Why forbid homosexuals from being ordained as priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leela
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States.

The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest’s victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked.

The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.

The team reported that 10,667 people in the US had made allegations of child sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002 against 4,392 priests (about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time period covered by the study).

One-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002 and 2003, and another third between 1993 and 2001.

“Thus, prior to 1993, only one-third of cases were known to church officials,” says the report.[15]

Of the 11,000-odd allegations, 6,700 were investigated and substantiated[16] against 1,872 priests,[17] and another 1,000 were unsubstantiated[16] against 824 priests.[17]

The remaining 3,300 allegations were not investigated because the priests involved had died by the time the allegations were made.[16]

The allegations were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests.[17]

Police were contacted regarding 1,021 priests.

Nearly all these reports led to investigations, and 384 instances have led to criminal charges.

Of those priests for whom information about dispositions is available, 252 were convicted and at least 100 of those served time in prison.

Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made had been convicted and about 2% sentenced to prison at the date of the report.[17]

Of the 4,392 accused priests included in the report, 56% were the subject of a single allegation.

Just under 3% (or 149 priests) were the subject of ten or more allegations.

These priests accounted for 2,960 of the total number of allegations.

Around 81% of the victims were male; 51% between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% between the ages to 15 to 17 years. (For more details, see the “Statistics on offenders and victims” section below.)

Based on a database of 3,000 priests accused of sexual abuse that it had compiled, the group BishopAccountability.org said in 2009 that one-third of the abusive priests in the US had links to Ireland (the article on this database refers to some as “either born in Ireland or are of Irish descent who came to the US” but did not define the “links to Ireland”).[18]

The John Jay report identified the following factors as contributing to the sexual abuse problem:[19]

Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem
Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal
Use of unqualified treatment centers
Misguided willingness to forgive
Insufficient accountability

The John Jay Report contains actual statistics against which some less detailed opinions can be tested.

For example the report found that 4.0% of all priests active between 1950 and 2002 had allegations of abuse and additionally states "It is impossible to determine from our surveys what percent of all actual cases of abuse that occurred between 1950 and 2002 have been reported to the Church and are therefore in our dataset.

Allegations of child sexual abuse are made gradually over an extended time period and it is likely that further allegations will be made with respect to recent time periods covered in our surveys" (the possibility of some cases never being reported is not discussed); the figure of 4% is sometimes quoted as a total figure.

The Report found that between 80-90% of the victims were pubescent males, and that allegations of actual pedophilia only occurred in approximately 10% of the cases.
 
Why is this in philosophy?
Windfish:

Because it’s not philosophy; it’s an example of not-philosophy.
I think some of you are being just a tad too defensive and not expressing enough sensitivity to our homosexual brothers and sisters. Tensions are high enough as it is. 😛
I’ll try to be better. :sad_yes:

God bless,
jd
 
“Since priests practice celibacy, it can’t matter whether they otherwise would choose male or female partners since they are choosing not to have sex at all.”

Our point, is that these unfaithful men didn’t practice celibacy, even though they were priests, which in the Catholic Church, means that in the Sacraments, they stand in for the presence of Jesus.

The thought of it is beyond comprehension, that these priests’ mental thoughts and physical behaviors could focus with such evil intent on the parish’s preteen and teen children, 80% of which were male and 20% female.

Fulfilling their sexual desires, led these men to foresake their priestly connection to Christ, to His people, and to do irreperable damage to the children they sexually abused…
Very well said, Barbkw, very well said.

God bless,
jd
 
The 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States.

The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest’s victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked.

The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.

The team reported that 10,667 people in the US had made allegations of child sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002 against 4,392 priests (about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time period covered by the study).

One-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002 and 2003, and another third between 1993 and 2001.

“Thus, prior to 1993, only one-third of cases were known to church officials,” says the report.[15]

Of the 11,000-odd allegations, 6,700 were investigated and substantiated[16] against 1,872 priests,[17] and another 1,000 were unsubstantiated[16] against 824 priests.[17]

The remaining 3,300 allegations were not investigated because the priests involved had died by the time the allegations were made.[16]

The allegations were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests.[17]

Police were contacted regarding 1,021 priests.

Nearly all these reports led to investigations, and 384 instances have led to criminal charges.

Of those priests for whom information about dispositions is available, 252 were convicted and at least 100 of those served time in prison.

Thus, 6% of all priests against whom allegations were made had been convicted and about 2% sentenced to prison at the date of the report.[17]

Of the 4,392 accused priests included in the report, 56% were the subject of a single allegation.

Just under 3% (or 149 priests) were the subject of ten or more allegations.

These priests accounted for 2,960 of the total number of allegations.

Around 81% of the victims were male; 51% between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% between the ages to 15 to 17 years. (For more details, see the “Statistics on offenders and victims” section below.)

Based on a database of 3,000 priests accused of sexual abuse that it had compiled, the group BishopAccountability.org said in 2009 that one-third of the abusive priests in the US had links to Ireland (the article on this database refers to some as “either born in Ireland or are of Irish descent who came to the US” but did not define the “links to Ireland”).[18]

The John Jay report identified the following factors as contributing to the sexual abuse problem:[19]

Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem
Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal
Use of unqualified treatment centers
Misguided willingness to forgive
Insufficient accountability

The John Jay Report contains actual statistics against which some less detailed opinions can be tested.

For example the report found that 4.0% of all priests active between 1950 and 2002 had allegations of abuse and additionally states "It is impossible to determine from our surveys what percent of all actual cases of abuse that occurred between 1950 and 2002 have been reported to the Church and are therefore in our dataset.

Allegations of child sexual abuse are made gradually over an extended time period and it is likely that further allegations will be made with respect to recent time periods covered in our surveys" (the possibility of some cases never being reported is not discussed); the figure of 4% is sometimes quoted as a total figure.

The Report found that between 80-90% of the victims were pubescent males, and that allegations of actual pedophilia only occurred in approximately 10% of the cases.
Barbkw:

Thank you for that report, Barb. One of us should try to get similar statistics for the general population. That would be very interesting!

God bless,
jd
 
Because historically, they have been responsible for most of the child sex abuse in the Church. And, it’s hard enough for a normal person to live out their vocation as a priest, without tacking on the extra burden of homosexual tendencies.
Excellent answer. I’d like to add these words that come from Pope John XXIII…who has long been considered a liberal pope:

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordersentry.htm

CAREFUL SELECTION AND TRAINING OF CANDIDATES
FOR THE STATES OF PERFECTION AND SACRED ORDERS:

Advancement 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.

This instruction was written in 1961, but has been ignored by most of the hierarchy & Seminary rectors in the U. S. I don’t know about other countries, but here…it was if he had never written it.
 
Leela, it’s very easy to fall to temptation when you are surrounded by the very people you have vowed ‘not to have sex with’. If a homosexual priest lives with other priests (and they do, by the way), then they will be put into a difficult situation when they have to live in the same house with another man.

If I were in a situation where I lived in close proximity to the opposite sex, I would be putting myself in the same situation. Not good for me at all if I want to remain celibate. That’s the reason I asked previously ‘why do heterosexual priests not live with women?’. It’s the same principle, to not be put in the situation where there is cause for temptation.
This response is the only one that makes any sense to me so far.

But still, this is not an insurmountable issue. It is just a logistical one. Appropriate housing arrangements could be made, couldn’t they?
 
Where did you get 80-90% of priests are homosexual? Guessing again or making up your own facts. It is estimated that the percentage of gays in the general population is anywhere between 1-2%. Some left leaning sites claim up to 5%. The priesthood would most probably reflect the general population so you could say that at most 5% of priests are homosexual.

Leela, this is what facts look like. Try using them please. You need to learn to support your arguments.
Since you don’t appear to actually read my points, would you please put me on your ignore list? I think we’ll both agree that you won’t get anything out of reading my posts anyway.
 
Since you don’t appear to actually read my points, would you please put me on your ignore list? I think we’ll both agree that you won’t get anything out of reading my posts anyway.
Leela,

As I wrote in another post I admitted that I may have misread your post as someone else pointed out that I could have. As in that post I apologize because from the quoted post it would seem that I did misread your post.
 
Excellent answer. I’d like to add these words that come from Pope John XXIII…who has long been considered a liberal pope:

ourladyswarriors.org/teach/ordersentry.htm

CAREFUL SELECTION AND TRAINING OF CANDIDATES
FOR THE STATES OF PERFECTION AND SACRED ORDERS:

Advancement 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.

This instruction was written in 1961, but has been ignored by most of the hierarchy & Seminary rectors in the U. S. I don’t know about other countries, but here…it was if he had never written it.
The pressure put on the church. Good grief! And, now, despite what gays have done to us, there are those who still defy us to be more tolerant! It’s as though they were in league.

God bless all lust-less Priests, and you
jd
 
This response is the only one that makes any sense to me so far.

But still, this is not an insurmountable issue. It is just a logistical one. Appropriate housing arrangements could be made, couldn’t they?
That depends on how many there are and where they are going. The priests don’t always get to choose where they go, they are placed where they are needed by the Bishop. Granted, sometimes they do get to choose, but sometimes not and it would be extremely expensive to create special accomodations all the time. I know in my parish, every few years the Bishop requests our pastor leave and go to another parish. I would assume because of the lack of available priests. Therefore every few years we get a new pastor in our parish. It’s not like this everywhere, but the point is that it is unpredictable where a priest will be going; unless they are part of an order. In that case, they live in close quarters with many other priests.

The only other option I would guess is to live in a hermitage. But unless the person wants to live in solitude, that wouldn’t be a good idea.

I’m not sure what other options there are, unless the Bishop assigns the priest to a permanent solitary house somewhere where there are not quite so many people. In a case like that, though, I would imagine the individual would feel ‘punished’. I know I would. So that’s really not a good idea either. 🤷

To tell you the truth, I don’t know what the solution would be.
 
The pressure put on the church. Good grief! And, now, despite what gays have done to us, there are those who still defy us to be more tolerant! It’s as though they were in league.
I haven’t heard anything as despicable in a long time as your attempt to put the blame for the Catholic sex abuse scandal on homosexuality. I would have hoped that your fellow Catholics would be step in to confront you on this issue out of a desire to not be shamed by your disgusting distortion of the issue.
 
I haven’t heard anything as despicable in a long time as your attempt to put the blame for the Catholic sex abuse scandal on homosexuality. I would have hoped that your fellow Catholics would be step in to confront you on this issue out of a desire to not be shamed by your disgusting distortion of the issue.
Leela,

I think you are purposely misreading many of the posts in this thread. That’s not your usual approach.

No one is blaming the scandal on homosexuality. The blame lies squarely with individuals. The fact is that these individuals committed abuses that were disproportionately homosexual in character. That points to at least a statistical link between homosexual individuals and priestly sexual abuse. Whether that link is causal remains to be seen.

However, the prohibition on homosexuals being admitted to seminary is only partly about the abuse risk. Even if there had been no abuse scandal homosexual men, at least those with deep seated homosexual tendencies, would not be fit candidates for priesthood.
 
I haven’t heard anything as despicable in a long time as your attempt to put the blame for the Catholic sex abuse scandal on homosexuality. I would have hoped that your fellow Catholics would be step in to confront you on this issue out of a desire to not be shamed by your disgusting distortion of the issue.
Leela:

Why do you scream at me for telling you the Truth. Oh, I remember, the Truth cannot be objective. Truth can only be said of sentences.

Leela, prove me wrong. I remember you, don’t forget that. I used to watch the shenanigans you used to pull in these fora. And, I am used to your insolence. I reiterate, “Prove me wrong!” If you do, I will openly apologize to everyone. “Prove me wrong.”

Most of my fellow Catholics know what the Truth is. You don’t seem to care. Strange, as caring as you try to shower your being with. As I said, “Prove me wrong.”

Actually, I have two friends who happen to be gay. We used to discuss this a lot. They do not disagree with me. They wish it were not so.

God bless,
jd
 
Leela,

“Deep seated homosexual tendencies” defines those same sex attracted men who enter the seminary with sexual addictions and / or an unwillingness or inability to faithfully practice chastity and celibacy.
 
Leela,

“Deep seated homosexual tendencies” defines those same sex attracted men who enter the seminary with sexual addictions and / or an unwillingness or inability to faithfully practice chastity and celibacy.
bkayw:

Much better said than I have been able to accomplish.

God bless,
jd
 
The pressure put on the church. Good grief! And, now, despite what gays have done to us, there are those who still defy us to be more tolerant! It’s as though they were in league.

God bless all lust-less Priests, and you
jd
You seem to believe that only homosexual priests were involved in the sex abuse scandals. I have never read that. Even the John Jay Report does not point to homosexuals as “the reason” for the sex abuse cases.

The acts were, in 80% of the cases, homosexual acts.
This does not mean that the priests involved were homosexuals.
For most cases it appears that they were heterosexual (this from the John Jay Report).

Can you provide a link to a study that identifies these priests as homosexuals?
 
You seem to believe that only homosexual priests were involved in the sex abuse scandals. I have never read that. Even the John Jay Report does not point to homosexuals as “the reason” for the sex abuse cases.

The acts were, in 80% of the cases, homosexual acts.
This does not mean that the priests involved were homosexuals.
For most cases it appears that they were heterosexual (this from the John Jay Report).

Can you please provide a link to a study that identifies these priests as homosexuals?
Dark:

I guess, up where you live, heterosexuals go out all the time to perform homosexual acts? Are you actually being serious? Now, I know it’s anecdotal, but, my gay friends don’t even challenge on that account!

God bless,
jd
 
You seem to believe that only homosexual priests were involved in the sex abuse scandals. I have never read that. Even the John Jay Report does not point to homosexuals as “the reason” for the sex abuse cases.

The acts were, in 80% of the cases, homosexual acts.
This does not mean that the priests involved were homosexuals.
For most cases it appears that they were heterosexual (this from the John Jay Report).

Can you provide a link to a study that identifies these priests as homosexuals?
Dark:

traditionalvalues.org/urban/one-a.php

nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/04/13/2010-04-13_cardinal_tarcisio_bertone_vaticans_no_2_man_in_charge_defends_celibacy_attacks_h.html
 
To my knowledge the Church hasn’t kept statistics on the sexual orientation of her priests.

In charity, it was probably assumed that homosexual men were as capable as heterosexual men at practicing abstinence and celibacy. Perhaps it was assumed that unchastity. if exhibited, would center on other SSA males, not teenage boys.

Charity is still extended to men wanting to enter seminary who are SSA, provided that they don’t have “deep seated homosexual tendancies”.
 
To my knowledge the Church hasn’t kept statistics on the sexual orientation of her priests.

In charity, it was probably assumed that homosexual men were as capable as heterosexual men at practicing abstinence and celibacy. Perhaps it was assumed that unchastity. if exhibited, would center on other SSA males, not teenage boys.

Charity is still extended to men wanting to enter seminary who are SSA, provided that they don’t have “deep seated homosexual tendancies”.
I knew some seminarians during the 2005-2006 school year who told me about how a they were interviewed privately, by a priest touring all the seminaries, about their orientation. I don’t know if the man was doing this under Vatican directive or USCCB directive, but they definitely have some idea of the numbers. There hasn’t been a release of this information as far as I know, but there have been independent studies done on a smaller scale such as this 2007 study:

www.scu.edu/cas/psychology/faculty/upload/Plante-homosexual-clergy-paper.pdf

Which found the number from a smaller sample to be 22% homosexual (which is roughly 7 times that of normal society). Now since the sample was only taken from a limited number of seminarians it can’t be stretched to imply the numbers are like this in all seminaries, but in American seminaries at least the statistical evidence is solid enough to indicate there is a significantly greater percentage of people with SSA’s. The actual number could be higher or lower than 22%, but regardless of the exact the study at least implies that the actual number is higher in general.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top