The Vatican and homosexuality

[DanMario]

I have been following the tread from the Mew York Times, in which is reported the policy of the Roman Catholic Church to prevent Gay men from becoming priests. THis is indeed sad news, because the Roman Church is linking child molestation to homosexuality, which is inacurate and plain false.

Interestingly enough, I have been reviewing some documents from the mid 90's in which the Roman Church intends to come closer to understand the real nature of homosexuality. At that time, my hope was that different churches would be able to take a closer look to the way in which homosexuality have been seen in the light of the Scriptures, and -considering the story of the current canon and the many translations that have taken place- a more open Theology of sexuality could finally be born.

The Documents are: an Apostolic letter on the care of the homosexual (from Rome) and "Always our Children" by the by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. Both documents are been completely ignored now a days, with the new rethorics that are taking place in the Roman Church, and - like it or not- have reprocusions in the views of other denominations- (Like the Episcopal Church outside USA and Canada)

I would like to see if there is anyone who knows authors beyond Daniel Helminiak and John Boswell who have studied homosexuality and the development of Christian Churches, and how this studies have been overlooked by seminaries.

[spl_cadet]

80% of the cases were teenaged males having sex with priests. Are you going to tell me that that's pedophilia and not homosexuality?

[DanMario]

80% of the cases were teenaged males having sex with priests. Are you going to tell me that that's pedophilia and not homosexuality?
When you see the reported cases coming from teenagers (that in theory can be 10!) and focus only on the male population, it is easy to have a misguided view on the issue. Cases involving little girls should be punished and denounced as well. The whole thing is not only sexist but manipulated.

[Cynic Sage]

80% of the cases were teenaged males having sex with priests. Are you going to tell me that that's pedophilia and not homosexuality?

Technically it's pedophillic homosexuality.

[spl_cadet]

When you see the reported cases coming from teenagers (that in theory can be 10!) and focus only on the male population, it is easy to have a misguided view on the issue. Cases involving little girls should be punished and denounced as well. The whole thing is not only sexist but manipulated.

No, I'm talking about the actual statistics of all the accusations.


Technically it's pedophillic homosexuality.

With 16 and 17 year olds?

[DanMario]

No, I'm talking about the actual statistics of all the accusations.



With 16 and 17 year olds?
for some reason, I am still inclined (very strongly) to think that there is a great deal of manipulation of information that results not only in showing Gay men as the "bad guys" but also, disqualify other sexual abuse victims for the sake of scapegoating

[spl_cadet]

for some reason, I am still inclined (very strongly) to think that there is a great deal of manipulation of information that results not only in showing Gay men as the "bad guys" but also, disqualify other sexual abuse victims for the sake of scapegoating

Good for you. How about backing up that charge?

[jason]

a more open Theology of sexuality could finally be born.

The only phrase that comes to mind is "oh dear".

Why is it that so many people are in such a hurry to embrace "alternative sexualities" with such gusto, yet they shy away from taking this idea seriously and embracing paedophiles and those who practice bestiality ?

After all, these are just "alternative forms of sexual expression" that you "should not judge".

But perhaps I am on a tangent.

Jason

[DanMario]

The only phrase that comes to mind is "oh dear".

Why is it that so many people are in such a hurry to embrace "alternative sexualities" with such gusto, yet they shy away from taking this idea seriously and embracing paedophiles and those who practice bestiality ?

After all, these are just "alternative forms of sexual expression" that you "should not judge".

But perhaps I am on a tangent.

Jason
Because there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between homosexuality (a sexual orientation) and pedophilia or bestiality. There is nothing "alterative" about homosexuality, or is it heterosexuality alternative too? if you can give me an answer science based will be most appreciated... Yes, there is a difference between loving another human being and loving a box turtle, if it is where you are heading to.

[DanMario]

Because there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between homosexuality (a sexual orientation) and pedophilia or bestiality. There is nothing "alterative" about homosexuality, or is it heterosexuality alternative too? if you can give me an answer science based will be most appreciated... Yes, there is a difference between loving another human being and loving a box turtle, if it is where you are heading to.
I do condemn pedophillia. Pedophilia is not homosexuality.

[jason]

Because there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between homosexuality (a sexual orientation) and pedophilia or bestiality.
No there isn't. That is just rubbish. In one case you have men (or women) attracted to members of the same sex who are adults, in another you have people attracted to younger members of the same or opposite sex or animals.

There is no difference between the two, both are just "variations on a theme". The same reasoning that works to defend homosexual behavior will work to defend either of the others.

if you can give me an answer science based will be most appreciated...
What exactly are you looking for ? (Incidentally it concerns me you call yourself a christian. Presumably you are, but clearly rather confused).

But do you really need "scientific evidence" that homsexual behavior is a disordered sexual behavior. Boy's have penis's and girls have vaginas and they fit together and serve a complementatry purpose and are designed to work together.

A boy's penis does not fit in another boy's rectum.

Do you really need to yet again be shown statistics that show that homosexual behavior is destructive ? I suspect even if I did dig them up you would wave them off with some drivel about "only like this because of stigmatization" or some other such nonsense. (Certianly of you are typical of those who advocate for evil you will).

Yes, there is a difference between loving another human being and loving a box turtle, if it is where you are heading to.
Not really. If homosexuality is just "a variation on a theme" and is "natural" (Which in this case can only mean something like driven by desire in that direction) then all "alternative" sexualities including pederasty and bestiality are just variations on the same theme.

The paedophile is driven every bit as much as the homosexual by a desire they "cannot control" and that is "natural" to them.

Deal with the fact that the arguments that work for one work for the other. Then get down on your knees and repent and beg God for forgiveness for indulging this sort of evil nonsense.

Jason

[jason]

I do condemn pedophillia. Pedophilia is not homosexuality.
Incidentally I did not claim it was. I said the arguments that defend one defend the other.

There is no logically coherent argument you can offer in favour of homosexual behavior that will not also work in favour of sex with children.

Jason

[Paul]

Abuse of minors is not the primary reason for not wanting to ordain homosexuals. Even if that were not an issue, I suspect the stance of Rome would remain essentially the same.

Father Burns Seeley of the Chicago-based Society of St. John Cantius:

"Note that the document (I have not seen it yet, obviously) seems not to be touching principally on priestly chastity. I think 'Even if they are celibate...,' should read, 'Even if they are chaste...' We are all called to be chaste, whether we are clergy, religious or laity. I certainly don't know if fallen homosexuals are more inclined to be unchaste than fallen heterosexuals.

"The key point seems to be that homosexuals possess 'a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.' I take this to mean that they are incapable of perceiving human nature as God as created it, consisting of male and female persons meant for mutual attraction, complementarity, and, God-willing, marriage and children.

"Instead, they see members of their own gender as mutually attractive in a sexual sense. They do not see females as such. In other words, they do not see or experience objective reality. Since this is so, it follows that homosexual priests possess a serious handicap which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to serve well as our Lord's faithful ordained ministers.

"Additionally, it seems to me, that as teachers and preachers of Catholic faith and morals, homosexual priests must have great difficulty preaching and teaching frequently and with conviction the Church's teaching on human sexuality."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/050922

[DanMario]

Incidentally I did not claim it was. I said the arguments that defend one defend the other.

There is no logically coherent argument you can offer in favour of homosexual behavior that will not also work in favour of sex with children.

Jason
Yes, in fact there is, what you call "behavior" is really an "orientation". phedophilia -in the other hand- is a pathology, not an orientation. Both include a set of behaviors, but calling a sexual orientation a "behavior, not only is incorrect, but lacks the onyological reason of being Vs. Acting. Heterosexuality includes also behaviors, and even, so does bisexuality.

[DanMario]

Abuse of minors is not the primary reason for not wanting to ordain homosexuals. Even if that were not an issue, I suspect the stance of Rome would remain essentially the same.

Father Burns Seeley of the Chicago-based Society of St. John Cantius:

"Note that the document (I have not seen it yet, obviously) seems not to be touching principally on priestly chastity. I think 'Even if they are celibate...,' should read, 'Even if they are chaste...' We are all called to be chaste, whether we are clergy, religious or laity. I certainly don't know if fallen homosexuals are more inclined to be unchaste than fallen heterosexuals.

"The key point seems to be that homosexuals possess 'a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers.' I take this to mean that they are incapable of perceiving human nature as God as created it, consisting of male and female persons meant for mutual attraction, complementarity, and, God-willing, marriage and children.

"Instead, they see members of their own gender as mutually attractive in a sexual sense. They do not see females as such. In other words, they do not see or experience objective reality. Since this is so, it follows that homosexual priests possess a serious handicap which makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to serve well as our Lord's faithful ordained ministers.

"Additionally, it seems to me, that as teachers and preachers of Catholic faith and morals, homosexual priests must have great difficulty preaching and teaching frequently and with conviction the Church's teaching on human sexuality."

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/050922
Then, the Biblical interpretation that has "offered" the results mentioned above are the problem, not the orientation per se. When a sexual orientation is condemn based on a manipulated methodology used to "interpret" the -already amnipulated- translation of the recognized -by humans- canon (or Bible) is what should be analized in the light of prayer, not the nature of sexual orientation.

[jason]

Yes, in fact there is, what you call "behavior" is really an "orientation".
You are just playing with labels now. Your own duplicity is obvious to all.

phedophilia -in the other hand- is a pathology
More labels. Homosexual behaviour was once labeled a pathology. That changed, and there are groups already working for the removal of the idea of paedophillia s pathology. You are being a fool to think otherwise. Or perhaps Lenin's term "useful idiot" is better used in this instance.

Both include a set of behaviors, but calling a sexual orientation a "behavior, not only is incorrect, but lacks the onyological reason of being Vs. Acting. Heterosexuality includes also behaviors, and even, so does bisexuality.
Except homosexuality is a behaviour and not an orientation.

this whole talk of orientation is just a nonsense smokescreen used by those that wish to justify wrong doing.

But you seem to have bought the lie hook line and sinker.

BTW I do actually expect you to show an argument for one that does not work for the other. Your argument from ontology works just as well for the paedophile. It is an "orientation" not a "behavior". There is no escaping this because you are just playing word games to justify evil.

Jason