The Scandals

[Didacus]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 07:56 AM'][snip]
If these documents find their way into the media, we might have a fascinating "60 Minutes" special!
[right][snapback]621400[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Your boastful nature speaks volumes of your intent and ignorance Littleles.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 11:20 AM']Whoa!  What is your evidence? I don't think you'll find the professional psychological or psychiatric associations making any such claim. Why don't you ask your friendly librarian to direct you to the DSM?
[right][snapback]621625[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


As has been stated in another thread, modern Psycology starts from a Materialis Premise, Materialism is unacceptable to a Catholic or any Christian ( Probably to a Muslim as well) so what a psycolgist may or may not beieve is immaterial ( no pun intended) The DSM IV is absolutly usless in a discussion about the Nature of man, what is disordered and not or morality.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 11:29 AM']RESPONSE:

That may be true, but please note that the majority of child sex abusers are not homosexuals. They are usually heterosexuals or sometimes bisexual.

Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.
[right][snapback]621649[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This issue has already been argued to death in previous threads. but the facts are (somebody had the statistics) that in the cases of the priestly scandals, the vast majority (over 80%) of the abuse involved post-pubescent males.

These were not children, and what was happening, properly speaking, did not involve pedophilia (the molesting of pre-pubescent children, which is more commonly heterosexual).

When you consider how many seminaries have become bastions of homosexuality ("pink palaces") it is clear where the problem is.

The issue here is the priestly abuse scandals (largely homosexual in nature). Your cited Massachussets report (about abuse of pre-pubescent children) concerns different crimes (not those of the priests), and is thus irrelevent to the argument.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Socrates

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 24 2005, 11:29 AM']RESPONSE:

That may be true, but please note that the majority of child sex abusers are not homosexuals. They are usually heterosexuals or sometimes bisexual.

Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.
[right][snapback]621649[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


A. are there any more recent studies? 28 years is a long time ago for one study to carry that much wieght, there are contradictory studies in science all the time.

B what was the Gender of the offenders victims... Most men prey on little girls which would fit with disordered attraction to females butthat is not the case in the Priesthood scandal these men preyed mainly on Boys, most of whom where pubescent

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 24 2005, 11:39 AM']This issue has already been argued to death in previous threads. but the facts are (somebody had the statistics) that in the cases of the priestly scandals, the vast majority (over 80%) of the abuse involved post-pubescent males. 

These were not children, and what was happening, properly speaking, did not involve pedophilia (the moslesting of pre-pubescent children, which is more commonly heterosexual).

When you consider how many seminaries have become bastions of homosexuality ("pink palaces") it is clear where the problem is.

The issue here is the priestly abuse scandals (largely homosexual in nature).  Your cited Massachussets repor (about abuse of pre-pubescent children)t, concerns differnent crimes, and is thus irrelevent top the argument.
[right][snapback]621675[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


well said.

[MC Just]

Here's some interesting information.

[url="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/3/202041.shtml"]http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2.../3/202041.shtml[/url]

man i want to start a "operation kick the liberals out of our church coalition"

[jezic]

one last thing to remember is that the rules now for priestly development are much tougher. they were less strict when the generation of priests that committed these abuses was in seminary.

Why would seminaries be bastions of homosexuality?

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Sins against chastity are disordered. The sin of masturbation is intrinsically disordered.[/quote]

Heterosexual fornication is not disordered in the object of lust. The object of heterosexual fornication is a female.

While masturbation, as an act, is unnatural, it is not disordered in the object of lust.

Homosexuality can be likened to a sexual attraction to hamburgers. Hamburgers (and sex) can both be used correctly (you eat a hamburger, and you have a female as the object of sexual affection). But when a hamburger, or a person of the same sex, becomes an object of lust, that objective is disordered.

Hamburgers are meant to be eaten; they are not objects of sexual affection. Persons of the same sex are meant to be embraced in a non-sexual manner.

[jezic]

[quote]Persons of the same sex are meant to be embraced in a non-sexual manner. [/quote]


which can occur for any person on the planet if they learn the truth. Just like heterosexual men with lust need to learn to be with women without feeling the lust homosexual men need to learn to be with guys. It is the same process of learning. It can be taught with the same methods.

[Guest Eremite]

Jezic,

Heterosexual men who have problems with lust should not be admitted to the priesthood either (eg, a man addicted to pornography).

I asked in my personal message to you whether or not we should admit men who are attracted to children, so long as they never think about it or act on it?

Pedophiles, like homosexuals, can be chaste. But that doesn't mean they are fit for the priesthood.

[Noel's angel]

Someone who is attracted to kids is hardly gonna go and say 'Hey everyone, I'm attracted to little children, now let me be a priest'

[Socrates]

[quote name='jezic' date='Jun 24 2005, 12:17 PM']one last thing to remember is that the rules now for priestly development are much tougher. they were less strict when the generation of priests that committed these abuses was in seminary.

Why would seminaries be bastions of homosexuality?
[right][snapback]621744[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Are you questioning that they were, or wanting to know the reason why?

Read [i]Goodbye, Good Men[/i].

[jezic]

both

[Guest Eremite]

Noel,

You don't think there are good Catholic men who are attracted to children? Pedophilia is a disorder of the sexual appetite, just as homosexuality is. If chastity is the only consideration for admission to the priesthood, then we should admit men attracted to children, so long as they are chaste.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='Jun 24 2005, 12:28 PM']Someone who is attracted to kids is hardly gonna go and say 'Hey everyone, I'm attracted to little children, now let me be a priest'
[right][snapback]621765[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Again, for the millionth time, most of the priestly abuse involved teenaged boys, not "little children"! It's like people have to continually avoid the facts, rather than face their politically incorrect implications!

The problem is not pedophilia! It is homosexuality!