Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

To all ex-Catholic GSC'ers


Recommended Posts

mark

i haven't read your post yet except for a few lines

i'm hoping you distinguish between homosexuality and sexual molestation of children

Well, it's highly unlikely that a homosexual man would molest boys.

It's also highly unlikely that a heterosexual man would molest boys.

But, within that scope, it's far more likely for a heterosexual man to molest girls than a homosexual man.

Common sense, so far, right?

Then why is it so incorrect to say that it's far more likely for a homosexual man to molest boys than a heterosexual one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know what's the problem? Heterdoxy. Heterodoxy caused your family's woes. Pure and simple.

You know what the fix is? Orthodox bishops with some steel in their spines being appointed.

Yup! Orthodoxy! That *magic pill* that cures all ills! :dance:

(from Wikipedia) --

Heterodoxy includes "any opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox position".[1] As an adjective, heterodox is used to describe a subject as "characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards" (status quo). The noun heterodoxy is synonymous with unorthodoxy and heresy, while the adjective heterodox is synonymous with dissident and heretical.

Man, I tell ya! I thought I heard it all when I listen to people decry heresy and dissent, but this is the first time I heard it now being accused of being THE source and cause of all the child abuses and related crap that goes on. But get us all some orthodox priests with 'steel in their spine' (Father Rambo? sterb026.gif ) to keep us all ((cough))like minded((cough)), ... and problem solved! ices_angel_g.gif

But seriously MarkO, that one really made my day. Thanks for the belly laugh! :biglaugh::biglaugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just thought of something, MarkO.

In this day and age of the 'Net, if someone wanted to make it 'official' in leaving the Catholic Church, couldn't the Church leadership give an online version where you can fill out a form, and send it in by secure server, and all that?

Just a thought. ..... Carry on.

:biglaugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup! Orthodoxy! That *magic pill* that cures all ills! :dance:

(from Wikipedia) --

Man, I tell ya! I thought I heard it all when I listen to people decry heresy and dissent, but this is the first time I heard it now being accused of being THE source and cause of all the child abuses and related crap that goes on. But get us all some orthodox priests with 'steel in their spine' (Father Rambo? sterb026.gif ) to keep us all ((cough))like minded((cough)), ... and problem solved! ices_angel_g.gif

But seriously MarkO, that one really made my day. Thanks for the belly laugh! :biglaugh::biglaugh:

Garth, seriously, consider it for a second.

Whether you agree with it or not, you understand that Catholic doctrine states that homosexuality is 'gravely disordered,' right?

You do understand that 80% of the reported victims were male, right?

You also understand that more than 3/4 of the reported victims were over the age of 11, right?

Orthodoxy: The word orthodoxy, from the Greek ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching'), is typically used to refer to the correct theological or doctrinal observance of religion, as determined by some overseeing body.

Had the bishops and the seminaries under their control been orthodox in the screening of seminary candidates, they would have, at least attempted to screen out individuals suffering from the 'grave disorder' of homosexuality. Had the seminary rectors been orthodox in their administration of discipline, they would have booted individuals acting on that 'grave disorder' out of the seminary when it came to light that such things were going on. (Not that it went on in all seminaries, but enough of them). And had the bishops/ directors of religious institutes been orthodox in their management of priests within their dioceses, they'd have recognized that a priest, once he's displayed that 'grave disorder' in action, particularly if manifested to a young boy, shouldn't ever be put in a position of having a 'near occasion of sin' again.

Would that have gotten rid of ALL the problem? Frankly, no. But let's say that, through the candidate screening process and through eight years of seminary training, they identified and eliminated (from training...) 75-80% of homosexual men trying to enter the priesthood. It would figure, then, that the number of perpetrators of the actual abuse would be similarly reduced. And thus, the number of victims would likewise be reduced. (BTW, no I am not asserting there would be a 1:1 relationship here, but there can be no doubt that it would be reduced).

Likewise, had the bishops, once appraised of an incident of abuse, acted in an orthodox manner, the serial abusers (a small percentage of all the priests accused of abuse) would have likewise not been returned to a situation where they'd have the 'near occasion of sin.' Would that have gotten rid of serial abusers? No. But it would have prevented the problem of a priest being identified, shipped off to treatment, and then returned to parish ministry.

All told, would the abuse problem be gone? Of course not. But, chances are it wouldn't have been nearly the problem that it became.

As to the steel in the spine...that addresses the ability and willingness to go in and clean up a lot of messes that exist.

Not Father Rambo...Bishop Rambo...

(Or maybe Monty Python's rendition)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark said:

But, within that scope, it's far more likely for a heterosexual man to molest girls than a homosexual man.

Common sense, so far, right?

Then why is it so incorrect to say that it's far more likely for a homosexual man to molest boys than a heterosexual one?

Because child molestation has nothing to do with sexual orientation, no matter what gender the perpetrator or victum is. Many child molestors have no adult sexual orientation, they focus on children, whether boys, girls, or both. Their attraction is based on age not gender, so it would be incorrect to label them gay, straight, or bi. If you want to label them, maybe pedophile would be a better choice?

Sometimes, too, people will sexually assult children for different motives than sexual release, like intimidation, revenge, whatever. But this does not mean the perpetrator is gay, straight or bi.

Edited by VeganXTC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark said:

Because child molestation has nothing to do with sexual orientation, no matter what gender the perpetrator or victum is. Many child molestors have no adult sexual orientation, they focus on children, whether boys, girls, or both. Their attraction is based on age not gender, so it would be incorrect to label them gay, straight, or bi. If you want to label them, maybe pedophile would be a better choice?

Sometimes, too, people will sexually assult children for different motives than sexual release, like intimidation, revenge, whatever. But this does not mean the perpetrator is gay, straight or bi.

Bull.

Pure and simple.

If the majority of children abused were 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 you might have a point.

But the majority (over 80%) of the children abused were boys.

And the majority (over 75%) of the boys abused were over 11 or older.

If your theory held ANY water whatsoever, the average age of the victims would be far younger and the distribution would be far closer to 50/50.

There are pedophiles...but the problem here is one of predatory homosexuals, pure and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bull pure and simple ?

wow

why don't the damn priests have affairs with ushers or deacons or each other ?????

why rape CHILDREN ??????

And why does a tape series like "Girls Gone Wild" (featuring young girls barely legal) sell so well?

And why are 12-16 year old girls especially desired for prostitutes? (Keep in mind, pedophiles would want babies and little children: 5-6 year olds)

And why do female teachers seem to be taking a liking to middle-school boys?

Again, it isn't pedophilia...pedophilia is a distinct disease from liking young pre-teens and teens.

But if you can figure out the above, I'd say that you might be able to figure out why some priests want to prey on 10-17 year old (mostly) boys (mostly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, Mark.

But why go on about this sick sexual crime stuff?

You don't need to defend anything unless you are defensive about it.

Then yes, soap opera time, for sure.

All these stats are argumental and you know it.

The true stats will never be public knowledge.

You started the thread with good intentions I believe.

Instruction on the instuctions of the Catholic Church.

I do believe there are many good people in EVERY religion.

Unfortunately there are also bad ones......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

where are you getting your definition of pedophilia with regard to babies and 5 and 6 year olds ?

The International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition (published by the World Health Organization) identifies pedophilia (F65.4) as, A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age

On the other hand, ephebophilia has been defined as a sexual preference in which an adult is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to pubescent adolescents.

(The WHO also defines adolescence as between 10 and 19 years)

Here's the difference: pedophiles are, by defnition, mentally ill. Ephebophiles are just plain pervs.

1350
1300								   x
1250								  xx
1200								  xx	 x
1150								  xx  x xx 
1100								  xx xx xx
1050								  xx xx xx  x
1000								  xx xx xx xx
950								  xx xx xx xx
900								x xx xx xx xx
850							   xx xx xx xx xx
800							   xx xx xx xx xx
750							xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 
700							xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 
650							xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
600							xx xx xx xx xx xx xx  x
550							xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
500							xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
450							xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
400							xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
350					  xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx  
300					  xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
250					  xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 
200				   xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx  
150				xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
100			  x xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
 50			 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
<50  x  x  x xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Above is a chart showing the age of first incident for all cases of reported abuse. Source. There are pedophiles involved, no doubt, but you can see for yourself where the problem lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or the open forum excathedra

i don't care where it's discussed

it's dis custing for sure

doctrinal section????

i don't think so

here i'll end it as far as doctrinal

sexual crime is a crime against God also

PERIOD

someone want to argue about it

knock yourselves out

i'm done doctrinally with it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(The chart didn't turn out as well as I wanted, but I hope the point gets across)

or the open forum excathedra

i don't care where it's discussed

it's dis custing for sure

doctrinal section????

i don't think so

here i'll end it as far as doctrinal

sexual crime is a crime against God also

PERIOD

someone want to argue about it

knock yourselves out

i'm done doctrinally with it

Clay,

She keeps bringing it up.

Anytime something Catholic is mentioned.

Can't discuss a point of doctrine or a current event without her coming up mentioning priests buggering boys.

I suppose I could ignore her, but I know she's got some real hurt inside from the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a discussion takes more then one person Mark

you are a smart guy

stick to the point of the thread

don't get side tracked

excathedra, you are smart too

what's the relevence here?

start a doctrinal, open or soap thread on Catholics illegal sex crimes

start your 'discussion' where ever you want

i just get tired of things getting side tracked

that's all

the good comments get missed

the thread becomes ignored

end of anything that might of been good

posted this next thing after i saw your post exc

it just added it on...

it started in open, cman. thanks

thanks for digging up a source, mark

come on

sorry exc, i didn't know it started in open....

Edited by cman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...