Vatican Reaffirms Ban On Homosexual Seminarians

[CatherineM]

This kind of abuse is rarely about sex. It's about power and control. That goes across gender and/or sexual orientation lines.

[Alycin]

THANK YOU meg and catherine!

Finally some people with sense on this matter!

Just like all rapes are not about sex, neither are all molestations against underage persons. Sex is the weapon in an act of violence.

[IrishSalesian]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1537831' date='May 22 2008, 08:36 PM']This kind of abuse is rarely about sex. It's about power and control. That goes across gender and/or sexual orientation lines.[/quote]

I agree that it is about the power and control.

I had an expierence (not a good one) where a diocesan seminarian began to hit on me. It was very uncomfortable. It made me feel disgusting. The person was in a few of my classes in the seminary. I am in a religious order (Salesians) and I was talking to my Spiritual Director and he told me to avoid the person in question and I should also contact the Rector of the Seminary so as to make them aware of the situation. But the personin question had already been asked to leave.

Long story short. I think that the Vatican's ban on homosexual seminarians is a good thing because it can be a great distraction, not in a good way great, but as in a huge distraction. Besides, a homosexual feelings are not healthy for the ministry.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='picchick' post='1537826' date='May 22 2008, 06:32 PM']Just because you sexual abuse little boys does not make you gay. Straight men abuse boys. Pedophiles, regardless of sexual orientation, abuse children...it does not matter their gender.
AND straight men who are pedophiles WILL abuse little boys. Don't try to argue with me on that one because I have heard people's stories.
Mind you yes, homosexual pedophiles have a GREATER chance of abusing boys but straight men abuse boys too.

The point I am trying to make is the fact that allowing homosexual priests into the seminary HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEX SCANDALS. It is the fact that PEDOPHILES were allowed to become priests.
What do you mean by this post? It seems that you are disregarding the fact that girls were also abused? Please do not disregard the fact that girls too were abused. It does not matter how many girls were abused vs. boys. They were abused. Period. That is all that matters. Furthermore, the fact that girls were abused shows that this was not a homosexual problem as well. It shows that it was a PEDOPHILIA problem.
I see NO WHERE in that statement by Kitty that she was re-writing history. I did not see anything in her posts regarding the Sex Scandal as re-writing history. You on the other hand do by stating that.[/quote]


I really, really don't want to just keep fighting over this...but I honestly disagree. From my understanding, a majority of the sex scandals were [i][u]exclusively [/u][/i]pederastic in nature. Sure there were females children abused by priests during the last 50 years...but the fact that an overwhelming majority of the cases (mind you I'm not citing this, but it has been my understanding) were strictly pederastic speaks volumes that you are ignoring. On one level you are right that there are pedophiles who abuse little boys and little girls both and in this case, I think you are correct to say that this specific situation has little to do with homosexuality and more to do with power and control. However, the priest scandals were widely characterized by homosexual priests (some of whom were later openly gay) whose sexual crimes were exclusively pederastic toward post-pubescent males. I think this priest scandal issue is bad mixture of homosexually disordered priests capitalizing on young men who had a lack of a healthy formed sexual identity.

Sure there were some priests who were just natural perverts that wanted to dominate and control little girls and little boys both. The reality is that the scandal, in general terms, was more about homosexual priests having illicit relationships exclusively with teenage boys.

Sorry for my redundancy...if you disagree, just say so...I don't feel like having a post-war. I just wanted to state my opinion and reaffirm that I support the Church's ban because of my opinion.

Peace,

Todd W.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1538131' date='May 22 2008, 09:37 PM']However, the priest scandals were widely characterized by homosexual priests (some of whom were later openly gay) whose sexual crimes were exclusively pederastic toward post-pubescent males. I think this priest scandal issue is bad mixture of homosexually disordered priests capitalizing on young men who had a lack of a healthy formed sexual identity.[/quote]

This is exactly what I was saying. Why was it so hard for everyone to understand?

The priests who were part of the scandals....the ones we heard about and read about...were homosexuals. We know this. We know about their history of frequenting gay bars/clubs and their activity in the homosexual scene.

And they were pederasts and pedophiles.

What's the problem here?

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='picchick' post='1537826' date='May 22 2008, 06:32 PM']This is totally off topic but I am going to say it anyway.
No. To say that they were all homosexuals are wrong. You alluded to that in your first paragraph:[/quote]

What are you going on about? See my reply to Todd.

And why are you moving from thread to thread looking for a fight with me? The forum doesn't want it, so stop it.

[Alycin]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1538145' date='May 22 2008, 10:51 PM']What are you going on about? See my reply to Todd.

And why are you moving from thread to thread looking for a fight with me? The forum doesn't want it, so stop it.[/quote]

Someone accusing Meg of being an instigator?

[picchick]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1538145' date='May 22 2008, 10:51 PM']What are you going on about? See my reply to Todd.

And why are you moving from thread to thread looking for a fight with me? The forum doesn't want it, so stop it.[/quote]

.....um.....My intention was not to move from thread to thread looking for a fight with you. I thought that I made that clear in the other thread. Honestly...you are the last person I would want to fight with. You made comments that I felt strongly about so I responded. Sorry that I made you feel like I was picking a fight with you. I never intended that.

I don't know who Todd is. I just saw certain comments that I felt I needed to clarify.


By the way, Aloysius....you are awesome! Your posts make so much sense. Thank you!

[Veridicus]

[quote name='picchick' post='1538411' date='May 23 2008, 01:14 AM']I don't know who Todd is. I just saw certain comments that I felt I needed to clarify.
By the way, Aloysius....you are awesome! Your posts make so much sense. Thank you![/quote]

Hi! I'm Todd!

This is Elmo>

Edited May 23, 2008 by Veridicus

[picchick]

Hi Todd! I will read your posts.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='picchick' post='1538411' date='May 23 2008, 01:14 AM']I don't know who Todd is. I just saw certain comments that I felt I needed to clarify.[/quote]

A few posts back, I replied to Todd's comment about the priests who were homosexuals.

[picchick]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1538131' date='May 22 2008, 10:37 PM']I really, really don't want to just keep fighting over this...but I honestly disagree. From my understanding, a majority of the sex scandals were [i][u]exclusively [/u][/i]pederastic in nature. Sure there were females children abused by priests during the last 50 years...but the fact that an overwhelming majority of the cases (mind you I'm not citing this, but it has been my understanding) were strictly pederastic speaks volumes that you are ignoring. On one level you are right that there are pedophiles who abuse little boys and little girls both and in this case, I think you are correct to say that this specific situation has little to do with homosexuality and more to do with power and control. However, the priest scandals were widely characterized by homosexual priests (some of whom were later openly gay) whose sexual crimes were exclusively pederastic toward post-pubescent males. I think this priest scandal issue is bad mixture of homosexually disordered priests capitalizing on young men who had a lack of a healthy formed sexual identity.

Sure there were some priests who were just natural perverts that wanted to dominate and control little girls and little boys both. The reality is that the scandal, in general terms, was more about homosexual priests having illicit relationships exclusively with teenage boys.

Sorry for my redundancy...if you disagree, just say so...I don't feel like having a post-war. I just wanted to state my opinion and reaffirm that I support the Church's ban because of my opinion.

Peace,

Todd W.[/quote]


[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1538144' date='May 22 2008, 10:49 PM']This is exactly what I was saying. Why was it so hard for everyone to understand?

The priests who were part of the scandals....the ones we heard about and read about...were homosexuals. We know this. We know about their history of frequenting gay bars/clubs and their activity in the homosexual scene.

And they were pederasts and pedophiles.

What's the problem here?[/quote]


Ok...maybe I was not being clear and for that I apologize.

There is no problem and I am not fighting with you guys. I am trying to make clear that just because the priests has sexually abused boys does mean that they are homosexual. I know that the majority were homosexual. I was trying to make a distinction because I felt that the terms were beginning to smush together. I also didn't want to disregard in a sense those priests who did abuse both girls and boys. Sorry about the misunderstanding. No post wars...promise.

Meg

[Veridicus]

[quote name='picchick' post='1538500' date='May 23 2008, 08:42 AM']Ok...Sorry about the misunderstanding. No post wars...promise.

Meg[/quote]

Now if we could just end your peep genocide!

Edited May 23, 2008 by Veridicus

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='picchick' post='1538500' date='May 23 2008, 08:42 AM']Ok...maybe I was not being clear and for that I apologize.

There is no problem and I am not fighting with you guys. I am trying to make clear that just because the priests has sexually abused boys does mean that they are homosexual. I know that the majority were homosexual. I was trying to make a distinction because I felt that the terms were beginning to smush together. I also didn't want to disregard in a sense those priests who did abuse both girls and boys. Sorry about the misunderstanding. No post wars...promise.

Meg[/quote]

Yeah, there were certain priests who were definitely homosexual. This all came out after the fact. So what I was saying is that there is lilely a very clear connection between active homosexuals in the priesthood and the fact that they also abused boys. Not that all homosexuals abuse boys, to be sure. Nor that all abuses are homosexuals either.

Based on some of the things that came out about seminaries back in the 50s and 60s (which were the decades these priests would have been schooled/trained in) it leads one to wonder if these priests hadn't been abused themselves.

It's all very sad.

[Saint_Gemma_Galgani]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1536047' date='May 21 2008, 07:50 AM']No my thought process is fine. Its your LOGIC that's faulty. ( As well as your CAPS LOCK)

A person's sexuality has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.

Read through the posts Mad V. The question was asked about homosexuals being allowed in the seminary. People responded in regards to pedophiles. It is comparitive to
"There seems to be a higher rate of alcoholism amongst priests"
"yes we have a lot of irish priests"
The two are only associated through prejudice and ignorance.[/quote]

To use your analogy, let's say that 80% of the priests who were alcoholics were drinking a beer that only Irish people drink, while only 10% of the general population is Irish. Wouldn't the alcoholism problem amongst priests also partially be an Irish problem? (I am not saying that Irish people are any more likely to be alcoholic than the general population, I am only using hot stuff's example.)

Certainly, the majority of priests who suffer from same-sex attraction will never molest children, but the majority of priests who molest children suffer from SSA.