P
Prometheum_x
Guest
Maybe if we beat it enough it will come back to life. . .
- Status
H
Ham1
Guest
I guess the Church’s statement begs the question: “What is a homosexual man?” At what level of attraction to the same sex does one become “homosexual?”
In order to understand what the Church has said we have to answer these questions. As a starting point, it would seem to me that one could possess some feelings of same sex attraction throughout life and not be considered “homosexual.”
Another interesting point earlier in this thread…someone mentioned that same sex attraction is not an impediment to marriage and indeed in the Church’s eyes it is not. So, if same sex attraction is not an impediment to marriage to a woman then why should it be an impediment to a marriage to the bride of Christ?
In order to understand what the Church has said we have to answer these questions. As a starting point, it would seem to me that one could possess some feelings of same sex attraction throughout life and not be considered “homosexual.”
Another interesting point earlier in this thread…someone mentioned that same sex attraction is not an impediment to marriage and indeed in the Church’s eyes it is not. So, if same sex attraction is not an impediment to marriage to a woman then why should it be an impediment to a marriage to the bride of Christ?
M
migurl
Guest
In all honesty, it doesn’t matter what we think. The Pope has made the decision and I am sure he spent much time in prayer asking the Holy Spirit to guide him. So as Catholics we are supposed to recognize his authority and do as we are told. Questioning the Pope is not something we should be doing. If you agree with him, good, if you don’t, too bad, the decision has been made.
S
sirknightron
Guest
Peace be with you
This not the only area that the Church is investigating nor the only order that the Church is questioning. Allthose in question or teach other than what is aproved of by Her will be stoped.
A priest must also give good council and those who do not believe something to be wrong are not going speak out against it. This is for all Priest to decide before they take thier vows.
This not the only area that the Church is investigating nor the only order that the Church is questioning. Allthose in question or teach other than what is aproved of by Her will be stoped.
A priest must also give good council and those who do not believe something to be wrong are not going speak out against it. This is for all Priest to decide before they take thier vows.
E
eaManwe
Guest
There is another thread with this exact same topic… perhaps the moderators can combine them?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=76025&page=3&pp=100
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=76025&page=3&pp=100
2
2perfection
Guest
You are absolutely right.
But…how is it worse for a gay priest to commit a homosexual act in his head than for a heterosexual priest to do the same?
Remember the example is adultery…a heterosexual example.
M
migurl
Guest
I think it is worse for a homosexual priest because while it is sinful to think lustfully about a woman (if you are a man) at least it is natural, that is to say if something did happen life could result. But in the case of two men, if one man lusts in his thoughts it is unnatural since two men cannot bring forth life.
M
migurl
Guest
Maybe to calrify with a different example. What if one person imagines hitting someone and then a second person imagines killing someone. Both are wrong, but which one is more wrong?
2
2perfection
Guest
The vast majority of psychologists disagree, same-sex love and attraction are not considered illnesses by reputable psychologists and their organisations…with some very limited exceptions.
The difference being virtually all psychologists and thewir organisations would agree with this.
This is quite funny. In these two examples you are talking about people who cannot control themthelves. That is, they always steal, they always lie.
By comparison a gay man will often not have sex when propositioned because they didnt fancy the requestor.
Here your logic fails, because your words (and I believe background knowledge) is inconsistent and faulty.
A pathological liar cnnot controltheir urges, nor can a kleptomaniac.
You have mixed up the concept oh ‘homosexual’ with ‘satyriasis’ (the male equivilent of ‘nymphomaniac’) which is “uncontrollable or excessive sexual desire in a man”
Do you see? Gay people are not spending their lives bonking. Only this evening one of my hosts made hot canapes, while the other debated natural law arguments with me, after which we watched Planet of the Apes (remake) over a couple of bottles of wine. Oddly, rampant sex did not break out, no propositions were made, no one exposed themselves, no one tried to drag me into a bedroom, my drinks werent filled with daterape drugs, and so on.
A kleptomaiac would have stone something…they couldnt help themselves.
Two, count them, two men with Satyrias would have bonked like rabits.
Do you get it yet?
Your language is getting too loose. Urges are not compulsions.
An urge can be controlled a compulsion is an irrestistable urge.
Sloppy language, sloppy logic and worse psychology? We agree.
Well, as I have shown the premise is mistaken, so the assertion is flawed. Sorry, logic and reasoning are better than bad psychology.
But as for failing vows of celibacy, we have also heard of priests and bishops fathering children. They too broke vows yet somehow heterosexuals are not banned.
Odd that…and no one mentioning pathological conditions either. curiouser and curiouser as Alice might say.
Firstly, what is the virtue in upholding a vow you have no urge to break? You havent sacrificed anything.
Secondly, once again you are mixing up a pathological uncontrollable urge to do something with a sexual orientation. No surprise there, that has how the whole issue has arisen.
But its bad psychology and arguing from conclusions, failing to compare like with like.
I know your posting seems reasonable to you, you wouldnt have posted otherwise, But nothing really stands up to reason. You conflate urges and orientation, urges and compulsions, real psychological disorders for dogmatic assertions. it is a bit of a mess.
2
2perfection
Guest
Well, first and formost. My degree is in Social Policy and Sociaology, which happens to have many credits in statistics, social research methods, and a 15,000 word research dissertation at the end. So, I happen to be educated on the methodologies used, and have done social research myself. It was, admittedly 15 years ago, but I was arguing from past (done in the years fater uni) resarch, not current.
So, your snide and worthless comment noted, I will remind you that you never know who you will meet on the net. It is true I do not do social research anymore and my skills are directed to more technical matters, but buster, next time you want to insinuate I’m a liar or not a ‘real’ researcher, please have some evidence beyond your own cynicism and uncharitable nature.
To the main topic…
My research was done 14 years ago, and some of your references postdate that period. While I quite expect to find the same errors in methodology, I cannot be sure. So where available I am going to read your references, critique them as far as my skills allow, reference on-line critiques, and look at a range of research on the matter.
I will then start a thread on the subject, either to concede your arguments or to balance them with other research, or to demonstrate their poverty.
I cant say which yet as I havent updated my knowledge yet.
It may take a couple of weeks, naturally, I’m an adult with other committments, but I will return to this subject.
Keep a look out.
G
goofyjim
Guest
I think I will begin my lenten practices very early by not participating in these topics anymore. It seems to me that there is too much bitterness on both sides of the issue. I fully believe homosexual behavior is a sin. Bu there has been sufficient demonstration of the other extreme here stating that even having the temptations is sinful. Well, my friends, we are a church of sinners and therein lies our equality. I don’t see the sin of homosexual behavior between consenting adults as the worst one out there even though I feel it ranks close. We could all be focusing on more important matters. That said, farewell.
C
Catilieth
Guest
For the same reasons that someone convicted of murder cannot become a priest. Depending on the circumstances, for example, I might be willing to marry someone who had been convicted of murder. I may judge that the circunstances were extreme and not likely to be repeated and that he is truly repentant. He may make me a wonderful husband and father. But, he would never be eligible for the priesthood.
2
2perfection
Guest
It makes the concept of ‘forgiveness’ ring hollow, dont you think? “yes i forgive you, but please go away”, not really forgiveness is it? It’s more of a half-forgiven thing.
P
PLAL
Guest
MUST READ!!!
renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/050922
**Three priests speak on ‘gay priest’ ban
**
Matt C. Abbott
Matt C. Abbott
September 22, 2005
**Three Roman Catholic priests have been gracious enough to provide me with their observations (edited) on the recent report that Pope Benedict XVI “has given his approval to a new Vatican policy document indicating that men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained as Catholic priests.”
**
renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/050922
**Three priests speak on ‘gay priest’ ban
**
Matt C. Abbott
Matt C. Abbott
September 22, 2005
**Three Roman Catholic priests have been gracious enough to provide me with their observations (edited) on the recent report that Pope Benedict XVI “has given his approval to a new Vatican policy document indicating that men with homosexual tendencies should not be ordained as Catholic priests.”
**
P
PLAL
Guest
renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/050922
“Our message to the media, to the homosexual activists and to the liberal church is clear. You can’t have it both ways: you can’t complain about Church negligence in the pedophilic priest problem and also complain about the Church’s diligence in addressing it. Either you grab the problem by its root and yank it out of the soil of the priesthood or you keep asking the faithful to subsidize deviant behavior and the resulting legal liability. Benedict has made his choice, and we are the better for it.”
*–*Father Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International
New web address for RenewAmerica
“Our message to the media, to the homosexual activists and to the liberal church is clear. You can’t have it both ways: you can’t complain about Church negligence in the pedophilic priest problem and also complain about the Church’s diligence in addressing it. Either you grab the problem by its root and yank it out of the soil of the priesthood or you keep asking the faithful to subsidize deviant behavior and the resulting legal liability. Benedict has made his choice, and we are the better for it.”
*–*Father Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International
New web address for RenewAmerica
2
2perfection
Guest
Well, I said I would come back to this.
I will post this bit by bit to avoid the 5000 character limit.
mlchance:
Pau Cameron has been expelled from American Psychological Association in 1984, “Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists”. Cameron claims he resigned, but the APA does not allow resignations while members are being investigated. Still, the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.
In October 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality.
Moving on…
In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research. In 1986 they passed a resolution containing the following:
"The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. "
In 1985 he was also acting as an expert witness in a case, the Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas wrote in his written judgement:
“Dr. Paul Cameron…has himself made misrepresentations to this Court” and that “There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron”
I am tempted to stop there…very tempted, but I did note in passing that Cameron gets published a lot in the Journal Psychological Reprts. Unlike ofther scientific journals ‘researchers’ pay to get articles printed (about $30 per page of research) and the editor Doug Ammons said ''No [peer] reviewer has a veto right.". So that journal is vanity press and peer review does not amount to normal scientific peer review as there is no veto.
Compare that to the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. Their editorial policiy is that they will reject an article if any peer reviewer raises serious objections about its methodology, and those journals do not charge for publication.
Lest you think that its just professional psychological groups, judges and real scientific journals that reject Camerons work, we can look at conservative and religious groups too. The Traditional Values Coalition deleted all references to Paul Cameron from its website, and claimed their includion was an ‘accident’.
So, as I said I will post this bit by bit to avoid the max character limit problem.
So, observations, the claim:
Regarding much higher rates of incest committed by homosexual parents, see “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772
Comes from a discredited scientist, who pays to have his work published, in journals where peer review is a joke, whom has been found in a court of law to engage in ‘fraud’.
You dare quote this man as back-up for your argument?
I’ll tell you what you did. You went to a nice anti-gay religious website and just grabbed a reference with no quality control. You quoted what you though would help your point.
Bad Mark, naughty Mark, no ice cream for you!
I expect the above facts about your source will be laid down to some massive liberal gay-agenda conspiracy, and someone will claim Cameron is a martye and victim. If you do, give proof.. But lets note thet Cameron does claim to have been raped by a man at age 10, so he does have victim status, but what has that done to his impartiality?
Questions:
I will post this bit by bit to avoid the 5000 character limit.
By accident or design you failed to mention the author of this piece is Paul Cameron . I did a check on PubMed for his other articles and was surprised to find so many seriously at variance with other published material. So I did a background check.
Pau Cameron has been expelled from American Psychological Association in 1984, “Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists”. Cameron claims he resigned, but the APA does not allow resignations while members are being investigated. Still, the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.
In October 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality.
Moving on…
In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that “Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism” and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research. In 1986 they passed a resolution containing the following:
"The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. "
In 1985 he was also acting as an expert witness in a case, the Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas wrote in his written judgement:
“Dr. Paul Cameron…has himself made misrepresentations to this Court” and that “There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron”
I am tempted to stop there…very tempted, but I did note in passing that Cameron gets published a lot in the Journal Psychological Reprts. Unlike ofther scientific journals ‘researchers’ pay to get articles printed (about $30 per page of research) and the editor Doug Ammons said ''No [peer] reviewer has a veto right.". So that journal is vanity press and peer review does not amount to normal scientific peer review as there is no veto.
Compare that to the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine. Their editorial policiy is that they will reject an article if any peer reviewer raises serious objections about its methodology, and those journals do not charge for publication.
Lest you think that its just professional psychological groups, judges and real scientific journals that reject Camerons work, we can look at conservative and religious groups too. The Traditional Values Coalition deleted all references to Paul Cameron from its website, and claimed their includion was an ‘accident’.
So, as I said I will post this bit by bit to avoid the max character limit problem.
So, observations, the claim:
Regarding much higher rates of incest committed by homosexual parents, see “Homosexual Parents,” Adolescence 31 (1996): 772
Comes from a discredited scientist, who pays to have his work published, in journals where peer review is a joke, whom has been found in a court of law to engage in ‘fraud’.
You dare quote this man as back-up for your argument?
I’ll tell you what you did. You went to a nice anti-gay religious website and just grabbed a reference with no quality control. You quoted what you though would help your point.
Bad Mark, naughty Mark, no ice cream for you!
I expect the above facts about your source will be laid down to some massive liberal gay-agenda conspiracy, and someone will claim Cameron is a martye and victim. If you do, give proof.. But lets note thet Cameron does claim to have been raped by a man at age 10, so he does have victim status, but what has that done to his impartiality?
Questions:
- Do you want me to read his work and produce a critique, remembering you will have to read his work and understand it as well, to understand the critique?
- Do you want examples from other researchers that counter his claims (I have found some, you could too)
- Did you do any research to validate the claims you repeated?
F
felra
Guest
2
2perfection
Guest
Here we go again.
mlchance:
For the purposes of this debate (peadophile priests vs gay priests vs heterosecual priests) only men need by considered as only men can become priests.
I think that is fair. Please let me know if you want better figures for the percentage of female sexual abusers. I will seek them out.
mlchance:
Now here is an example of the usual, expected and predictable error that the gay=peadophile lobby continually make, either deliberately or in ignorance. that I found 14 years ago.
That is, it is assumed that a man who abuses a male child is homosexual and will find an adult male attractive. Freund explicitly denies this, in “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference,” [Journal of Sex Research 26 (February 1989)] p. 107. In this and the one cited above, Freund claims that homosexuals who find adults sexually attractive are no more likely than heterosexuals who find adults sexually attractive to be attracted to children. He uses the term ‘true peadophile’ to refer to his study groups and this term refers to men (he excluded women due to their rarity as men primarily or exclusively attracted to children, and finds that adults who find adults sexually attractive have offending rates exactly in proportion to the population norm.
He concludes that being a peadophile is deeply linked to male-on-male abuse (causality flows from peadophile → male-male abuse, not homosexuality → peadophilia → male-male abuse.
So, while Freund estimated that the ration of heterosexual to homosexual peadophiles was 11:1 (as opposed to a general 20:1 in the normal population) he stated This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.
Again, i dont expect you to get the argument. So I will make it easier for you.
Adult men who find adult men sexually attractive are safe with your kids.
Adult men who find children sexually attractive are disproportiinately likely to molest boys.
If you think gay men will molest your children you are wrong.
Peadophiles molest children. Peadophiles are a different population to gay men.
You are mixing up the gay sexual orientation with the peadophile activity.
Any questions so far?
This is, of course, well known. But ‘most’ is a range from 51% (a majority) to 100% (all). That is a mighty big range and is essentially valueless in the current debate. So I will let it stand.
For the purposes of this debate (peadophile priests vs gay priests vs heterosecual priests) only men need by considered as only men can become priests.
I think that is fair. Please let me know if you want better figures for the percentage of female sexual abusers. I will seek them out.
You realy need to get into the habit of mentioning the author of the pieces you cite. This work was done by Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy.
Now here is an example of the usual, expected and predictable error that the gay=peadophile lobby continually make, either deliberately or in ignorance. that I found 14 years ago.
That is, it is assumed that a man who abuses a male child is homosexual and will find an adult male attractive. Freund explicitly denies this, in “Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference,” [Journal of Sex Research 26 (February 1989)] p. 107. In this and the one cited above, Freund claims that homosexuals who find adults sexually attractive are no more likely than heterosexuals who find adults sexually attractive to be attracted to children. He uses the term ‘true peadophile’ to refer to his study groups and this term refers to men (he excluded women due to their rarity as men primarily or exclusively attracted to children, and finds that adults who find adults sexually attractive have offending rates exactly in proportion to the population norm.
He concludes that being a peadophile is deeply linked to male-on-male abuse (causality flows from peadophile → male-male abuse, not homosexuality → peadophilia → male-male abuse.
So, while Freund estimated that the ration of heterosexual to homosexual peadophiles was 11:1 (as opposed to a general 20:1 in the normal population) he stated This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children.
Again, i dont expect you to get the argument. So I will make it easier for you.
Adult men who find adult men sexually attractive are safe with your kids.
Adult men who find children sexually attractive are disproportiinately likely to molest boys.
If you think gay men will molest your children you are wrong.
Peadophiles molest children. Peadophiles are a different population to gay men.
You are mixing up the gay sexual orientation with the peadophile activity.
Any questions so far?
L
LovedOne
Guest
G
Gabriel_Gale
Guest
The term “true pedophilia” is a false division and not found un the DSM. The problem in the seminaries involved more adult-teenage abuse abuse tahn actual pedophilia (sex with a prepubecent child,)
- Status