O
o_mlly
Guest
That pretty much sums it up.
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
In an alternative view, Fr. Martin R. Tripole, SJ, suggests that the bishops covered up the abuse of the children to protect the faithful from the scandal that would lead to the faithful’s apostasy and the loss of their immortal souls. Just a mistake in episcopal judgement? If the bishops removed the offenders from ministry rather than re-assigning them, I think the good priest’s speculation might make sense. Unfortunately, in many (most?) cases the bishops did not laicize the offenders.
www.hprweb.com
Alternate Views on the Root Causes of the Bishops’ Clergy Sex-Abuse Cover-Up - Homiletic & Pastoral Review
The Church is now in the throes of the second wave of the clergy sex-abuse crisis, which began June 20, 2018, with the exposé of former cardinal
www.hprweb.com
S
skelly
Guest
My view they should have been automatically laicized and excommunicated this would be for their mortal soul to know that they must truly repent and seek reconciliation and this would be consistent with protect the mortal souls of the laity and the world of souls of all possible believers in Christ and his Church.
J
JimG
Guest
An excerpt from the article:
The CTSA study became useful in justifying an air of permissiveness in the Church, especially among the clergy. D. Vincent Twomey, SVD, argued in his August 3, 2018, posting in Catholic World Report, that the moral positions mentioned in the work contributed “significantly to the spread of homosexual behavior among seminarians and (later in life) clerics.” The late Richard John Neuhaus wrote in First Things (Summer 2002) that Human Sexuality was “widely used in seminaries,” and was understood to allow seminarians and priests alternate forms of sexual behavior:
“The CTSA report left no doubt that it represented the avant garde, that the Church’s teaching would eventually catch up with “the latest research.” . . . Thus did academic and theological dissent promiscuously issue permission slips for an era of wink-wink, nudge-nudge, the consequences of which are now on scandalous public display.”7
The CTSA study became useful in justifying an air of permissiveness in the Church, especially among the clergy. D. Vincent Twomey, SVD, argued in his August 3, 2018, posting in Catholic World Report, that the moral positions mentioned in the work contributed “significantly to the spread of homosexual behavior among seminarians and (later in life) clerics.” The late Richard John Neuhaus wrote in First Things (Summer 2002) that Human Sexuality was “widely used in seminaries,” and was understood to allow seminarians and priests alternate forms of sexual behavior:
“The CTSA report left no doubt that it represented the avant garde, that the Church’s teaching would eventually catch up with “the latest research.” . . . Thus did academic and theological dissent promiscuously issue permission slips for an era of wink-wink, nudge-nudge, the consequences of which are now on scandalous public display.”7
E
edwest211
Guest
Pope Emeritus Benedict Is Right: The Sexual Revolution Is Part of the Problem
COMMENTARY: So let’s be part of the solution.
www.ncregister.com
C
CatholicELATeacher
Guest
Are the faithful gonna buy that?
M
Mi_Rose
Guest
And now thr faithful are justifiably mad about the cover-up as well as the crime
Last edited:
L
Londoner
Guest
You are suggesting some connection between “sodomites” (by which I assume you mean gay men) and child abuse? That seems to be the only plausible reading of your post.
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
87%
They aren’t permitted to be priests anyway.
They aren’t permitted to be priests anyway.
L
Londoner
Guest
Sorry, but I don’t understand your reply. “87%”? You mean 87% of gay men are paedophiles? 87% of paedophiles are gay men? Neither of those statements would be accurate. You are correct that gay men are prohibited from become priests, apparently even if celibate, which I always thought seemed a bit strange.
P
Peebo
Guest
Yesterday I was watching a program on youtube about slavery here in the US…one part was referring to the treatment of slaves who attempted to escape…they were not only beaten…but they were then sodomized in front of the other slaves…men…women and children…to show what would happen to them if they tried to escape…it was to instill fear into them…never heard of that before…it was pretty disgusting.
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
87% of the predatory priests predated on males.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Ah. So you WERE drawing a connection between homosexuality and the rape of young children. Some of us weren’t sure. Glad you cleared that up.
Don’t know why, but I have this mental image of you pumping the air when you discovered that figure in some web site. ‘Look guys! It’s as plain as day. Here is the direct link between sodomites and paedophilia!’ Skipping over the fact that all the people you are describing are priests.
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t believe this is accurate. My understanding is that gay men who are not able to conform to Church teachings cannot become priests (i.e. the non-chaste, or those who promote a lack of chastity). I know there is some debate on this topic, but that is my understanding of the latest guidance (unless there is something new).
E
EndTimes
Guest
After Ancient Rome began Christianization 1 Century AD - Sodomy went out the window with those who accepted the GOSPEL…
““How could a Catholic priest ever come to think that it was morally acceptable for him to engage in sodomy?””
It was very easy once the Enemy infiltrated / took over - many Seminaries … with his Nudges for active male/male Homosexual Sex… Immature boys were easy targets for ‘conversion’
““How could a Catholic priest ever come to think that it was morally acceptable for him to engage in sodomy?””
It was very easy once the Enemy infiltrated / took over - many Seminaries … with his Nudges for active male/male Homosexual Sex… Immature boys were easy targets for ‘conversion’
L
Londoner
Guest
I have no idea where you are getting that figure from or how accurate it could possibly be, but let’s accept that it’s accurate.
First, you have to accept that committing a sexual offence against somebody doesn’t mean that you are sexually attracted to that person. In the Middle East and Africa, for example, male-on-male sexual rape and sexual assault is quite widespread in conflicts, despite the fact that homosexuality is also taboo in these societies. In fact, it may be precisely because homosexuality is such a taboo that it is resorted to in warfare situations. Likewise, priests who sexually assault seminarians, altar boys, or choirboys are not necessarily attracted to other males in an erotic way. The driving force may be a desire to cause physical or emotional harm.
Secondly, you are making a huge and inaccurate assumption about the correlation between adult sexual attraction and paedophile sexual attraction. In short, somebody who is attracted to adults of the opposite sex can also be attracted to children of the opposite sex, same sex, or both. This is why there are so many men who outwardly live as normal heterosexuals but who also sexually abuse boys. It’s not that they are actually gay. It’s that despite being attracted to adult women, they also have an attraction to boys. This is actually very common and is documented over and over. Until quite recent times it was actually quite widely accepted (though not condoned) that men would be attracted to boys. A gay man is somebody who wants to have sex with other men. Most paedophiles who abuse young boys would probably be repulsed by the idea of having sex with an adult man. Though less common, there will also be female paedophiles who abuse girls who would never consider entering a sexual relationship with a woman. I think you are looking at sexual orientation and sexual attraction in a very simplified way.
Thirdly, you have to consider the fact that most sex offenders are opportunists. They will take their victims as and when they find them. If you’re a priest, you will mostly have access to boys and young men: seminarians, altar servers, choirboys, schoolboys, Boy Scouts. Girls were generally excluded from many activities in the Church, meaning that priests had less access to them. Had girls been more readily available, priests would probably have abused them too. There are also plenty of documented accounts of nuns and sisters committing sexual abuse too. Mostly their victims were girls and young women. Again, nuns and sisters generally had access to girls and young women.
First, you have to accept that committing a sexual offence against somebody doesn’t mean that you are sexually attracted to that person. In the Middle East and Africa, for example, male-on-male sexual rape and sexual assault is quite widespread in conflicts, despite the fact that homosexuality is also taboo in these societies. In fact, it may be precisely because homosexuality is such a taboo that it is resorted to in warfare situations. Likewise, priests who sexually assault seminarians, altar boys, or choirboys are not necessarily attracted to other males in an erotic way. The driving force may be a desire to cause physical or emotional harm.
Secondly, you are making a huge and inaccurate assumption about the correlation between adult sexual attraction and paedophile sexual attraction. In short, somebody who is attracted to adults of the opposite sex can also be attracted to children of the opposite sex, same sex, or both. This is why there are so many men who outwardly live as normal heterosexuals but who also sexually abuse boys. It’s not that they are actually gay. It’s that despite being attracted to adult women, they also have an attraction to boys. This is actually very common and is documented over and over. Until quite recent times it was actually quite widely accepted (though not condoned) that men would be attracted to boys. A gay man is somebody who wants to have sex with other men. Most paedophiles who abuse young boys would probably be repulsed by the idea of having sex with an adult man. Though less common, there will also be female paedophiles who abuse girls who would never consider entering a sexual relationship with a woman. I think you are looking at sexual orientation and sexual attraction in a very simplified way.
Thirdly, you have to consider the fact that most sex offenders are opportunists. They will take their victims as and when they find them. If you’re a priest, you will mostly have access to boys and young men: seminarians, altar servers, choirboys, schoolboys, Boy Scouts. Girls were generally excluded from many activities in the Church, meaning that priests had less access to them. Had girls been more readily available, priests would probably have abused them too. There are also plenty of documented accounts of nuns and sisters committing sexual abuse too. Mostly their victims were girls and young women. Again, nuns and sisters generally had access to girls and young women.
Last edited:
L
Londoner
Guest
That is encouraging, if true. I had understood that that was always the case but that the rules had recently been made even stricter to mean that gay men, even if celibate, would be prevented from becoming priests.
T
TMC
Guest
To be fair, some people read the “rules” that way. I am not sure there are rules, there is guidance, published in 2005, I think. The guidance does not say that all gay men are precluded. It says that gay men with “deeply seated tendencies” and those that “promote gay culture” should not be admitted to seminary. There is obviously room to debate what those terms mean, but it would have been easy to say “no gay guys,” and that is not what the guidance says.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Last edited:
- Status