With the pope against the homoheresy

[epan]

You meant “moot.”

I agree.

I would like to think that rights of religious freedom would keep the courts out of the churches on this issue. The military held the line as long as it could. Eventually, the courts forced integration. I have my suspicions that there will be some legal challenges in the relatively near future. This is just an intuition. I believe that there is a clear historic social trend here, which has a lot of momentum by now.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would like to think that rights of religious freedom would keep the courts out of the churches on this issue. The military held the line as long as it could. Eventually, the courts forced integration. I have my suspicions that there will be some legal challenges in the relatively near future. This is just an intuition. I believe that there is a clear historic social trend here, which has a lot of momentum by now.

Well here I would respectfully disagree, if you are implying that secular courts will ever be able to mandate that the Catholic Church accept active sexual behavior of any kind within the priesthood, unless those are heterosexually married priests, as an exception to celibacy, whenever that time period would theoretically occur. (And does now for a few received Anglican priests.)

The Church doesn’t wish to exclude anyone with a dormant understanding of their own sexuality (i.e., not repressed, but inactive). A heterosexual or homosexual candidate to the priesthood, who has self-understanding and self-mastery, is not excluded and is not part of BXVI’s pronouncement on “deep-seated homosexual tendencies.” Any man who is able to embrace celibacy healthfully and who has in other respects also a true vocation, is welcome. (It’s always been true that heterosexual men fixated on relationships with women are poor candidates for the priesthood. The Church is not applying uneven standards here. She doesn’t want a sexual “consciousness” to interfere with the spiritual consciousness that is the organizing concept and task of the ministerial priesthood.)

 

[epan]

Well here I would respectfully disagree, if you are implying that secular courts will ever be able to mandate that the Catholic Church accept active sexual behavior of any kind within the priesthood, unless those are heterosexually married priests, as an exception to celibacy, whenever that time period would theoretically occur. (And does now for a few received Anglican priests.)

The Church doesn’t wish to exclude anyone with a dormant understanding of their own sexuality (i.e., not repressed, but inactive). A heterosexual or homosexual candidate to the priesthood, who has self-understanding and self-mastery, is not excluded and is not part of BXVI’s pronouncement on “deep-seated homosexual tendencies.” Any man who is able to embrace celibacy healthfully and who has in other respects also a true vocation, is welcome. (It’s always been true that heterosexual men fixated on relationships with women are poor candidates for the priesthood. The Church is not applying uneven standards here. She doesn’t want a sexual “consciousness” to interfere with the spiritual consciousness that is the organizing concept and task of the ministerial priesthood.)

I am saying that I hope that it never reaches the point that the courts interfered with religious liberty in this area.

 

[rossum]

I am saying that I hope that it never reaches the point that the courts interfered with religious liberty in this area.

I think it is unlikely. Divorce has been legal for a long time, yet there is no sign of the courts trying to force Catholic churches to marry divorced people. The most likely outcome is that some churches, who wish to, will perform same sex religious marriages while other churches will not. Just as with divorcees today; each church decides for itself what it will do.

rossum

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am saying that I hope that it never reaches the point that the courts interfered with religious liberty in this area.

OK. thanks for the clarificaiton. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . Either gay men are better at controlling their impulses than straight men are, . . .

In the 17 years I’d spent in the entertainment industry, on a personal scale, I discovered the opposite to be true . Perhaps the military environment is different. Still , we’re probably better off trying to determine statistics rather than speaking in generalities.

Furthermore, if “gay men were better at controlling their impulses” , then how do we explain all the scandals which took place in the Church ?. . . additionally noting that in large part, the offenses/impulses acted upon were quite disordered since these incidents rarely (if ever) involved an adult victim.

 

[speakttruth]

lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2011/11/syracuse-diocese-touts-homosexual.html

They still have the rainbow club in St Cecelia’s. This is a complete heresies in the Boston Diocese and it makes me sick to know that the Cardinal is turning a blind eye to it. This where they were pushing there gay mass for the gay pride month. The President of the United States celebrates as well along with Deval Patrick our Governor that has a lesbian living in that lifestyle and his acceptance of it as he marches along with all the perverted transsexuals dressed in there costumes. Why would anyone want to identify with that if they are trying to be holy as some claim?
This is now going to be the law of the land in Mass as they passed the bathroom bill.
God help us.

 

[epan]

In the 17 years I’d spent in the entertainment industry, on a personal scale, I discovered the opposite to be true . Perhaps the military environment is different. Still , we’re probably better off trying to determine statistics rather than speaking in generalities.

Furthermore, if “gay men were better at controlling their impulses” , then how do we explain all the scandals which took place in the Church ?. . . additionally noting that in large part, the offenses/impulses acted upon were quite disordered since these incidents rarely (if ever) involved an adult victim.

You took that out of context.

But to answer your question, I don’t really have any idea, if you are asking me. If I were to guess, then I suppose that adult sexual activity is consensual, and is therefore less likely to be reported. It is more likely for male sexual predators to have access to male children, than to female children. But I am not saying that is true. I am just speculating because you posed the question.

 

[NeedImprovement]

You took that out of context.

But to answer your question, I don’t really have any idea, if you are asking me. If I were to guess, then I suppose that adult sexual activity is consensual, and is therefore less likely to be reported. It is more likely for male sexual predators to have access to male children, than to female children. But I am not saying that is true. I am just speculating because you posed the question.

I tried to leave the original within the context of your statement by referring back to the military again :

In the 17 years I’d spent in the entertainment industry, on a personal scale, I discovered the opposite to be true . Perhaps the military environment is different. . …

Maybe I didn’t do a very good job - Sorry if it irked you. That wasn’t the intention.

I did say that my observation was on a personal scale. Maybe if you knew how many times I had to find out personally (by being on the receiving end of numerous distasteful physical homosexual affronts from individuals from all walks of life every one of which had to be repelled] ) you’d see where I’m coming from and just how unreal it is to assert or suggest that homosexuals as a group are better at controlling their impulses than anyone - let alone straight men.

I believe your original context intended in the comparative suggestion/assertion, " Either gay men are better at controlling their impulses than straight men are. . . " is alluding to heterosexual man’s natural impulses going beyond what is permissible - to the inordinate, and this being acted out ( please don’t hesitate to correct me if I’m wrong). But where I fail to see the connection in a specific region of your reasoning, is when you equate homosexual impulses with heterosexual impulses. Heterosexual impulses within reason are natural - the same cannot be said for homosexual impulses at all.

 

[epan]

I tried to leave the original within the context of your statement by referring back to the military again :

Maybe I didn’t do a very good job - Sorry if it irked you. That wasn’t the intention.

I did say that my observation was on a personal scale. Maybe if you knew how many times I had to find out personally (by being on the receiving end of numerous distasteful physical homosexual affronts from individuals from all walks of life every one of which had to be repelled] ) you’d see where I’m coming from and just how unreal it is to assert or suggest that homosexuals as a group are better at controlling their impulses than anyone - let alone straight men.

I believe your original context intended in the comparative suggestion/assertion, " Either gay men are better at controlling their impulses than straight men are. . . " is alluding to heterosexual man’s natural impulses going beyond what is permissible - to the inordinate, and this being acted out ( please don’t hesitate to correct me if I’m wrong). But where I fail to see the connection in a specific region of your reasoning, is when you equate homosexual impulses with heterosexual impulses. Heterosexual impulses within reason are natural - the same cannot be said for homosexual impulses at all.

My point was that regardless of the reason, the military has had less of a problem with same sex sexual harassment than with opposite sex sexual harassment. This is a matter of record.

I stated several hypothetical possibilities as to why. I don’t know why you chose that particular one, out of several. Maybe because it doesn’t fit your stereotypes?

Without getting this thread too far off the original topic, it is interesting to me that in the military, the medical corps is known as having the highest number of gay men proportionally. In civilian life, this is also true of nursing, that there is a high percentage of gay men. Yet, the incidence of sexual misconduct by nurses and medical corpsman is essentially unheard of. It is a non-issue.

 

[NeedImprovement]

My point was that regardless of the reason, the military has had less of a problem with same sex sexual harassment than with opposite sex sexual harassment. This is a matter of record.

I stated several hypothetical possibilities as to why. I don’t know why you chose that particular one, out of several. Maybe because it doesn’t fit your stereotypes?

Without getting this thread too far off the original topic, it is interesting to me that in the military, the medical corps is known as having the highest number of gay men proportionally. In civilian life, this is also true of nursing, that there is a high percentage of gay men. Yet, the incidence of sexual misconduct by nurses and medical corpsman is essentially unheard of. It is a non-issue.

The way I perceived this thread’s original topic as verified by the OP , it would appear more oriented towards adult homosexual offenses against children, in a particular sense as it relates to our Catholic Church. Last time I checked, in the western world, we don’t have any child soldiers , so I’m afraid any relevance of using the military as an analogy would prove considerably remote, if not a little lost to the topic at hand ; the military is an organization apart from the Catholic Church and is comprised of adults.

I am personally aware in my apostolate of some nursing staff who are homosexual, and who are at the same time fine compassionate philanthropists at work . . . not sure why you thought you had to mention homosexuals who work in this field.

On the subject of stereotypes, it would be helpful if you could provide links to substantiate your claims of “high numbers” and “high percentages” . . . and please , - something more credible than wikiperdia.

Who writes Wikipedia ? You do! Anyone can be bold and edit an existing article or create a new one, and volunteers do not need to have any formal training. The people who create and edit articles in Wikipedia come from countries all around the world and have a wide range of ages and backgrounds. Any contributor to this encyclopedia, unregistered and registered alike, is called a “Wikipedian,” or, more formally, an “editor.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_writes_Wikipedia

:doh2:

In the meantime, some readers might appreciate a link to an article which debunks one particular high numbers myth :

Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are

 

[epan]

On the subject of stereotypes, it would be helpful if you could provide links to substantiate your claims of “high numbers” and “high percentages” . . . and please , - something more credible than wikiperdia.

Apparently, you don’t work in a medical profession. Either that, or you are simply being contrary.

 

[fintastic79]

Indeed - I always giggle at the invocation of his name in this way - he has been pretty much vindicated by defectors and subsequent history, almost uniquely among conspiracy -]nu/-] - theorists. Some quite damning admissions and discoveries have confirmed some of (what everybody thought were) his wildest fancies, leaving this residue f other stuff that is either true or (justifiably it now seems) paranoid. The memo is taking a long time to get to some people though.

Even if the communist threat was exaggerated, I still love McCarthy for his populist, anti-Establishment attitude.He dragged powerful people before his committee to answer tough questions about their agendas and loyalties. He gave credence to the always-present suspicion among the American public that their government doesn’t give a damn about their real interests. He broke the gentlemen’s agreement that exists among all the power elites in Washington: Never do anything that undermines American’s confidence in the legitimacy of their government.

 

[epan]

Even if the communist threat was exaggerated, I still love McCarthy for his populist, anti-Establishment attitude.He dragged powerful people before his committee to answer tough questions about their agendas and loyalties. He gave credence to the always-present suspicion among the American public that their government doesn’t give a damn about their real interests. He broke the gentlemen’s agreement that exists among all the power elites in Washington: Never do anything that undermines American’s confidence in the legitimacy of their government.

Did he not also abuse his office to gratuitously and utterly ruin people’s reputations and careers, for the purpose of his own aggrandizement?

Not exactly admirable.

 

[speakttruth]

Did he not also abuse his office to gratuitously and utterly ruin people’s reputations and careers, for the purpose of his own aggrandizement?

Not exactly admirable.

Epan, how are you doing?

I just realized how funny that picture is with bear. How did you get in on there?

 

[epan]

Epan, how are you doing?

I just realized how funny that picture is with bear. How did you get in on there?

Doing fine, thanks. My life alternates between utter boredom and insomnia, or being deep in work and insomnia. I prefer the former, but feel fulfilled by the latter, if that makes sense.

Not sure this is a good direction for this thread.

 

[speakttruth]

Doing fine, thanks. My life alternates between utter boredom and insomnia, or being deep in work and insomnia. I prefer the former, but feel fulfilled by the latter, if that makes sense.

Not sure this is a good direction for this thread.

Well it has gotten off the pope against homoheresy subject quite awhile ago.

I think I have beaten this horse to death. :manvspc:

Hope the next pope is a good one, We can only pray. Hope you can get some sleep!
GB