Root Cause of Sex Abuse Crisis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soutane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Definitive Paper Showing Homosexuality at Root of the Sex Abuse Crisis

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041916.html

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010_docs/Homosexuality

Clowes Paper
Well of course, did anyone not know this ?

Funny huh, the media and the gov’t and the education system say it is all right and we should accept it and welcome it as an alternate lifestyle. (my 8th grader actually had a gay couple come to their school and present it as an ‘alternate life style’ !!! )

But when we see the fruits it produces, especially in the RCC, thay are out for blood.
What’s the problem, I thought it was alright to live like that ?
What did you THINK they did in the closet, anyway ?

So get off the Church’s case, media, You have promoted for years. The problem is YOUR baby !
 
Well of course, did anyone not know this ?

Funny huh, the media and the gov’t and the education system say it is all right and we should accept it and welcome it as an alternate lifestyle. (my 8th grader actually had a gay couple come to their school and present it as an ‘alternate life style’ !!! )

But when we see the fruits it produces, especially in the RCC, thay are out for blood.
What’s the problem, I thought it was alright to live like that ?
What did you THINK they did in the closet, anyway ?

So get off the Church’s case, media, You have promoted for years. The problem is YOUR baby !
BOBN4BVM do you ever feel like the little boy who shouts out,“the emperor has no clothes”!
 
The link doesn’t comport with the current understanding of pedophilia.

Whether one agrees with the following or not, it is important to at least understand it:

psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

The article asserts that pedophiles don’t have a normal, adult, sexual orientation. They are “regressed.” This ultimately means that:

“Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.”

If this is true, then it is obvious why most sexual abuse would involve man-boy contact: opportunity. Their adult sexual orientation, to the extent it is developed, may be entirely hetrosexual.
 
I despair 😦

I really do.

Homosexuality is NOT the root cause of the sex abuse crisis.
Are you kidding me??? Nah, it’s a Martian problem or vesuvian problem or a heterosexual problem.These clerical rats are not pedophiles , but hebephiles practised by a minority of predatory homosexuals.Even the Homosexual Community realises this.That’s why they disdainfully call them Chickenhawks.Feel sorry for the homosexual priests who don’t act out their SSA affliction let alone molest boys but maintain their chastity.
 
The link doesn’t comport with the current understanding of pedophilia.

Whether one agrees with the following or not, it is important to at least understand it:

psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

The article asserts that pedophiles don’t have a normal, adult, sexual orientation. They are “regressed.” This ultimately means that:

“Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.”

If this is true, then it is obvious why most sexual abuse would involve man-boy contact: opportunity. Their adult sexual orientation, to the extent it is developed, may be entirely hetrosexual.
More apologia for the Sacred Cow of Homosexuality.And Black is white.Priests have had access to female altar servers for quite some time with no discernable or measurable hetero impact except for the odd exception that proves the rule…
Sorry your posit does NOT pass muster.
 
The link doesn’t comport with the current understanding of pedophilia.

Whether one agrees with the following or not, it is important to at least understand it:

psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

The article asserts that pedophiles don’t have a normal, adult, sexual orientation. They are “regressed.” This ultimately means that:

“Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.”

If this is true, then it is obvious why most sexual abuse would involve man-boy contact: opportunity. Their adult sexual orientation, to the extent it is developed, may be entirely hetrosexual.
For the 10,000th time it is not pedophilia but hebephilia or ephebophilia.it is not the molesting of babies or toddlers,Mommy and Daddy in the main are responsible for those hetero-homo crimes but the abuse of pubescent boys and young men are by predatory homosexuals.Normal homosexuals seek out those of their own age but there are those within and without the priesthood who seek “young stuff”.
There are none so blind as the wilfully blind.
 
I thought the root cause was the press teaming up with lawyers to sue the Catholic Church over their moral stand on issues like abortion, ordained women, and gay marriage. I got that from an ad published by no less than the President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
 
I thought the root cause was the press teaming up with lawyers to sue the Catholic Church over their moral stand on issues like abortion, ordained women, and gay marriage. I got that from an ad published by no less than the President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
In other words, it’s a manufactured crisis.
 
It’s not a manufactured crisis. Real, innocent young people have been sexually exploited by catholic priests, bishops, and religious (of both sexes). We do the Gospel no service by putting ourheads in the sand.

As others have mentioned, pedophilia is not associated with homo or heterosexual orientation. Pedophiles focus on very young children and their sexual deviancy is nearly adnrogenous. Where this argument goes off the rails is that there were VERY few cases of pedophilia in the clergy abuse scandal! The news media has simply ignored this fact and pulled a switcheroo on us (or somebody did it to them and they haven’t noticed yet).

The vast majority of sexual abuse cases (80%+) were of pubescent boys. Not androgenous. Not pedophilia. Boys beginning to manifest clear masculine traits, but still in the early stages of it. The John Jay study clearly shows abuser preference for boys and no statistical change in abuse rate of boys vs girls from the 50s through the 80’s when the percentage of girl altar servers went from 0 to probably 60% (my own guesstimate). If it was all about opportunity, the data should show it. It doesn’t. Google it for yourself (John Jay College of Criminal Justice did an exhaustive study of abuser priests).

So what do we conclude from this? Was the abuse crisis caused by gays?

No! The abusers appear to have a homosexual preference. But this does NOT necessarily say ANYTHING about the homosexual guy that works in the cubicle down the hall from you. This didn’t happen because ‘gays’ infiltrated the Church. This happened because shepherds haven’t been checking to see if a wolf lurked under the wool of seminarians.

The proper conclusion to draw from this scandal is that the Church needs to start getting serious about dissent and blantant and unrepentant sin on the part of the clergy. It should be no surprise to anyone that a priest who publicly questions the teaching of the Church on moral issues also takes the same approach in his private life. Sin begets sin. There IS plenty of repentance to do on the part of the hierarchy. They DO need to place the integrity of the gospel preached and modeled to the laity higher than the insider interests of the priest club. I’ve long had the feeling that this hasn’t been in the right order of priority.

Handling it this way comes off as owning up to the blunders that were made instead of pointing the finger at a scapegoat, even a mighty convenient and tempting one.

Bishops blaing gays for the priest abuse crisis is like Adam and Eve blaming Satan for the bitten apple. In both cases, the blame cannot be simpy passed on down the line.
 
More apologia for the Sacred Cow of Homosexuality.
Perhaps I need remind you that your view is not shared by the Pope or the magisterium. Whatever you may think of homosexuality, the Church holds that homosexual males may be ordained to the priesthood. That has not changed. Perhaps it should change
 
Perhaps I need remind you that your view is not shared by the Pope or the magisterium. Whatever you may think of homosexuality, the Church holds that homosexual males may be ordained to the priesthood. That has not changed. Perhaps it should change
Actually, the Vatican a couple years back issued guidelines to seminaries indicating that anyone with a “deep seated same sex attraction” (quote from memory) should NOT be ordained to the priesthood. This is differentiated in the guidance as opposed to a transitory period of sexual confusion that has been resolved for a period of time before entry to the seminary. This is regardless of whether or not the man publicly commits to chastity.

This does not say that the man with an SSA is somehow inherently evil or of inherently greater risk of crime. Reading between the lines, it appears that the Vatican is concerned that it is MUCH harder for an SSA person to tell the difference between a call from God to priesthood and the celibacy that is morally required of him anyways because of Natural Law. The priesthood is intended to be a masculine role and since SSA is a disordered sexuality, the Vatican appears to now believe that it is inappropriate to ordain those with an SSA to the priesthood.
 
Anyone ever think that the crisis was intentionally done by the enemies of the church?
Try reading this book, and it might open your eyes…

tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/217/

Memoirs of the Communist infiltration into the Church.

Memoirs of a Communist injured in an auto accident in France; he died in the hospital a few hours later. The nurse who attended him kept his journals, read them and published them as AA-1025. He had become a Catholic priest to subvert the Church from within. Describes his methods & plans. Says there were many more like him. Very enlightening!
 
Perhaps I need remind you that your view is not shared by the Pope or the magisterium. Whatever you may think of homosexuality, the Church holds that homosexual males may be ordained to the priesthood. That has not changed. Perhaps it should change
Everyone needs to review RELIGIOSORUM INSTITUTIO, Instruction on the Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders, by the Sacred Congregation For Religious, February 2, 1961, papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23religios.htm

This is the continual, uncontested teaching of Catholicism.

D) The Required Chastity


  1. Those To Be Excluded; Practical Directives
  2. A candidate who shows himself certainly unable to observe religious and priestly chastity, either because of frequent sins against chastity or because of a sexual bent of mind or excessive weakness of will, is not to be admitted to the minor seminary and, much less, to the novitiate or to profession. If he has already been accepted but is not yet perpetually professed, then he should be sent away immediately or advised to withdraw, according to individual cases, no matter what point in his formation he has already reached. Should he be perpetually professed, he is to be barred absolutely and permanently from tonsure and the reception of any Order, especially Sacred Orders. If circumstances should so demand, he shall be dismissed from the community, with due observance of the prescriptions of canon law.
  3. Consequently, any candidate who has a habit of solitary sins and who has not given well-founded hope that he can break this habit within a period of time to be determined prudently, is not to be admitted to the novitiate. Nor can a candidate be admitted to first profession or to renewal of vows unless he has really amended his ways. But if a novice or a temporarily professed religious gives evidence of a firm purpose of amendment with good grounds for hope of success, his probation can be extended as provided for in canon law (canons 571, S2; 574, S2; 973, S 3; Stat. Gen., art. 34, S 2, 3 ).
Well-grounded hope of amendment can be provided by those youths who are physically and psychically normal or endowed with good bodily and mental health, who are noted for solid piety and the other virtues intimately connected with chastity, and who sincerely desire the religious and priestly life.
  1. A much stricter policy must be followed in admission to perpetual profession and advancement to Sacred Orders. No one should be admitted to perpetual vows or promoted to Sacred Orders unless he has acquired a firm habit of continency and has given in every case consistent proof of habitual chastity over a period of at least one year. If within this year prior to perpetual profession or ordination to Sacred Orders doubt should arise because of new falls, the candidate is to be barred from perpetual profession or Sacred Orders (cf. above, no. 16) unless, as far as profession is concerned, time is available either by common law or by special indult to extend the period for testing chastity and there be question of a candidate who, as was stated above (no. 30, 2) affords good prospects of amendment.
  2. If a student in a minor seminary has sinned gravely against the sixth commandment with a person of the same or the other sex, or has been the occasion of grave scandal in the matter of chastity, he is to be dismissed immediately as stipulated in canon 1371, except if prudent consideration of the act and of the situation of the student by the superiors or confessors should counsel a different policy in an individual case, sc., in the case of a boy who has been seduced and who is gifted with excellent qualities and is truly penitent, or when the sin was an objectively imperfect act.
If a novice or a professed religious who has not yet made perpetual vows should be guilty of the same offense, he is to be sent away from the community or, should the circumstances so demand, he is to be dismissed with due observance of canon 647, S 2, 1 . If a perpetually professed religious is found guilty of any such sin, he is to be perpetually excluded from tonsure and the reception of any further Order. If the case belongs to the external forum, he is to receive a canonical warning unless, as provided for in canons 653 and 668, there be grounds for sending him back to the world (cf. Stat. Gen., art. 34, S 2, 4 ).

Lastly, should he be a subdeacon or deacon, then, without prejudice to the above-mentioned directives and if the case should so demand, the superiors should take up with the Holy See the question of his reduction to the lay state.

For these reasons, clerics who in their diocese or religious who in another community have sinned gravely against chastity with another person are not to be admitted with a view to the priesthood, even on a trial basis, unless there be clear evidence of excusing causes or of circumstances which can at least notably diminish responsibility in conscience (Circular Letter of S. C. of the Sacraments, n. 16; Canon Law Digest, 4, p. 314).

Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
 
There are two root causes, perhaps three:
  1. Born with a head full of bad wiring
  2. molested themselves and this is a repeated pattern
  3. there are those that are never comfortable with the sexual nature of themselves or develop an unhealthy attitude toward sex. They never learn to do anything appropriate with their sexual urges and seek ways to surpress or express them. I think the priesthood draws these people like flies. I have sexual urges and those are dirty. If I get closer to God they’ll go away…etc. and then you put them in a position of authority with the one group that can express their sexuality with and not feel threatened, youngsters. That’s not to say celibacy is the cause. These people are seeking celibacy in a way, but they are not called to it, so it’s not going to work for them.
 
Actually, the Vatican a couple years back issued guidelines to seminaries indicating that anyone with a “deep seated same sex attraction” (quote from memory) should NOT be ordained to the priesthood.
The term “deep seated same sex attraction” is vague enough to allow seminaries wiggle room (should they desire it.) It seems to speak to ‘inablility to live a celibate life,’ something no few heterosexual priests have failed to manage. What is key here, though, at least for my purposes, is that the Vatican still holds that being homosexual is compatible with being ordained; otherwise, the past ordination of those with ‘deep seated same sex attraction’ would be found illicit. Otherwise the usage would be “cannot be ordained” (-the way a woman cannot be ordained

I believe the tests you talk about are only given to those who are suspected of having an insuperable burden to living a celibate life and are not to be confused with the routine psych evals all seminarians (far as I know) undergo before being accepted by their dioceses.

I am not here defending homosexuality. I am deliberately saying nothing about it directly.
 
Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
But of course this “should” has been ignored for decades, both by religious superiors and diocesan bishops. That doesn’t make it right, of course, but a policy so routinely (and without consequence) abused seems to be a policy in name only. Further, it seems that if this policy were taken seriously, then any priest (or religious) who molested a child would not only be barred from public ministry but laicized. After all, if such a thing is incompatible with being ordained, the practice of it should be incompatible with remaining ordained, no?
 
After all, if such a thing is incompatible with being ordained, the practice of it should be incompatible with remaining ordained, no?
That’s a question that nobody has been willing to address.

I think they prefer to let the biological solution resolve the question, and moving forward return to the traditional, common sense guidelines outlined in that 1961 document.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top