www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Homosexualists and Pedophilia

Dear all:

After reading much of what is posted about the "homosexual" issue, I would add my own thoughts. In terms of gay priests, I would only ask that any person considering orders be willing and, by the grace of God, able on a daily basis to be "alter Christus". That is the highest calling for all of us Catholics, Byz or RC.

As a matter of fact, it is everyone's calling. Leave the final judgement to God.

rjdrnc

Dear all:

After reading much of what is posted about the "homosexual" issue, I would add my own thoughts. In terms of gay priests, I would only ask that any person considering orders be willing and, by the grace of God, able on a daily basis to be "alter Christus". That is the highest calling for all of us Catholics, Byz or RC.

As a matter of fact, it is everyone's calling. Leave the final judgement to God.

rjdrnc

Aklie wrote:
Administrator, I hope that you do not imply that because you believe “that the information Dan has posted is correct” automatically means that the article has any more scholarly credibility. The article goes against the mainstream position in social science so it needs more serious empirical data than was offered in the article posted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrator responded:

Aklie,

It is my considered opinion that the mainstream position in social science is wrong once again. Remember that these are the same social scientists who told the bishops in the 1980's and 1990's that pedophilia could be cured with therapy. Why would anyone put their faith in such people? If you really study their reports you can easily see that their “science” is very sloppy and conducted to provide data for a desired outcome. Simply put, they do not have a record of truthfulness or accuracy.


Dear Administrator,

I agree with you that the "science" found in social sciences is not exact or complete knowledge. Blind faith in accepting or applying the findings of research in any field is not an appropriate approach to the understanding of science or its use.

As you state, some of the research is shoddy. Some, however, is done according to professional standards. The findings of such research are generally accepted as sound among researchers in their respective fields. They are part of the body of knowledge for that science. Still, great care must be made before basing actions on this knowledge. That is unarguable, it seems to me.

Based on what you have written, though, I would like to ask a few questions, if I may.

Are you suggesting that the researchers in the social sciences who advised the bishops acted improperly when they reported information as they knew it from their research on an issue at the time when they gave it?

What is the evidence of untruthful behavior on the part of social scientists with whom the bishops consulted in dealing with this issue that led to your considered opinion?

What judgement is there that the work of those social scientists was sloppy in research terms?

What evidence is that these social scientists worked to produce a desired outcome?

Here's why I am asking the questions.

It is true that the state of the art in the social sciences is imperfect. The body of research developed is incomplete and the body of knowledge is less than perfect.

Yet, researchers at any time have the responsibility to report what it is that they have learned, or conclude that they have learned. We, including bishops, presidents, teachers, psychologists, priests, and lay people in all senses of the term have a responsibility to use what they present using prudent informed judgement.

Prudence requires that we assume that scientific knowledge is not static and that it grows. It is the nature of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is no exception. It requires a qualified faith of a type to accept it and make use of its findings. We give that faith all of the time using the findings of the natural and social sciences.

It is the nature of human science to present at any given time an imperfect picture of the truth and a not commpletely accurate explanation of it. We operate on this assumption all of the time, it seems to me.

Seen in this context, I find it difficult to make sense of the statement that, "Even though people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell preach an incomplete version of the Gospel what they do teach is far closer to us than is the work of the social scientists out to abolish the notion of sin."

Good research is not attempting to make a moral judgement. In this case it is simply trying to help bishops understand as best it can how to apply the rules of God in a hard situation.

Thank you for hearing me out!

Steve

[ 05-18-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

I thank Bro. Steve and others for their comments. However, I think we have wandered from the issue.

Bro. Dan has proposed an article purporting to represent the human reality of abusers whom he believes to be mostly homosexuals (or, using his old term: homosexualists.) He requested a response from someone who could cite chapter and verse to refute his propositions. Bro. Axios did so, with 17 articles from reputable academic sources, and with citations. The response was: the definitions are not coherent and so the cited articles are not relevant to the discussion. Asking for a legitimate response to Bro. Axios' response, I am told (in less than kind words) to 'cut wind'.

As a teacher, and as a science-trained individual, I recognize this ad-hominen invective as the response of someone who is cornered and has no other response than to defer the discussion to name-calling. Although I am generally the first person to pour oil on troubled waters and avoid conflict at all costs (my posts here are generally pastoral and inclined to be accepting of all God's people, Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental, and non-Christian - for which I am often assaulted for being non-orthodox and wishy-washy), I am deeply hurt and distressed that a response to a legitimate discussion could be reduced to nothing more than an invitation to break wind.

Is this Christian? Do Christ's forgiving actions and His mandate to love God and love one's neighbor get reduced to "judge and kill a sinner for Christ"? And the sop: "I'm not judging the person but the sin" is, in my perspective, window-dressing.

Christ's teaching is incredibly radical; it goes against everything that we selfish humans want to do. He told us not to judge, to love God and our neighbors and to be kind to each other. Telling folks that they are "sinners" and in need of redemption is a false response to the Gospel. In my understanding, the real response of love and caring -- in Jesus' name -- is the REAL potion that will convert people to the Will of God. Teling them that they are encrusted with evil and are in need of our ministrations will not speak to their hearts. Loving them, holding them, feeding them, giving them a home, helping them out will speak to their hearts, and (God willing) will cause them to say: Behold these Christians; see how they love one another.

For the 'homosexualists', preaching is not going to do the job of conversion to the perspective that "God is LOVE; he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him." Every human soul needs to understand that it is in love (for God and neighbor) that we find our true relationship with God. For me, it is the preaching of Christ's Gospel that is the only relevant thing. If there is a "homosexualist" (or a 'bisexual' or a 'heterosexual' or a 'pansexual' or an 'asexual') out there, the Gospel message is the same: Are you loving of God; are you loving of your neighbor? Show me! And let us come together as loving brethren to help each other come closer both to God and to our fellow human beings. If one's relationship is abusive of the other person, or if one's relationship is abusive of God's commandments to be honest and straightforward, then let us work together to deal with and solve the issue.

But to rise up in holy indignation and condemn a person for who he/she is because of his/her practices seems to me to be a usurpation of God's role as Judge. Since we humans cannot in any way judge what is in the hearts of a person, we must withdraw from any kind of judgement, but merely be loving and actively involved in the person's life. And work with them in finding out what God's plan is for their lives.

Agapoisomen allilous, "let us love one another" so that we may profess the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Blessings, y'all!!

Perhaps, the following will get the thread back on track. The submission is from a professor of Christian Ethics at Mt. St Mary's College and Seminary,Emmitsburg,MD.

He provides a more scholarly perspective than the author in Dan's original post whom many here accused of fundalmentalist bigotry. In his submission to the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse, Germain Grisez, Ph.D also discusses what should be done with the clerics.

Submission to the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse USCCB [zenit.org]

While most folks here seem quite aware that the newsarticle first posted is of little merit or scholarship, I'll comment on a few of it accusations.


I don't know how one proves a negative. This statement is entirely false. No decent person can affirm this statment.


These numbers are cooked by grossly underestimating the number of gay people. The survey, whatever its other flaws that would even more discredit it, assumes 2% of the population is gay. two to three times as many people openly define themselves as gay and one presumes some portion of the population beyond that chooses to keep their privacy in the face of social discrimiantion and violence.


The NLGJA denies having made such a statement. This falsehood may not be central to Reisman's position, but does show her lack of accuracy.


Kind of a pointless comment. As the gender of both parties are noted, nothing is being kept secret if the terms "gay" and "homosexual" are used to mean same sex activity. Alternatively, if the common use of gay to mean a self-described homosexual and homosexual to mean an exclusive homosexual rather than a bisexual, reporters might well have a point in not using such terms.


Nasty and untrue. Not one employee of ANY status, let alone those in positions of high responsibility, for ANY gay organization has been "reassigned" or protected or had letters of recommendation written by their superiors after found to have abused minors. Neither Fr.Paul Shanely, the priest thrice commended by Cardinal Law who advocated "man-boy" love or anyone holding such views has been allowed to have any standing, position, office, in any gay organization.

The closest event to such was a single and marginal gay rights groups, ILGHRC, who once allowed groups to affiliate with it without any review, endedup with Fr. Shanely's group listed along with hundreds of others as one if its coallition members. The day it was pointed out they expelled the group association with Father Shanely. Nevertheless, to this day for this momentary laspe, they are held at arms length by the gay community.


A self-published irregularly issued publication of no significant number of subscribers and generally unheard of.


Intergral? This is the most damning comment. Finding quotes in marginal sex magazines about lust for young men is no more difficult than finding quotes in heterosexual sex magaines about lust for young women. Intergral, if Baldwin is honest, would mean this can be found in most quarters and certainly in the major public organs of the gay community -- HRC, NGLTF, Dignity, The Blade, etc. Can't do it; didn't do.


See my above statement. This organization was founded by a priest subsequently commended by Cardinal Law. Not a single prominent leader of the gay movement has endorsed it, save one by accident and subsequent disaffiliation.

Lastly, let me talk about the issue of hate, an accusation which some think is too quickly made towards those who are anti-gay.

Some claim that it is simply a matter of speaking the truth to use names I consider slurs against gay people such as fairy, sissy, prancing, limp-wristed, fag, etc. I disagree.

Some think those who held gays and lesbians partially responsible for the events of 9/11 are simply person with an incomplete understanding of the Gospel. I would disagree.

Some think that "two thousand years of Christian tradition, along with Jewish tradition before it" is to be affirmed without any stated reservation or modification and that the revisionism of the last thirty years is to be rejected, again, without stating any shading, limitation or partially acceptance.

The traditon referred to was not simply one of some form of disapproval of homosexual acts. It was that those found to do such such things should be severely punished including by death or imprisionment or loss of livihood. It was that they were to be rejected by family. it was that we be victims of violent assult.

I would have nothing but respect for someone who told me, "based on my religious beliefs, I do not approve of homosexual behavior. But at the same time I strongly disapprove of the social response to gay people generally practiced before thirty years ago and practiced to some degree and some places today."

Sadly, the statement I just suggested is one that not all here can make without revising their past declaration, at least. I think those not affirming the above statement are haters.

We had a person post here for a while who openly admited he practiced artifical contraception. No one called him "prancing". And, on a social level, I know of no reports of the users of birth control being fired from their jobs, violently assulted, left on a fence post in Wyoming to die, called names on a public street, or having thier front teeth taken out by a fist (as is the case with myself). I know of no parent who has refused to have any dealings with his or her child because they use birth control.

And I know not of a single layman in the gay community who has ever had sex with a minor.

Axios

In the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. One God, Amen.

This article is not entirely bad. It makes good points and ultimately seems to be concerned with the well being of the RC laity and health of the Priesthood. Eventually however it is tending toward creating a scapegoat.


I will let the participants of this thread decide what to make of this type of perspective. Does this type of focus set up the Church for a gay witch hunt? Does it tackle the issue of sexual abuse and clerical corruption as revealed in the scandal? Or does it do what inquisitions and witch hunts have always done; divert attention away from abuse, power and privilege onto some convenient scapegoat that everyone can hate?

Other than that, I don't see much to disagree with the author about.

However, the article posted by Dan totally revolved around the hypothesis that homosexuals are de facto pedophiles. That hypothesis, as Axios demonstrated, is false when put to the empirical "acid test' as stated in professional peer reviewed journals. Axios also demonstrated that beyond this fail on the ground of empirical data Steve Baldwin relies on a tremendous amount of falsehoods, mis-quotes and spurious assumptions. The article referenced by bisantino does not fall in the same category as the article posted by Dan.

God Bless You All

Aklie Semaet

Ok John,

"Is this Christian? Do Christ's forgiving actions and His mandate to love God and love one's neighbor get reduced to "judge and kill a sinner for Christ"? And the sop: "I'm not judging the person but the sin" is, in my perspective, window-dressing."

You are right. I forgive you for your now repented sins. I presume now that you will avoid the sins of presumption, insinuation, calumny, blasphemy and the other sins you have committed and I presume you now repent of. You are very disrespectful and very dishonest. I hope that you will avoid these sins in the future. Oh, and stop judging me.

Dan Lauffer

Axios,

"I would have nothing but respect for someone who told me, "based on my religious beliefs, I do not approve of homosexual behavior. But at the same time I strongly disapprove of the social response to gay people generally practiced before thirty years ago and practiced to some degree and some places today.""

I'm not certain what you mean by the last clause of this statement. If you mean the kinds of things Fred Phelps participates in or taunting or injury, etc. I strongly affirm this statement without reservation.

This does not contradict the orthodox Catholic beliefs at all.

Dan Lauffer

Exactly, it does not contradict Catholic belief (not that I am a Catholic). It does contradict your previous posts, which is the nature of my objection.

Nevertheless, Carson, why not move on to another topic. The 13% of your posts here and elsewhere on the 'net that do not deal with homosexuality are actually quite interesting.

Axios

[ 05-19-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

As posted above: "Ok John, You are right. I forgive you for your now repented sins. I presume now that you will avoid the sins of presumption, insinuation, calumny, blasphemy and the other sins you have committed and I presume you now repent of. You are very disrespectful and very dishonest. I hope that you will avoid these sins in the future. Oh, and stop judging me. Dan Lauffer"

Presumption? I am only taking your texts and asking for an explanation.

Insinuation? No, just an honest request for a straightforward answer without the "break wind" response which is apropos of nothing intelligent.

Calumny? No, I am only addressing your statements and asking for a reasoned response to Axios' texts.

Blasphemy? Please indicate where.

"The other sins you have committed." I do not pretend to be without sin. Nor should any of us.

Disrespectful? I am only asking you to make good upon your proposition as presented in the cited article. You asked if anyone could respond. Brother Axios did so and you ignored him. And then I, in asking you to respond to his studied response, instead chose to suggest that I do something else of a physical nature, which has struck me as an adolescent response to a legitimate inquiry. Is it 'respectful' to ignore a legitimate request for a response? Is it respectful to suggest that someone else is 'breaking wind'.

Dishonest? Please show how I am being dishonest by asking for a legitimate response to another's response to your posting? You yourself have requested that anyone who is able, provide a response to your 'article'. Someone has done so, but you have yet to answer Brother Axios' response. He has cited 17 articles with references (how many others have taken the time and effort to do such), and you have chosen to ignore them and him and have instead responded with invective against me for asking for a response.

This seems to me to be a sterotypical political tactic: make a claim and demand a response. When a response comes, ignore it or dismiss it as irrelevant. AND, when pressed on the issue, suggest that someone break wind - thereby diverting attention from the original proposition and hope that readers will not remember the original issue.

I'm not that stupid or naive.

PLEASE, in all Christian charity, respond to Brother Axios and his information. And please, avoid the red herring tactic of denigrating anyone else in the hopes that the tactic will divert attention from the original proposition.

Please answer Brother Axios' response.

Blessings to all who read!!!

Blessings to you as well, John. Now put your nose into someone elses business. I've said all I'm going to say on this thread. You presume far too much.

Dan Lauffer

Dan, from reading the posts on this thread and others you have posted in other threads, I think you are just trying to cause dissension...at no time have you been respectful or backed up assertations you have made with any documented facts...I agree with everything Dr. John has said. You seem to be making yourself more infallible than the Pope...a trait I have often noticed in Protestant ministers who convert. Pray for humility brother.
Moe

I've stayed out of this and perhaps I should now, but I do believe, Dan, that you invited us all to "stick our noses" in this business by posting your article on a public forum and asking for responses, which you then ignore. That, dear brother, is, by definition, rude and uncharitable.

In Christ,
mikey.

One last word from me.

I don't care what you think about my motivations. If you choose to judge me then face whatever consequences God has for you. It's not my business.

I titled this thread "Homosexualists and pedophilia" for a reason. I think most if not all of you know why but I will reiterate again. I wished to avoid the very thing some of you insist upon bringing up. I am not and never have been interested in talking about "orientation". I believe such categorization has little if no merit. It is undemonstrable. We make choices about sex partners, surely affected by social conditioning, but have nothing to biology and certainly nothing to do with theology. Hence, while the seventeen authorities may prove that seventeen people in the world are making a living off of a certain Freudian inspired category it does not demonstrate anything at all about what does matter both theologically and scientifically.

A homosexualist or someone who participates in homosexual actions is all that I am interested in. I don't care and I doubt that it matters what "orientation" a person has been conditioned to think he has. I have no idea why anyone would claim any orientation. I can guess that some do out of a desire for noteriety but I don't claim that that is the only reason one would claim such.

The point is that for both science and theology the category is irrelavent. I do not wish to discuss something that has no basis in either science or revelation.

I will say it again and I hope that the Administrator acts upon this. As far as I'm concerned this thread is closed. I hope our Adminstrator now closes it.

Some day I will tell you about Buddhism.

Dan Lauffer