Home
Browse New Titles Browse by Subject Browse by Title Browse by Author
Ministry & Liturgy Visual Arts Awards
Celebrating
The Lectionary
Liturgical Catechesis
Software
Sign up for News Request Print Catalog Print Order Form Reprint Permission Customer Service
Authors & Writers Advertisers Bookstores Media
News Releases
Artists Directory Parish Resource Directory Classified Ads Links
About the Company Employment Contact Us
Discussion Forums

Re: well said...

Posted by Mike J. on March 09, 2004 at 18:35:34:

In Reply to: Re: well said... posted by Donna on March 09, 2004 at 08:40:29:

--Which doesn't answer the question I asked. I'm not arguing with the actual numbers either. I'm challenging you to think about what the numbers mean.

They mean it is not a good idea to have so many homosexuals in the priesthood.

: --Do you think that homosexuality, by itself, indicates that a man is prone to sexually abuse another? The question is relevant because national statistics show that the vast majority of incidents of sexual abuse overall (outside of the church) are perpetrated against girls by heterosexual men. Therefore, if homosexuality was a dominant contributing factor to the incidence of sexual abuse, it would carry over into the national statistics as well. It doesn't.

Nothing in the above has anything to do with the issue at hand.

: --The fact that out of the total number of priests accused of sexual abuse the majority were found to be homosexuals doesn't prove that there is a greater risk of sexual abuse associated with homosexuality. It proves that there are a greater number of homosexuals in the priesthood than you might have thought and that's about it.

Do you read what you write??

: --If you want to prove that homosexuality is a significant contributing factor to sexual abuse, you would have to a) find out the total number of homosexuals in the priesthood; b) determine the total number of homosexual priests who have abused and compare it to the number of homosexual priests who have not abused; c) do the same calculations for their non-homosexual counterparts and compare both sets of numbers. In addition, the results would be meaningful only on a percentage basis UNLESS it could be determined that the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals in the priesthood mirrored national averages.

It is the above kind of thinking that left so many kids undefended while stupid bishops played with statistics and soothing words.

--And THAT is the only thing that should be considered, but it has not been proven in any way that a homosexual is inherently hazardous to anyone.

What stupidity. If there were less homosexuals in the priesthood would less kids have been abused??? Yes.

Replies:

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:
: --Which doesn't answer the question I asked. I'm not arguing with the actual numbers either. I'm challenging you to think about what the numbers mean. : They mean it is not a good idea to have so many homosexuals in the priesthood. : : --Do you think that homosexuality, by itself, indicates that a man is prone to sexually abuse another? The question is relevant because national statistics show that the vast majority of incidents of sexual abuse overall (outside of the church) are perpetrated against girls by heterosexual men. Therefore, if homosexuality was a dominant contributing factor to the incidence of sexual abuse, it would carry over into the national statistics as well. It doesn't. : Nothing in the above has anything to do with the issue at hand. : : --The fact that out of the total number of priests accused of sexual abuse the majority were found to be homosexuals doesn't prove that there is a greater risk of sexual abuse associated with homosexuality. It proves that there are a greater number of homosexuals in the priesthood than you might have thought and that's about it. : Do you read what you write?? : : --If you want to prove that homosexuality is a significant contributing factor to sexual abuse, you would have to a) find out the total number of homosexuals in the priesthood; b) determine the total number of homosexual priests who have abused and compare it to the number of homosexual priests who have not abused; c) do the same calculations for their non-homosexual counterparts and compare both sets of numbers. In addition, the results would be meaningful only on a percentage basis UNLESS it could be determined that the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals in the priesthood mirrored national averages. : It is the above kind of thinking that left so many kids undefended while stupid bishops played with statistics and soothing words. : --And THAT is the only thing that should be considered, but it has not been proven in any way that a homosexual is inherently hazardous to anyone. : What stupidity. If there were less homosexuals in the priesthood would less kids have been abused??? Yes.

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