Thursday, May 19, 2011

The John Jay Study



So, should big mouth Bill Donohue apologize?
.
I think not!
.
I've read where gay activists are demanding an apology from Catholic League founder Bill Donohue for claiming that the sex abuse crisis was a homosexual problem.  This in light of the John Jay Study submitted to the USCCB claiming that was not the case.  From Catholic League:
.
The report says homosexuality was not a factor because a) not all homosexuals define themselves as such b) sexual relations with adolescents is ephebophilia c) the degree of abuse declined after gays entered the priesthood in large numbers in the late 1970s and 1980s, and d) they did not have access to altar girls when the abuse peaked.

.
A homosexual is defined by his actions, not his identity. Ephebophilia has no clinical definition and is nothing more than a description of adult men who have sex with adolescent males. The surge of gays in the seminaries began in the 1960s—not in the late 1970s—and as the report says, "Men ordained in the 1960s and the early 1970s engaged in abusive behavior much more quickly after their entrance into ministry." Finally, there are so few incidents of abuse these days (an average of 8.3 per year since 2005), that it makes no sense to compare the percentage of male victims at the peak of the scandal to what has happened since altar girls were allowed. The latest study on abuse notes that 83 percent of the allegations made in 2010 were by males, and the bulk of incidents took place in the early 1970s. Besides, priests had nothing but access to male altar servers before the 1960s, and the report notes that sexual abuse was not a problem then. That’s because there were fewer gay priests then.
.
Finally, the report says that 81 percent of the victims were male and 78 percent were postpubescent. Since 100 percent of the abusers were male, that's called homosexuality, not pedophilia or heterosexuality. - Bill Donohue
.
Studies are studies - the USCCB hasn't even evaluated the results yet.  From Archbishop Dolan: 
.
Keep in mind that the study released today is a report to the bishops of the United States, not from them. The sexual abuse of minors is a tragedy that affects every family, religion, school, organization, institution, and profession in our society. The Catholic Church in the United States has been noted as the first group anywhere to contract a professional agency – in this case, the John Jay College here in New York City – to examine the “causes and contexts” of this scourge.

.
I start with this fact because some of the early reaction has already – no surprise here – criticized the bishops for the conclusions of the study! Once again, they are not our conclusions at all, but those of an acclaimed academic institution specializing in this sensitive area.
.
The information provided in the Causes and Context study closely mirrors our own experience here in the Archdiocese of New York.  The report makes clear that the vast majority of sexual abuse occurred during the 1960’s through 1980’s, even as it examines the various conditions that led to this abuse. 
.
The study also points out that there was no single cause that led to the sexual abuse crisis. Neither celibacy, as some have suggested, nor homosexuality, as others have claimed, have been found to be a reason why a person would engage in sexual abuse of a minor. Instead, the Causes and Context report indicates that various vulnerabilities in an individual priest, in combination with situational stresses and opportunities, raise the risk that a priest might abuse. - Archbishop's Statement on John Jay Study

.
No single cause that led to the sexual abuse crisis???

.
If the homosexual issue continues to be dismissed I think the USCCB will be facing an even deeper crisis in credibility.  As Donohue points out:  "The report says that 81 percent of the victims were male and 78 percent were postpubescent. Since 100 percent of the abusers were male, that's called homosexuality, not pedophilia or heterosexuality."
.
Maybe part of the problem is the people doing the study and the experts they consult?

46 comments:

  1. Donohue continues to play his one-note samba. I think it's important to note what Margaret Smith – a John Jay College researcher – said about Donohue's quoting of a similar 2004 John Jay study. She said that while he “quoted the study’s data correctly,” he “drew an unwarranted conclusion” in asserting that most of the abusers were gay.

    Explaining that it is an oversimplification to assume that priests who abuse male victims are gay, Smith said: “The majority of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature. That participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man.”

    As an example, Smith pointed to the case of Marcial Maciel Degollado, a prominent Mexican priest who allegedly abused male children and also allegedly carried on affairs with multiple women. Smith noted that while Maciel allegedly abused boys, most people would not think of him as a gay man.

    Smith isn't the only John Jay College researcher to weigh in on this issue.

    Karen Terry has also cautioned the bishops against making a correlation between homosexuality in the priesthood and the high incidence of abuse by priests against boys rather than girls – a ratio found to be about 80-20.

    "It’s important to separate the sexual identity and the behavior," says Terry. "Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature but not have a homosexual identity." Terry says factors such as greater access to boys is one reason for the skewed ratio.

    Margaret Smith also raises the analogy of prison populations where homosexual behavior is common even though the prisoners are not necessarily homosexuals, or cultures where men are rigidly segregated from women until adulthood, and homosexual activity is accepted and then ceases after marriage.

    The bottom line is that the empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest minors.

    Does Donohue accept this, I wonder. If so, he should be upfront in saying it. Until he does, I think most people find it difficult to take him seriously.

    Peace,

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  2. A priest friend of mine made the observation that one of the reasons for the influx of rebellious and sexually promiscuous priests into the seminaries during the 1960's was that a relatively large percentage of them were "draft dodgers" during the Vietnam War.

    It was very easy for those men to leave the priesthood when the threat of being drafted was removed.

    But no doubt many stayed, even though they had no true vocation. And no doubt many of them were homosexuals who found access to teenage boys to be a fringe benefit.

    But homosexual rape and pedophilia were uncommon. Fondling, exposure, solicitation, exposure and the possession of pornography were the preponderance of the accusations and convictions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Fr. Richard9:05 AM

    As a priest who can only judge from the cases in my diocese I think Michael Bayly is off base in his observations and Bill Donohue is closer to the truth despite what selective quotes from the John Jay researchers say. The priests who abused children/teenagers here were with one or two exceptions out of 30 or so homosexual by inclination. Is our diocese the exception to the rule? I doubt it from talking to priests from a number of dioceses throughout the country. It just seems like a clear case of buckling under to the aggressive PC gay agenda in our culture. Academics and Bishops never do that, do they? Just study the history of the Church- think of England during the time of Henry the VII or the Nazi period in Germany. Our challenge today is the pro-gay culture movement is now the air we breathe. What I mean by that is that you can't even imply that most of this sexual abuse might be the result of the disorder of homosexuality because to criticize homosexual behavior is always tantamount to homophobia, which is now one of the "biggest sins" in our culture. When I read the report yesterday, and it said the reason males were abused at whatever it is an 83 percent rate that is was because they were more readily available- I laughed out loud at the abusurdity of it all! Why can't we just say what it is: homosexual males who were not committed to a chaste life and who sadly entered the priesthood and preyed on post-pubscent teenage boys?! They were not interested in young women, trust me! God have mercy on the Church and continue to purify the holy priesthood.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I read that report yesterday and experienced wonderment and shock.

    Wonderment because it was so ridiculous and shock because they spent a boatload of money for a bunch of "experts" to come to the conclusions they did.

    I think that report makes the Catholic Church look laughable. Will they never learn?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Michael, I think you are mistaken, as usual. I'm in agreement with Donohue as well as another critic of the JJ Study, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a top psychiatrist and authority on treating sexually abusive priests:

    “If the (U.S. bishops) conference wanted an analysis of the causes of complex sexual behavior with adolescents,” he said, “don't turn to criminologists.”

    “They are not trained to understand those causes – that training is given to mental health professionals.”

    “They can report on the statistical analysis of the behavior but in terms of causes, they've crossed a line, in my view.” - CNA

    I'm so intuitive, I already know you will reject his statement.


    Prayers,

    Terry

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ray, with all due respect to your priest friend, I think his theory is an over simplification. All gay men had to do in those days was 'check the box' to get out of the service. A 4-F classification did not necessarily mean someone was gay - it could be a medical issue as well.

    I had a friend who entered seminary to avoid the draft. He left before diaconate. He eventually left the Church and married. He was never gay, he just couldn't stand seminary life. That anecdote is as meaningless as Fr. Macho's.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fr. Richard - thanks very much for your good comment - you nailed it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Concerned about my tone:

    I like Donohue and agree with him - so what? I called him a big mouth? He is.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Russia will continue to spread her errors."

    The Holy Father in 1960 disobeyed a request from the Holy Mother.

    He and subsequent Pontiffs of Holy Mother Church have refused to consecrate Russia in the manner she demanded.

    Not in the manner they claim is good enough.

    The manner the Holy Mother demanded.

    Holy Mother Church is spotless.

    Her Hierarchy is not.

    They will not come clean until they obey.

    The Virgin Mary has stated her Son will chastise the World if her orders are not obeyed.

    Homosexuality and all other fruits of Satan's kingdom will flourish until Heaven is obeyed.

    Why do the Popes continue to put their sheep through all this, instead of freeing our souls by obedience to the Divine Master?

    *

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's interesting that no one has attempted to discuss or refute the actual points raised by John Jay College researchers Margaret Smith or Karen Terry. Why is that?

    Also, I'm surprised, Terry, that you don't find Bill Donohue's contention that "a homosexual is defined by his actions, not his identity." to be problematic. Does this mean that all those members of the Courage apostolate who are celibate are no longer actually homosexual (or "same-sex attracted")?

    Also, Terry, I'd be careful in appealing to mental health professionals. The vast majority of such professionals agree that gay men are not any more likely than heterosexual men to molest minors. Obviously, an organization like CNA is going to seek out someone outside this mainstream. You may fall for that but the majority of people -- Catholics included -- know better.

    And again it must be asked: is Bill Donohue stressing the fact that gay men are not any more likely than heterosexual men to molest minors? And if he's not, why isn't he? He seems more intent on finding any opportunity he can to demonize gay men. This is very apparent and, for concerned and thoughtful people, very troubling.

    Peace,

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  11. A Random Friar11:02 AM

    Going to a more general worldview, it's enough to make you just throw up your hands and shake your head.

    If the Church does not commission an outside, impartial agency to audit its abuse history, then it is guilty.

    If the Church commissions said story, and it does not agree with what certain outside groups suppose, then it is a faulty commission, and the Church's fault.

    I don't think certain groups (e.g., SNAP) will be happy until we throw all accused priests (however based on facts) behind bars until their situation is investigated, and even then, better to be safe.

    Oh yeah, and not happy until the Church sells off every property she owns.

    Frankly, this is no longer about the abuse. It's about harassing the Church into silence and bankruptcy. If people cared about the abusers not harming again, they would think twice about simply releasing them into the general population, unmonitored (religious orders will often place such accused or guilty members under monitored watch at a religious house with no public ministry).

    NB: I believe that in all proven cases, clergy should be stripped of their clerical status and dismissed from all ministry.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Chris in Maryland12:06 PM

    This is the relentless campaign by the pink mafia and their political sympathizers to hit the "redo" button and sufficate the conclusion of the 2004 Report on the Abuse Crisis. As stated on p. 80 of the "Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States," 27 Feb 2004, issued by the National Review Board (prominent lay Catholics like Bob Bennett, Leon Panetta, Anne Burke et al) "[W]e must call attention to the homosexual behavior that characterized the vast majority of the cases of abuse...[T]hat eighty-one percent of the reported victims of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy were boys shows that the crisis was characterized by homosexual behavior."

    ArchB. Dolan sounds like he's trying to have it both ways, serving us John Jay's cool-aid and asking us to drink. They are asking the faithful to enter into denial to maintain comity with the progressive Bishops faction and USCCB bureaucracy ...

    I guess John Jay College doesn't approve of the their clients from 2004, i.e., Panetta, Bennett et al pointing out the stone cold facts. So now John Jay is telling us we aren't permitted to deal with our facts, because John Jay disapproves.

    Creepy that the USCCB putting John Jay in motion to do this "2nd Report."

    I guess the "progressives" dug in at USCCB are tacitly admitting that they failed at the 1st attempt to snuff the 2004 Report.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The vast majority of such professionals agree that gay men are not any more likely than heterosexual men to molest minors.

    That makes sense. So if the rate of percentage of molesters between straight and gay men is the same, and an overwhelming majority of abuse victims were male, it makes sense that an overwhelming number of molesters were gay.

    is Bill Donohue stressing the fact that gay men are not any more likely than heterosexual men to molest minors?

    I would say that heterosexuals are more likely to molest members of the opposite sex, while homosexuals are more likely to molest members of the same sex.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Michael,

    Members of *Courage* don't define themselves by their sexual orientation. We are defined by our actual identity: children of God. I am a person, not a homosexual. I am a person with same-sex attraction. I also am attracted to pizza, brunello, smooth jazz, and monastic spirituality, but not one of those things ultimately defines me. In the arena of sexuality, in truth, I am a heterosexual man with a homosexual challenge. Celibate by state of life, called to chastity by decision and grace.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Michael - all I'm doing here is saying Bill Donohue has no need to apologize to anyone. As for his personal concept of homosexual identity that may be something his friend Fr. Sirico convinced him of.

    Doughboy spoke for Courage and got it right.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Michael, I also forgot to mention the big "B" in GLBT that you and the JJ study seem to have overlooked regards the perverted behavior of Fr. Macial. Wouldn't his sexual conduct be best understood as bi-sexual? Isn't that a protected 'orientation' within the GLBT monolith?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm 100% with Random Friar.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So, Doughboy, since homosexuality isn't an "identity," then Mr. Donohue can't really say that the clergy sex abuse crisis was a homosexual problem as, by your "reasoning," there are no homosexual men just heterosexual men with "homosexual challenges." So it's really a heterosexual problem!?

    Yet how come heterosexuality can be an identity but homosexuality can't? I mean, you did state: "I am a heterosexual man . . ."

    Are you saying that there's no such thing as sexual orientation -- just homosexually-challenged heterosexuals? Is this your way of reiterating the official church's view that the homosexual orientation is a "disordered tendency" or "inclination"?

    You clearly find meaning and comfort in such an understanding. But does everyone? Is it an understanding that's supported by people's lived experience -- I mean, besides yours and others who attend Courage? Could you direct me to some reputable, peer-reviewed scientific research that support this way of understanding homosexuality?

    Peace,

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  19. Actually, Terry, I do mention bisexuality in one of my earlier comments. Like any type of sexual orientation, one is free to choose to express it in loving, respectful and life-giving ways or in ways that are not loving, respectful or life-giving. (Note: I don't limit "life-giving" to biological procreation.)

    Which brings me to another important point in this story. Although I'm pleased to see that the John Jay Study isn't claiming that homosexuality was/is the cause of the clergy sex abuse crisis, I must admit I find what it does say is/was the cause rather unsatisfying. And I'm surprised that neither you nor any of your readers haven't likewise expressed concern.

    In his Huffington Post commentary on this issue, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach pinpoints this concern very well:

    ". . . The report . . . argues that the high incidence of sexual abuse by priests reflected the growing aberrance of American society in general during that period, including 'drug use and crime, as well as changes in social behavior, such as an increase in premarital sexual behavior and divorce.'

    "Good G-d. Are they serious? Will we now reverse one of the central claims of religion that people, whatever their environment, can and must choose to do the right thing?

    "Even Arnold Schwarzenegger took responsibility for his affair . . . Are we to expect that politicians who were once body builders understand the need to take personal responsibility for their actions, but priests do not?

    "I sincerely hope that notwithstanding the issuance of this report, the church will make it crystal-clear that they are in way exonerating any immoral behavior on the part of errant priests and that whatever sexual license was being practiced in the environment that surrounded them, it in no way mitigates the seriousness of these crimes."

    Boteach raises some important points, wouldn't you say? In addition, what does the report say about the "ontological change" that supposedly takes place when a person is ordained a priest? Were those hedonistic times in the 1960s so powerful that they trumped this change? And why is this such a huge problem in the Roman Catholic Church? Had its members -- including (especially?) its ordained members -- been so unprepared for the evolution of human consciousness around issues of gender and sexuality? (Note: Acknowledgement of this expansion in awareness doesn't mean we have to condone every expression of it.) And what does this unpreparedness say about the type of pre-Vatican II teachings and church culture that some Catholics would have us return to? Why would we want to go back to such a time if it fails so miserably in preparing us for inevitable social change -- change that, without doubt, has benefited many.

    I think the report raises a lot of questions. And I think that, like many of you, I'm dissatisfied with its findings, though obviously for different reasons.

    Peace,

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  20. God Bless You, Doughboy!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The term "homosexuality" was created by Freud.

    We have to acknowledge that; before then, people committed "sodomite" acts, referring to the particular activity and not the "identity" of someone.

    Homosexual identity cannot be an actual "identity".

    Like it or not, according to Catholic teaching, God created man and woman; whatever else happens is not according to His plan.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Chris in Maryland4:59 PM

    Justice is demanded for the victims of the homosexual predators, and the victims of the other assorted rapist predators and bi-sexual predators.

    People who are not sexual predators have, in fact, no standing when compared to the suffering of the victims.

    And with all due respect to ArchB. Dolan - it is abominably poor speech to characterize predators as "vulnerable" to their supremely evil behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Actually, Nazareth Priest, the first known appearance of "homosexual" in print is found in an 1869 German pamphlet by the Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny, published anonymously and arguing against a Prussian anti-sodomy law.

    In 1879, Gustav Jager used Kertbeny's terms in his book, "Discovery of the Soul." Seven years later in 1886, Richard von Krafft-Ebing used the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" in his book "Psychopathia Sexualis," probably borrowing them from Jager. Krafft-Ebing's book was so popular among both layman and doctors that the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" became the most widely accepted terms for sexual orientation.

    All of this pre-dated Sigmund Freud and his now largely discredited theories on human sexuality -- discredited by everyone, it seems, but the folks at Courage. Freud's main contribution was the idea of "innate bisexuality" (or predisposition to bisexuality) that expounds that all humans are born bisexual but through psychological development — which includes both external and internal factors — become monosexual, while the bisexuality remains in a latent state.

    Here's a question I'd appreciate a response to. I would wager that if anyone here were to be faced with an unknown physical condition that perhaps concerned or mystified them, they would seek the counsel of a medical profession -- and probably trust what he/she had to say. Similarly, if you were to undergo cardio-vascular surgery you would insist that your medical provider be well-versed in the most up-to-date literature

    Our understanding and knowledge of these things has progressed, as has our understanding and knowledge of human sexuality. Why, then, are these advances so resisted by some in the church? Why do some still harken back to Freud or even much further back, rather than being open to the latest thinking and findings on the issue? I'm just curious.

    Peace,

    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  24. Michael: Sorry, I should have said Freud "popularized" the term "homosexuality".

    There is no such thing, according to tradition Thomistic Catholic anthropology. Maybe in present usage; but the concept of "homosexuality" as an identity is not something that traditional Catholic moral theology acknowledges.

    The norm which is intended by God is sexual relations between a man and a woman who are committed to one another for life, and who are open to life. Many would be shocked to learn that to contracept on ones' wedding night does NOT admit to consummating the marriage...yep; if you contracept on your wedding night, not only are you committing grave sin, but do NOT consummate the marriage; it has to be a human act, open to life. It is analogous to homosex.
    I can hear the screams right now!

    That's Catholic teaching.

    Whether or not one accepts this is another matter. Contest it all you want.

    Homosex is not God's plan.

    But caring for, accepting and helping those with same-sex attractions are very important aspects of pastoral care.

    I'm not condemning anyone. I'm just stating Catholic teaching.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "But caring for, accepting and helping those with same-sex attractions are very important aspects of pastoral care."

    Said pastoral care does not support generalized accusations of pedophilia.

    Scapegoating an entire group of people rather than owning up to personal and systematic errors is not pastoral, either.

    One may not reject psychology in one breath and cling to it in another. Either the science is accepted, or it isn't. The DSM-IV can't be "prooftexted."

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thom: Sin is one thing.
    Psychopathy is another.
    I'd rather deal with repentance, amendment of life, rather than getting into the "wasteland" of psychobabble.
    Just my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  27. 71. What is the most important moral factor in the historic rejection of homosexuality?

    The most important moral factor is the teaching of religion, especially, but not only, Christianity. That is why Sodomites concentrate on trying to change the historic condemnation of homosexuality. They realize that the religious factor is at the heart of the rejection of sodomy over the centuries.
    --Fr. Hardon SJ


    Hence, Mr. Bayly's recent omnipresence at Abbey Roads.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ***Also not "pastoral": using "sodomite."

    ReplyDelete
  29. ...even if your last name is Hardon.

    :-p

    ReplyDelete
  30. Soodomites are those who favor sodomy, Thom.

    Father: I thought you would find this interesting:

    Sigmund Freud would seem to be the last one to advocate normal intercourse, and it is an understatement to say he was no friend of Christian morality. In fact, in his early days he favored contraception, but experience with emotional disorders convinced him that the psychological essence of sex perversion is the severance of the marital act from its natural relation to procreation. His words deserve to be memorized for the light they throw on the psychopathology of birth control.
    --Hardon SJ

    I would argue that they also apply to sodomy:

    "It is a characteristic common to all the (sex) perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse – if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently. You will understand therefore that the gulf and turning-point in the development of the sexual life lies at the point of its subordination to the purposes of reproduction. Everything that occurs before this conversion takes place, and everything which refuses to conform to it and serves the pursuit of gratification alone, is called by the unhonored title of "perversion" and as such is despised".

    Sigmund Freud

    ReplyDelete
  31. So we're clear:

    Specific sins which Sodom is linked to include adultery and lying (Jeremiah 23:14), impenitence (Matthew 11:23, careless living (Luke 17:28), fornication (Jude 1:7), and an overall "filthy" lifestyle (2 Peter 2:7), which word ("aselgeiais") elsewhere is rendered in the KJV as lasciviousness (Mark 7:22; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Ephesians 4:19; 1 Peter 4:3; Jude 1:4, or wantonness: (Romans 13:13; 2 Peter 2:18).

    You paint with an awfully big brush.

    ReplyDelete
  32. SODOMY. In general, unnatural sexual relations. The term is derived from the biblical city of Sodom on the Dead Sea, destroyed with the city of Gomorrah because of the wickedness of the people (Genesis 13:10). More particularly, sodomy is homosexuality between male persons or between a human being and an animal. (Etym. French sodomie; from Latin Sodoma, Sodom.)
    Modern Catholic Dictionary

    "Gay" is so much "nicer".

    ReplyDelete
  33. I know to what you refer, but I question its usage for multiple reasons, pastoral and theological.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Michael - for some reason your Huffington post linked comment went into spam - but as you see, I published it.

    I have received emails from a couple of readers that echo the Rabbi's words - asking where is the talk of sin and moral failure on the part of the predators and those who covered for them? Asking if any one is is taking responsibility for what they did?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Chris in Maryland10:29 PM

    John Jay and USCCB just did to their cred what Newt Gingrich did to his. Na, na, na, na, hey, hey, hey, good-bye...

    ReplyDelete
  36. St Joseph--

    Thank you for your intercession and assistance on a really big project inspection I had at work this week.

    Sara

    ReplyDelete
  37. Terry, they don't think they did anything wrong, don't you get it? The objective is to persuade everyone that sins that cry to heaven are no longer sinful so why show contrition? They want morality redefined or, better yet, eliminated altogether, so to that end attempt to convince all to be "tolerant" (meaning to embrace and promote) their disordered world.

    Once that happens, homosexuality will no longer be frowned upon in polite society and they'll have a better shot at eliminating age related laws such as those defining statutory rape.

    The biggest thing standing in their way is that pesky old guy in Rome. What was his name, Pope Benedict? It doesn't matter which Pope, he will still speak Truth to all which is why the Church is under attack.

    The gates of hell will not prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  38. michael r.7:16 AM

    SAME PESKY OLD PRELATE WHO RECENTLY SUGGESTED THAT THE USE OF A CONDOM BY A MALE PROSTITUTE MAY REPRESENT A MOVE IN A MORE MORAL DIRECTION???

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi Michael R - May be a move in a more moral direction - but certainly not moral.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Specific sins which Sodom is linked to include adultery and lying (Jeremiah 23:14), impenitence (Matthew 11:23, careless living (Luke 17:28), fornication (Jude 1:7), and an overall "filthy" lifestyle (2 Peter 2:7), which word ("aselgeiais") elsewhere is rendered in the KJV as lasciviousness (Mark 7:22; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Ephesians 4:19; 1 Peter 4:3; Jude 1:4, or wantonness: (Romans 13:13; 2 Peter 2:18).

    Thom, This is no surprise.As Fr. Hardon was fond of saying: "sins against chastity lead to sins against charity".

    ReplyDelete
  41. The discussion about homosexuality will lead to the promotion of homosexuality.

    People weak in the Faith (as witnessed by those Catholics that embrace and burn in their desire for homosexuality) will succumb to Satan's debate through hapless lackeys.

    The wages of sin are death.

    Homosexuality results not only in the death of one's soul, but the death of the soul that could have been born with its subsequent heirs being lost.

    Arguing with those whose hearts are hardened only does good for those who mock God.

    Pray for the sinners.

    That is the message of the Virgin Mary.

    She did not ask us to pray for the Pope, world peace, a new job position, better food, more money.

    Pray for the poor sinners.

    Homosexuality will be chased back into the closet when God bombs hell out of them and their supporters like He did once before.

    Pray for the poor sinners.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  42. Less immoral does not equal more moral. Homosexual prostitutes are not in a moral position, nor is anyone who voluntarily engages in homosexual acts. The homosexual prostitutes use of a condom is less immoral only in that some protection from disease is offered to anyone else with whom he or his clients engage in sex acts, acknowledging that they may have no idea of the true situation. I believe Pope Benedict also alluded to the possibility of this tiny grain of moral thought being a first step in reforming said prostitute's' life.

    ReplyDelete
  43. michael r.3:40 PM

    ...THIS TINY GRAIN OF MORAL THOUGHT BEING A FIRST STEP....

    Nan hits the nail on the head. My point is simply that this kind of topic requires much more thought and nuance than most of us are capable of. Many of the comments are not even rational, at least to my mind....but then again.... The few who speak with the most composure and respect usually end up sounding like the winners. So guess who wins? I’d give it to another Michael in this discussion. Maybe our gracious host should put up one of those vote-a-meters, like Fr Z has been using lately.... :)

    I've said it here a million times and will say it one last time. Theology is not static. It grows. It evolves over time. That is what theology is. We recognize that we are finite, and yet in a way, we are trying to assess the mind of God, the Infinite. Consequently, the deposit of faith is deeper than it was yesterday, and will be deeper still tomorrow. A Catholic cannot pick up a medieval theology manuscript and presume that all of the Churches understanding of Truth is contained in that book, and accessible to all. If you doubt this, please read up on St. Thomas Aquinas. And Papa Ratzinger knows this better than anyone! Long may he reign! And buckle your seatbelts, folks, because he is intent on more change. I see that our gracious host has just put up another post suggesting that the Pope might not be able to do that....that the Magesterium cannot err or change. I will have to try to continue following this interesting discussion there.

    Like my word verification-----gessins.

    ReplyDelete
  44. What is really at issue here is what constitutes a valid, authentic sexual relationship...the Church has taught, and will always teach, that this is expressed authentically between a married man and woman, indissolubly united.
    Any other form of sexual relationship, because it is not unitive, indissoluble or procreative, cannot at any time, place or planet be the same thing.
    That's it. That's the bottom line.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Chris in Maryland4:06 PM

    No, no Michael R.

    THE TRUTH is UNCHANGING. Contraception is evil.

    We are passionate on this topic - because we're talking about evil here. We hate evil stuff.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.