Catholic Church Endorses Homosexuality and Sodomy by "Practice"

With all of the sex scandals rocking the Catholic Church to its core, I wonder if they realize that they have, in effect, endorsed a tolerance for homosexuality. These priests are experts in their field of religion and spirituality; and, it does not make them fear for their immortal soul if they indulge in the occasional choir boy. They do not recognize this as breaking their commitment to god. I think that it is time to have tolerance for all kinds of religions and beliefs; but, what does it mean for the Catholic Church to send this message?

reply to post by supertrot


Dear supertrot,

I am no Catholic and disagree with their teachings; but, it is not Catholic doctrine that these things are okay. There are millions of Catholic priests, and I grew up Catholic, and very few are gay or pedophiles. I cannot blame the Catholic church for pedophiles, they are all around us and in all organizations.

reply to post by supertrot

I'd just note that there is a new Pope in town and he's off to a running start. Banishing Bernard Law on sight was quite a move to make as one of the very first as the new Pontiff. I think he read the Eyes Only report left for him and rather than come away defeated...as the last Pope who sealed it and quit...he's come out fighting mad.

I'm not sure and some more time is needed to see how this goes, but enough is different by Catholic standards of Pontiffs to give him a bit of time to see if he's the one to try cleaning house.

what does it mean for the Catholic Church

practice makes perfect.

I often wonder how the church could not tell that the men they placed as priest were evil and born of sin. Think about it, they took a vowel of celebacy, yet instead of looking to break it in the slightest way with a women of their age. They go for the gold in the most dangerous form of the sin. One that almost assures they will be busted out eventually. What if these people have been intentionally placed in the church to destroy the church. Why would the church not expell preist who moleste children. They expell priest for having sex with a women. So why are they not doing the same with this group. The church is under attack right now by the Illuminati or the New World Order. The church is the last group which threatens the NWO. They are unable to control their banking system. This is why they are such a big target. Their goal is to destroy the church through finances. The vatican has spies throughout the building. Fear those who want to be bankers in the Church. Why would someone become a preist to be a banker. The two careers do not exactly match up.

reply to post by Tattiio


Dear Tattiio,

I absolutely disagree with Catholic doctrine; but, I totally agree that the Catholic church is under attack for things that are not Catholic dogma. The Catholic church was not recruiting men to become pedophile priests. Pedophiles were seeking to join the church for their own reasons. The priest who used to oversee all exorcisms for the church said that there were bishops and cardinals who were satan worshipers. There is a line in the bible that says before you can rob a strong man, you must tie him up. The church is the body of believers and not an organization, the true church will never be destroyed; but, the organizations that call themselves "churches" will be tied up.

reply to post by supertrot


A priest sodomizing a Choir boy is not homosexuality.

It is called pedophilia.

When having sex with young boys, the priests are not endorsing homosexuality.

They are endorsing pedophilia.

The sex of the abused child is irrelevant to the priest's sexual orientation.

An heterosexual pedophile is as likely to rape a boy than a girl.

Also, it is the individual committing the crime that is endorsing such behavior.

Not the organization in which he takes place.

reply to post by supertrot

but, what does it mean for the Catholic Church to send this message?

A few rotten apples truly doesn't spoil the bunch?

reply to post by Goetic


Priests and other authority figures appear to favor pre-pubescent boy; that must be some type of homosexuality. Either way, these priests do not view what they are doing as being an important sin. After everything else that they have given up in their lives to serve god, they risk eternal damnation for a few orgasms?

reply to post by supertrot


Pedophilia is a psychological disorder in which sexual orientation has nothing to do.

A pedophile is a pedophile.

Not a heterosexual pedophile or homosexual pedophile.

The message you are sending is very dangerous for it makes a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Hmmmmmm
Lets see,
The church is heavily invested in the largest gay appartment complex in Rome, that has a gay sauna.......
In fact several preists reside there......
They have willfully covered up blasphemy after blasphemy vis a vis the choir/alterboys......
I would have to say it apears they endorse a range of perverse behaviors.....

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by supertrot

 

but, what does it mean for the Catholic Church to send this message?

A few rotten apples truly doesn't spoil the bunch?

A minority carries out the crimes against children

A further minority covers up those crimes.

The majority remain silent in respect of these crimes.

All are guilty!

P

Originally posted by pheonix358

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by supertrot

 

but, what does it mean for the Catholic Church to send this message?

A few rotten apples truly doesn't spoil the bunch?

A minority carries out the crimes against children

A further minority covers up those crimes.

The majority remain silent in respect of these crimes.

All are guilty!

P

I agree...

Though can we truly say that the minority represents the whole?

reply to post by Goetic


I do not care if you call the thing pedophilia, or what name you give it; they are sodomizing young boys and somehow think that it is okay. What is up with that? These men take many of their other vows to god seriously. Do they believe they believe in eternal damnation of the soul for their crimes, or not? If not, they are tolerating some form of homosexuality. Since the church retains these men, instead of kicking them out, I would have to assume that they believe that their souls are still okay.

It may help the discussion to have some of the facts available. The John Jay study is recognized as the word on who did what to whom and when. It answers a number of other questions and is considered the basis for any serious discussion of the problem, at least as it pertains to the US. I have read the report, but here are some clips from the Wiki article on the subject:

The period covered by the John Jay study began in 1950 and ended in 2002. The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.

Of the 11,000 allegations reported by bishops in the John Jay study, 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. 6,700 allegations were substantiated, leaving 1,000 that could not be substantiated.

41% of the priests were the subject of more than one allegation. Just under 3% of the priests were the subject of ten or more allegations. The 149 priests who had more than 10 allegations against them accounted for 2,960 of the total number of allegations. (Roughly 27%)

The Church was widely criticized when it was discovered that some bishops knew about some of the alleged crimes committed, but reassigned the accused instead of seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood. In defense of this practice, some have pointed out that public school administrators engaged in a similar manner when dealing with accused teachers, as did the Boy Scouts of America.

In response to these allegations, defenders of the Church's actions have suggested that in re-assigning priests after treatment, bishops were acting on the best medical advice then available, a policy also followed by the U.S. public school system when dealing with accused teachers.

Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling. Many of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned. . . . The priests were allowed to resume their previous duties with children only when the bishop was advised by the treating psychologists or psychiatrists that it was safe for them to resume their duties. (Parenthetical material added.)

en.wikipedia.org...

If you are concerned about the "pedophilia" vs. "ephepophilia" question, a little over 2/3 of the allegations involved a victim at least 12 years of age, so "pedophilia" was the exception.

Originally posted by stirling
Hmmmmmm
Lets see,
The church is heavily invested in the largest gay appartment complex in Rome, that has a gay sauna.......
In fact several preists reside there......
They have willfully covered up blasphemy after blasphemy vis a vis the choir/alterboys......
I would have to say it apears they endorse a range of perverse behaviors.....

Not that I am defending something or not that I am even a religious but... is it that easy to parrot something you just heard on a thread a few days back?

I mean... you even got the same damn altar boys spell error. Sometimes it's you guys are not happy with parroting you have to copy paste exactly what you see and can't find ideas of your own.

Ok, so the church is having hard time controlling that issue but what, did it turn trendy to smear, besmirch and to vilify the church so badly that you have to use cliches and other people's words just because it's cool to do so these days?

About that "altar boys" you keep spelling "alterboys" like its some kind of new genetic experiment; just call them "acolytes" - its probably easier.

Originally posted by Goetic
reply to post by supertrot

 

A priest sodomizing a Choir boy is not homosexuality.

It is called pedophilia.

When having sex with young boys, the priests are not endorsing homosexuality.

They are endorsing pedophilia.

The sex of the abused child is irrelevant to the priest's sexual orientation.

An heterosexual pedophile is as likely to rape a boy than a girl.

Also, it is the individual committing the crime that is endorsing such behavior.

Not the organization in which he takes place.

edit on 16-3-2013 by Goetic because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2013 by Goetic because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2013 by Goetic because: (no reason given)

Depends.

Its the boy 12 or over 12?

reply to post by Goetic


if it has nothing to do with homosexuality, then why don't you have dozens of young girls coming forward claiming to have been vaginally raped. Clergymen like little boys; there is no question of this. The question is not even why. The question is WHY IS THE CHURCH TOLERATING THIS BEHAVIOR?

Originally posted by Goetic
reply to post by supertrot

 

A priest sodomizing a Choir boy is not homosexuality.

It is called pedophilia.

When having sex with young boys, the priests are not endorsing homosexuality.

They are endorsing pedophilia.

The sex of the abused child is irrelevant to the priest's sexual orientation.

An heterosexual pedophile is as likely to rape a boy than a girl.

Also, it is the individual committing the crime that is endorsing such behavior.

Not the organization in which he takes place.

edit on 16-3-2013 by Goetic because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2013 by Goetic because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-3-2013 by Goetic because: (no reason given)

Oh I dont know about some of that. Lets see if we can sort that out.
If a man or woman is having sex with a person of the same sex, thats a homosexual.
Pedofilia is grown folk having intercourse with children.

if you have a man having sex with a young boy, then thats homosexual pedofilia
If you have a woman having sex with a young girl, then thats homosexual pedofilia.
In both cases this is by definition a homosexual.

If a man or woman is having sex with children of opposite sex, then thats just pedofilia all on its own.

Now, you're trying to separate homosexuality from pedofilia (and you actually can,) but you cant do it at the expense of a hetero sexual because heteros do not rape children of the same sex. That would make them homosexual pedofiles. Not hetero sexuals.

Last point, this is not to say that homosexuals are sick or child rapists. Normal gay folks would consider pedofilia sick. Which is to say, they engage in same sex relations but not with children; which btw, still makes someone a homosexual.

To the point of the thread, its just my opinion here but the church has to abide by the laws of the land. if pedofilia is criminal in the US and a priest, minister,reverend, deacon, bishop, nun or any type of clergy is found to be a pedofile, then they should not be above the laws of that land. They are people, citizens, subject to the rule of law like anyone else. That goes for any religion.

Originally posted by supertrot
reply to post by Goetic

 

if it has nothing to do with homosexuality, then why don't you have dozens of young girls coming forward claiming to have been vaginally raped. Clergymen like little boys; there is no question of this. The question is not even why. The question is WHY IS THE CHURCH TOLERATING THIS BEHAVIOR?

You want to know why they Molest little boys? Its because it takes the pregnancy risk out of the equation... Those choir boys are told to hush up and they think everything will be fine.. Its not a homosexuality thing. Its covering up a cover up.. Imagine if they were to do the same to girls and those girls kept winding up pregnant? It used to happen with nuns and the outcomes were disgusting. The problem is some of these boys molested go on to become the molester and ruin some other kids lives.