But if most victims are males, how does that make them heterosexual?
Oh, I know the website wasn’t the best one. It was the first one. I never saw it before this morning, but you wanted a link, and all I had was my personal experiences. Can’t link to the time my father said, ‘All faggots are into kids’, or the neighbors talking about how pedophila would not exist without homosexuals.
I don’t disagree but for the sake of argument, how different physically is a 17-1/2 year old (illegal) from an 18 year old (legal)? How old were Mary and Joseph? I know they were not physical but are you saying it would have been immoral for them to be? I think it’s important to have age of consent laws to prevent abuses but I do think puberty makes a difference between something that is intrinsically evil and something that is just plain wrong in a more subjective way. :twocents: There’s my two cents.
.*
It depends on how far away puberty is, and the age difference. There isn’t any real difference between a 17 1/2 year old boy and an 18 year old boy, physically or emotionally. But a 17 year old boy and a 50 year old man? Or a 17 year old girl and a 50 year old man? In this day and age and culture, when marriage and sexuality is delayed, that is wrong. So would a 14 year old and a 19 year old, in my opinion. I just can’t fathom what a grown adult wants with a teenager, regardless of sexual orientation. I lost someone I thought was a good friend over this very topic - he’s 27, and almost violently straight, and I discovered, over the course of some conversations, that he sees absolutely nothing wrong with a man his age having a “girlfriend” who is 13/14/15. I almost threw up.
Yet this society is increasingly trying to tell us that it’s perfectly fine for that same 50 yr old man to have a relations with an 18 year old boy but not the 17.
Lourdes:
and truly wants to change his life and surrender to God I do not see why the church will not take him. It will be a very heavy cross to take but I do not see why the church needs to push him away.
TCN…
Your post suggests the homosexual is ‘being’ so by choice, not by God’s design. And that for me is the bottom line. I can’t NOT be hispanic or black or white any more than the homosexual can NOT be what he is. What is there to ‘change’ about his life or to repent? He didn’t ask to be born the way he was, it isn’t his ‘sin’. So long as he/she does not engage in homosexual acts and tries very hard to keep his/her thoughts pure then he/she is equal in my eyes as any heterosexual.
Lourdes’ point is that there are chaste and true gay people in the community who choose to serve God and live a chaste life - free of act and thought. There are also many heterosexuals who choose to serve God as well…however, it has been shown that many heterosexual priests have caved in to sin and have lusted after women and sometimes acted on that lust…yet they are not being singled out and barred from service as the gay person is.
The Church has many ways of helping these people, but for Pete’s sake don’t put them in charge of a Flock of people who look to him as an outlet of the Church’s ministries. The same applies to Hetro-sexuals with other major issues (Including sexual ones).
Columba,The Church has many ways of helping these people, but for Pete’s sake don’t put them in charge of a Flock of people who look to him as an outlet of the Church’s ministries. The same applies to Hetro-sexuals with other major issues (Including sexual ones).
And God asks us to Overcome, not just “live with”. Our entire Journey of Salvation is one of coming to understand our relationship with Christ and his Church. We should NEVER be satisfied with where we are, because there is something that always can be improved…more Charity, more gentleness, more ways to become more like Christ.
and I appreciate the distinction between ‘overcome’ and ‘live with’ but the position you take still saddens me a bit because it seems to say that while we are called to and challenged to be more like Christ in our lives, certain ‘subsets’ of humanity will automatically be denied the opportunity to do that by closing the door on them - basically telling them to not even approach the steps. You say we should never be satisfied with where we are…so what if those people with ‘major issues’ (who have repented and reformed) seek the priesthood in their quest to be the best they can be?
To add fuel to this fire. Egale is the largest and most influential homosexual rights group. They seem to favour a 14 year old age of consent.
I think this is an important point. No one has a right to be a priest, regardless of how strong one’s personal calling might be. Ordination is confered upon candidates, not demanded by them. Whereas in the past, chaste homosexual men might have been acceptable candidates for ordination, the Church seems to have decided that the risks are too great in today’s culture. There is a place for chaste, homosexual men in the Church, but it isn’t in the priesthood - at least for now. I can see some pretty reasonable logic in that.
I agree with you 100%
I believe the perceived “lack of equity” in the process is because of the way that North American Media has portrayed it, not in the Church’s actual response to the issue. In fact, of the statements released by the Vatican, they seem most focused on the point I already stated: A need to return to the “basics”, and to return to a spirit of Obedience, rather than trying to forge our own path out on this continent. What makes us “Catholic” is our Unity, our unity with Rome.
God Closes the door on no one! You say " Repented and Reformed" - Amen! Let them go to where God has called them, and serve as best they can in the Vocation that Christ has given them. It is important to note, though, that the Church wishes Catholics to be led to a right understanding of the relationship between God and his people, in which there is no place for the “homosexual” understanding of the sexual relationship (the sexual relationship between man and wife being a Sacrament, giving grace, and ultimately, meant to bring new life - ie children).As for your second paragraph, I hear you
Your first remark, however was this:
So the question is-------are you having a problem with church teaching or are you having a problem with bigotry? I believe your problem is with bigotry and that is well founded.
My heart aches to think you or someone close to you has been victimized in this way and I will keep you in my prayers. Be of stout heart though------ Bottom line-----------your father, neighbors and others you have heard speak this way about any connection----------do not the magisterium make
The Church is not using the word “homosexuality” as a way out! The Church wants to get to the root of the problem. How can we do that if we keep calling it pedophilia, when that is not what it is, even by your own definition?Thank you both for your responses
I have several comments/questions though. I do understand that technically pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubescent children and that the media is using that word to make it seem as though all victims were pre-pubescent. That is wrong. But I also see the Church’s constant reminder that it wasn’t pedophila because the kids were 12 or 13 to be equally wrong because they’re using it as a way to say, ‘This wasn’t so bad. Stop making a big deal out of it.’…
Peg, I understand the concept of avoiding near occasion of sin, but for a homosexual who is not attracted to the underage, what is occasion of sin? Other homosexual priests? Should homosexuals not go to single-sex schools of any kind? Belong to single-sex sports teams? Have friends that are the same sex? Should heterosexual priests tempted by the sins of the flesh be forbidden from ministering to the women of the parish, or from associating with nuns? It seems to me that the arguement is that homosexuals, even if devoted to God and to a chaste, celibate life, are automatically, across-the-board inferior to heterosexuals and that is what disturbs me. Heterosexuals are given the benefit of the doubt and judged on an individual basis, but homosexuals are not…
I just think it’s dishonest to say it’s a “homosexual” problem because “homosexual” is not synonomous with “attracted to children/teens”. I feel like the Church is almost playing the secular world, saying, “We know you don’t think homosexuality is a big deal, so why are you judging us when that’s all we’re dealing with?”
The Church does not teach that a homosexual man CAN NEVER be a priest. During the screening process for the seminary or noviciate, men with same-sex attractions can be considered if they are able to prove that they have lived chastely for a substantial period of time, that they limit the use of alcohol (reduces inhibitions), that they recognize homosexual activity as sinful and that they are faithful to Church doctrine on sexual morality.
One problem is that he is surrounded by other men so the temptation would be greater than for a heterosexual. Another problems may arise around his fidelity to and ability to effectively teach on sexual morality.
Sorry, I’ve never heard that everything would be sunshine and roses. We have serious problems vis a vis dissent (Catholics and abortion is a pertinent example.)
