Understanding homosexuality

[Newbie2]

*This is an absurd question! Nobody in their right minds would overlook such a serious flaw!!

Cinette:shrug:*

Is it? I’m just seeing how far your logic extends. Apparently you’re OK with alcoholics and homosexuals to be ordained, as long as they can “control themselves”, but not someone with pedophilic desires?

Pretty arbitrary distinction, methinks.

Seriously, you don’t think alcoholism isn’t problematic enough to keep someone from becoming a priest? You don’t think the gallons of sacramental wine sitting around might not be a wee bit of a temptation for them?

*No man is perfect! We ALL have weaknesses. Where on earth would we find any priests if nobody had weadnesses.

???
*

Seriously, this is the best argument you can come up with for ordaining homosexual men? That we all have weaknesses, all weaknesses (except pedophilia) are acceptable “risks” that the Church should accept in candidates for the priesthood?

Incredible.

 

[chrysostim83]

The homosexual tendency is a disorder, not only “a habitual temptation to serious sin”, so great care and concern is necessary.

That’s pretty confusing. What does the difference between these two things mean to you?

Oh, wait. Did you mean it’s a psychological disorder? I usually forget that that’s a point of view some folks have on this issue, since it’s not something the Church teaches.

 

[Cinette]

Is it? I’m just seeing how far your logic extends. Apparently you’re OK with alcoholics and homosexuals to be ordained, as long as they can “control themselves”, but not someone with pedophilic desires?

Pretty arbitrary distinction, methinks.

Seriously, you don’t think alcoholism isn’t problematic enough to keep someone from becoming a priest? You don’t think the gallons of sacramental wine sitting around might not be a wee bit of a temptation for them?

Seriously, this is the best argument you can come up with for ordaining homosexual men? That we all have weaknesses, all weaknesses (except pedophilia) are acceptable “risks” that the Church should accept in candidates for the priesthood?

Incredible.

*I have told you already - I know TWO MEN who are alcoholics and they abstain - one is a priest and the other is my son in law.

It is a known fact that pedophilia is INCURABLE - IT IS A CRIME!!!*. Alcoholism and Homosexuality are NOT CRIMES.

What is the matter with you? Can’t you reason? Can’t you think for a moment???
:bigyikes::bigyikes:

 

[LCMS_No_More]

*This is an absurd question! Nobody in their right minds would overlook such a serious flaw!!

Cinette:shrug:*

And you don’t see that the poster is conflating homosexuality with pedophilia and pederasty? While pedophilia (man-child) isn’t the issue with homosexuality (man-man), pederasty (man-teen man) is a possibility and does exist; however, homosexuality is NOT pederasty but a subset thereof. In other words, while all pederasts who go after teens of their own sex are homosexual, not all homosexual persons are pederasts. Far from it. As a homosexual person, I find this accusation to be offensive and definitely not in line with the teachings of the Church in that it is a violation of the 8th commandment…bearing false witness.

IOW, it’s the old canard…homosexual persons are all out to rape your sons.

 

[Cinette]

And you don’t see that the poster is conflating homosexuality with pedophilia and pederasty? While pedophilia (man-child) isn’t the issue with homosexuality (man-man), pederasty (man-teen man) is a possibility and does exist; however, homosexuality is NOT pederasty but a subset thereof. In other words, while all pederasts who go after teens of their own sex are homosexual, not all homosexual persons are pederasts. Far from it. As a homosexual person, I find this accusation to be offensive and definitely not in line with the teachings of the Church in that it is a violation of the 8th commandment…bearing false witness.

IOW, it’s the old canard…homosexual persons are all out to rape your sons.

*Canard is a French word for duck!! ??Am I not understanding something.

I absolutely understand and agree with what you say above that that fellow (can’t remember his name!) doesn’t know what he is talking about!! Can’t even reason.

While homosexuality and alcoholism are disorders pedophilia is an INCURABLE CRIME - these people should be locked up for ever. I can understand your objections.

God bless
Cinette*

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Canard is a French word for duck!! ??Am I not understanding something.

Actually, I just checked and the first use of the word canard is as follows;

Definition of CANARD
1
a : a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report b : a groundless rumor or belief

This prejudicial nonsense towards homosexual persons, without making any distinctions which is the error, would fall under “b: a groundless rumor or belief.”

*I absolutely understand and agree with what you say above that that fellow (can’t remember his name!) doesn’t know what he is talking about!! Can’t even reason.

While homosexuality and alcoholism are disorders pedophilia is an INCURABLE CRIME - these people should be locked up for ever. I can understand your objections.

God bless
Cinette*

Thank you for being capable of seeing the distinction.

 

[Mustang1971]

The other thing I do not understand is that both a homosexual and a hetrosexual Priest would both face sexual temptation like all of us do. I am sure a hetrosexual man has just as much temptation as a homosexual man does. Like LCMS_No_MOre Iget tired of the attitude that all homosexual men are incapable of controling themselves.

 

[Cinette]

Actually, I just checked and the first use of the word canard is as follows;

Definition of CANARD
1
a : a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report b : a groundless rumor or belief

This prejudicial nonsense towards homosexual persons, without making any distinctions which is the error, would fall under “b: a groundless rumor or belief.”

Thank you for being capable of seeing the distinction.

It is simple logic my friend.

 

[Abu]

chrysostim83
Originally Posted by Abu
The homosexual tendency is a disorder, not only “a habitual temptation to serious sin”, so great care and concern is necessary.

Did you mean it’s a psychological disorder? I usually forget that that’s a point of view some folks have on this issue, since it’s not something the Church teaches.

It is not a mere “point of view”. Post #32 is very clear on the fact of the disorder, whereas everyone except the Blessed Virgin is conceived with Original Sin. There is “solid medical and scientific facts which place the “lifestyle” with behavioural problems like alcoholism and drug addiction.” A detailed review of the research has shown that “no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology….the disorder itself is rooted in unhealthy emotions.”

Shoshana
Do you think the priest lied to me? I think he knows his diocese much more than I do…

No. Simply that arguing from the particular to the general can be misleading

 

[Newbie2]

*I have told you already - I know TWO MEN who are alcoholics and they abstain - one is a priest and the other is my son in law.

It is a known fact that pedophilia is INCURABLE - IT IS A CRIME!!!*. Alcoholism and Homosexuality are NOT CRIMES.

What is the matter with you? Can’t you reason? Can’t you think for a moment???
:bigyikes::bigyikes:

Calm yourself. There is no need to be insulting.

IF you had read my post, I wrote “pedophilic tendencies”. Perhaps in your zeal to have alcoholics and homosexuals ordained, you misunderstood what I meant. By “pedophilic tendencies”, I mean someone who has a predisposition towards desiring chidren; not someone who acts on it.

So, with that definition in mind, perhaps you’d like to reconsider your position.

You say a pedophile should not be ordained. I agree. But what about someone who simply expresses pedophilic desires i.e. someone who is attracted to children like an alcoholic is toward alcohol? They have not acted on their desire, rather they have “abstained”.

Again, for those jumping into this discussion, I am not advocating the ordination of men with such tendencies. Cinette seems to think ordaining homosexuals and alcoholics is OK, as long as they abstain from homosexual behavior and drinking respectively. Following that logic, Cinette should be willing to support the ordination of men with pedophilic tendencies who can abstain from such activities, yet, that does not seem to be the case.

There is a break in Cinette’s logic.

Perhaps Cinette does not know that having pedophilic tendencies is neither a crime nor a sin, as long as that tendency is not acted upon, just as homosexual tendencies (SSA) is neither a crime or a sin, as long as it is not acted upon.

I will assume that Cinette did not understand my use of the term “pedophilic tendencies” as I intended.

 

[Cinette]

Calm yourself. There is no need to be insulting.Since when is emphasizing an insult!!! ??

IF you had read my post, I wrote “pedophilic tendencies”. Perhaps in your zeal to have alcoholics and homosexuals ordained, you misunderstood what I meant. By “pedophilic tendencies”, I mean someone who has a predisposition towards desiring chidren; not someone who acts on it. Someone who has pedophilic tendencies will surely act on it. Why, do you know someone who has such tendencies and is celibate?

So, with that definition in mind, perhaps you’d like to reconsider your position.

You say a pedophile should not be ordained. I agree. Why not? But what about someone who simply expresses pedophilic desires i.e. someone who is attracted to children like an alcoholic is toward alcohol? They have not acted on their desire, rather they have “abstained”. I would commend him but believe that it would be too risky to accept such a person in a seminary. Don’t you think the Church has suffered enough with pedophiles and sex abusers to now want to be benevolent and admit such people in the seminaries?

Again, for those jumping into this discussion, I am not advocating the ordination of men with such tendencies. Cinette seems to think ordaining homosexuals and alcoholics is OK, as long as they abstain from homosexual behavior and drinking respectively. Following that logic, Cinette should be willing to support the ordination of men with pedophilic tendencies who can abstain from such activities, yet, that does not seem to be the case. *

No I certainly do not think that it would be OK because it would be taking a chance - it would be too dangerous.*

There is a break in Cinette’s logic.

*Tell me Newbie, if you were told that there was even a one percent chance of falling to your death by going bungy jumping, would you do it?
*
Perhaps Cinette does not know that having pedophilic tendencies is neither a crime nor a sin, as long as that tendency is not acted upon, just as homosexual tendencies (SSA) is neither a crime or a sin, as long as it is not acted upon.

I will assume that Cinette did not understand my use of the term “pedophilic tendencies” as I intended.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

It is not a mere “point of view”. Post #32 is very clear on the fact of the disorder, whereas everyone except the Blessed Virgin is conceived with Original Sin. There is “solid medical and scientific facts which place the “lifestyle” with behavioural problems like alcoholism and drug addiction.” A detailed review of the research has shown that “no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology….the disorder itself is rooted in unhealthy emotions.”

Very good! You finally got it right albeit incomplete (you missed sensitive temperament, which is an inborn trait). Where do the unhealthy emotions come from? According to CBT, it’s one’s own thoughts. Where do those thoughts come from? Sometimes from one’s self, but they often come from outsiders pouring garbage into one’s head. That’s where the help is needed so one can experience healing.

On the other hand, talking down to or constantly condemning homosexual persons (without distinction as to how one actually lives) doesn’t help. In fact, it only adds to the garbage in one’s head, leading to even more unhealthy emotions, leading to more and more disorder.

 

[Shoshana]

Cinette: I do find this confusing…

I cannot use quote from your answer back to Newbie BUT:

You were insulting…because you implied with your questions that said person cannot think or reason. Your huge letters when you write come across as shouting in computer language let alone hysteric…

You answer: You say a pedophile should not be ordained. I agree. Why not?
**
where you answer in the very next sentence:
**
But what about someone who simply expresses pedophilic desires i.e. someone who is attracted to children like an alcoholic is toward alcohol? They have not acted on their desire, rather they have “abstained”.I would commend him but believe that it would be too risky to accept such a person in a seminary. Don’t you think the Church has suffered enough with pedophiles and sex abusers to now want to be benevolent and admit such people in the seminaries?

Why the dichotomy? The church has not suffered that much at all from pedophelia per se.

I will assume that Cinette did not understand my use of the term “pedophilic tendencies” as I intended.

I think you are correct…and even this is confusing me. :shrug:See above…

 

[Newbie2]

Cinette: I do find this confusing…

I cannot use quote from your answer back to Newbie BUT:

You were insulting…because you implied with your questions that said person cannot think or reason. Your huge letters when you write come across as shouting in computer language let alone hysteric…

You answer: You say a pedophile should not be ordained. I agree. Why not?
**
where you answer in the very next sentence:
**
But what about someone who simply expresses pedophilic desires i.e. someone who is attracted to children like an alcoholic is toward alcohol? They have not acted on their desire, rather they have “abstained”.I would commend him but believe that it would be too risky to accept such a person in a seminary. Don’t you think the Church has suffered enough with pedophiles and sex abusers to now want to be benevolent and admit such people in the seminaries?

Why the dichotomy? The church has not suffered that much at all from pedophelia per se.

I will assume that Cinette did not understand my use of the term “pedophilic tendencies” as I intended.

I think you are correct…and even this is confusing me. :shrug:See above…

I’m glad I’m not the only one confused by Cinette’s postings.

Suffice it to say that I maintain that we need not “take a chance” on any candidate for the priesthood who has a potential impediment; pedophila, alchoholism, homosexuality, and I’m sure we could all think of other things like drug addiction, etc.

Apparently, Cinette selectively disagrees. Whatever.

 

[Abu]

Understanding what homomania is about.
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10111904.html
**Ontario urges acceptance of kindergartners’ ‘sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity’**By Patrick B. Craine
HAMILTON, Ontario, November 19, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com)
Extract:
Pro-family activist Dawn Stefanowicz, who was raised by a homosexual father amidst the gay sub-culture, warned that pushing gender identity theory on kindergarten-age kids will seriously damage them.

“Government-mandated, explicit promotion of diverse sexualities, gender identities, and diverse family units in all-day classes exploits young children, creating confusion around their own innocent same-sex play with other children,” she explained.

The equity strategy, she said, “assumes that very young children have sexual feelings and thoughts, will sexually act out, and can provide sexual consent with whomever or whatever they choose.”

“This is ugly and divisive propaganda meant to control our precious children and separate them from the moral and religious upbringing of their parents, families of origin, and ethnic and faith communities,” she said. “In other words, this is state usurpation of parental rights and consent while taking control of our children.”

 

[Cinette]

Cinette: I do find this confusing…

I cannot use quote from your answer back to Newbie BUT:

You were insulting…because you implied with your questions that said person cannot think or reason. Your huge letters when you write come across as shouting in computer language let alone hysteric… My intention was to emphasize not to scream - I do understand that for some it might appear like screaming.

You answer: You say a pedophile should not be ordained. I agree. *Why not?*The reason for this question was because I wanted Newbie to explain why HE agrees…
**
where you answer in the very next sentence:
**
But what about someone who simply expresses pedophilic desires i.e. someone who is attracted to children like an alcoholic is toward alcohol? They have not acted on their desire, rather they have “abstained”.I would commend him but believe that it would be too risky to accept such a person in a seminary. Don’t you think the Church has suffered enough with pedophiles and sex abusers to now want to be benevolent and admit such people in the seminaries?*I agree that there were small number of pedophiles but the media exaggerated it and the Church was made to look like it was full of pedophiles. *

Why the dichotomy? The church has not suffered that much at all from pedophelia per se.Yes but the media!

I will assume that Cinette did not understand my use of the term “pedophilic tendencies” as I intended.

I think you are correct…and even this is confusing me. :shrug:See above…

*In my view many alcoholics and homosexuals, depending on their spiritual development and vocation, may be OK - they may make wonderful priests. I think it would be wrong to exclude them.

As for pedophiles or even those with pedophilic tendencies are a greater risk because they are devious and their tendencies are criminal. I may be wrong but I cannot see how a pedophile can control himself. I have seen both on TV and radio pedophiles admit that their desires are too strong and overwhelming and they fantasize all the time about children. *

 

[Cinette]

*TO SHOSHANNA AND NEWBIE!

You are both confused about my view on pedophilic tendencies, homosexuality and alcoholism and how this might impact on young men who apply to seminaries to be formed for the priesthood

ALCOHOLISM is genetic. It is there and may or may not be activated. My son in law was able to stop drinking because he realised the harm it was doing to his family and has been able to keep to his resolution.

HOMOSEXUALITY is very complex. Some people are born that way and some are conditioned by the environment. If identified early on psychologists have been able to help those who are confused about homosexual orientation . There are extremely promiscuous homosexuals - they adopt a “gay lifestyle” and sex is a recreation and they practice anonymous sex. Look at George Michel who is rich and famous yet he will go into a public lavatory and have sex with someone whose name he doesn’t even know!!

Then there are young men who have a very good religious formation, they are deeply committed and have a strong vocation. One cannot compare the two. I cannot remember where I saw this but very recently I was on a website where someone told of two seminarians who went to a bar and got a bit drunk - one of them touched another homosexual on his behind but withdrew and it did not go beyond that. The other seminarian reported it but the seminary director at the time (today a bishop) considered that it was just one incident under the influence of alcohol… Years later that same individual (his name was mentioned but I did not take note) was accused of multiple abuse on youth. Now, for someone to do what he did at that bar… that demonstrated something which should not have been overlooked. Not everybody has it in him/her (whether homo or hetero) to make such an advance. Gosh - one could go on… I just believe that there are wonderful young men with the orientation but who are very devout and very stable.

PEDOPHILIA - I do not know the history of pedophilia (I wonder if anyone here does) but I think it is EVIL (I am not screaming although I feel like it…) You will find men who are after every skirt in town but let anyone dare to even look at their daughter (or son) with a hungry provocative stare!!! They are protective of their children or any child for that matter. Not with a pedophile - they would sexually abuse their own daughters!!! It has been recognised that pedophilia is INCURABLE (EMPHASIS AND SCREAM!!).

I hope I am made myself clear.

God bless
Cinett *

 

[Newbie2]

*TO SHOSHANNA AND NEWBIE!

You are both confused about my view on pedophilic tendencies, homosexuality and alcoholism and how this might impact on young men who apply to seminaries to be formed for the priesthood

ALCOHOLISM is genetic. It is there and may or may not be activated. My son in law was able to stop drinking because he realised the harm it was doing to his family and has been able to keep to his resolution.

And drinking wine is part of the “profession” of being a priest. I cannot think of any other profession where someone would be putting their “fire” so close to “gasoline”, as it is said. Perhaps a food critic.

Methinks this is certainly an instance of putting oneself in a near occasion of sin on a regular basis.

But you think it’s wise to admit alcoholics to the priesthood because you know ONE priest who has it under control? I think you’re a little too close to the issue, having a relative who struggles with this addiction.*
HOMOSEXUALITY is very complex. Some people are born that way and some are conditioned by the environment. If identified early on psychologists have been able to help those who are confused about homosexual orientation . There are extremely promiscuous homosexuals - they adopt a “gay lifestyle” and sex is a recreation and they practice anonymous sex. Look at George Michel who is rich and famous yet he will go into a public lavatory and have sex with someone whose name he doesn’t even know!!

Then there are young men who have a very good religious formation, they are deeply committed and have a strong vocation. One cannot compare the two. I cannot remember where I saw this but very recently I was on a website where someone told of two seminarians who went to a bar and got a bit drunk - one of them touched another homosexual on his behind but withdrew and it did not go beyond that. The other seminarian reported it but the seminary director at the time (today a bishop) considered that it was just one incident under the influence of alcohol… Years later that same individual (his name was mentioned but I did not take note) was accused of multiple abuse on youth. Now, for someone to do what he did at that bar… that demonstrated something which should not have been overlooked. Not everybody has it in him/her (whether homo or hetero) to make such an advance. Gosh - one could go on… I just believe that there are wonderful young men with the orientation but who are very devout and very stable.

I would be just as concerned about seminarians getting drunk at a bar.
PEDOPHILIA - It has been recognised that pedophilia is INCURABLE (EMPHASIS AND SCREAM!!).

And alcoholism is curable?

I hope I am made myself clear.

If you maintain that homosexuals and alcoholics are proper candidates for the priesthood, then I was clear on your position beforehand, and soundly disagree.
God bless
Cinett

 

[Newbie2]

(I wanted to add this but missed the 20 minute editing deadline):

You cannot say on one hand that Pedophilia is incurable and thus pedophilic men cannot be admitted to the priesthood and on the other hand say that alcoholics should be admittable (since alcoholicm has a genetic component and as such is incurable.)

If you have another argument, I’m all ears. If you claim, however, that alcoholic men can get their alcoholism under control, I would ask how is that different than a man who has pedophilic desires that he has under control (i.e. has never acted on them).

Again, for those jumping in here I am not supporting the admission of pedophilic, homosexual or alcoholic men to the priesthood. I am, however, challenging Cinette’s logic in apparently supporting the notion that alcoholic and homosexual men are suited for the priesthood and that pedophilic men are not.

 

[Cinette]

(I wanted to add this but missed the 20 minute editing deadline):

You cannot say on one hand that Pedophilia is incurable and thus pedophilic men cannot be admitted to the priesthood and on the other hand say that alcoholics should be admittable (since alcoholicm has a genetic component and as such is incurable.)

If you have another argument, I’m all ears. If you claim, however, that alcoholic men can get their alcoholism under control, I would ask how is that different than a man who has pedophilic desires that he has under control (i.e. has never acted on them).

Again, for those jumping in here I am not supporting the admission of pedophilic, homosexual or alcoholic men to the priesthood. I am, however, challenging Cinette’s logic in apparently supporting the notion that alcoholic and homosexual men are suited for the priesthood and that pedophilic men are not.

*I have only a couple of minutes.

You may be right and at the end of the day the Seminary Directors know best. I am not advocating that they should overlook alcoholism and homosexuality. A lot of factors have to be considered but at the end of the day a homosexual and an alcoholic may still be allowed in.

However in the case of pedophilia, these people choose children too small to fight back. They are dangerous. Their deeds are always criminal. Therefore a pedophile should never be allowed in.