Re: well said...

Posted by Mike J. on March 08, 2004 at 21:08:32:

In Reply to: Re: well said... posted by Donna on March 08, 2004 at 09:40:50:

: Ah yes, and here we are back to the claim that if we were to rid the priesthood of homosexuals, then all would be well with the world.

Things would be better.

: Is that what are you saying? That homosexual males, who are normal and well adjusted in every other respect, lose control of themselves when in the presence of young boys and assault them? Or, are you saying that it is not possible for homosexuals to behave in a non-sexual manner under any circumstances? You've never had any interaction ever with a homosexual male that has been on a non-sexual and professional level, or are you under the impression that every male you have ever had interaction with was heterosexual because you would "know" if they weren't?

80% of the abuse cases in the national reports just published from 1950 to the present were committed by homosexual males against 11-17 year old boys. Even Andrew Greeley admitted as much.

By the way; nice move by the researchers to go back to 1950 to cover their post VII tracks. In the Archdiocese of Seattle the vast majority of reported abuse cases occured in the 70s and 80s.

: Michael,

: Whatever problems you may or may not have with homosexuality on a personal level has nothing to do with changes that need to be made in the selection and management of priests. Simply screening for homosexuality is not going to answer much.

No it will reduce the chances of abuse.

if anything. Assuming that your published reports (whatever they may be) are correct and 80% of the priests who abused were homosexual, what do you want to do about the remaining 20%? What's their excuse? Is this an acceptable ratio in your view? Is the abuse less offensive to you in some way if it can be said that the abuser was at least heterosexual?

Sorry, a stupid comment. If all homosexuals could be eliminated from the priesthood that would be good. If not, then eliminating as many as possible should be the goal. Then an effort can be made to eliminate pedophiles and anyone else who presents a potential hazard to kids. My main focus is the kids period.

: Talk about avoiding the real problem.

No; giving a solution.

Replies:

• Re: well said... Donna 08:40:29 3/09/04 (16)
  • Re: well said... Mike J. 18:35:34 3/09/04 (15)
    • Re: well said... Gabby 18:36:06 3/14/04 (0)
    • Re: well said... Paedophilia has NOTHING to do with homosexuality. 20:50:05 3/13/04 (5)
      • Re: well said... Donna 11:10:42 3/14/04 (4)
        • Re: well said... Agreed. 15:19:45 3/14/04 (3)
          • Thank you...Re: well said... Randy (the heretic) 08:18:42 3/17/04 (1)
            • Re: Thank you...Re: well said... I had to be. 13:54:28 3/17/04 (0)
          • Re: well said... Donna 21:52:10 3/14/04 (0)
    • Re: well said... Donna 05:48:48 3/10/04 (7)
      • Re: well said... Mike J. 18:28:47 3/10/04 (6)
        • Re: well said... Donna 21:31:47 3/10/04 (5)
          • Re: well said... Mike J. 00:02:23 3/11/04 (4)
            • Mikey, consider this test Wag 14:43:58 3/13/04 (0)
            • Re: well said... Donna 08:08:00 3/11/04 (2)
              • Re: well said... Mike J. 18:29:31 3/11/04 (1)
                • Re: well said... Donna 20:27:40 3/11/04 (0)

Post a Reply

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : Ah yes, and here we are back to the claim that if we were to rid the priesthood of homosexuals, then all would be well with the world. : Things would be better. : : Is that what are you saying? That homosexual males, who are normal and well adjusted in every other respect, lose control of themselves when in the presence of young boys and assault them? Or, are you saying that it is not possible for homosexuals to behave in a non-sexual manner under any circumstances? You've never had any interaction ever with a homosexual male that has been on a non-sexual and professional level, or are you under the impression that every male you have ever had interaction with was heterosexual because you would "know" if they weren't? : 80% of the abuse cases in the national reports just published from 1950 to the present were committed by homosexual males against 11-17 year old boys. Even Andrew Greeley admitted as much. : By the way; nice move by the researchers to go back to 1950 to cover their post VII tracks. In the Archdiocese of Seattle the vast majority of reported abuse cases occured in the 70s and 80s. : : Michael, : : Whatever problems you may or may not have with homosexuality on a personal level has nothing to do with changes that need to be made in the selection and management of priests. Simply screening for homosexuality is not going to answer much. : No it will reduce the chances of abuse. : if anything. Assuming that your published reports (whatever they may be) are correct and 80% of the priests who abused were homosexual, what do you want to do about the remaining 20%? What's their excuse? Is this an acceptable ratio in your view? Is the abuse less offensive to you in some way if it can be said that the abuser was at least heterosexual? : Sorry, a stupid comment. If all homosexuals could be eliminated from the priesthood that would be good. If not, then eliminating as many as possible should be the goal. Then an effort can be made to eliminate pedophiles and anyone else who presents a potential hazard to kids. My main focus is the kids period. : : Talk about avoiding the real problem. : No; giving a solution.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

---

---

Home | About Resource Publications | Contact us
What's New on This Site | Site Guide
Copyright © 1995–2006 Resource Publications
160 E. Virginia Street #290, San Jose, CA 95112-5876 
E-mail: info@rpinet.com
Toll Free: 888-273-7782,  Phone: 408-286-8505,  Fax: 408-287-8748