Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Mar 10th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-624504 said: Abuse IS NOT EVER linked to homosexuality, in fact many sexual and physical abusers ar...
(Quote) Patrick-624504 said:

Abuse IS NOT EVER linked to homosexuality, in fact many sexual and physical abusers are hetrosexual. To commit sodomy you dont have to be homosexual. "Screwing people up" as you so ironically put it is not the sole domain of the homosexual. I suggest you come and work in the Trauma Department or Intensive Psychiatric Care with me an you will see for your self. Come with a strong stomach and hardend ID. It isnt pleasant.

The rest of your arguement I cant accept as anything but well, rubbish. Im from the elite intelligencia and Im not homosexual, an abuser, or pushing sodomy on anyone. Neither are any mmbers of my family or our friends. The class war has nothing to do with it.

Its not that simple, it never has been, it never will be.

--hide--

Actually, research conducted for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops did in fact conclude that the vast majority of abusing priests were homsexuals. Research on the generl population also found that the majority of same sex abusers are homosexual although rates of hetero abusers are also high. But overall, the rate of sexual abusers of chirldren (under the age of consent) is roughly 2% of the population and includes both men and women, hetero, bisexual and homsexual.

LOCKED
Mar 10th 2013 new

(Quote) Patrick-624504 said: A disorder by definition is something caught caused or developed, with a medical or scientific ...
(Quote) Patrick-624504 said:

A disorder by definition is something caught caused or developed, with a medical or scientific cure and cause. It is not therefor ist is not a disorder. Its unnatural, against species survival, and contary to creative success but it is not a DISORDER or DISEASE no matter what the flatearth fundamentalists say

--hide--

Stedman's Medical Dictionary (16th ed.) define:

disorder: Pathological condition of the mind or body.

pathological: (1) Concerning pathology. (2) disordered; due to disease.

pathology: (1) (not relevant) (2) Condition produced by disease.

disease: A pathological condition of the body that presents a group of clinical signs and symptoms and laboratory findings particular to it and that sets the condition apart as an abnormal entity differing from other normal or pathological body states. The concept of disease may include the concept of illness or suffering not necessarily arising from pathological changes in the body. There is a major distinction between disease and illness in that the former is usually tangible and may even be measured, whereas illness is usually highly personal, as with pain, suffering, and distress. A person may have a serious disease such as hypertension but no feeling of pain or suffering, and thus no illness. Conversely, a person may be extremely ill, as with hysteria or mental illness, but have no evidence of disease as measured by pathological changes in the body.

This definition of disease seems to be contradicting itself in that the first part of the definition (through and including the bolded statement) can include conditions that would best be described as an illness using the remainder of the definition. Included among these are a number of mental health disorders currently listed is the DSM as well as homosexual attraction.

LOCKED
Mar 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Carl-98335 said: What about this? www.youtube.com
(Quote) Carl-98335 said:

What about this? www.youtube.com

--hide--


Thanks, Carl, for the back up:) Bt the way I love the Passionists and support them often so it was a treat to see Father interviewed.

LOCKED
Mar 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Bernard-2709 said: What about it?
(Quote) Bernard-2709 said:

What about it?

--hide--


Did you watch it? It seems like well known knowledge that originally it was about financial issues before spiritual that clergy no longer were allowed to marry in the Roman Catholic Church. Father said it very clearly.

LOCKED
Mar 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: Although the early Church had married priest no married priest could ever be made a Bisho...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Although the early Church had married priest no married priest could ever be made a Bishop. You fantasy tale attempting to explain the unmarried discipline falls flat on its face.

Rather, it is based on the Epistles of Paul. Try reading them.

--hide--



Carl kindly posted this. Thought it might be of interest to you. Although they left gay clergy out as part of the reason, as I had added, they confimed the fact that financial reasons were originally the cause of clergy not being able to marry in the Roman Catholic Church and included Popes as being married also. So are they fantasizing also? www.youtube.com

LOCKED
Mar 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Laura-56149 said: Carl kindly posted this. Thought it might be of interest to you. Although they left ga...
(Quote) Laura-56149 said:




Carl kindly posted this. Thought it might be of interest to you. Although they left gay clergy out as part of the reason, as I had added, they confimed the fact that financial reasons were originally the cause of clergy not being able to marry in the Roman Catholic Church and included Popes as being married also. So are they fantasizing also? www.youtube.com

--hide--

Didn't you catch the fact that he said the married priest were LEAVING CHURCH PROPERTY to their children. Or to put it in simpler terms, they were stealing church property and giving it to their children. So the Church was trying to protect its own property NOT trying to get their hands on the Priest's property.

If you want to continue pursuing the property issue, one of the Church's considerations is that the financial burden of having to pay married priests a wage sufficient to support his family would become prohibitive.

Yes both the apostate priest and the Passionist are fantasizing. The only evidence we have of an Apostle having been married was Peter who had a Mother-in-law. But there is no mention of his wife in any historical document so his wife was probably deceased when he was called by Christ. No evidence of any kind exists that any other of the Apostles were or had been married. So his statement that the apostles were married is pure unadulterated fantasy.

Although the unmarried priesthood is a mere discipline and could be changed, the possibility that the general discipline will be changed is minimal. So the claim by both priests that the Church has to face it and discuss it is more fantasy then reality.

We had Popes who played around with women and had mistresses. But since the earliest days of the Church a married priest could never be made a Bishop. In all the Eastern rites both in communion with Rome and the Orthodox will allow a married candidate to become a priest. But if they are not married before ordination they are prohibited from marrying. A married priest whose wife dies is prohibited from remarrying. No married person, even if he is a widower cannot be ordained a bishop.

The celibacy of the clergy arose from the monastic side of the Church. And there are so many practical values to it that far outweigh any financial considerations. The idea of serving two masters is one of them. A celibate priest does not have to concern himself with the practicalities of being the head of a family. It gives him the freedom to do things that a married man would hesitate to do.

As an example of this last; to date, since the civil war when the Congressional Medal of Honor was first created, only 7 or 8 military Chaplin's have been given that award. Every single one of them a Catholic Priest. And they did not win the award because they were safely behind the battle lines somewhere serving the men. They were right in the midst of battle, on the front line with the men they served, under fire.

Ask any military veteran who has been in combat and no matter what their faith tradition they will tell you that the only Chaplin's they ever saw at the front were Catholic priests. Because they had no families to worry about they were free to put themselves in imminent danger. Most Chaplin's of other faiths are married. Although they are not cowards, they are rarely in the middle of battle.

As has been mentioned in these threads, many married priests in Eastern Rites here in the states are forced to find employment elsewhere to support their families. That is because the congregations are relatively small and can't afford to pay them enough. If their work takes them away from the parish, they are not in a position to fully serve their congregations. A simple matter of arithmetic since there are only so many hours in a day.

These are just some of the reasons why any change is unlikely and the stories of financial greed on the part of the Church was a reason for the rule are pure fantasy.

LOCKED
Mar 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Bernard-2709 said: Until the early 1970s The DSM said it was a Psychological Disorder.Freud believed that too. <...
(Quote) Bernard-2709 said:

Until the early 1970s The DSM said it was a Psychological Disorder.Freud believed that too.

--hide--

Until the 1960s Interlectual Disability was a Mental Disorder too. Get out of the Middle Ages we are in the 21 Century. Whats wrong with you. DSM IV doesnt even mention homosexuality faint

LOCKED
Mar 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are all abusers homosexual? Of couse not. ...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are all abusers homosexual? Of couse not.

Do some abusers only abuse those of the same sex? I don't see why this could not be true.

--hide--

The poster implied homosexuality is linked to all abuse which is rubbish, and you know it so pick a fight with someone more down at your level

LOCKED
Mar 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: One other point. There are several Psychiatrists in the US who treat homosexuals w...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

One other point.

There are several Psychiatrists in the US who treat homosexuals with the aim of "curing" them of their homosexuality. Nowhere near 100% successful, but nevertheless a surprising positive result rate.

Not being schooled to any depth in the field of the mind, I would still conclude from the results that to the extent they were successful, those persons "cured" would qualify, or it would at least be reasonable to conclude, that their homosexuality arose from emotional factors after birth.

Why the success rate is not higher leads to no verifiable conclusion.

I believe that homosexuality is a very complex thing and a lot of study is required.

One of the problems is that the homosexuality community is so biased against any studies being conducted that even attempt to answer thye question that researchers are as a group intimidated. One indication of that kind of pressure is that the homosexual community tries everything possible to prevent "curers" from practicing. If I am not mistaken, they were successful in having a law passed and signed by the current Governor of the state of California that prohibits anyone from treating homosexuals with the aim of "curing" them.

--hide--

I know they are as lunatic as the evangelicals and Fundamentalits who claim its a disease or disorder. Forget them and their hatefilled rubbish

LOCKED
Mar 11th 2013 new

(Quote) Jerry-74383 said: Stedman's Medical Dictionary (16th ed.) define: disorder: Pathological conditi...
(Quote) Jerry-74383 said:

Stedman's Medical Dictionary (16th ed.) define:

disorder: Pathological condition of the mind or body.

pathological: (1) Concerning pathology. (2) disordered; due to disease.

pathology: (1) (not relevant) (2) Condition produced by disease.

disease: A pathological condition of the body that presents a group of clinical signs and symptoms and laboratory findings particular to it and that sets the condition apart as an abnormal entity differing from other normal or pathological body states. The concept of disease may include the concept of illness or suffering not necessarily arising from pathological changes in the body. There is a major distinction between disease and illness in that the former is usually tangible and may even be measured, whereas illness is usually highly personal, as with pain, suffering, and distress. A person may have a serious disease such as hypertension but no feeling of pain or suffering, and thus no illness. Conversely, a person may be extremely ill, as with hysteria or mental illness, but have no evidence of disease as measured by pathological changes in the body.

This definition of disease seems to be contradicting itself in that the first part of the definition (through and including the bolded statement) can include conditions that would best be described as an illness using the remainder of the definition. Included among these are a number of mental health disorders currently listed is the DSM as well as homosexual attraction.

--hide--

Thanks for proving my point

LOCKED
Posts 181 - 190 of 200