I used to have a book called, "An Underground History" that, among hundreds of shocking stories, had a section that listed dozens of incidents of sexual and homosexual abuse and criminality by early popes. I presume all that didn't just exist at the top.
I think you're being naive if you claim that homosexual molestation would be reported if it had occurred 1000 years ago. Even today, people are reluctant to speak of it, yet unlike 1000 years ago, they now know that they won't be killed. Today they have a moderate society reassuring them that it's not their fault, that it doesn't mean they're gay, and that they're not ruined as a man. They also have a legal system that's more or less stronger than the Church, lawyers promising them millions and a media that's more bold than even a few decades ago when presidential and celebrity dalliances were ignored. 1000 years ago I'm sure there was the routine equivalent of lying under oath, trading arms for hostages and bugging political opposition, and I'm sure it exists around the world today, but in few places beyond America today does it threaten presidencies.
I recall at least one study that linked a smaller hypothalamus to homosexuality, and at least one separated-at-birth twin study that showed a very significant pattern of genetic homosexuality. And just from my personal experience, I've seen a tendency for lesbians to have faces that look like they were built with a little more testosterone than those of most women (beyond the makeup, clothing and behavior effect in my judgement), but that's just incidental.
Until 40 years ago, most of our society was anti-gay (or anti-SAD as you say). But the Church promoted a culture of forgiveness where all the brotherhood's sexual desires were something to be repressed. It may have been like a moth's flame as you suggest, but with the numerous enemies of the Catholic Church, a culture of protection and cover up was probably already in place to keep them from being burned.
In response to your question, I understand the celibacy rules were initially put in place to keep wealth in the Church. The clergy were willing their personal/Church property to descendants. Also, I heard that the Church sometimes found itself responsible for widows and children of a dead priest, but that doesn't seem to be so significant to me.
But more in line with what I'm sure you're interested in hearing from me, you know that their's without question something to be said for stripping distractions out of the lives of people to get the most from them and to redirect their focus. (i.e. military boot camp?) If the Church can make that work for a lifetime, more power to them. But if their sexually frustrated and frequently homosexual inclined priests are going to allowed to be alone with innocent, nubile little teenage boys, it's going to be a very expensive policy in a free and litigious society.
"There, I've taken your workload from four assertions down to two"
{smile} uh-huh.
Shalom.
You were doing pretty good until you stuck in that "I presume".
I think you're being naive if you claim that homosexual molestation would be reported if it had occurred 1000 years ago.
Perhaps, but suggesting that I'm naive isn't the same as offering proof that you are right. It's easy to say smugly, "Oh, you can't be so naive." Try finding some support other than your own personal wish that it be true.
I recall at least one study that linked a smaller hypothalamus to homosexuality, and at least one separated-at-birth twin study that showed a very significant pattern of genetic homosexuality.
So far the only studies that have even suggested a genetic component have been performed by homosexuals and none of them have stood up under scrutiny. There is no repeatable study that supports a genetic "homosexuality." There is verified evidence that it is not genetic, including thousans of people who no longer suffer from the syndrome.
In response to your question, I understand the celibacy rules were initially put in place to keep wealth in the Church. The clergy were willing their personal/Church property to descendants. Also, I heard that the Church sometimes found itself responsible for widows and children of a dead priest, but that doesn't seem to be so significant to me.
At least this is a promising thesis. Can you provide any citation that this may be true?
But more in line with what I'm sure you're interested in hearing from me, you know that their's without question something to be said for stripping distractions out of the lives of people to get the most from them and to redirect their focus. (i.e. military boot camp?) If the Church can make that work for a lifetime, more power to them. But if their sexually frustrated and frequently homosexual inclined priests are going to allowed to be alone with innocent, nubile little teenage boys, it's going to be a very expensive policy in a free and litigious society.
I didn't want to hear anything but your support for your assertions. Again, this is only supposition on your part. The idea of celibacy actually comes from something Paul wrote long before the Church was established. It is true that people who are married and have children are distracted from the job of shepherding the flock. The family can, and frequently does, cause some difficult choices to be made in those called by God to any purpose, whether clergy or lay. But that doesn't support the concept of a power trip as much as it does a concept of freeing an individual to answer God's call.
I've known a lot of Priests, even though I am not a Catholic. But I've never known a sexually frustrated one. Most adult men can live without sex and quite happily. The inability to live without sex would suggest a personality that was arrested in its development. Sex is a wonderful garnish in life, as long as it is maintained within the context of a heterosexual, monagomous marriage. But it is only a garnish. It is not a staple.
Shalom.