F
fix
Guest
Facts are stubborn things…
- Status
F
fix
Guest
Agenda? What agenda?
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Fix, these are opinions/conclusions based on facts. Please don’t confuse the two.
To everyone else with whom I’ve tried to broaden the debate to issues of the predation of females, predation without regard to gender, and trying to remind us the promise of Christ that with God’s Grace sinful nature can be overcome, please don’t consider my future failure to respond to fix’s myopia on condemning homosexuals (rather than only hating the sin, not the sinner) as admitting defeat but only resignation that some hearts and minds are closed.
God Bless the Church Triumphant, Church Suffering, and Church Militant.
F
felra
Guest
I will be interested to hear your thoughts regarding this “scholarly article” citation which fully refutes your Case study “written by very well respected researchers and academics”. Please incline yourself and read:
“There are occasional scientific attempts to deny or obscure the fact that a disproportionately high percentage of active homosexuals also molest children. These studies are invariably afflicted with one or more fatal flaws.
“A typical example, is the July 1994 Pediatrics article by Jenny, Roesler and Poyer that finds that ‘Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%.These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.’
“The fatal flaw of this study is that it studies sexually abused children with a mean age just 6.1years. Children of this young age are usually targets of true pedophiles, those persons with no sexual attraction to adults of either sex. By contrast, homosexual pedophiles are usually classified as “ephebophiles”, persons sexually attracted to pubescent or post-pubescent underage children.”
http://www.hli.org/homosexuality_not_molestation.pdf
F
fix
Guest
Please review the posts carefully, they have links to peer reviewed journals that support my position.
I have posted my arguments and links to orthodox Catholic sites except one Protestant site, academic citations, and journalist’s accounts. What is myopic, or hating of any sinner?
Please do not characterize my posts as you have above. Not only is that post false, but it is an attempt to judge my heart, the second time you have done so. Your failure to prove your point, or defend your argument, should not lead you to murder my reputation. I will pray for you, please pray for me.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I’ve never tried to prove a point as much as I’ve tried to raise issues for discussion. I’m not a trained expert. I’m just uncomfortable as a Christian with the exclusive focus on the homosexual component with utter disregard for the other components and the implication that this sinful nature can’t be overcome. And I’m frustrated that these issues aren’t considered important or relevant.
Regarding your reputation, all I will say is let the facts stand. A review of threads started by you, of the first 50, 19 (and maybe one other tangentially) has to do w/ homosexuality. There is only one other subject that warranted 3 threads. And not once did I find one that implied any compassion to the challenge that a person struggling with homosexuality must experience but they all advocate some type of punishment/admonishment/ condemnation of homosexuals. While I can’t judge your heart, I sure can see how something in your heart is manifested and it is real hard to see the tender heart of Jesus.
F
felra
Guest
To minimize or to confirm someone in their sin, to leave someone hopeless in a psychological affliction, shows a total lack of the mercy and love of God–>too many posters do just this in their race to love the person, ignore the sin or the reality of their affliction. I have seen absolutely nothing but compassion in the posts of fix in this regard for those afflicted and suffering with SSA. As a fellow CA member who has popsted extensively on issues related to SSA, I would challenge you to demonstrate otherwise (as in “put up or shut up”).
Likewise, I challenge you to demonstrate one post by **fix **which shows that he has advocated for “some type of punishment/admonishment/ condemnation of homosexuals”.
Now that I have your attention, I give you permission to likewise respectfully critque my posts (not me personally) for anything but mercy and compassion shown by me toward those afflicted with SSA.
S
St.Curious
Guest
If we have an impure thought about someone who is married, we have commited adultry. It’s in scripture.
Therefore…
If we have an impure thought about someone of the same sex, we have commited a homosexual act. And that is a mortal sin.
Therefore…
If we have an impure thought about someone of the same sex, we have commited a homosexual act. And that is a mortal sin.
O
otm
Guest
And where, pray tell, did you come up with that definition? And would you care to suggest a reason that you have decided that same sex attraction (since that is what homosexuality is about) somehow is not same sex attraction if it is an attraction to someone who is of the same sex but has not reached whatever age you deem to be sexual maturity? Since that is what homosexuality is about - sexual attraction to someone of the same gender - and given that sexual maturity is the ability in a male to create and deliver sperm, I fail to see that your use of the term “sexual maturity” has any meaning, other than, apparently, the legal definition of adulthood. Given that some states may define that as 16 for the purpose of marriage, that in and of itself puts you on shaky ground. you seem to be suggesting that somehow a post pubescent male under the age of 18 is some sort of androgen.
mairegrrl:
Actually, only the people who want like crazy to support homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle seem to want to say that the issue is incredilby complex, that it is not about homosexuality, etc. It is fairly simple to someone who doesn’t support that lifestyle as legitimate; homosexual priests have been sexually active with young men.
I don’t know anyone saying that anything about the scandal is “just to punish homosexual priests”. It is about getting back to a moral square one - sex outside of the bounds of marriage is a serious sin, whether it is heterosexual or homosexual sex; homosexuality as a predilection is seriously disordered, sexual contact between homosexual men (priests or otherwise) and post-pubescent boys is not only a crime but also seriously mentally harmful.
There is more than one scandal afoot; the one that has the most attention is the priest/boys issue. However, homosexual activity by priests has by no means been solely with young men. We have what appears to be a disproportionate number of priests dying of AIDS, and numerous accusations of priests engaged in repetitive homosexual behavior.
O
otm
Guest
Well, for starters, as much as I think the book is poorly written, try “Goodby Good Men” by Mr. Rose. He speaks of numerous priests in position of authority - seminary directors, diocesan directors of vocations, and bishops who, if they didn’t know, would seem to border on criminal neglect, who certainly give the appearance of approval.
Orienthehunter:
In some circumstances rape, and in some, statuatory rape.
And you are right, there has not been much said about it; in part, I suspect, because it seems to be the (now) men, mostly, who have hired the attorneys and filed the large lawsuits.
This part of it, I suspect, will surface if and when the lawsuits start, as that seems to be what gets the press’s juices flowing as they circle cor the kill.
We had an incident in our Archdiocese. what p’o’ed me was that our pastor “took some time off for mental health”; the rumor around was that he had had a mental breakdown concerning his brother’s death. Who started that I have no idea; I can’t say that it came from anyone official, just that that was what we were told. Later, it came out that he had had sexual activity with a female high school student while teaching in a Catholic high school.
O
otm
Guest
The death of Matthew Shepard is a red herring in this discussion. No one here is advocating that homosexuals be killed. No one is advocating that they be tortured.
The issue is whether or not homosexuals should be ordained.
If your position is that homosexuals have a right to be ordained, then let’s keep it to that.
No one has suggested that homosexuals as human beings do not have intrinsic dignity and worth. There is a slight difference (or, at least it must be slight, as some seem almost intentional in not being able to distinguish) between having a disorder and acting on that disorder.
If you wish to say that homosexuality is not a disorder, you are welcome to your opinion. However, an honest review of the history of how this has been treated by psychologists and psychiatrists would indicate that is it of recent that this was delisted as a disorder. Interestingly, those falling into one camp or the other tend to fall into those camps based on their views of sexual morality, or lack of it.
There are plenty of ethicists who would insist that homosexuals have an innate right to sexual activity of their choosing, so long as the other individual is consenting. There are also plenty of ethicists who promote abortion as a “sad, but valid” choice having no real moral dimension in respect to the child. So arguing from some ethicist’s point requires more than casual quoting.
mairegrrl:
You need to get unstuck from the issue of pedophilia, as most of the cases involving priests and boys (taken as the number of offenders, not offenses) were not about pedophilia but about ephebophila. You are repeating this to the point of bordering on straw-man arguements.
Further, the term “well respected” needs to be approached with a bit of caution. Well respected by whom? Those of a like mind? There are any number of “well respected” individuals who start with the supposition that sexual activity between two consenting individuals is a right, is not harmful to either, and in an enlightened society is not only to be tolerated, but indeed, celebrated.
Some of those “well respected” individuals are now on the bandwagon of homosexual marriage and adoption by homosexual couples. Never mind that vast amount of research from the past right uyp to the present which shows the emotional and psychological need of children for both a same sex and opposite sex parent. Studies abound with children who were limited to only a parent of one sex - either the same or opposite - and the problems and difficulties those children have had in not having both parents. and studies also abound of children who had both parents physically, but one of the parents not psychologically and/or emotionally available.
It takes either naievety or intellectual dishonesty to not acknowledge potential biases in “well respected” researchers.
O
otm
Guest
I know of no cases in which priests were abusing three year old children; there were, however, a number of cases where the priest was abusing children who were pre-pubescent but of grade school age. One of those was in my Archdiocese. I can’t recall the number of boys he molested, but it was acknowledged that he would drop a victim as soon as there was a sign of pubic hair. The number of victims makes one woneder how he could manage so many.
O
otm
Guest
fix said:
Bingo! I knew that was out there, as I had read it but for the life of me couldn’t remember where.
Good post!
F
fix
Guest
Translation: I do not agree with you, so you are wrong.
I doubt you have reviewed my several thousand posts. Your desire to paint me as uncaring is false and borders on calumniation. In at least 2 posts yesterday you implied you could read my soul. That is authentically “judging” one that Christ specfically asked we not do.
That you cannot evaluate my posts without resorting to character assasination says more about you than me.
F
fix
Guest
Thank you for defending accuracy in posting. I always look forward to reading your posts.
F
fix
Guest
Thanks, it is an important read.
Y
YinYangMom
Guest
Back to the original intent of this thread…
since we’re talking about the pope signing a document which basically reinforces a policy that has been in effect for a long, long time, but has not been enforced…
and not whether or not the reason for the barring is because the Church believes homosexuals will continue the sex scandal we endured (debating what one thinks is behind the motive for the document would be a separate thread)…
I will be more interested to see what follows this signing…are we expecting this Pope to actually do something other than sign a document?
The fact that there is a task force visiting all seminaries now is an encouraging sign…
The fact that the decision whether or not to let a person continue in the seminary rests solely on the bishop is not…
In that, those bishops who have been lenient in the past would continue to be so…and those who have been strict in the past would continue to be so…
What kind of assurance could the Pope possible give to us, his followers, that this time things are going to be different?
What will you be looking for???
since we’re talking about the pope signing a document which basically reinforces a policy that has been in effect for a long, long time, but has not been enforced…
and not whether or not the reason for the barring is because the Church believes homosexuals will continue the sex scandal we endured (debating what one thinks is behind the motive for the document would be a separate thread)…
I will be more interested to see what follows this signing…are we expecting this Pope to actually do something other than sign a document?
The fact that there is a task force visiting all seminaries now is an encouraging sign…
The fact that the decision whether or not to let a person continue in the seminary rests solely on the bishop is not…
In that, those bishops who have been lenient in the past would continue to be so…and those who have been strict in the past would continue to be so…
What kind of assurance could the Pope possible give to us, his followers, that this time things are going to be different?
What will you be looking for???
F
fix
Guest
It will be difficult to change the culture.
C
CanoeCamper55
Guest
The above statement gets to the heart of this matter.
There is much WISDOM in what the Holy Father has said.
“Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect.” (Romans 12:2)
L
Libero
Guest
I heard from one website that the pope may not even sign the document, as the Vatican are trying to soften his ‘rotweiler’ image. Thus a cardinal might sign the document
I do not think that a barring of homosexuals is going to truly solve the issue, it is just pushing the issue aside and then stopping it from getting any closer. I believe that this document will not really help the church, and that it is just as likely that the situation will stay the same or maybe even get worse.
If the issue is to be successfully addressed, then it shall take time, representatives from the church and laity and from bothe homosexuality and heterosexuality should all be capable of putting forward their say on the issue. It may even require compromise on some matters.
- Status