sitetest: There is no such thing as a "homosexual" or "gay" unless you are referring to a person by a label based on their actions, as if they are somehow different from their sin of preference from another group of men who are "heterosexuals". "Homosexuality" is a construct of 19th century German study of sexual psychology, created by Richard Freiherr von Kraft-Ebing. It only exists in the mind of those who love labels of categorization.
In reality, there are perverted men who enjoy the sins of passive and active oral and rectal sodomy, and there are people who are free of this phyisco-mental sickness thanks to the grace of God.
The larger majority of those involved in these moral crimes would be called heterosexuals, because they practice them with women, having not had occasion to look into such feelings with a man. However, it is unclear in my mind how the female mouth or rectum is actually different from the male, and so what prevents someone accustomed to these crimes with women from seeking out the same with men should the feeling or limitation of choice push them in that direction. Hence, the propensity of many so-called "heterosexuals" to suddenly engage in "homosexual" acts in prisons, on ship, and in the armed forces. In reality, its the same perversion with a different person, the genitalia of that person ultimately being irrelevant, since it is not the point of interest of the sexual perversion.
It seems to me that even screening out so-called "homosexuals" ultimately does not do the job, as there are plenty of "heterosexuals" who've discovered a "homosexual" love interest when pushed in that direction by force of circumstance. We've discovered as much here in Philadelphia, where, despite the policy of excluding homosexuals from the seminary, we still have had priests bugerring boys.
I attribute this to poor moral formation, where certain tendencies in mid 20th century moral theology showed a willingness to look askance at male-male sexual sins. Thus Fr. Jone, writing of sodomy makes the claim: "The malice of sodomy consists in the perverted affection towards the wrong sex or in the attraction towards the wrong method of sexual gratification. If there is no such affection or attraction there is no question of sodomy, though two persons suffe emission from mutual touches or unnatural contact." (#228, p. 149). Further on: "Touching the semi-private parts of a person of the same sex is generally a venial sin at most." (#235, p. 155). And: "It is venially sinful to glance at the private parts of another of the same sex or to look at them out of curiosity ... to look at the private parts of a person of the opposite sex is gravely sinful, unless ... it is a question of little children." (#237, p. 156) Lastly, "Homosexuality is the abnormal sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex. It must be distinguished from the sins committed by persons of the same sex which are sometimes committed by those who have no occasion to have relations with persons of the opposite sex." (#243, p. 161) Then to top it all off, Fr. Jone refers us to the mitigating influence of passion, where antecedent concupiscence, which is the involuntary movement of the concupiscipble apetities "always lessens imputability and at times even destroys it entirelyy accordin as one is hindered in the use of his reason ... by passion." (#24 and 25, p. 9).
This sort of formation is not an encouragement of homosexual perversion per se, but rather, almost an invitation to use this sort of moral code to salve a guilty conscience and convince oneself one is still normal. Which is also probably why so many of the criminals in the Priesthood were ordained in the 1950's and 1960's well before the homosexual takeover of certain seminaries in the 1970's and early 1980's.
Hermann,
To your comment, "...many of the criminals in the Priesthood were ordained in the 1950's and 1960's well before the homosexual takeover of certain seminaries in the 1970's and early 1980's":
If we limit ourselves to only pedophilia and pederasty, we limit the scope of the problem. There's much more to this. What of heterosexuals who were just not able to control themsleves, men who went into the priesthood with pure hearts and who just were not able to live by their vows, men who did as Archbishop Cranmer did before the death of King Henry VIII? It is said that he married secretly and kept his wife in a box as he travelled about the archdiocese. My wife has told me of her parish priest (in her youth), who had a "housekeeper" and that it was well known that this housekeeper was more than just that. There are many such tales.
I do not condemn these men. I say that all of this stuff has resulted from a system that is not based on reality. And I wonder. A lot is coming out into the open now. How much went on from the 9th century to the present that we will not learn of until the dread Day of Judgement when all must give account?
I am reminded of the words of the first Pope of Rome to the Council of Jerusalem: Act 15:10 "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"
Dear Hermann the Cherusker,
Although I'd agree that the "boundaries" between these orientations are not hard and fast, nonetheless, I assure you that there are men who overwhelmingly are attracted sexually to men, and men who are overwhelmingly attracted sexually to women.
Men who are overwhelmingly attracted sexually to women predominate in society, probably on the order of 97% or more. Men who are overwhelmingly attracted sexually to men perhaps constitute 1% - 3% of the population.
These sexual attractions are relatively stable (although not necessarily unchangeable) and persist as an attribute of the psyche of the individual. I'm agnostic as to from where deviant same-sex attractions arise (although they are stable, I see no evidence that they are in-born, or genetic).
There are certainly ambiguities at the boundaries of these populations. Some number of men who are predominantly heterosexual are also willing to engage in homosexual activities, and some number of men who are predominantly homosexual will engage in sex with women. But the overwhelming majority of heterosexual men find the thought of sexual contact with another man to be repulsive.
Men who are overwhelmingly attracted sexually to women may also find thoughts of sodomy with women pleasant and attractive, even though these same men have absolutely no attraction to men, and the overwhelming number of these men are repulsed by the thought of sexual contact with other men. In fact, I know plenty of men who are repulsed by male-male sexual contact, but find the thought of sodomy with attractive women to be a pleasant thought.
As for what men do in extreme situations, that's another story. Nonetheless, I'll note that my own anecdotal evidence (taken from men who have served time in prison) indicates that it is a small number of aggressors who prey on a somewhat larger number of coerced victims, but even so, that most men do not have sexual contact with other men while in prison.
It is a serious problem, in that with 2 million men in prison in the United States, several hundred thousand men are involved, and most of them as victims. Nonetheless, even the pressure and distortion of prison life does not cause a large percentage of men to take sexual gratification from homosexual acts.
sitetest