14 Apr 10
A Vatican spokesman has denied the charge that paedophelia is linked to celibacy in the Catholic priesthood but rather to homosexuality. This has raised a predictable outcry from the 'gay' camp, but as far as the evidence goes only boys have been abused by priests so it does appear that the charge sticks despite upsetting the 'gay' and PC lobby.
14 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusYes, those God damned homos (the Bible says so) are infiltrating the Catholic Church in order to give a bad name on its priests.
as far as the evidence goes only boys have been abused by priests so it does appear that the charge sticks despite upsetting the 'gay' and PC lobby.
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusThe spokesman is right in his first point.
A Vatican spokesman has denied the charge that paedophelia is linked to celibacy in the Catholic priesthood but rather to homosexuality. This has raised a predictable outcry from the 'gay' camp, but as far as the evidence goes only boys have been abused by priests so it does appear that the charge sticks despite upsetting the 'gay' and PC lobby.
People tend to become Priests because they're gay or pedophiles; not the other way around.
The idea that Priests molest children because they can't have sex with women is utter nonsense. If they were inclined to have sex with women, they would do so, rather than molest children.
Duh.
As for linking homosexuality to molesting boys, yes, there's probably a connection; but so what? What would the Vatican or anyone else for that matter, like us to do about it?
14 Apr 10
2 edits
Originally posted by adam warlockAre you saying that straight people become Priests and are then driven to molest children by their inability to have sex with women?
Even though I'm not a believer I'm praying to God that you either has mistyped this or are being ironic.
Please tell me that it is so.
Please!
I find that possibility exceedingly far fetched.
Are there straight Priests? Sure there are.
But he ones who molest children? Most of them were probably never straight. They probably realized early on that their sexual orientation (whatever it was) was going to preclude them from functioning what they perceived to be normally (sexually) in their given society; so they chose a lifestyle where they would be exempt from having to worry about their sexuality.
Funny. I thought that assertion would not even be controversial here. Oh well.
If you disagree, fine. Say so, But, if you like, you can skip the shocked moral outrage and go straight to the part where you tell me what about my statement you disagree with and why.
Or you can just repeat that you're shocked, I say, shocked, to find out that there's gambling going on in this establishment.
Your choice.
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by Sartor Resartus'camp', with no pun intended me thinks. Yes a link would be helpful.
A Vatican spokesman has denied the charge that paedophelia is linked to celibacy in the Catholic priesthood but rather to homosexuality. This has raised a predictable outcry from the 'gay' camp, but as far as the evidence goes only boys have been abused by priests so it does appear that the charge sticks despite upsetting the 'gay' and PC lobby.
14 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76First of all molesting children has nothing to do with sexual orientation in the sense of being homosexual or heterosexual. It has only to do with the fact with being sexually aroused by children.
Are you saying that straight people become Priests and are then driven to molest children by their inability to have sex with women?
I find that possibility exceedingly far fetched.
Are there straight Priests? Sure there are.
But he ones who molest children? Most of them were probably never straight. They probably realized early on that their sexual or ay, shocked, to find out that there's gambling going on in this establishment.
Your choice.
Second of all I'm not saying that "Are you saying that straight people become Priests and are then driven to molest children by their inability to have sex with women?". The fact that I know your statement to be a false one doesn't imply that I fell for that fallacy.
As for talking about farfetchedness: " They probably realized early on that their sexual orientation (whatever it was) was going to preclude them from functioning what they perceived to be normally (sexually) in their given society; so they chose a lifestyle where they would be exempt from having to worry about their sexuality"
In what way does becoming a priest exempts them from worrying about their sexuality? Don't you think that your assumptions are the ones that are far fetched.
Don't you think that it is bit disgraceful for the Catholic Church to dismiss their guilt in hiding away all of this during years to now blame it on the homosexuals? Assuming that the subject of the OP is true of course.
My shock wasn't in any way moral: I was shocked at your ignorance. That's all.
14 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Are you suggesting that if a male is gay, they are at a higher risk of molesting male children, than a straight male molesting female children?
The spokesman is right in his first point.
People tend to become Priests because they're gay or pedophiles; not the other way around.
The idea that Priests molest children because they can't have sex with women is utter nonsense. If they were inclined to have sex with women, they would do so, rather than molest children.
Duh.
As for linking homosexu ; but so what? What would the Vatican or anyone else for that matter, like us to do about it?
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusIncorrect. In America 80% of victims were male.
A Vatican spokesman has denied the charge that paedophelia is linked to celibacy in the Catholic priesthood but rather to homosexuality. This has raised a predictable outcry from the 'gay' camp, but as far as the evidence goes only boys have been abused by priests so it does appear that the charge sticks despite upsetting the 'gay' and PC lobby.
In Ireland i believe the percentage is lower.
14 Apr 10
5 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobits a combination of a number of things, being gay, having no capacity because of celibacy to enjoy sexual relationships, being past all moral restraint, they roger anyone they can, being of course particularly interested in boys from their so called 'orientation', how else are we to account for these horrendous acts? Are you willing to claim that it was not their homosexuality which led them to commit the acts or a lack of moral restraint? Please explain dear Noobster.
Are you suggesting that if someone is gay, they are at a higher risk of molesting male children, than a straight person molesting female children?
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo; I did not say that at all.
Are you suggesting that if a male is gay, they are at a higher risk of molesting male children, than a straight male molesting female children?
I implied merely that a gay man is more likely to molest male children than a straight man is to molest male children.
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou can't answer my question with a question.
its a combination of a number of things, being gay, having no capacity because of celibacy to enjoy sexual relationships, being past all moral restraint, they roger anyone they can, being of course particularly interested in boys from their so called 'orientation', how else are we to account for these horrendous acts? Are you willing to claim that i ...[text shortened]... uality which led them to commit the acts or a lack of morality? Please explain dear Noobster.
Do you believe that if someone is gay they are at a higher risk of molesting children than a straight person?
14 Apr 10
Originally posted by sh76Phew, this line you wrote was a little ambiguous.
No; I did not say that at all.
I implied merely that a gay man is more likely to molest male children than a straight man is to molest male children.
As for linking homosexuality to molesting boys, yes, there's probably a connection; but so what?
14 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockFirst of all molesting children has nothing to do with sexual orientation in the sense of being homosexual or heterosexual. It has only to do with the fact with being sexually aroused by children.
First of all molesting children has nothing to do with sexual orientation in the sense of being homosexual or heterosexual. It has only to do with the fact with being sexually aroused by children.
Second of all I'm not saying that "Are you saying that straight people become Priests and are then driven to molest children by their inability to have sex rse.
My shock wasn't in any way moral: I was shocked at your ignorance. That's all.
Well, I wasn't using the term "orientation" "in the sense of being homosexual or heterosexual." I was using it in the sense that includes the proclivity to molest children.
In what way does becoming a priest exempts them from worrying about their sexuality?
In the way that they're not expected to be going out and having sex.
Say Person A lives in a homophobic society and he knows he's gay. So, he can either:
a) come out of the closet and face discrimination;
b) live in the closet and constantly have to fake heterosexual desires and activity and perhaps even commence a sexual relationship with a woman that he doesn't want; all to shield himself from suspicion; or
c) become a Priest and never have to worry about people's suspicion; as people will assume that he doesn't have sex with women because he's a Priest, and not because he's gay
Do you think I'm the first person to have ever thought of this trichotomy?