisis of sexual abuse and misconduct by the clergy is only one part of the puzzle. It is bad enough that some seminaries and dioceses have given a blind eye to homosexuality and immoral activity, but EQUALLY reprehensible is the deaf ear they give to heterodox teaching, heresy and theological dissent…

I see all three problems being interrelated: Sexual misconduct, heretical doctrine, liturgical abuse. First, BAD theology, i.e., doctrines which contradict official Magisterial teaching, is so prolific that the Pope had to issue EX CORDE ECCLESIAE to clamp down on dissident theologians in so-called Catholic colleges. Problem is that some Catholic colleges and seminaries are inundated with heterodox professors. HUMANAE VITAE and ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS are openly ridiculed and attacked. BAD theology is supported by BAD liturgy. Illicit and invalid Masses and sacraments are sadly not uncommon in some parts of the country…

When priests, deacons and bishops abuse the Sacred Liturgy or allow others to do so, it sends a message to the people that disobedience is permissable. Bad liturgy reinforces bad theology…

Bad theology is reinforced and perpetuated by bad liturgy and these two lead ultimately to bad morality. Abortion, contraception, fornication, homosexuality, adultery, pornography, gluttony, sloth, avarice, greed, anger, etc. These SINS are violations of the MORAL LAW. People, be they priests or bishops, parents or single adults, will be more likely to break the moral law if they have been indoctrinated in theological and liturgical disobedience as well. If it is OK to reject dogmas and to violate liturgical laws, then the next logical step is to break the moral law. Faith and Morals are connected to each other…

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=315708&Forums=0&Experts=2&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=lex+orandi&pgnu=1&groupnum=0
Spiritual Abuse by priests

 

[felra]

mairegrrrl:

Those articles are not “gay propaganda” rather, written by very well respected researchers and academians. Case studies have been done (as I have linked to in those articles) and have illustrated time and again the erroneous link b/w pedophilia and homosexuality. Felra, scholarly articles of refute? I would be most inclined to read them.

Note: I will be in meetings for the next 4 hours and please do not take offense that I will not be able to respond.

Now, now …I will not allow you to obfuscate, divert and ignore the fallicy of your obfuscation. I never addressed those 2 research articles or commented if they are part of your ‘gay propaganda’ presentation (because I could not readily find the profiles of the researchers) as you falsely state. :nope: I will not take the bait of your blue smoke and mirrors straw man. I am not seeking to refute those aerticles (though if you actually read them, there survey methods resemble more “soft science”). Can you answer my original question to you–“your point?”. Please reread that post again and:

Originally Posted by felra
Your point? Like the author of the original article that you cited, you attempt to segregate the focus of the priest sex scandal on the small percentage of cases that were actually clinically pedophile (against pre-pubescent children) as the only clinical phenomenon. Then you attempt (like the article author) to clinically/scientifically convince that the rest (80% majority) of sexual offense by priest against puberty males is not actually a phenomena of homosexual predation and abuse. This again is simply the bias (and ruthless) agenda of the radical gay activists parading as social/psychological scientists. Again: The priest sex scandal was largely the phenomena of homosexual predation against vulnerable adolescents.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

The thread has been edited at various points due to personal remarks or characterizations of posters within it. This is a one time warning. Pleast edit for tone and content prior to posting and limit posts to “content” – not “conflict”.

 

[felra]

mairegrrrl:

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. …If that occurs, then we are stifiling appropriate discussions surrounding sexual ethics.

What a sad day this has turned out to be.

Article excerpts:

“There is considerable confusion and disagreement on how best to describe priests who sexually abuse boys.”

“If church leaders want to end inappropriate or illegal sexual behavior perpetrated by clergy (whether it be with children or other adults), the church leaders need to foster healthy sexual development among seminarians and priests, regardless of their sexual orientations.”

“…but rather a call for widespread implementation of a more sophisticated understanding of sexuality and programs that help seminarians develop a healthy sexual identity.”

"Distinguishing between sexual behavior and sexual orientation may help to correct the erroneous perception that child sexual abuse is linked to homosexuality. Uninformed scientists as well as non-scientists often confuse sexual behavior with sexual orientation."

"Contrary to assumptions made at the papal summit, engaging in same-sex behavior is not synonymous with being gay."

“The bottom line is that **when sexual behavior occurs between an adult and a child **of the same sex, we know nothing about the sexual orientation of either party.”

“Protecting potential victims, regardless of their age or gender, requires policies that reflect a sophisticated understanding of sexual orientation, sexual identity, and celibacy.”

“Only when such policies are implemented will all priests and seminarians be encouraged to develop a healthy sexual identity, celibate or not, regardless of their sexual orientations.”

"Blaming gay priests for the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is not only unfounded, it will help no one."

“Contrary to the warnings of anti-gay crusaders, …”

"Blaming gay men for the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is yet another example of scapegoating …"

I have highlighted some of this radical gay activist author’s (“Professor”) more salient premises, presuppositions, beliefs, and basically outright wrong and distorted thinking and perception of reality, that I would have to immerse and indoctrinate my self in, in order to become an “informed non-scientist” so as not to “confuse sexual behavior [predation/abuse] with sexual orientation”, because “when sexual behavior occurs between an adult [homosexual priest] and a child of the same sex”, I can really “know nothing about the sexual orientation of either party”. This is because until I attain a “sophisticated understanding of sexual orientation, sexual identity”, I must realize that I am but a “blaming, anti-gay crusader” who is “scapegoating” which “is not only unfounded”, but “will help no one”.

 

[fix]

hli.org/homosexuality_not_molestation.pdf

**Child Molestation by homosexuals and heterosexuals, **Homiletic and Pastoral Review, May, 2005http://www.hli.org/homosexuality_not_molestation.pdf
Many homosexual leaders have admitted that there is a natural link between a homosexual orientation and child sexual abuse.

 

[fix]

**The Major Factor In Abuse Study Is Homosexuality

**“The reality is those with same-sex attraction have a vulnerability toward adolescent males because during their own adolescence they felt woefully inadequate,” he said. “The major psychological dynamic for those who have sex with minors is weak masculine identity and a profound sense of isolation and loneliness. When this is present, these individuals become a potential risk to adolescents — under stress they’re likely to act out in that manner.”

             “Those priests with same-sex attraction have a responsibility to protect the Church from further shame and sorrow by resolving emotional conflicts,” he said.

lifesite.net/features/churchscandals/majorfactors.htm

 

[fix]

The tolerance of dissent and the refusal to support Pope Paul VI’s encyclical against artificial contraception are seen by De Valk to be large factors in creating the climate in which scandals grew. He states, “Dissent as a cause for deviant behaviour has another side to it, namely, the refusal of bishops to denounce false teachers-which in North America was left principally to Rome. This, in turn, was accompanied by their decision to be silent in the public forum about Catholic sexual and marital moral truths”.

The author continues that in both Canada and the U.S. the bishops “threw themselves into the promotion of social justice, hoping to make up for silence on sexual-marital issues by loudly supporting economic and political activity on behalf a large variety of justice issues, national as well as international…The bishops had chosen the easy way out. Works of social justice were popular, opposing the morally permissive society was not”. lifesite.net/ldn/2003/mar/03032806.html

 

[fix]

Gay activists insist that pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality because pedophiles are only sexually interested in children, whereas homosexuals only have sexual relations with adults. We have already seen that this stereotypical view is not correct with regard to homosexuals. There is also abundant evidence demonstrating that, while primarily interested in children, pedophiles nevertheless exhibit a wide variety of sexual behaviors, including relationships with women:frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS02E3

 

[Orionthehunter]

I’m reminded of a lawyer who once said, “I can’t win on the merits so I’ll bury them with paper.”