301 Predator Priests...

[seer]

The problem is not homosexuals. It is child abusers and pedophiles. You don't even know the sexual orientation of the people involved. You're just jumping to, "if they have sex with male minors, they're gay." It's not a supportable assumption. Even heterosexuals have male-to-male sex under the right conditions.

Of course they are gay, that is just nonsense. They are homosexual pedophiles by definition.

[Terraceth]

Exactly my point.

But your point was to try to claim that in the hypothetical situation where girls were the ones mostly abused, people wouldn't call it a heterosexual problem and this was therefore a dissonance. But as has been demonstrated, it's not a dissonance because that would be expected based on demographics. The fact that the majority are boys means there is an abnormally high number of male-on-male abuse despite, once again, population demographics. If the majority were girls, there would be nothing abnormal and therefore no reason to call anything a heterosexual or homosexual problem.

Granted, it is possible there are other factors that are causing the abnormality here, such as priests having much easier "access" to boys than girls. One could try to use factors such as that to explain the disparity and that homosexuals are therefore not more likely to be committing abuse than heterosexuals. But your claim about there being a dissonance or hypocrisy or whatnot due to the hypothetical situation of most of the victims being female probably resulting in a different response simply put doesn't make sense.

[Sparko]

Exactly my point.



The problem is not homosexuals. It is child abusers and pedophiles. You don't even know the sexual orientation of the people involved. You're just jumping to, "if they have sex with male minors, they're gay." It's not a supportable assumption. Even heterosexuals have male-to-male sex under the right conditions.

If a disproportionate number of the cases are same-sex then there is a "homosexual problem." If the cases reflected the actual distribution of heterosexual to homsexuals in the population then you would have a point in arguing that calling it a "homosexual problem" is unwarranted. But when a very distinct majority of abuse cases are same-sex then it is a "homosexual problem"

You can whine about it all you like, but to describe it as such is perfectly sensible.

[Terraceth]

Of course they are gay, that is just nonsense. They are homosexual pedophiles by definition.

Actually, carpedm does sort of have a point; having sex (or some form of sexual relations that stop short of actual sex) with someone of the same or opposite sex does not inherently make someone a homosexual or heterosexual. Those are orientations, whereas the actual sex is an action. Obviously, a homosexual would be dramatically more likely to engage in relations with someone of the same sex and a heterosexual would be dramatically more likely to engage in relations with someone of the opposite sex, but exceptions can occur. For example, it's my understanding that heterosexuals turning to same-sex carnal relationships in prison isn't that uncommon for the simple reason that there's a dramatic shortage of the opposite sex around so you get your pleasure with what's available. Obviously, priests aren't as limited as an inmate is, but once again due to their position have, if they're trying to have relations with someone else, much more access to males than females.

I am dubious whether these considerations are sufficient to account for the disparity in the abuse between the two genders, but it isn't inaccurate to point out that someone can engage in sexual relationships outside of their ordinary orientation.

[KingsGambit]

A Mexican cardinal has an ominous message for would-be accusers:

"But the evil of many is the consolation of fools, because sometimes those who accuse men of the Church should [be careful] because they have long tails that are easily stepped on."

Is this confirmation that the church plans to engage in character assassination of would-be accusers? Perhaps Pope Francis hinted at this a few months ago with his comments about accusers in Chile.

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-am...ir-own-closet/

[Tassman]

Actually, it was growing among the ruling classes - Clement of Alexandria was certainly not poor, and wrote for others who were not, Origen had a rich (Christian) patron, Gregory Thaumaturgus could afford a classical education, as could Basil the Great (whose family had been wealthy, some of whom had been martyred), Rome had considerable funds to help the needy even in surrounding cities by the end of the 3rd century.... Certainly, the conversion of Constantine accelerated things, but he was hardly starting from scratch.

As someone hostile to Christianity, I'm not surprised he thought that.

You didn't answer my question. The Nicene Creed, as modified at Constantinople, does the same: "[The Son is] consubstantial with the Father.....the Holy Spirit...together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified...."

Yes you are correct; although the Athanasian Creed is more comprehensive. We had to recite it several times a year in lieu of the Nicene Creed at Eucharist in my Anglican school chapel.

I'm not sure about that. The Jews have a creed "the Shema"; the Muslims have a creed (the first of the 'five pillars'). The Trinity does complicate things.

Given post-hoc analysis 1700 years later, yes. I am unpersuaded by the arguments given (yes, I have investigated them).

OK. But you are in a minority amongst Biblical Scholars.

Well, no. It's based on an analysis of the data; non-canonical documents are much less accepted and much less frequently quoted or alluded to than canonical writings. The conclusion derives directly from the facts.

Nowadays certainly! OTOH a good number of these non-canonical books were once accepted by various early Christian communities as sacred scripture and remained so for several centuries. The NT of today coalesced as much by happenstance as by design.

[seer]

Actually, carpedm does sort of have a point; having sex (or some form of sexual relations that stop short of actual sex) with someone of the same or opposite sex does not inherently make someone a homosexual or heterosexual. Those are orientations, whereas the actual sex is an action. Obviously, a homosexual would be dramatically more likely to engage in relations with someone of the same sex and a heterosexual would be dramatically more likely to engage in relations with someone of the opposite sex, but exceptions can occur. For example, it's my understanding that heterosexuals turning to same-sex carnal relationships in prison isn't that uncommon for the simple reason that there's a dramatic shortage of the opposite sex around so you get your pleasure with what's available. Obviously, priests aren't as limited as an inmate is, but once again due to their position have, if they're trying to have relations with someone else, much more access to males than females.

I am dubious whether these considerations are sufficient to account for the disparity in the abuse between the two genders, but it isn't inaccurate to point out that someone can engage in sexual relationships outside of their ordinary orientation.

That is not exactly true, when I was growing up two priests were "moved on" for affairs with women. Believe me there are plenty of available women. The fact is these men are homosexual.

[One Bad Pig]

Nowadays certainly! OTOH a good number of these non-canonical books were once accepted by various early Christian communities as sacred scripture and remained so for several centuries. The NT of today coalesced as much by happenstance as by design.

I'm not referring to nowadays, but back then. Your statement is stretching the facts considerably. The most persistent group with a different canon was the Marcionites, who consistently had a smaller canon. There were other books accepted here and there by small groups, but use was generally not widespread. The NT of today largely coalesced quite early; the four gospels were established by the mid-2nd century, and Paul's letters were collected as a group very early (the only question ever concerning them was whether or not Hebrews should be included). Origen may have used the same NT canon we do today.

[carpedm9587]

But your point was to try to claim that in the hypothetical situation where girls were the ones mostly abused, people wouldn't call it a heterosexual problem and this was therefore a dissonance.

It's not a "hypothetical situation." In the larger population, men are the predominant abusers and young girls are the most commonly abused. I see no signs that it is referred to as a "heterosexual problem."

But as has been demonstrated, it's not a dissonance because that would be expected based on demographics. The fact that the majority are boys means there is an abnormally high number of male-on-male abuse despite, once again, population demographics. If the majority were girls, there would be nothing abnormal and therefore no reason to call anything a heterosexual or homosexual problem.

Granted, it is possible there are other factors that are causing the abnormality here, such as priests having much easier "access" to boys than girls. One could try to use factors such as that to explain the disparity and that homosexuals are therefore not more likely to be committing abuse than heterosexuals. But your claim about there being a dissonance or hypocrisy or whatnot due to the hypothetical situation of most of the victims being female probably resulting in a different response simply put doesn't make sense.

And again, I think you just called pedophilia and child sexual abuse "normal" if it is man on girl. That's an odd position to take, and does not change the fact that sexual orientation is not cited in that instance, but is when it is homosexuals that are involved.

[carpedm9587]

That is not exactly true, when I was growing up two priests were "moved on" for affairs with women. Believe me there are plenty of available women. The fact is these men are homosexual.

And their homosexuality has nothing to do with it. Their pedophilia and child sexual abuse does. Simple reality: focus on homosexuality and you will unjustly impact all of the homosexual priests who have never violated their oath of celibacy, and you will still be left with all of the priests molesting young girls. Focus on the child molestation and pedophilia and you will be dealing with the entire problem, while leaving innocent men who happen to have a homosexual orientation alone.

This is not a complex concept.

[carpedm9587]

If a disproportionate number of the cases are same-sex then there is a "homosexual problem." If the cases reflected the actual distribution of heterosexual to homsexuals in the population then you would have a point in arguing that calling it a "homosexual problem" is unwarranted. But when a very distinct majority of abuse cases are same-sex then it is a "homosexual problem"

You can whine about it all you like, but to describe it as such is perfectly sensible.

See my response to Seer. (below)

[carpedm9587]

Actually, carpedm does sort of have a point; having sex (or some form of sexual relations that stop short of actual sex) with someone of the same or opposite sex does not inherently make someone a homosexual or heterosexual. Those are orientations, whereas the actual sex is an action. Obviously, a homosexual would be dramatically more likely to engage in relations with someone of the same sex and a heterosexual would be dramatically more likely to engage in relations with someone of the opposite sex, but exceptions can occur. For example, it's my understanding that heterosexuals turning to same-sex carnal relationships in prison isn't that uncommon for the simple reason that there's a dramatic shortage of the opposite sex around so you get your pleasure with what's available. Obviously, priests aren't as limited as an inmate is, but once again due to their position have, if they're trying to have relations with someone else, much more access to males than females.

I am dubious whether these considerations are sufficient to account for the disparity in the abuse between the two genders, but it isn't inaccurate to point out that someone can engage in sexual relationships outside of their ordinary orientation.

Exactly. And then there is the issue I raised in my response to Seer.

[rogue06]

Exactly my point.



The problem is not homosexuals. It is child abusers and pedophiles. You don't even know the sexual orientation of the people involved. You're just jumping to, "if they have sex with male minors, they're gay." It's not a supportable assumption. Even heterosexuals have male-to-male sex under the right conditions.

If the vast majority of the child abusers and pedophiles are gay then it is primarily a problem with gay child abusers and pedophiles. Kinda obvious.

[carpedm9587]

If the vast majority of the child abusers and pedophiles are gay then it is primarily a problem with gay child abusers and pedophiles. Kinda obvious.

See my response to Seer.

[One Bad Pig]

See my response to Seer.

Doesn't read any better the fourth time through.