Gays, priest sex abuse: Is there any connection?

The Boston Globe ^ | 10.17.05 | Carey Goldberg

[tuesday afternoon]

If the Catholic Church wants to prevent sexual abuse by priests, several abuse experts said, there are better ways to do it than by trying to bar gay men from the clergy.

The church recently began checking American seminaries for ''evidence of homosexuality," and the pope is widely expected to ban actively gay men from taking holy orders.

But it will be tricky to cull gays from the priesthood, the abuse experts said this month. And it would be more effective -- and more humane -- to target likely abusers rather than all gays.

''There's no adequate way to screen out homosexuality," said Martin P. Kafka, a psychiatrist at Harvard's McLean Hospital. ''We don't have any lab tests."

-SNIP-

Still, when adults molest children past puberty, they tend to follow their sexual orientation. When the victims are older, straight men tend to molest girls and gay men molest boys. According to one survey, two-thirds of the victims were 12 or older when the abuse began.

-SNIP-

Furthermore, he said, he argued, ''If you have a policy of excluding homosexuals, all the applicants to the seminaries who are homosexual will just lie."

-SNIP-

And in current-day America, he added, gay people are much likelier to acknowledge and accept their sexual orientation, so they may present far lower risks than the repressed types of the old days

[scripter]

Please point out specifically where homosexual orientation is, in itself, an actual sin.

I'm not Catholic and most likely disagree with you on some issues surrounding homosexuality, but not here. Many define homosexuality as same-sex sexual behavior which of course is defined as sin in the Bible. Homosexual orientation (same-sex attraction) is not defined as sin.

Still, Matthew 5:28 tells us that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has committed sin. So from this we see that anyone who looks at a man lustfully has sinned, whether the look is from the opposite sex or the same sex.

Just to be clear, as I see it, same-sex attraction without lustful thoughts is not defined as sin. To me that's the same as saying opposite-sex attraction is defined as sin.

[DA740]

The most attractive male for a homosexual is a teen-age boy. That is as timeless as the stars. The vast majority of priest sex-abuse cases involved teen-age boys, NOT CHILDREN.

The abusers were NOT PEDOPHILES; they were homosexuals.

Homosexuals who make priestly vows are NOT REAL PRIESTS. The enter the priesthood because they are attracted to an all-male environment, particularly one offering what they crave the most, moral validation. A homosexual "priest" is a contradiction in terms. They merely wear the collar and have sworn to the vows, but that does not make them priests.

If you scrape the homosexuals out of the seminaries and out of the rectories, the abuse scandal will evaporate overnight. You simply cannot put homosexual men together with teen-age boys. This is not rocket science, but something that has been known for 50,000 years. What is wrong with us? What is so hard to understand?

Furthermore, it is a great sin to let homosexuals into the clergy to commit their debaucheries in the holiest of places. Homosexuals cannot be holy men, men of God. Can't we think anymore?

DA740

[saradippity]

The problem is that I know exactly what you are saying and because of the much higher probability that a homosexual will molest children and practice other sexual deviances,I believe we need to disallow homosexuals from being ordained.

Homosexuality because it is not life giving,the act itself ends in death to the life giving force,does not satisfy men. It is a state wherein those who profess it need additional titillation to feel "alive". To stimulate the deadness they feel,many need drugs,alcohol, pornography,sadomasochistic encounters.multiple partners and other abuses too disgusting to mention,all part of the frantic search for life which can never come since homosexual sex is dead on arrival or on exit,more precisely. Of course it all ends in physical death,at the very least,and often prematurely.usually from disease,violence,suicide and various and sundry means.

However,if you had read the disagreements reflected in the original post and my comments,earlier on this thread,you would have known. I had read a statement that was very ambiguous and in error. It was the kind of statement that liberals,modernists,progressives,dissidents,infiltrators and others who seek to destroy the Church use to shoehorn their agenda into the minds of the faithful. When I stated "The fact that a homosexual is far more likely to be a pedophile than a heterosexual is,is beside the point."I was staying within the framework of the original "chat". I could not let a statement stand that said "almost all pedophiles are homosexual" ,it is simply not true.

You see that is exactly what the gang of supporters of homosexuals want,then they can point out the error of that statement and we lose,they win. I have seen it happen far too often.Admix and commingle issues and asides and change the definition of words and pretty soon the enemy (liars) win.

Finally,I must add that I do think there is a difference between someone who may have had some inclination to consider men more attractive than women and do not think fleeting temptations would be a reason to preclude someone from entering the seminary. Actually if one had never even thought about his/her preferences in this day and age,I would think they had zero awareness. But that's another story.

[tuesday afternoon]

"There's no adequate way to screen out homosexuality," said Martin P. Kafka, a psychiatrist at Harvard's McLean Hospital. "We don't have any lab tests."

Sure there is. It's called, "Do ask, do tell, do bar, do defrock."

Interesting, isn't it, that they claim no way to screen out homosexuals and an unnamed Vatican official claims the concept of homosexuality is too ambigous to have any meaning (someone should tell GLADD, et al). Meanwhile the rumor mill is saying the Vatican will have tests an homosexual can pass to become a seminarian.

Anyone beside me see the irony here?

As far as those purported tests (those with less than three years of celibacy, those who participate in openly gay activities, and those who are "irrevocably committed" to a homosexual lifestyle, will not be permitted), they sound like they could easily apply and should be applied to current priests. Maybe they're not as safe as they're being led to believe.

Let's face it. The Glob has no interest in helping protect children from predatory homosexuals. They are only interested in bashing the Church and protecting the butt-sex crowd. Wonder why?

It's all of the MSM. First they wrote screeds against the Church for conducting witchhunts and inquisitions. Then they all rushed to print with a rumor that certain homosexuals may be allowed into seminaries, overturning 2000 years of Church teachings.

The Catholic Church is a huge thorn in the side of homosexuals desperately wanting acceptance for their "objective and intrinsic disorder."

[Major_Risktaker]

When was the last time any family you know
said: I can see my son as an Alert Boy some day.

The good old days.

[GOPJ]

''There's no adequate way to screen out homosexuality," said Martin P. Kafka, a psychiatrist at Harvard's McLean Hospital. ''We don't have any lab tests."

Lab tests? Is this a joke? These guys are human - they can speak. I assume if you ask a priest a question, he will tell the truth. Right? If the standard is so low that a priest can be expected to lie, it's time to give up on the religion. It's hopeless.

[tuesday afternoon]

Homosexuality because it is not life giving,the act itself ends in death to the life giving force,does not satisfy men. It is a state wherein those who profess it need additional titillation to feel "alive". To stimulate the deadness they feel,many need drugs,alcohol, pornography,sadomasochistic encounters.multiple partners and other abuses too disgusting to mention,all part of the frantic search for life which can never come since homosexual sex is dead on arrival or on exit,more precisely.

Great explanation. The culture of death. Intrinsically and objectively disorderd.

[saradippity]

As far as those purported tests(************************),it sounds like they could easily apply and should be applied to current priests. Maybe they are not as safe as they've been led to believe.

Wow,wouldn't that be great,I've been so worried the thought never crossed my mind but upon consideration,I think you are on to something. What sense you make!!! And for that,let us pray!!!

[saradippity]

John Paul II gave us so much to work with,didn't he? He gave us everything we needed for the battle,including defining the arena and some easily discernible talking points and so few really took him up on the challenge.

I think Benedict XVI is also truly guided by the Holy Spirit and conformed to His Church. However,the enemy is working double time and then I worry.

[jeremiah]

An individual making a personal decision to follow a chaste lifestyle, and a church that will not accept someone as callen to be a shepherd of the church UNLESS he is chaste is something else.

[IIntense]

I've yet to hear of a crime committed out of love. Self-defense or defense of any potential victim cannot be included here because it does not qualify as a crime

The hate-crime law is a stupid and totally unnecessary law. Crime is crime, regardless of the reason.

[IIntense]

"Gays can get married..."

How do you define marriage here? In my state a marriage license is required. Homosexuals can tie the know with no problem, if, as we all know, they marry a member of the opposite sex. That's not what we're about here, though. Just thought I'd throw it into the pot.

[GatorGirl]

He wasn't a ROMAN CATHOLIC priest, he was Jewish. As far as I know, Jews have no restrictions on marriage for their clergy.

Apples to oranges!

[A.A. Cunningham]

You are fairly ignorant of the Priesthood of Melchisedech, first mentioned in Scripture in Genesis 14, and its relation to the Catholic Priesthood, which includes Jesus Christ, as well as the rest of Scripture which deals with the topic.

I'll bet you've never read the following either, have you "jeremiah"?

"And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Thou shalt not take thee a wife, neither shalt thou have sons and daughters in this place." Jeremiah 16:1-2

[A.A. Cunningham]

Celibacy is the state of not being married. Has nothing to do with the virtue of chastity which every person is called to.

Incorrect. With regard to the Priesthood, both religious and diocesan and as the dictionary confirms, celibacy and chastity are synonymous.

Main Entry: cel·i·ba·cy
Pronunciation: 'se-l&-b&-sE
Function: noun
1 : the state of not being married
2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse b : abstention by vow from marriage

[A.A. Cunningham]

I believe Christ taught that it was "better to marry, than to burn."

That, which is taken out of context regarding the subject at hand, was St. Paul, Scripture scholar. St. Paul also said the following:

"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world: how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment." 1 Corinthians 7:32-35

Before you start paraphrasing Scripture in a feeble attempt to put forth an argument, try reading it first. You won't end up looking like such a fool.

[ThomasMore]

abstention from sexual intercourse

Every person not married is called to "abstain". Period. Celibacy is the state of not being married and all those not being married are called to be chaste. Married couples are called to be chaste...they are not called to abstain from sex simply because they are married. Small nuance...but I think one that is important.