25 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoe...yes, and speculation is not easy for religious people.
As I said before it is better to wait for the official declaration. It has not been published yet. Discussing some unpublished document would mean speculation.
A matter that could be discussed however is what kind of measures you would be inclined to take in order to avoid what happened. How are you, dear Doctor, going to prevent sexual abuse from taking ...[text shortened]... oceed to handle things in an appropiate way ?
Which measures would you propose, dear doctor ?
They can only cope with what they have been told to believe unquestioningly...what they have been spoon fed.
So whatever the Pope and the Catholic church says; THAT is what Ivanhoe will agree with.
Heaven forbid that the flock start to think for themselves.
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrThen how do you explain the fact that married men can also be child-molesters ?
The obvious solution is to teach kids not to go around seducing priests. Seriously, though, the obvious solution is to allow priests to marry.
You assume that unmarried men are more inclined to molest children. Do you have any substantial proof that supports such an assumption ?
25 Sep 05
The RCC should neither be attacked or defended, in this matter, on the basis of it being a church, but as an employer who's employee is accused of performing criminal acts.
In these cases the employer has some responsibility because it's their agency that the employee is using as part of the act.
This is not a matter of the RCC's religious views. It might have some implications on the church's view of church and state matters which , as anybody who ever read my posts could tell you, I think is pretty deficient .
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou misunderstand my point. See Pawneykeyhole's post above. It is not the married/unmarried distinction that matters here, but there being no outlet available for priests for healthy sexual expression.
Then how do you explain the fact that married men can also be child-molesters ?
You assume that unmarried men are more inclined to molest children. Do you have any substantial proof that supports such an assumption ?
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLike ivanhoe, I think it's premature to pass judgment when the actual document has not been released yet.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/21/news/pope.php
Ivanhoe and lucifershammer, are you in favor of this proposed ban on the "intrinsically disordered" and those with "perverse inclinations" entering the priesthood? Do you think it is "necessary to restore the church's credibility?"
I don't think barring homosexuals from the priesthood is a long-term solution (I can understand the reasoning for the short-term). If a person with homosexual tendencies can uphold his vow of celibacy and uphold the teachings of the Church, I see no reason to bar him from the priesthood.
At the present moment, however, there is evidence of a "gay subculture" within the American priesthood (and even, perhaps, that in Europe). Such a subculture, if characterised by an active homosexual lifestyle and rejection of Church teachings, obviously undermines the moral credibility of the priesthood.
Nevertheless, I think that efforts to restore the credibility of the priesthood should begin first with existing priests and Bishops and the administrators of seminaries.
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by NemesioAnd, make no mistake Ivanhoe: Homosexuality and child sexual abuse have no statistical correlative relationship.
I thought the Church took an approach of 'hate the sin, love the sinner.'
If a person with homosexual inclinations solemnly vows to be celibate,
then why would the Church refuse him ordination?
And, make no mistake Ivanhoe: Homosexuality and child sexual abuse
have no statistical correlative relationship. So don't compare apples and
oranges.
Nemesio
Homosexuality and pedophilia (abuse of pre-pubescents) - no.
Homosexuality and male ephebophilia (abuse of pubescent males) - yes.
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrI don't disagree, Bbarr, but I think it is larger than that.
You misunderstand my point. See Pawneykeyhole's post above. It is not the married/unmarried distinction that matters here, but there being no outlet available for priests for healthy sexual expression.
Seminary life is a complicated one which entails, to a large degree a
cloistered lifestyle. Often this begins around 18 (graduation from high
school), which entails that developing mature, adult relationships becomes
limited to the context of Seminary life and, consequently, non-normal.
Not only are priests denied a means for healthy sexual expression, they
often suffer from a diminished social capacity as well. Coupled with the
notion that they are 'in persona Christi' (a term widely misunderstood and
misuesed), their forced asceticism often results in difficulty in social situations.
On NPR about 3 years ago (or whenever the scandal broke out in America),
there was a priest who had training in psychology who did a study on priests
who came to this conclusion. It was his opinion that Seminary life needed to
involve interaction with non-seminarians so that the Ordinands would learn
what it was to interact healthily with other people.
This priest felt that it had a lot less to do with celibacy/healthy sexual expression
than we might assume at first blush (though he, too, recognized that the rule
preventing priests from marrying was at least problematic).
Nemesio
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrSeriously, though, the obvious solution is to allow priests to marry.
The obvious solution is to teach kids not to go around seducing priests. Seriously, though, the obvious solution is to allow priests to marry.
Obvious solution to what? Abuse of minors?
The percentage of married men who abuse minors is the same as that of unmarried priests.
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt may surprise you to know that the % of sexually active priests is statistically
At the present moment, however, there is evidence of a "gay subculture" within the American priesthood (and even, perhaps, that in Europe). Such a subculture, if characterised by an active homosexual lifestyle and rejection of Church teachings, obviously undermines the moral credibility of the priesthood.
similar amongst those who are heterosexually disposed and homosexually disposed,
at least according to an anonymous survey conducted by some Catholic non-profit
(which I can neither remember nor find).
That is to say: Homosexual priests are no more likely to violate their vows than
heterosexual priests (or at least, there is no evidence to suggest this).
Nemesio
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI could be wrong about this, but the vast majority of cases in America involve
Homosexuality and pedophilia (abuse of pre-pubescents) - no.
Homosexuality and male ephebophilia (abuse of pubescent males) - yes.
pre-pubescent males. But that is my impression from the media and not based
on any study or survey.
Nemesio
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by NemesioIn a way, I'm not surprised. I think any initiatives to rejuvenate the priesthood in the West must take a broader mandate than just homosexuality.
It may surprise you to know that the % of sexually active priests is statistically
similar amongst those who are heterosexually disposed and homosexually disposed,
at least according to an anonymous survey conducted by some Catholic non-profit
(which I can neither remember nor find).
That is to say: Homosexual priests are no more likely to violate thei ...[text shortened]... vows than
heterosexual priests (or at least, there is no evidence to suggest this).
Nemesio
But you will forgive me for being a little skeptical of this statistic. Without knowing the actual conditions of the survey and the exact parameters surveyed, it will be difficult for me to base judgment on it.
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by NemesioActually, the vast majority of cases involved pubescent males. But the confusion is easy to understand given that the term 'pedophily' is often used to refer to abuse of all under-agers.
I could be wrong about this, but the vast majority of cases in America involve
pre-pubescent males. But that is my impression from the media and not based
on any study or survey.
Nemesio
25 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerAgain, the issue isn't marriage. The issue is allowing priests an outlet for healthy sexual expression, rather than taking something as fundamental to our biological nature as our sexuality and repressing it. I placed this point within the context of marriage because I'm sure you folk wouldn't want priests having any sort of sex outside of marriage.
[b]Seriously, though, the obvious solution is to allow priests to marry.
Obvious solution to what? Abuse of minors?
The percentage of married men who abuse minors is the same as that of unmarried priests.[/b]
26 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerbaaaaa baaaaa baaaaaa.
Like ivanhoe, I think it's premature to pass judgment when the actual document has not been released yet.
I don't think barring homosexuals from the priesthood is a long-term solution (I can understand the reasoning for the short-term). If a person with homosexual tendencies can uphold his vow of celibacy and uphold the teachings of the Church, I ...[text shortened]... thood should begin first with existing priests and Bishops and the administrators of seminaries.
26 Sep 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow would restoring their credibility look like to you?
Like ivanhoe, I think it's premature to pass judgment when the actual document has not been released yet.
I don't think barring homosexuals from the priesthood is a long-term solution (I can understand the reasoning for the short-term). If a person with homosexual tendencies can uphold his vow of celibacy and uphold the teachings of the Church, I ...[text shortened]... thood should begin first with existing priests and Bishops and the administrators of seminaries.