Homosexuality & The Priesthood

[Guest]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1864408' date='May 11 2009, 05:21 PM']It happens all the time. Straight men rape or engage in consensual sex with other males in prisons because that's what is available. Straight men also rape other men in war zones as a way of showing dominance. Rape often has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with power and control.[/quote]

Peace Catherine. I would say their not straight then. The minute you (a male) do a sexual act with another male you are nolonger stragith. Mabey you can claim you're "bi" but you sure as heck aint straight.

Edited May 11, 2009 by Guest

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1864413' date='May 11 2009, 05:25 PM']Peace Catherine. I would say their not straight then. The minute you do a sexual act with another male you are nolonger stragith. Mabey you can claim you're "bi" but you sure as heck aint straight.[/quote]
my girlfriends argue this point regularly. it seems to be a double standard (men vs. women).

[Guest]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864416' date='May 11 2009, 05:26 PM'] my girlfriends argue this point regularly. it seems to be a double standard (men vs. women).[/quote]

haha one of my friends that is a girl is the same way. she kissed a girl (mabey more then once) but says she's not a lesbian.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' post='1864418' date='May 11 2009, 05:28 PM']haha one of my friends that is a girl is the same way. she kissed a girl (mabey more then once) but says she's not a lesbian.[/quote]
sounds familiar. haha. i hear that more than you would probably believe. it's apparently really common, something i've only realized in recent years.

[ariaane]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864403' date='May 12 2009, 12:18 AM']to [b]assume and assert that all gay people are also pedophiles is beyond potentially being politically incorrect[/b].[/quote]

You won't find one place where I've said that.

You seem to be erecting rather a few strawmen.

[franciscanheart]

removing all homosexual men from the priesthood is not the solution to this problem. while you may not have said exactly that, that is certainly what has been implied - or at the very lest perceived and not carefully explained/corrected - in the past few pages of dialogue.

[ariaane]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1864429' date='May 12 2009, 12:35 AM']removing all homosexual men from the priesthood is not the solution to this problem. while you may not have said exactly that, that is certainly what has been implied - or at the very lest perceived and not carefully explained/corrected - in the past few pages of dialogue.[/quote]

I stand by [b]my previous words[/b]: Removing all homosexual priests would [b]GREATLY REDUCE [/b]the risk of young males being molested.

This is not to say that [b]NO[/b] molestation would occur, but there’d certainly be roughly 80% lower occurrences of abuse, if we go by the percentage of abuses which consisted of homosexual priests molesting pubescent boys.

Your words have not made the slightest impact on me, as you [b]argue from a place of emotion[/b] and not reason. It is quite apparent to me that homosexual advocates have influenced you greatly as their manner of debating is very similar to yours, in that they don’t debate, but find recourse to ad hominems and fling accusations of “bigotry” and “homophobia” when they have no refutation for valid points made.

Are you even aware how devalued the terms "bigotry" and "homophobia" have become?

They mean nothing...

I haven’t responded to much of your points as they are simply [b]appeals to emotion[/b] which I’m far too old to dignify.

[franciscanheart]

I'm flying out the door at the moment but I never used the word, "homophobia."

[havok579257]

[quote name='ariaane' post='1864454' date='May 11 2009, 06:56 PM']I stand by [b]my previous words[/b]: Removing all homosexual priests would [b]GREATLY REDUCE [/b]the risk of young males being molested.

This is not to say that [b]NO[/b] molestation would occur, but there’d certainly be roughly 80% lower occurrences of abuse, if we go by the percentage of abuses which consisted of homosexual priests molesting pubescent boys.

Your words have not made the slightest impact on me, as you [b]argue from a place of emotion[/b] and not reason. It is quite apparent to me that homosexual advocates have influenced you greatly as their manner of debating is very similar to yours, in that they don’t debate, but find recourse to ad hominems and fling accusations of “bigotry” and “homophobia” when they have no refutation for valid points made.

Are you even aware how devalued the terms "bigotry" and "homophobia" have become?

They mean nothing...

I haven’t responded to much of your points as they are simply [b]appeals to emotion[/b] which I’m far too old to dignify.[/quote]

Your saying if we remove homosexual men from the priesthood it will solve 80% of molestation cases. SO then what do we do about the other 20%? How do you propose to eliminate the other 20%? Do we eliminate all heterosexual men from the priesthood and only leave asexual men? Reducing the number of molestation is not the answer, eliminating it all is the answer. So how do we do such a thing?

[havok579257]

[quote name='ariaane' post='1864344' date='May 11 2009, 05:22 PM']I have explained to you using several reasons why I’m opposed to homosexual priests.

1. The occasion of sin that homosexuals priests will be placed in by living with other men
2. The threatening of the safety of post pubescent males.

Both my reasons apply.



[b]Altar servers are predominantly males[/b], post pubescent males, as the tradition of altar boys is meant to be conducive in encouraging boys to become future priests..

We already know from the John Jay study that the child abuse cases in the Church was predominantly abuse of pubescent males by SSAD priests.

Why place vulnerable and unsuspecting males, who are often altar servers and choir boys, in an environment where there is an [b]increased likelihood[/b] of them being molested?

[b][color="#000080"]Let’s stop looking at this as “lets protect homosexuals from being offended” but start looking at things through a “what will keep these young males the most safe”.
[/color][/b]
It is the children who matter most, and not the hurt feelings of homosexuals priests.

(This is the thing [b]I hate most[/b] about the homosexual agenda: When it comes to homosexual adoption, the desires of self serving homosexuals preceeds the needs of vulnerable children)

Keep in mind that there is already a shortage of priests, and altar server boys often make up males who later enter into the priesthood. If we leave them to be devoured by wolves, not only is this unfair to them as children, but [b]who will be our future priests[/b]?[/quote]

Again your saying your against homosexual priest is different than you saying all homosexuals are pedophils. Which is what you were saying in the other post of your. I never argued your point of you not wanting any homosexual men as priests, only your insane claims of all homosexual men are pedophiles.

[Socrates]

[quote name='AdAltareDei' post='1861474' date='May 7 2009, 10:47 PM']It was rhetorical. Intended to convey how stupid the terminology is.[/quote]
I don't find anything stupid at all with the terminology the Church uses. In fact, I find the word "gay" stupid terminology.
And call me a hateful bigot, but I find the teachings of Jesus Christ's Holy Catholic Apostolic Church on this matter infinitely more intelligent and insightful than your adolescent rants.

[quote][i]The issue is more than just combating sins, but the fact that homosexual tendencies are themselves objectively disordered, and show a lack of proper sexual development. [/i]
I don't think they show a lack of proper sexual development. If you look at it from an Darwinian point of view it's part of diversity of species.[/quote]
The Church teaches otherwise. In the Catechism, no less.
And invoking the name of Darwin to defend this perversion holds no water with me. I'm not a Darwinist. [i]Anything[/i] could be called "diversity of species," heck, even pedophilia for that matter. That empty phrase tells absolutely nothing about whether such inclinations are disordered or not. And besides, from a Darwinian point of view, homosexuality makes no sense as it certainly does nothing to increase the reproduction of the species.

[quote][i]Homosexuals do not have the affective maturity to be spiritual [b]fathers[/b], which is part of the job of a priest.[/i]
Whats involved in being a spiritual father? When you've told me this, tell me why a mans sexual orientation impacts on his ability to care for his flock. I'd like solid examples, not just loopholes avoiding the question.[/quote]
I'd suggest you read up on that document again, as well as the writings of our current Holy Father, and try seriously reflecting on it, rather than just trying to find ways to discredit it. It gets to the heart of the matter much more eloquently than I could hope to.

The Church regards a man's sexuality as an integral part of his development as a man and a human being, not just as some isolated issue regarding nothing more than the genitals.
Having a solid, mature masculine identity is necessary to be a good priest. A spiritual father is one who is able to be an Alter Christus as spouse of the Church his Holy Bride, and to be a spiritual father and leader of men.
This involves having a solidly-formed masculine identity without sexual disorders of any kind.
Homosexuality by its definition is disordered and contrary to a properly formed masculine identity, and if not fully overcome, is a barrier to carrying out the priest's duties as a husband of the Church and father of souls.

[quote]The same reasons that Doctor provides in the interview you posted to back up your position? I've already addressed that and you chose to ignore all my responses other then one for using the word "dickhead".

Nice work, if you can't answer then say so don't try and avoid the topic.[/quote]
There was little of substance in your post to refute, and besides I honestly didn't have the time. It consisted mostly of mockery and derision and claims that none of what was discussed applies to you. However, that article is hardly the only source I've read saying such things. The link between homosexuality and various personality disorders is well-documented, though it is now politically-incorrect to discuss. I've read a better article by an old priest with decades of experience in seminary formation who has come to similar conclusions about the homosexual disorder. Quite frankly, I trust the wisdom and experience of such men much more than your own.
The ignoring of rules screening out homosexuals in the seminary (and the dominance of many seminaries by homosexuals) has led to much disorder in the Church itself. Read [i]Goodbye Good Men[/i] for more details if you're in fact interested.

[quote]You are arguing there's a corelation between homosexuality and pedophilia before. You are right, pedophilia is another disorder, so it makes no sense to blame homosexuals for the clergy abuse crisis.[/quote]
Since you apparently don't bother to read what I post, I don't really see the point in bothering to respond.
The truth is that the majority of the cases of priestly abuse did [b]not[/b] involve true pedophilia (involving pre-pubescent children), but homosexual pederasty of adolescent males.
Read the [url="http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/"]John Jay Report commissioned by the USCCB[/url].

[quote]The majority of teenage boys are both physically and emotionally able to resist the advances of a priest. So once again, homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia, because pedophilia is not consentual, by definition.[/quote]
Yet according to the report, most of those abused were first abused between ages 12-17.
The facts disagree with you.

[quote]I can't verify if this is correct or not. Assuming it is I would say that there's a vast difference between 80% of pedophiles having homosexual tendencies and 80% of homosexuals having pedophilic tendencies. It's like a black man saying "alright, 100% of KKK members are white so I'm not going to trust any white male I see, even thought only .0005% of white men are members of the KKK"[/quote]
I'm not an idiot, and I never claimed the majority of homosexuals abuse underage boys. However, homosexuals certainly made up a disproportionate amount of the abusive priests.
Certainly a good reason to screen out seminarians with any sexual disorders (including but not limited to homosexuality). 81% of the abuse was of males, most of them past puberty, so it seems safe to say that the majority of the abuse cases did not involve normal heterosexual men.
If seminaries had done their job in keeping homosexuals out, the majority of the abuse probably could have been prevented.
There's much wisdom to the Church's rules.
The LAST thing the Church needs now is for the Church to give its official blessing on "gay priests."

[quote]Protecting criminals and rapists is an evil.
Ordaining a celibate gay man to the priesthood so he can serve the Church is not.
You can't even compare the two by saying "one evil does not justify another".[/quote]
"Pink palace" seminaries with a heavily homosexual atmosphere are indeed an evil, detrimental to the health of the Church.
Much of your "arguments" consist of justifying sin and perversion by comparing it to other sins. That's like me justifying stealing $500.00 from you by saying "it doesn't compare to the Nazi holocaust."

[quote]Sure, but does this disorder impact on the mans ability to teach and sanctify his flock?


I have, I still don't see (and you still haven't explained) why a man is incapable of being paternal just because he's gay.


The prohibition of homosexuals is a disciplinary law of the Church, not a doctrine. It does not demand internal assent as is open to debate. It's in the same category as priestly celibacy.[/quote]
The Church regards sexuality an intrinsic part of human development. Those suffering from sexual perversions are not fit for the priesthood, and no good has come from having a preponderance of homosexual priests, which merely creates scandal in the Church, and drives away good men.

[quote]Hence why I've embraced chastity. Because thats based on Catholic DOCTRINE through which we know Gods infallible truth. Curial documents and laws such as the one in question aren't inspired by the Holy Spirit and are more a matter of internal politics and structure rather than His will.[/quote]
Good for you, though that's certainly not the impression I got from reading your early posts in here, which largely disputed the Church's teachings against homosexual behavior.

Again, the Church's documents (including the Catechism of the Catholic Church) hold way more water with me as a Catholic than the dissident opinions of some gay emo kid on the internet.

Edited May 12, 2009 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1864484' date='May 11 2009, 07:04 PM']Again your saying your against homosexual priest is different than you saying all homosexuals are pedophils. Which is what you were saying in the other post of your. I never argued your point of you not wanting any homosexual men as priests, [b]only your insane claims of all homosexual men are pedophiles.[/b][/quote]
Which no one here has claimed.

You people need to learn some basic reading comprehension skills before wasting yours and others' time with asinine straw-man attacks which have nothing to do with what anyone actually wrote.

That goes for you, "Ad," and "Hugheyforlife."

[Guest]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1864583' date='May 11 2009, 09:43 PM']I don't find anything stupid at all with the terminology the Church uses. In fact, I find the word "gay" stupid terminology.
And call me a hateful bigot, but I find the teachings of Jesus Christ's Holy Catholic Apostolic Church on this matter infinitely more intelligent and insightful than your adolescent rants.


The Church teaches otherwise. In the Catechism, no less.
And invoking the name of Darwin to defend this perversion holds no water with me. I'm not a Darwinist. [i]Anything[/i] could be called "diversity of species," heck, even pedophilia for that matter. That empty phrase tells absolutely nothing about whether such inclinations are disordered or not. And besides, from a Darwinian point of view, homosexuality makes no sense as it certainly does nothing to increase the reproduction of the species.


I'd suggest you read up on that document again, as well as the writings of our current Holy Father, and try seriously reflecting on it, rather than just trying to find ways to discredit it. It gets to the heart of the matter much more eloquently than I could hope to.

The Church regards a man's sexuality as an integral part of his development as a man and a human being, not just as some isolated issue regarding nothing more than the genitals.
Having a solid, mature masculine identity is necessary to be a good priest. A spiritual father is one who is able to be an Alter Christus as spouse of the Church his Holy Bride, and to be a spiritual father and leader of men.
This involves having a solidly-formed masculine identity without sexual disorders of any kind.
Homosexuality by its definition is disordered and contrary to a properly formed masculine identity, and if not fully overcome, is a barrier to carrying out the priest's duties as a husband of the Church and father of souls.

T
There was little of substance in your post to refute, and besides I honestly didn't have the time. It consisted mostly of mockery and derision and claims that none of what was discussed applies to you. However, that article is hardly the only source I've read saying such things. The link between homosexuality and various personality disorders is well-documented, though it is now politically-incorrect to discuss. I've read a better article by an old priest with decades of experience in seminary formation who has come to similar conclusions about the homosexual disorder. Quite frankly, I trust the wisdom and experience of such men much more than your own.
The ignoring of rules screening out homosexuals in the seminary (and the dominance of many seminaries by homosexuals) has led to much disorder in the Church itself. Read [i]Goodbye Good Men[/i] for more details if you're in fact interested.


Since you apparently don't bother to read what I post, I don't really see the point in bothering to respond.
The truth is that the majority of the cases of priestly abuse did [b]not[/b] involve true pedophilia (involving pre-pubescent children), but homosexual pederasty of adolescent males.
Read the [url="http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/"]John Jay Report commissioned by the USCCB[/url].


Yet according to the report, most of those abused were first abused between ages 12-17.
The facts disagree with you.


I'm not an idiot, and I never claimed the majority of homosexuals abuse underage boys. However, homosexuals certainly made up a disproportionate amount of the abusive priests.
Certainly a good reason to screen out seminarians with any sexual disorders (including but not limited to homosexuality). 81% of the abuse was of males, most of them past puberty, so it seems safe to say that the majority of the abuse cases did not involve normal heterosexual men.
If seminaries had done their job in keeping homosexuals out, the majority of the abuse probably could have been prevented.
There's much wisdom to the Church's rules.
The LAST thing the Church needs now is for the Church to give its official blessing on "gay priests."


"Pink palace" seminaries with a heavily homosexual atmosphere are indeed an evil, detrimental to the health of the Church.
Much of your "arguments" consist of justifying sin and perversion by comparing it to other sins. That's like me justifying stealing $500.00 from you by saying "it doesn't compare to the Nazi holocaust."


The Church regards sexuality an intrinsic part of human development. Those suffering from sexual perversions are not fit for the priesthood, and no good has come from having a preponderance of homosexual priests, which merely creates scandal in the Church, and drives away good men.


Good for you, though that's certainly not the impression I got from reading your early posts in here, which largely disputed the Church's teachings against homosexual behavior.

Again, the Church's documents (including the Catechism of the Catholic Church) hold way more water with me as a Catholic than the dissident opinions of some gay emo kid on the internet.[/quote]

+1

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1864324' date='May 11 2009, 04:51 PM']not an occasion to sin at all? Hardly. Catholic school girl adult outfits sell like crazy. To say just because the skirt is not higher than the knee means its not an occassion to sin is insane. Its the outfit which is a near occasion to sin, not the length of the outfit. Just look at older nurse outfits, not scrubs. Those things are below the knee but that doesn't stop people from lusting after them.[/quote]

Compared to what many girls wear outside of school (for example, a mini-skirt and a halter top), the knee-length skirt and long sleeved shirt are no occasion of sin, at least to most people.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1864661' date='May 11 2009, 10:48 PM']Compared to what many girls wear outside of school (for example, a mini-skirt and a halter top), the knee-length skirt and long sleeved shirt are no occasion of sin, at least to most people.[/quote]



Long sleeves are not on all uniforms. They offer short sleeves for summerspring time.

Now we are comparing things to each other to determine what is a near occasion to sin? Fact is, the classic school girl outfit is a big seller on adult costume sites. Its also pushed huge in the porn industry. Girls in their 20's are made to look like they just turned 18 or look like they are not even 18 yet. Its pushed huge in general society. Yet your going to say someone looking at a high school girl(almost of legal age) in a catholic school girl uniform is not going to bring lust on and is not an occassion to sin? Dude, what fantasy land do you live in? If female swimwear can be considered a near occasion to sin, you better believe a teenage girl in a school girl outfit is a near occasion to sin.