Pope admits clerical abuse of nuns including sexual slavery

Jun 13, 2014
3,947
862
345
USA
#52
Secondly, all you've proven thus far is that a fair amount of Catholics in the church like to rape children.
When instead, what you should infer is that people who rape children tend to be Catholic.
Psychology Today:

According to the best available data (which is pretty good, coming from a comprehensive report by the John Jay College of CriminalJustice in 2004, as well as several other studies), 4 percent of Catholic priests in the U.S. sexually victimized minors during the past half century. No evidence has been published at this time which states this number is higher than clergy from other religious traditions. The 4 percent figure appears lower than schoolteachers during the same time frame, and certainly less than offenders in the general population of men.


I'd argue the opposite. It was probably just easier to hide or throw away the evidence of sexual abuse during previous decades and centuries, when public talk about sex was frowned upon. Report rates were lower because it wasn't often talked about and priests had more authority, not because it didn't happen.
Psychology Today:

Although these stories are horrific to hear, they are almost never about incidents that have occurred since the late 1980s. Incidents of abuse in the past 20 to 25 years are quite rare compared to incidents during the 60s and 70s. This is also true for other groups, such as school teachers. Incidents since the 2002 crisis in the U.S. unfolded are especially rare. Most of the more recent cases are from international priests, who were both born and formed (i.e., trained and ordained) overseas, and who generally didn't go through the screening and training process that local men go through.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#53
Literally your first comment in this thread was a response to me being upset... You then also called appaws, Bolivar, and me homophobic despite no one saying anything hateful or bigoted about homosexuals.
I took issue with the fact that you people were literally arguing that homosexuals should be ostracized (i.e. "weeded out") from the catholic church, merely confirming that your organized religion still hasn't changed from its bigoted position. It's not only my deliberative right, but also my moral duty to point out how wrong and ugly that is.

I actually disagree with appaws and Bolivar when they say that the problem is with homosexuals in the clergy.
Yeah sure, that's why you liked that comment and had this to say:

Also, not being pro-homosexual relations does not make one prejudiced.
You think homosexuality is a sin, it can't get any more prejudiced than that.

I don't think they are saying anything wrong and they are just thinking of what could we do to stop these sorts of things in the future.
Nah, they just want to "weed out" the gays, 's no biggie really.

Do you even understand what the Church teaches about homosexuality?
Judging by what you people have to say about homosexuals in this very topic, I have a pretty good idea about that. It is very much in tune with your own Pope:

"When it [homosexuality] shows itself from childhood, there is a lot that can be done through psychiatry, to see how things are. It is something else if it shows itself after 20 years," he said. [...] The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual tendencies are not sinful but homosexual acts are, and that homosexuals should try to be chaste. In 2013 Pope Francis said the Church should seek forgiveness from homosexuals for the way they had treated them.
Homosexual people don't have to "seek forgiveness", because they did nothing wrong in the first place. That's frikkin' disgusting.

You also like to say I proselytize when I defend religion or the Church despite me never saying anything that suggests I want to force everyone to be Catholic. If anyone proselytizes it is you as you keep responding to me whenever I say something good about religion or I give my personal thoughts and feelings on something that is related to Catholicism. It is like you want me to abandon my faith for whatever reason.
Because that's all you do in every topic that I run into you, telling others how "beautiful" your church is and how marvelous your god is. You're free to do so, this is a free forum, but I'm equally in my right to point out the contrary. Like it or not, that's not my concern.

Also, when I look at your debate with Bolivar you seem to treat him as a child. You really bold and enlargen words as if to say that he wouldn't see or understand it if you didn't put it right up in his face.
He didn't get it the first time when he presented that article and he didn't get it the second time when I pointed out to him that the article is diametrically opposed to what he wants to claim. What else can I do, other than color code the facts that directly refute his erroneous assumption? He is comparing two different non-representative sample sizes in order to conclude that homosexuals are over-represented when it comes to child abuse, despite me pointing out, on numerous occasions, that his claims are factually false. Yet he keeps parading around his false claims, despite having been presented with many scientific studies stating the exact opposite.

Then you attack his character by calling him a bigot.
Yeah well, maybe that's because claiming that homosexual people are inherently pedophile is a bigoted claim.

He is a grown man, you don't need to treat him like a baby and insult him.
If he's a grown man he certainly doesn't need you rushing to his defense out of a misplaced sense of religious solidarity.

Can you honestly say with a straight face that you are arguing in good faith?
So far, I've presented nothing but facts. You on the other hand, keep playing the victim, not even acknowledging the facts and scientific studies that I've presented.

I am going to give you a few tips when conversing or debating with a religious person in the future...
I certainly don't need deliberative counseling from somebody who has construed his whole forum identity around his religion and whose argumentative prowess doesn't extent much further than moping in the corner when his beloved religious institution is rightfully criticized for all the wrongdoings that are committed in its name.

While we can be aware that these abuse stories only concern a minority of all religious functionaries, the fact that so many stayed silent while your religious organization was trying to cover it all up over many decades, merely shows how systemically dysfunctional and rotten the catholic church really is. And that's not even taking into account all the other crimes and human atrocities committed in its name.

If you don't shape up soon I am going to put you on ignore.
I'm not here to change your faith, I'm here to set the record straight. I don't care about your religious feelings, I only care about the truth and so far you've not managed to factually refute even one single claim. Which is evidenced by the fact that you keep making these discussions about your personal faith, rather than engaging with the quotes and studies that I've presented.

I'm sick and tired of these kinds of topics always degenerating into pure homo-bashing, pointing out homosexual people as an easy scapegoat to explain away the deeply rooted problems within your organized religion. You've made it abundantly clear that you're not here to have reasoned debate, you're here to proselytize and defend your religious cronies out of blind faith. Even if it means supporting comments that call for the "weeding out" of homosexuals and that make the factually erroneous claim that there is a causal relation between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Quite apparently your religious altruism only extends so far as they concern people that adhere to your religious dogma and worldview. Everybody else is is fair game to be ostracized, vilified or condemned to hell for all eternity. And yes, I have very little patience, nor tolerance, nor respect for that kind of thinking.

So by all means, go ahead and ignore me, I don't care. It only means that you've resigned in light of factual evidence and reasoned criticism.
 
Aug 15, 2018
583
446
205
#54
I took issue with the fact that you people were literally arguing that homosexuals should be ostracized (i.e. "weeded out") from the catholic church, merely confirming that your organized religion still hasn't changed from its bigoted position. It's not only my deliberative right, but also my moral duty to point out how wrong and ugly that is.



Yeah sure, that's why you liked that comment and had this to say:



You think homosexuality is a sin, it can't get any more prejudiced than that.



Nah, they just want to "weed out" the gays, 's no biggie really.



Judging by what you people have to say about homosexuals in this very topic, I have a pretty good idea about that. It is very much in tune with your own Pope:



Homosexual people don't have to "seek forgiveness", because they did nothing wrong in the first place. That's frikkin' disgusting.



Because that's all you do in every topic that I run into you, telling others how "beautiful" your church is and how marvelous your god is. You're free to do so, this is a free forum, but I'm equally in my right to point out the contrary. Like it or not, that's not my concern.



He didn't get it the first time when he presented that article and he didn't get it the second time when I pointed out to him that the article is diametrically opposed to what he wants to claim. What else can I do, other than color code the facts that directly refute his erroneous assumption? He is comparing two different non-representative sample sizes in order to conclude that homosexuals are over-represented when it comes to child abuse, despite me pointing out, on numerous occasions, that his claims are factually false. Yet he keeps parading around his false claims, despite having been presented with many scientific studies stating the exact opposite.



Yeah well, maybe that's because claiming that homosexual people are inherently pedophile is a bigoted claim.



If he's a grown man he certainly doesn't need you rushing to his defense out of a misplaced sense of religious solidarity.



So far, I've presented nothing but facts. You on the other hand, keep playing the victim, not even acknowledging the facts and scientific studies that I've presented.



I certainly don't need deliberative counseling from somebody who has construed his whole forum identity around his religion and whose argumentative prowess doesn't extent much further than moping in the corner when his beloved religious institution is rightfully criticized for all the wrongdoings that are committed in its name.

While we can be aware that these abuse stories only concern a minority of all religious functionaries, the fact that so many stayed silent while your religious organization was trying to cover it all up over many decades, merely shows how systemically dysfunctional and rotten the catholic church really is. And that's not even taking into account all the other crimes and human atrocities committed in its name.



I'm not here to change your faith, I'm here to set the record straight. I don't care about your religious feelings, I only care about the truth and so far you've not managed to factually refute even one single claim. Which is evidenced by the fact that you keep making these discussions about your personal faith, rather than engaging with the quotes and studies that I've presented.

I'm sick and tired of these kinds of topics always degenerating into pure homo-bashing, pointing out homosexual people as an easy scapegoat to explain away the deeply rooted problems within your organized religion. You've made it abundantly clear that you're not here to have reasoned debate, you're here to proselytize and defend your religious cronies out of blind faith. Even if it means supporting comments that call for the "weeding out" of homosexuals and that make the factually erroneous claim that there is a causal relation between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Quite apparently your religious altruism only extends so far as they concern people that adhere to your religious dogma and worldview. Everybody else is is fair game to be ostracized, vilified or condemned to hell for all eternity. And yes, I have very little patience, nor tolerance, nor respect for that kind of thinking.

So by all means, go ahead and ignore me, I don't care. It only means that you've resigned in light of factual evidence and reasoned criticism.
Reported and ignored. I was actually hoping you could be reasonable considering you supposedly are a fan of enlightenment values.
 
May 17, 2012
5,233
1,052
455
Canada
#55
They should just start letting these Priests marry or have sexual relationships, get some escorts. They created this problem by making it so that these people were married to god. Well god isn't fucking them, they aren't fucking god so they take it out on whoever crosses their paths. Any man with a dick and a brain could have figured that a certain percentage of these guys were going to get into serious trouble.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,233
581
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
#57
I took issue with the fact that you people were literally arguing that homosexuals should be ostracized (i.e. "weeded out") from the catholic church, merely confirming that your organized religion still hasn't changed from its bigoted position. It's not only my deliberative right, but also my moral duty to point out how wrong and ugly that is.



Yeah sure, that's why you liked that comment and had this to say:



You think homosexuality is a sin, it can't get any more prejudiced than that.



Nah, they just want to "weed out" the gays, 's no biggie really.



Judging by what you people have to say about homosexuals in this very topic, I have a pretty good idea about that. It is very much in tune with your own Pope:



Homosexual people don't have to "seek forgiveness", because they did nothing wrong in the first place. That's frikkin' disgusting.



Because that's all you do in every topic that I run into you, telling others how "beautiful" your church is and how marvelous your god is. You're free to do so, this is a free forum, but I'm equally in my right to point out the contrary. Like it or not, that's not my concern.



He didn't get it the first time when he presented that article and he didn't get it the second time when I pointed out to him that the article is diametrically opposed to what he wants to claim. What else can I do, other than color code the facts that directly refute his erroneous assumption? He is comparing two different non-representative sample sizes in order to conclude that homosexuals are over-represented when it comes to child abuse, despite me pointing out, on numerous occasions, that his claims are factually false. Yet he keeps parading around his false claims, despite having been presented with many scientific studies stating the exact opposite.



Yeah well, maybe that's because claiming that homosexual people are inherently pedophile is a bigoted claim.



If he's a grown man he certainly doesn't need you rushing to his defense out of a misplaced sense of religious solidarity.



So far, I've presented nothing but facts. You on the other hand, keep playing the victim, not even acknowledging the facts and scientific studies that I've presented.



I certainly don't need deliberative counseling from somebody who has construed his whole forum identity around his religion and whose argumentative prowess doesn't extent much further than moping in the corner when his beloved religious institution is rightfully criticized for all the wrongdoings that are committed in its name.

While we can be aware that these abuse stories only concern a minority of all religious functionaries, the fact that so many stayed silent while your religious organization was trying to cover it all up over many decades, merely shows how systemically dysfunctional and rotten the catholic church really is. And that's not even taking into account all the other crimes and human atrocities committed in its name.



I'm not here to change your faith, I'm here to set the record straight. I don't care about your religious feelings, I only care about the truth and so far you've not managed to factually refute even one single claim. Which is evidenced by the fact that you keep making these discussions about your personal faith, rather than engaging with the quotes and studies that I've presented.

I'm sick and tired of these kinds of topics always degenerating into pure homo-bashing, pointing out homosexual people as an easy scapegoat to explain away the deeply rooted problems within your organized religion. You've made it abundantly clear that you're not here to have reasoned debate, you're here to proselytize and defend your religious cronies out of blind faith. Even if it means supporting comments that call for the "weeding out" of homosexuals and that make the factually erroneous claim that there is a causal relation between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Quite apparently your religious altruism only extends so far as they concern people that adhere to your religious dogma and worldview. Everybody else is is fair game to be ostracized, vilified or condemned to hell for all eternity. And yes, I have very little patience, nor tolerance, nor respect for that kind of thinking.
I said homosexuals had to be weeded out of seminaries to address this particular problem of gay priests molesting boys. You are trying to make it sound like some dire threat to people with same-sex attraction as a whole. It's not.

Homosexual acts are disordered and sinful. But that does not mean homosexuals should not be in the church. Just the opposite in fact, they need help and redemption. But you know what, so do all of us. I do things that are disordered and sinful all the time, that is why I need help from God. This is one of the biggest areas where non-believers try to distort Christianity. Nobody expects you to be perfect, we are all fallen and need help.

Nobody wants to "defend cronies out of blind faith." We were the ones proposing burning the motherfuckers at the stake, remember...? We want to stop this from happening.

No person can condemn anyone to Hell. In fact, among Catholics it is a sin to do so or even imply it, because we cannot see into anyone's heart.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#58
I said homosexuals had to be weeded out of seminaries to address this particular problem of gay priests molesting boys.
Which, as I've already demonstrated on numerous occasions now, is completely ass backwards. Homosexuals are not the reason why priests are molesting children, see my previous comments.

Nobody wants to "defend cronies out of blind faith." We were the ones proposing burning the motherfuckers at the stake, remember...? We want to stop this from happening.
If you truly want to stop this from happening, then stop using homosexuality as an easy scapegoat and start addressing the real problems within your religious institution.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,233
581
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
#59
Which, as I've already demonstrated on numerous occasions now, is completely ass backwards. Homosexuals are not the reason why priests are molesting children, see my previous comments.



If you truly want to stop this from happening, then stop using homosexuality as an easy scapegoat and start addressing the real problems within your religious institution.
What problem causes men to molest boys and has nothing to do with homosexuality?
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#60
What problem causes men to molest boys and has nothing to do with homosexuality?
Go read my previous comments in this thread and the studies I've quoted, I'm not gonna repeat myself. But just for the sake of it, here are the relevant tidbits:

The internalization of Church doctrine concerning celibacy/chastity reinforces many cognitive distortions, which allows the abuse to persist. Hands also hypothesizes that the steps the Church has taken to discourage the formation of close friendships between priests, under the pretense that it may lead to homosexual behavior, have also played a role in the creation of a pro-offending environment. With this increased social isolation comes a greater alienation from the body. Therefore, sexuality is repressed only to later emerge as an obsession.
Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, researcher on adult male offenders and author of "Men Who Rape: Psychology of the Offender", states that it is a myth that adult males who molest boys are homosexual. He provides several clinical examples to back up his finding including the connection that molesters see themselves in their victims, but would not be attracted to adult males.
The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989). In summary, each of these studies failed to support the hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.
 
Last edited:
Aug 15, 2018
583
446
205
#61
I said homosexuals had to be weeded out of seminaries to address this particular problem of gay priests molesting boys. You are trying to make it sound like some dire threat to people with same-sex attraction as a whole. It's not.

Homosexual acts are disordered and sinful. But that does not mean homosexuals should not be in the church. Just the opposite in fact, they need help and redemption. But you know what, so do all of us. I do things that are disordered and sinful all the time, that is why I need help from God. This is one of the biggest areas where non-believers try to distort Christianity. Nobody expects you to be perfect, we are all fallen and need help.

Nobody wants to "defend cronies out of blind faith." We were the ones proposing burning the motherfuckers at the stake, remember...? We want to stop this from happening.

No person can condemn anyone to Hell. In fact, among Catholics it is a sin to do so or even imply it, because we cannot see into anyone's heart.
Just ignore him, he is a troll. When it comes to our religion he is correct on everything and we are just homophobic idiots apparently.

They should just start letting these Priests marry or have sexual relationships, get some escorts. They created this problem by making it so that these people were married to god. Well god isn't fucking them, they aren't fucking god so they take it out on whoever crosses their paths. Any man with a dick and a brain could have figured that a certain percentage of these guys were going to get into serious trouble.
I would argue that chastity is something that should probably be kept by the priesthood as it shows restraint and doesn't divide their attention among two vocations. It is hard to devote yourself fully both to your church and your wife. Though I do find this discussion productive, we need to explore many options to stop the sex abuse in the future and to grow in numbers.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#62
Just ignore him, he is a troll. When it comes to our religion he is correct on everything and we are just homophobic idiots apparently.
I'm a troll for providing factual evidence that child abuse has nothing to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality? This is ridiculous. Child abusers are not sexually attracted by gender, but by age. In essence you are using factually false claims in order to find an excuse to ostracize homosexuals from your religious community because your religious institution has deemed them inherently sinful. By doing so, you're not only perpetuating your religious bigotry towards homosexual people, but also completely ignoring the real reasons why child abuse is so rampant within the sexually repressive catholic church.
 
May 4, 2005
12,409
1,171
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#63
Just ignore him, he is a troll. When it comes to our religion he is correct on everything and we are just homophobic idiots apparently.
You are being absolutely unfair, how is it trolling to point out that the alleged causal relation between homosexuality and raping boys is false? How is it trolling to point out that weeding out homosexuals and to call it disorderly is homophobic? You request a proper discussion culture, but lash out against someone for pointing out factual and moral issues in postings.
 
Oct 27, 2015
8,814
1,585
355
#64
I would argue that chastity is something that should probably be kept by the priesthood as it shows restraint and doesn't divide their attention among two vocations. It is hard to devote yourself fully both to your church and your wife. Though I do find this discussion productive, we need to explore many options to stop the sex abuse in the future and to grow in numbers.
Yeah, those challenging the Catholic practice of chastity for priest do not know Catholic Church history. This was not a practice for the entire history, and when it wasn't, the church saw even greater scandal of adultery among the clergy. Now? It's only a fraction of a percent. Before? It was double digits. Celibacy is not divinely mandated, but it is necessary, as you put it, to give undivided attention to the Catholic church and not to changing diapers.

As much as I agree that something needs to be done about sex abuse, I feel like it has already been done to the best of their ability. To go through Holy Orders requires extreme scrutinizing of one's life before they can be considered, a "background check" that no other institution would even bother with. It's still not going to be enough because anyone can become evil at any moment. It is pointed out that the priest in question exhibited mental instability. That's something that you can't check for. I'm not sure if the victims had remain silent for long, but the Vatican will be quick to move in order to remove the offender from being able to offend again, however, they will not just simply lock them up, rather than to find a way to treat them. The "silent shuffling" of offending priests is really just the result of the Catholic church's charity towards everyone, but news outlets will obviously call it a cover up like they do when a suspected criminal goes to confession and the news demands the priest to give up the secrets.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,233
581
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
#65
Child abusers are not sexually attracted by gender, but by age.
Such an overwhelming percentage of the cases within the church have been men on boys, rendering this proposition ludicrous on its surface.

You are being absolutely unfair, how is it trolling to point out that the alleged causal relation between homosexuality and raping boys is false? How is it trolling to point out that weeding out homosexuals and to call it disorderly is homophobic? You request a proper discussion culture, but lash out against someone for pointing out factual and moral issues in postings.
Your SJW killshot "homophobic" is not going to work on Catholics. We are not scared of people who have same-sex attraction. We embrace them. We love them more than you, and want them to go to heaven and see the face of God.

Yeah, those challenging the Catholic practice of chastity for priest do not know Catholic Church history. This was not a practice for the entire history, and when it wasn't, the church saw even greater scandal of adultery among the clergy. Now? It's only a fraction of a percent. Before? It was double digits. Celibacy is not divinely mandated, but it is necessary, as you put it, to give undivided attention to the Catholic church and not to changing diapers.

As much as I agree that something needs to be done about sex abuse, I feel like it has already been done to the best of their ability. To go through Holy Orders requires extreme scrutinizing of one's life before they can be considered, a "background check" that no other institution would even bother with. It's still not going to be enough because anyone can become evil at any moment. It is pointed out that the priest in question exhibited mental instability. That's something that you can't check for. I'm not sure if the victims had remain silent for long, but the Vatican will be quick to move in order to remove the offender from being able to offend again, however, they will not just simply lock them up, rather than to find a way to treat them. The "silent shuffling" of offending priests is really just the result of the Catholic church's charity towards everyone, but news outlets will obviously call it a cover up like they do when a suspected criminal goes to confession and the news demands the priest to give up the secrets.
None of the fellow Cats in this thread have answered my earlier question, perhaps it got lost in all the anti-Catholic bigotry. Now we all have to agree that it is not a dogmatic issue. The practice of priestly celibacy is not mandated by doctrine. It can be changed. We know the Orthodox have married priests. We have convert priests in the church married already. And we have a shockingly severe lack of vocations. So I want you guys to address the arguments, with a mind to the fact that we need priests.
So what do we do if we stick with priestly celibacy?
 

Makariel

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,267
985
350
#66
So 11% of atheists do not not believe in god, i.e. 11% of atheists are either too dumb to understand the question or believe in god and thus are, by definition, not atheists??
The question was what aspect is "very important", one might claim that they believe or not is not the most important reason for not being affiliated?
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#67
Such an overwhelming percentage of the cases within the church have been men on boys, rendering this proposition ludicrous on its surface.
Then how do you explain that so many attacks on young boys are done by heterosexual abusers?

Most men who molest little boys are not gay. Only 21 percent of the child molesters we studied who assault little boys were exclusively homosexual.
For once, I wish you people would read the whole conversation and explicitly address the factual evidence presented within. But no, since you quite obviously can't refute these facts, you just keep ignoring it by going around in circles.

Your SJW killshot "homophobic" is not going to work on Catholics.
It was only a matter of time until that buzzword was thrown around in order to excuse your vilification of homosexual people in the name of your faith. Quite obviously, homosexuals are to devout Catholics what straight white males are to SJWs.

We embrace them. We love them more than you, and want them to go to heaven and see the face of God.
Ah yes, that must be why you think homosexuality is a sin that must be "weeded out" and why your church demands of homosexuals to "ask for forgiveness" for merely being who they are, because you "embrace" them so dearly. Nothing worse than people claiming the moral high ground while being completely oblivious to the bigotry in their own ranks.
 
Last edited:

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,233
581
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
#68
Then how do you explain that so many attacks on young boys are done by heterosexual abusers?
They aren't. That is a definitively false statement.

For once, I wish you people would read the whole conversation and explicitly address the factual evidence presented within. But no, since you quite obviously can't refute these facts, you just keep ignoring it by going around in circles.
You have no facts. You have only your moral relativism and hatred of God's church. You are as much, probably more, of a partisan for your church than we are. Unfortunately it is for a church that believes in worship of self. The modern church of self-actualization will drag more souls to hell than Anton Levay did in his wildest fever dreams.

Ah yes, that must be why you think homosexuality is a sin that must be "weeded out" and why your church demands of homosexuals to "ask for forgiveness" for merely being who they are, because you "embrace" them so dearly. Nothing worse than people claiming the moral high ground while being completely oblivious to the bigotry in their own ranks.
Our highest value is serving God. Not "being who they are." Again, self-actualization is your religion, worship of self. I have things I would like to do, but I don't because they are wrong. That is part of being a human being with a properly formed conscience. I accept the fact that my whims cannot determine the moral laws of the universe.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#69
They aren't. That is a definitively false statement.
Wait, what? That's your answer? The information is right there on your screen, right in front of your face, yet you are just going to ignore the studies that clearly state otherwise, alrighty then...

You have no facts.
You gotta be frikkin' kidding me, I've provided nothing but scientific sources, studies and relevant articles. You on the other hand, provided nothing of substance, except vile subjective value statements that have no bearing on reality.

You have only your moral relativism and hatred of God's church. You are as much, probably more, of a partisan for your church than we are. Unfortunately it is for a church that believes in worship of self. The modern church of self-actualization will drag more souls to hell than Anton Levay did in his wildest fever dreams.
None of that nonsense has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Looks like you'll just keep deflecting because you ran out of arguments.

Our highest value is serving God. Not "being who they are." Again, self-actualization is your religion, worship of self. I have things I would like to do, but I don't because they are wrong. That is part of being a human being with a properly formed conscience. I accept the fact that my whims cannot determine the moral laws of the universe.
More word salad that ultimately means nothing and has no bearing on the facts that I've put forth.

 
Aug 15, 2018
583
446
205
#70
You are being absolutely unfair, how is it trolling to point out that the alleged causal relation between homosexuality and raping boys is false? How is it trolling to point out that weeding out homosexuals and to call it disorderly is homophobic? You request a proper discussion culture, but lash out against someone for pointing out factual and moral issues in postings.
Yoshi, If I started a discussion with you by saying "atheism is rotten to the core" and then made a list of everything horrible done by atheists, then made assumptions about your beliefs and reasons for your beliefs, then insulted your character with ad hominems, would you consider me to be arguing you in good faith? Also notice when I asked him if he seriously believes he wasn't be incredibly disengenious he deflected onto the issue of homosexuality. He doesn't want to argue, he wants to win, that's what makes him a troll.

Yeah, those challenging the Catholic practice of chastity for priest do not know Catholic Church history. This was not a practice for the entire history, and when it wasn't, the church saw even greater scandal of adultery among the clergy. Now? It's only a fraction of a percent. Before? It was double digits. Celibacy is not divinely mandated, but it is necessary, as you put it, to give undivided attention to the Catholic church and not to changing diapers.

As much as I agree that something needs to be done about sex abuse, I feel like it has already been done to the best of their ability. To go through Holy Orders requires extreme scrutinizing of one's life before they can be considered, a "background check" that no other institution would even bother with. It's still not going to be enough because anyone can become evil at any moment. It is pointed out that the priest in question exhibited mental instability. That's something that you can't check for. I'm not sure if the victims had remain silent for long, but the Vatican will be quick to move in order to remove the offender from being able to offend again, however, they will not just simply lock them up, rather than to find a way to treat them. The "silent shuffling" of offending priests is really just the result of the Catholic church's charity towards everyone, but news outlets will obviously call it a cover up like they do when a suspected criminal goes to confession and the news demands the priest to give up the secrets.
Perhaps, but even so it is absolutely abhorrent that our great Church is being plagued by scandal. I argue we have to look into absolutely everything that can be done. In the end of the day, our church is still the Church of Christ. But it still makes me so mad that these things are happening.
 
Dec 22, 2010
2,352
848
605
#71
Yoshi, If I started a discussion with you by saying "atheism is rotten to the core" and then made a list of everything horrible done by atheists, then made assumptions about your beliefs and reasons for your beliefs, then insulted your character with ad hominems, would you consider me to be arguing you in good faith? Also notice when I asked him if he seriously believes he wasn't be incredibly disengenious he deflected onto the issue of homosexuality. He doesn't want to argue, he wants to win, that's what makes him a troll.


Perhaps, but even so it is absolutely abhorrent that our great Church is being plagued by scandal. I argue we have to look into absolutely everything that can be done. In the end of the day, our church is still the Church of Christ. But it still makes me so mad that these things are happening.
Religious beliefs /= Religious institution.

Also, atheism is not a belief set. It's not a moral code or a social contract that imposes behavioral norms and principles by which people should be governed or self-governed.

I'm also having a hard time believing that @appaws genuinely wants to show people like me love and compassion considering his lovely thread on rejecting democracy. Turns out that burning bridges doesn't work for reasoned discourse which is something you're attempting to do by gatekeeping conversation away from "trolls" like @strange headache.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#72
Yoshi, If I started a discussion with you by saying "atheism is rotten to the core" and then made a list of everything horrible done by atheists, then made assumptions about your beliefs and reasons for your beliefs, then insulted your character with ad hominems, would you consider me to be arguing you in good faith?
I really dig how you've now resorted to talking about me to other people, because you couldn't face the facts anymore. Essentially continuing the debate while avoiding to address me directly. Classy!

Also feel free to make the claim that "atheism is rotten". In fact, I'm looking forward to it, maybe then we can extract some factual evidence out of you. Although I'd say you'd be hard pressed to make that claim considering that atheists are not bound by an organized institution. Besides, we've had that argument before and it really didn't turn out in your favor because in general terms, agnostic States are more peaceful than religious ones:

Nevertheless, there are two religious characteristics which are associated with peace; restrictions on religious behaviour as well as hostilities towards religion. Countries without a dominant religious group are, on average, more peaceful and have less restrictions or social hostilities around religion than countries with a dominant religious group.
Also notice when I asked him if he seriously believes he wasn't be incredibly disengenious he deflected onto the issue of homosexuality. He doesn't want to argue, he wants to win, that's what makes him a troll.
I'm being disingenuous because I take issue with how you talk about homosexual people in the name of your religion? Better yet, I'm a troll because I'm pretty frikkin' appealed by the way how your religion views homosexuality? Contrary to you, my factual criticism lies purely with your religious institution. You don't see me making the claim that "religious people should be weeded out" or should "ask forgiveness because they are sinful", and you never will. I don't subscribe to that sort of fundamentalist ideology that vilifies whole demographics of people.
 
May 4, 2005
12,409
1,171
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#73
Yoshi, If I started a discussion with you by saying "atheism is rotten to the core"
Note that he said the institution catholic church is rotten, not catholic belief. This is a significant difference. Atheism is not an organisation (in fact, it is not even a belief, it merely is absence of belief).
then made a list of everything horrible done by atheists
I would respond that their misdeeds have nothing to do with atheism.
then made assumptions about your beliefs and reasons for your beliefs, then insulted your character with ad hominems, would you consider me to be arguing you in good faith?
Probably not, but he did not do that, he merely pointed out homosexuality-hating claims and wrong assertions. Identifying hateful statements is not an ad hominem.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,233
581
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
#74
I'm also having a hard time believing that @appaws genuinely wants to show people like me love and compassion considering his lovely thread on rejecting democracy. Turns out that burning bridges doesn't work for reasoned discourse which is something you're attempting to do by gatekeeping conversation away from "trolls" like @strange headache.
Why? What does losing faith in democracy have to do with whether I would like to see you, and any other individual, be saved? Of course I would! I don't really care what your politics are and I don't think politics plays any part in salvation.

You don't see me making the claim that "religious people should be weeded out"
You keep saying this, like you think you have a great "gotcha." Again, I said weeded out of the seminaries. Seminaries. This is akin to weeding Catholics out of the executive council of the Atheist club, which would be entirely proper.

I want every person bearing the cross of Same Sex Attraction to be in the Catholic Church and receive the grace of God.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#75
Again, I said weeded out of the seminaries. Seminaries.
We keep turning around in circles. Again, why should homosexuals be weeded out of the seminaries? We've already established that their sexual orientation has no bearing on the child abuse in the catholic church, so there's really no reason other than religious bigotry. On the contrary, considering the celibacy of priesthood, their sexual orientation shouldn't even matter.

This is akin to weeding Catholics out of the executive council of the Atheist club, which would be entirely proper.
Plenty of catholic and god fearing homosexuals to go around, there's no reason why they can't be part of your club. Also, you're comparing immutable characteristics with changeable convictions, which makes no sense at all. Being homosexual is not a choice, becoming a religious believer is. The same goes for women, who aren't allowed to become priests either.

Also, would you kindly start addressing the arguments that were provided to you, or will you keep deflecting?
 
Dec 22, 2007
3,772
107
895
#76
Psychology Today:
According to the best available data (which is pretty good, coming from a comprehensive report by the John Jay College of CriminalJustice in 2004, as well as several other studies), 4 percent of Catholic priests in the U.S. sexually victimized minors during the past half century. No evidence has been published at this time which states this number is higher than clergy from other religious traditions. The 4 percent figure appears lower than schoolteachers during the same time frame, and certainly less than offenders in the general population of men.
Posting a quote without giving your own input doesn't tell me much. If anything, I'll just change my "tend to be Catholic" to "tend to be Catholic, or possibly other religions," which is probably not the reaction you were going for.​
It's quite well known that the vast majority of the US is religious, and the world as a whole, so therefore a massive percentage, likely the majority, of sex-crime offenders are also religious. I spent the past ten minutes searching for things like 'percentage of rapist religions' and other various things that have undoubtedly put me on a watch-list, but I can't find squat from any reputable sources. All I can do is infer that majority of population = majority of criminal population, which, I'll admit, isn't exactly fool-proof.​
Still, though, you're making wild claims based on tiny amounts of evidence.​
Yes, the majority of people abused via Catholic faculty are male. The majority of those boys who were abused were also abused by men, which makes sense since most offenders in general are men. A large amount of those men, in the Catholic instances, identify as homosexual (even though, as priests, they should be non-sexual, right?), though most of them in the world identify as heterosexual.​
So instead of inferring "the fact that homosexuals are irrefutably, wildly, and disproportionately overrepresented in pedophilia," what you should instead infer is "There are a fair number of rapists in Catholicism, and some of those rapists are gay, both of which are major sins in Catholicism - indicating an unusual mixture of traits, which is unrepresentative of the population as a whole."​
 
Last edited:
Aug 15, 2018
583
446
205
#77
Personally, I think the issue may lie with our current culture. The sexual "revolution" changed alot about how the west views sex and the self. We are having priests who grew up out of these times where things like celibacy and reverence for the holy are frowned upon. I would like to see a comparison of sexual abuse between priests in the east/south vs the west.
 
Oct 27, 2015
8,814
1,585
355
#78
None of the fellow Cats in this thread have answered my earlier question, perhaps it got lost in all the anti-Catholic bigotry. Now we all have to agree that it is not a dogmatic issue. The practice of priestly celibacy is not mandated by doctrine. It can be changed. We know the Orthodox have married priests. We have convert priests in the church married already. And we have a shockingly severe lack of vocations. So I want you guys to address the arguments, with a mind to the fact that we need priests.
So what do we do if we stick with priestly celibacy?
Yes, celibacy is not divine law, not dogma. It is a practice and discipline that is recommended by Jesus in Mathew 19 and St Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. I must stress the word "recommendation" because Paul does say if the passion is too strong, then marriage should happen, but he continues to stress that marriage to Earthly matters takes away from Spiritual matters. A priest cannot dedicate his life completely to God if he is dedicated to a wife as well.

The Catholic Church does have a lack of priests mainly due to WW2, but I don't think the answer is to allow married priests because the discipline has worked since the Council of Nicea. The real problem is that the Church is not doing to the best job in combating secularism and teaching the young people to remain in the faith. Secularism, specifically the culture of sex, has really turned a lot of young men away from the vocation of priesthood. The real answer is to strengthen the education of this generation and the last generation, and to teach the importance about the vocation of Holy Orders. Right now, I think the Catholic church is quite fine. Without a steady growth in priests, it just means the growth of the church will stagnate a bit.

Perhaps, but even so it is absolutely abhorrent that our great Church is being plagued by scandal. I argue we have to look into absolutely everything that can be done. In the end of the day, our church is still the Church of Christ. But it still makes me so mad that these things are happening.
Yeah, that's why I just tell you to believe in the good and don't allow the bad get to you, though I'm not saying to overlook it. The less than 0.1% is not a huge matter, and the Catholic church current stance is rehabilitation rather than punishment. These things will always happen. Just take a look back at history during the time of Jansenism, and even Popes in the past were committing adultery. The church beat all those odds, the saints were sent to do good works, and the Catholic church still exists in full force.

I think the time of Jansenism was far worse than what we're facing now because it really did corrupt all the way to the Pope, and because of that, Martin Luther started his reformation. A lot of people don't know about what damage the reformation had caused, but the reformation really gave birth to the rise of secularism. I listened to a presentation about how the reformation's principle of personal interpretation gave rise to secular art (eroticism via Albrecht Durer) and secular philosophy (atheism via Francis Bacon).
 
May 4, 2005
12,409
1,171
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#80
I agree with that. I've said it multiple times already. Homosexual acts are unnatural and disordered, but the church's attitude towards people with SSA is welcoming.
Then why do you want to weed them out on the application process to the seminars? Considering they are supposed to have no sexual acts at all, there wouldn't be any homosexual acts and thus nothing disorderly?
 
Oct 10, 2018
1,281
407
215
www.kickstarter.com
#81
The actual fuck. This doesn't make any sense. This makes me want to throw up. I'm confused. This just proves what some have been saying about the Church. I will always stand with her as an instution of Christ but what is being allowed and ignored is just evil.

It also said that the response of Pope Benedict was to dissolve the Community of St. Jean when this was going on! He punished the actual victims instead of the perpetrators! What actual bullshit! Get rid off these men, cast them out as the cancer that they are! Get an inquistion to root out this evil in our beautiful church! Many in the clergy are good people and they deserve better than to be a part of a system where sexual abuse is swept under the rug! Disgusting.
All you have to do is leave the Catholic church and stop clinging to tradition instead of the Bible, the same book that tells you TO LEAVE in situations like this.

But im sure you wont.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,233
581
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
#82
Then why do you want to weed them out on the application process to the seminars? Considering they are supposed to have no sexual acts at all, there wouldn't be any homosexual acts and thus nothing disorderly?
I actually think what you are describing is the attitude the church has unofficially maintained for quite a while now. I think in a lot of traditional societies, particularly Latin ones, the priesthood was unofficially used as a place where men could go and be unmarried and face no questions about it and be valuable contributors to their communities. Remember the attitudes of the past that pretty much everyone was married, the priesthood was an exception, so I think a young man who had SSA could view it as a good life he could choose.

And this may surprise you, but in theory I don't really see any reason why a SSA man would not be a great and holy priest. I am sure it takes a lot of grace from God for many "straight" men to be celibate and serve as priests. There is no reason why an SSA man could not do the same thing, but of course they would have to support and teach (and live by) Catholic doctrine, that their desires are disordered and unnatural and giving in to them is a mortal sin. (And under current practices, it is that way for "straight" priests as well.)

You may notice earlier in the thread I am the one proposing a married priesthood. The act of having sex with your wife would in no way be a sin or preclude someone from the priesthood. There is not, and never will be, an equivalent situation for someone who bears the cross of SSA. Celibacy would be the only option.

And practically speaking, we have a problem in the church that needs to be addressed. We have allowed too many homosexuals into the priesthood. Some of them, no doubt, entered with the best of intentions. But the devil works very hard to tempt us astray and there has been a rash of heinous crimes committed against boys. I am not going to give any credence to the nonsensical assertion that some number of these molesters are "heterosexuals," because that is definitionally false on its face and frankly just stupid.

But as a practical matter, we have a problem with homosexual priests molesting boys. We have to stop it. And I suggest the "weeding out (phrase you hate so much)" of people with SSA from seminaries. Not because they could not be good priests, but because they are an increased risk of having a desire for disordered acts within them. Now some straight men have disordered desires as well, but that is not the problem we have to address. 90%+ of the cases in the Catholic church have been homosexual in nature. We have to address the problem that is actually there, and not pretend differently because a bunch of non-Catholics and anti-Catholic bigots have some warped conception of social justice.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#83
Homosexual acts are unnatural and disordered...


But as a practical matter, we have a problem with homosexual priests molesting boys. We have to stop it. And I suggest the "weeding out (phrase you hate so much)" of people with SSA from seminaries. Not because they could not be good priests, but because they are an increased risk of having a desire for disordered acts within them.
Jesusf*ckingchrist , you're still perpetuating that bullcrap even though you have been demonstrably proven wrong. Get your religious bigotry outta here!
 
Dec 7, 2018
67
33
160
#84
I can't imagine the level of sexual frustration these men have to endure and be celibate , following an iron clad rule. I can respect it but at the same time i don't see a point where these types of cases stop. Kids have been abused , or nuns in this case being treated as sexual slaves.


Might want to change the rule slightly, were still men. I think i can handle someone of the church having a model babe, then hearing in the news how many young kids were diddled behind closed doors. lol

Honestly the problem seems easily fixable.
 
Last edited:
Jun 18, 2018
151
54
195
#87
I actually think what you are describing is the attitude the church has unofficially maintained for quite a while now. I think in a lot of traditional societies, particularly Latin ones, the priesthood was unofficially used as a place where men could go and be unmarried and face no questions about it and be valuable contributors to their communities. Remember the attitudes of the past that pretty much everyone was married, the priesthood was an exception, so I think a young man who had SSA could view it as a good life he could choose.

And this may surprise you, but in theory I don't really see any reason why a SSA man would not be a great and holy priest. I am sure it takes a lot of grace from God for many "straight" men to be celibate and serve as priests. There is no reason why an SSA man could not do the same thing, but of course they would have to support and teach (and live by) Catholic doctrine, that their desires are disordered and unnatural and giving in to them is a mortal sin. (And under current practices, it is that way for "straight" priests as well.)

You may notice earlier in the thread I am the one proposing a married priesthood. The act of having sex with your wife would in no way be a sin or preclude someone from the priesthood. There is not, and never will be, an equivalent situation for someone who bears the cross of SSA. Celibacy would be the only option.

And practically speaking, we have a problem in the church that needs to be addressed. We have allowed too many homosexuals into the priesthood. Some of them, no doubt, entered with the best of intentions. But the devil works very hard to tempt us astray and there has been a rash of heinous crimes committed against boys. I am not going to give any credence to the nonsensical assertion that some number of these molesters are "heterosexuals," because that is definitionally false on its face and frankly just stupid.

But as a practical matter, we have a problem with homosexual priests molesting boys. We have to stop it. And I suggest the "weeding out (phrase you hate so much)" of people with SSA from seminaries. Not because they could not be good priests, but because they are an increased risk of having a desire for disordered acts within them. Now some straight men have disordered desires as well, but that is not the problem we have to address. 90%+ of the cases in the Catholic church have been homosexual in nature. We have to address the problem that is actually there, and not pretend differently because a bunch of non-Catholics and anti-Catholic bigots have some warped conception of social justice.
This topic is about sexual abuse of nuns, yet you keep singling out homosexuals as abusers in the Catholic Church. You don’t want to to acknowledge that many of these crimes against boys very well could be crimes of opportunity rather than of sexual preference. Even if you tried to “weed out” homosexuals from seminary and allowed priests to marry there would still be a large number of homosexuals keeping their attractions secret and trying to become priests, as it would provide the best excuse for not marrying in many catholic environments.
if you want to weed out homosexuals from seminary, how would you do it?
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#88
Don't participate on this forum if you can't have proper argumentation. You know what is "unnatural"? Your roads and the car you drive in, your house, the hospital you were born, your mobile phone and the products you consume. You know what else is "unnatural"? Your back-assward irrational fear-mongering against homosexuals.

Catholicism is "unnatural" considering the many religions that preceded it and the vast spectrum of different belief systems in the world today. Homosexuality precedes Catholicism by thousands of years, if anything your religion is more "unnatural" than same-sex relationships.

If you think your silly images are a good substitute for arguments, you're sorely mistaken.
 
Jan 9, 2018
453
641
230
#89
We keep turning around in circles. Again, why should homosexuals be weeded out of the seminaries? We've already established that their sexual orientation has no bearing on the child abuse in the catholic church, so there's really no reason other than religious bigotry.
That most certainly has not been established. The entirety of the research you've referenced to make that case is generic research on pedophilia. As pointed out above by @Bolivar687, it's well documented that the overwhelming majority of abuse cases in the Catholic scandals have been post-pubescent boys in their mid-teens (over 80%, as a rather conservative figure). In those cases, the standard research on pedophilia is nothing more than a dishonest detour from the situation at hand; and if you remove those cases to focus only on the cases of younger abuse, the percentage of abusers is so small that it's well below the average in other areas of public life (public education, etc) and therefore not in any way a point of serious contention against the church.
 
Likes: appaws

Rran

Member
Jan 2, 2013
584
21
405
amugsblog.blogspot.com
#90
You don’t want to to acknowledge that many of these crimes against boys very well could be crimes of opportunity rather than of sexual preference.
This sentence right here is why you guys keep arguing in circles. Confront this idea!

appaws is under the impression that a sexual act against someone of the same sex is necessarily a homosexual act. strange headache is under the impression that that's not always the case. You guys are talking past each other because you haven't come to an understanding on this point.

Does a homosexual act necessarily have to involve a homosexual person? Why or why not?
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#91
...it's well documented that the overwhelming majority of abuse cases in the Catholic scandals have been post-pubescent boys in their mid-teens (over 80%, as a rather conservative figure).
As I've already stated here the studies that were conducted do not differentiate between pedophilia or hebephilia, the victims are either underage or they are not. Also there is absolutely no reason to assume that sexual attraction works differently between these two, as age not orientation is always the common denominator in these cases. If you have any scientific evidence to prove otherwise, do so, otherwise you have no leg to stand on.

In those cases, the standard research on pedophilia is nothing more than a dishonest detour from the situation at hand; and if you remove those cases to focus only on the cases of younger abuse, the percentage of abusers is so small that it's well below the average in other areas of public life (public education, etc) and therefore not in any way a point of serious contention against the church.
That is a strawman because that has never been my point of contention. What I do take issue with is how certain people try to portray homosexuals as inherently more prone to child abuse, which is demonstrably false.

Until now, I also never had reason to assume that child abuse is more prevalent within the catholic church, What I do disconcerting though, is the widespread systemic cover up of theses cases over many decades. Which merely underline the fact that many religious functionaries were complacent with this, either because the sexual repressive doctrine of the church is ill equipped to deal with this or simply because the church was more worried about its public perception.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,233
581
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
#92
This sentence right here is why you guys keep arguing in circles. Confront this idea!

appaws is under the impression that a sexual act against someone of the same sex is necessarily a homosexual act. strange headache is under the impression that that's not always the case. You guys are talking past each other because you haven't come to an understanding on this point.

Does a homosexual act necessarily have to involve a homosexual person? Why or why not?
That's true. I don't think we can agree on this because SH will never agree to a reasonable definition of "heterosexual." Someone who molests children of the same sex cannot be a "heterosexual." And they weren't before they committed the first vile instance of the act, even if they claim to have been.

A man who molests a boy was not a "heterosexual" before that. He is something else, perhaps bisexual or homosexual, but by definition he is not a heterosexual.

Of course it would undermine his anti-Catholic narrative if he would have to admit, according to unarguable percentages, that the abuse problem in the Catholic church has overwhelmingly been a problem of homosexuals being placed in positions with sexually vulnerable boys.

My answer to your last question is yes, with some qualification as to age. Generally speaking, among adults, the performance of a homosexual act would be evidence that a person is a homosexual (or bisexual I guess.) I will of course leave open the idea of youthful experimentation before adult sexuality is fully formed....but we are talking about adult male priests.
 
Jun 18, 2018
151
54
195
#93
This sentence right here is why you guys keep arguing in circles. Confront this idea!

appaws is under the impression that a sexual act against someone of the same sex is necessarily a homosexual act. strange headache is under the impression that that's not always the case. You guys are talking past each other because you haven't come to an understanding on this point.

Does a homosexual act necessarily have to involve a homosexual person? Why or why not?
There are plenty of posts and research to shed light on this point, a lot of it referenced in the discussion, but ignored based on individual narratives, and a binary view of sexuality that should have died with the Kinsey scale.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,233
581
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
#94
That is a strawman because that has never been my point of contention. What I do take issue with is how certain people try to portray homosexuals as inherently more prone to child abuse, which is demonstrably false.
Leaving that aside, can you at least note that for whatever reason, the specific problem within our church is a problem of abuse of boys by men...? Can you at least acknowledge that at least in this specific context we are seeing some indication that homosexuality is a factor? As it was pointed out, the number of priests committing heterosexual abuse is lower than the rate of the general population.
 
Jun 13, 2014
3,947
862
345
USA
#95
I think what's driving the impasse is the distinction between child abuse and what happened in the Church.

Strange Headache has consistently maintained that there is no nexus between orientation and the abuse of young children. I would agree, and I know there's been times I have not made that clear and I apologize for that ambiguity.

However, psychologists have always said the church abuse crisis is much more accurately characterized as ephebophilia. Study after study has shown that 70-80% of the abuse has been gay men grooming and seducing teenage boys with alcohol and pronography. There, the numbers are just too large to argue that orientation played no role whatsoever.

Hopefully this distinction can help SH to finally engage just how overwhelming the data is.
 
May 4, 2005
12,409
1,171
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#96
As I've already stated here the studies that were conducted do not differentiate between pedophilia or hebephilia, the victims are either underage or they are not. Also there is absolutely no reason to assume that sexual attraction works differently between these two, as age not orientation is always the common denominator in these cases. If you have any scientific evidence to prove otherwise, do so, otherwise you have no leg to stand on.
I cannot imagine (and would need data for that) that for e.g. 15-16 year old teenagers the sexual orientation is irrelevant. Most physical differentiators are fully developed by that point. For <=10, probably also <=12 years, that's a different question.

This does not change the fact that homosexuality is not a significant factor contributing to the rape cases in the catholic church. Because even for those cases where I would suspect sex of the vicitim to be important, exchanging homosexuals with heterosexuals wouldn't change a thing except for the victim's gender.
 
Jan 9, 2018
453
641
230
#97
This does not change the fact that homosexuality is not a significant factor contributing to the rape cases in the catholic church. Because even for those cases where I would suspect sex of the vicitim to be important, exchanging homosexuals with heterosexuals wouldn't change a thing except for the victim's gender.
I don't think so; there are many ways in which the orientation factors into the equation, and it's easy to see how it might constitute a major causal factor in the recent history of abuse.

First off, the priesthood is defined by sex segregation, like the complimentary orders of nuns etc. There are many symbolic and other theological reasons for that separation--and sex separation is one of the most ubiquitous features of religious and ceremonial life you could name, across all places and eras, so I wouldn't dismiss it lightly--and calling a set of devoted men and women into chaste lives dedicated to a difficult religious vocation is closely dependent upon their separation by sex, and upon the assumption that this isolates from much of the drama and possible complications that come from co-ed spaces. If a disproportionately high number of homosexually inclined men end up selecting the priesthood for various complex reasons that are not analogous to the sacrifice and isolation the other men taken on from their desire for women, there is a fundamental disordering of the vocational life at stake, and there are possible sexual complications within clergy, when it's intended to be a space fully separated from that.

Second, because of the proximity to teenage men in particular--in the role of mentors to seminarians who are studying in various capacities to enter this vocation--there is a particular danger that has played out in recent high-profile cases like that of Cardinal McCarrick, who essentially was quietly known by others to have a certain fondness for seminarians and would have various parties at his residence. Given how closely the priesthood is aligned with mentoring and essentially closely fathering young men to enter a vocation, homosexual inclinations are very distinct problem that isn't comparable to heterosexual ones. They simply aren't being called to mentor young women the same way, and that separation is by design, but polluted if homosexuality becomes a systematic issue in the priesthood.

Third, the reports detail a sense of secrecy, a notion that many cliques of priests presume that private affairs of this or that fellow priest are not a big deal, just a thing to wink at--here, one known to invite seminarians over to stay; there, another with a pseudo-boyfriend, etc. That leads to even more systematic abuse being covered up, because one becomes willing to accept these exceptions with a shrug, and many prominent members in the hierarchy are suddenly perfectly used to turning a blind eye here or there. And this is, in many cases like McCarrick, uniquely tied to the context of their homosexuality being something ignored, in the way one wouldn't if a priest had a secret wife etc.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#98
I don't think we can agree on this because SH will never agree to a reasonable definition of "heterosexual." Someone who molests children of the same sex cannot be a "heterosexual."
You keep saying that, but the empirical data says otherwise. The problem is that you cannot realize that homosexual acts of abuse can be carried out by heterosexual people. In other words, the data clearly suggests that the gender of the victim has no bearing on the sexual orientation of the abuser. This is because the sexual psychology of child abusers does not work the way you think, because they are primarily attracted by age, not gender:

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
Since child abusers like to project themselves onto the victim, it is not hard to see why male heterosexual abusers tend to have a preference for boys:

"…They see the boy as a projected representation of themselves. They feel themselves to be more child than adult – more boys than men – and therefore find themselves more comfortable (especially sexually) in the company of children...." (Groth, 1982)
Lastly, it is a relation of power and not mere sexual orientation:

Science and case management experience has shown us that most child molesters are heterosexual. Abuse is about power and control and is not anchored by sexual orientation.
Strange Headache has consistently maintained that there is no nexus between orientation and the abuse of young children. I would agree, and I know there's been times I have not made that clear and I apologize for that ambiguity.
Exactly, which is the reason why child abuse cannot be explained by mere sexual orientation or the reductive distinction between hetero- and homosexuality. I have consistently shown that homosexual people are not more likely to commit child abuse than heterosexual people:

The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989). In summary, each of these studies failed to support the hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.
I'd also like to add the precision that it is not me personally who maintains this position, but the empirical studies that were provided.

Study after study has shown that 70-80% of the abuse has been gay men grooming and seducing teenage boys with alcohol and pronography. There, the numbers are just too large to argue that orientation played no role whatsoever. Hopefully this distinction can help SH to finally engage just how overwhelming the data is.
Provide the data and I'll have a look at it. There's reason to remain skeptical about your claims because they are not consistent with the studies so far.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2007
3,772
107
895
#99
Someone who molests children of the same sex cannot be a "heterosexual."
I don't think we can agree.

This and this were the top-two results to my search, which kinda makes me laugh. This source is a bit better.

The point is, rape is not always about sex itself. Often times, it's about power: The complete domination of another person; finally somebody who will listen to you, and you can control the outcome.

The rapist might even get off and thoroughly enjoy the experience, but that doesn't mean sexual-orientation was a necessary factor. If the entire point is to fulfill some type of fantasy, or escape some type of depression, or simply to gain an ounce of control in the world, then gender is a pretty small thing to consider if the opportunity presents itself.


EDIT:
And now, I'm going to pose an admittedly-hostile question. I don't mean to offend anybody personally; it's just an idea that popped into my head.
Is it possible that virginity is a possible cause for the targeting of children?

Pretty much every culture in the world, throughout history, places emphasis on the power of virginity. Sometimes it's religious, sometimes it's for casting spells, sometimes it's for the importance of family lines, sometimes it's simply a fetish. Society as a whole seems to make a big deal out of virginity. How many movies have been made about some teens trying to get laid?

Is it possible that the importance of virginity is what causes young people to be targeted to frequently? Considering domination tends to be a theme in rape, it kinda makes sense that sexual-orientation isn't a factor, but simply being the one to ruin a form of purity is the prevailing factor.
 
Last edited:
Dec 12, 2013
3,711
1,798
440
You can post all the statistics you want but you'll never convince me that guys who molest little boys are straight. A lot of gays are ashamed of being gay so they'll just say they aren't and that's how you get skewed stats. Any real straight guy would be absolutely disgusted by the thought of touching a little boy.
 
Likes: appaws