https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...newstopstories

Catholics are Christians David didn't you know that? Especially the Pope and hose in top leadership positions - they are an evil
bunch...

To be honest their are lots of evil "Christians" also who have done the same and worse ...

Why? How does this happen?

Because God doesn't control you - you have a guidebook so to speak andnits up to you to change yourself by freewill - it takes effort and many do not take the effort to better themselves...

We Catholics believe that we are in a period of purification where it's going to get worse before it gets better.

There is a strong homosexual problem within the Church and have been infested with effeminate men.

Two responses. First, isn't Catholicism a universal religion? Don't you believe that everyone should become a Catholic? Does that not include homosexuals? Second, your religion makes your clergy swear oaths of celibacy. I just think men who are more traditionally masculine will almost always be underrepresented in the leadership of an institution with that kind of rule. A large element of traditional masculinity is about sexual competition and priests don't (openly) play that game.

Yes, it's universal and believe that everyone should become Catholic for the sake of their salvation as it is the truth. Catholicism was founded by Jesus Christ at the time of the apostles and is closest to early Christianity.

We separate being attracted to the same sex and actually going out and performing homosexual acts (mortal sin). So if you are attracted to the same sex you can still still be part of the Catholic Church but are called to celibacy.

Same sex attraction is viewed as a "cross" that one has to bear during life. Everyone has their crosses that they have to bear, a straight person may be addicted to pornography and masturbation which is their "cross".

They do swear to celibacy and I do think that a priest may have higher level of temptations to sin because they don't and can never have a physical spouse.

But effeminate vs. masculine in Catholicism is viewed different way than society typically does. Effeminacy is a disordered attachment to pleasure.

For example, going out and having sex with multiple women would be defined as effeminate behavior because they are giving in to the pleasures of this world and not willing to self sacrifice for God that calls us for chastity. It's harder to be chaste than to give in to lust. We should sacrifice all pleasure that doesn't align with Gods will.

So a priest living out their vocation perfectly would be defined as very masculine.

So what you should have said then is not that "homosexuality" is a strong problem in the Catholic Church, but rather people performing homosexual acts is a major problem. However, I would guess that masturbation and pornography is much more common than performing homosexual acts among both the Catholic laity and priests. So why are you singling out homosexual acts in particular? I'll admit that I am biased when Catholics focus on homosexual acts as a problem in the church rather than the other kinds of sexual sins (or divorce and birth control) that it is because most people are not tempted to perform homosexual acts and so find it easier to condemn.

So would you then say that a woman who doesn't have a disordered attachment to pleasure is a masculine woman? And a feminine woman is one who has a disordered attachment to pleasure?

If seminarian struggles with same sex attraction they should never have been ordained and this a policy of the Church. Seminarians are supposed to be vetted on these types of things. This has been overlooked to say the least, so basically what we have now is a network of people who are ordained who are attracted to the same sex.

But for a lay person, it's okay to be attracted to the same sex as they aren't held to the same standards as priests in that regard.


I'm singling out homosexual tendencies within the church because that (along with communism) is the root cause of why the Catholic Church as having scandal after scandal.

The other sins are more common but have less of an impact on the Church in relation to the scandals.

But I haven't done the research on this myself but am what I'm finding within the Catholic community from people who know more than myself. This link has some details in regards to homosexual and communism issue in the church: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MMiI_UGUVY

No, it is feminine woman. Males are supposed to have masculine qualities and women feminine.

However, I'm not sure what the term would be for women who have a disordered attachment to pleasure besides sinner.

I'm not trying to single any particular sin or tendency out, we're all sinners and have our own crosses to bear. Forgive me if that's what it comes off as.

It's your view that celibate homosexuals should not be ordained as priests? Why not?
I'm not sure what you mean by the priestly standard here. What standard is a celibate person who is attracted to the same sex not achieving here? God hasn't commanded them to not feel attraction to the same sex, but to not perform homosexual acts. Seems to me like you are actually holding homosexual priests to a higher standard than heterosexual priests.
You left out the freemasons here as a root cause as well . I don't know what the root cause is, but like I said before, I am pretty biased against people who examine the root cause of evil in their church and find it is those sins they are not themselves tempted by. That seems too easy to me. The recent scandals of the church imo are the result of priests sexually abusing children, both boys and girls, and the coverups by senior members of the priesthood and the relative impunity these priests have enjoyed following these abuses. As you say, this is not because people are homosexual (as this isn't a sin according to Roman Catholicism) and I don't really see what it has to do with communism.

My sense is that ordinarily "masculine" qualities has to do with having the virtues (and vices) more typically associated in American culture with being a man, and vice versa for "feminine." Sexual competition is a pretty common part of this, where the idea is that American women are more likely to be attracted to men who are more masculine. It is in this sense that I'm saying that priests who take oaths of celibacy are less likely to have these masculine traits because they are not competing (openly at least) with other men for sex and so have less incentive to acquire these traits (and men who are less conventionally masculine are probably more likely to self-select into the priesthood as well because of the lower opportunity cost of the vow of celibacy).

You said that the definition you are using of "masculine" is "ordered attachment to pleasure." But masculine is almost always understood in conjunction with feminine, and that definition doesn't seem to me particularly gendered (you seem to agree, which is presumably why you reject the claim that a woman with this virtue is a "masculine" woman). Of course, there can be some overlap over what we think are virtues for men and women, but the relevant parts associated with being masculine and feminine are the differences right? Otherwise we can just say that they should be more humane as there wouldn't be any gendered difference at all.
I'm confused. Earlier in your post you say, "I'm singling out homosexual tendencies within the church because that (along with communism) is the root cause of why the Catholic Church as having scandal after scandal." Now you say you're not trying to single out any particular sin or tendency? Which is it?

You are admitting the "problem". But you are not mentioning the "crime".

Most of what I'm saying isn't my opinion, rather teachings of the Catholic Church or what I've heard from Priests such as the link I provided.

I don't think celibate homosexuals should be ordained as priests because the Catholic Church says so.

Link this December from the Pope: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-francis-says


I was just saying that a Priest should not be ordained if they are attracted to the same sex.

I think that people that have SSA have it tougher because they have no option in the eyes of the Church besides celibacy. People who are straight at least have a choice to marry etc. I think it is a huge sacrifice to live celibate for this reason and is admirable.

A majority where males that were assaulted, don't know exact number but I think it's around 85% or so.

The first link that I provided earlier goes into the communism piece and the homosexual network within the Church.


I agree


Agree there is overlap, such as virtue of humility which all should practice.


I was just referring to in general on an individual and human level, not in regards to the crisis in the Church.

the assaults that occurred and cover ups

I'm talking about the fact that you are expounding on homosexuality rather than child molestation. The former merely says that priests give in to that are weak. They could still otherwise have the morals expected of a priest. Not the latter.

Please. The Roman Catholic Church has always been a whore, ever since
St. John coined the phrase in Revelation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon

Many Biblical scholars[7][8] believe that "Babylon" is a metaphor for the pagan Roman Empire at the time it persecuted Christians, before the Edict of Milan in 313: perhaps specifically referencing some aspect of Rome's rule (brutality, greed, paganism). Some exegetes interpret the passage as a scathing critique of a servant people of Rome who do the Empire's bidding, interpreting that the author of Revelation was speaking of the Herodians—a party of Jews friendly to Rome and open to its influence, like the Hellenizers of centuries past—and later, corrupt Hasmoneans, where the ruler of Jerusalem or Roman Judea exercised his power at the pleasure of the Emperor, and was dependent on Roman influence, like Herod the Great in the Gospel of Luke.

In 4 Ezra,[9][10] 2 Baruch[11] and the Sibylline Oracles,[12] "Babylon" is a cryptic name for Rome.[13] Reinhard Feldmeier speculates that "Babylon" is used to refer to Rome in 1 Peter 5:13.[14] In Revelation 17:9 it is said that she sits on "seven mountains",[15] typically understood as the seven hills of Rome.[16][17][18][19][20] A Roman coin minted under the Emperor Vespasian (ca. 70 AD) depicts Rome as a woman sitting on seven hills.[21]

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "The characteristics ascribed to this Babylon apply to Rome rather than to any other city of that age: (a) as ruling over the kings of the earth (Revelation 17:18); (b) as sitting on seven mountains (Revelation 17:9); (c) as the center of the world's merchandise (Revelation 18:3, 11–13); (d) as the corrupter of the nations (Revelation 17:2; 18:3; 19:2); (e) as the persecutor of the saints (Revelation 17:6)."[22]

According to Eusebius of Caesarea Babylon would be Rome or the Roman Empire:

Agree with what you say. I don't think people who are straight or homosexuals have different chances of being child molesters. We can't deny that most abuse victims are male but there may be other dynamics at play.

Without knowing too much about the practical aspects of Catholicism, I would guess boys are more likely than girls in various ceremonial duties? So that number might reflect more the demographic of possible victims than the demographic of possible deviances. Molesters - as in the people that would actually act on their deviancy - are often attracted to positions of power over their preferred victims (coaching, teaching, management positions, clergy).

This can also become a vicious cycle, as childhood victims of sexual assault are at much greater risk of become such abusers themselves. The most most common explanation for this is that it is a form of seeking control over traumas, in a sense they seek out the role they were powerless against. This is why it is extremely important that organizations such as the Catholic church, sports organizations, schools etc. fight abuse openly and directly. You have to demonstrate to victims that abusers are not allowed to be in positions of power, but instead that power should ultimately be on the victim's side.

As has been demonstrated harshly with the articles and investigations, the Catholic Church has failed utterly in that latter regard. They have indeed thrown their clout behind hiding, cloaking and indeed empowering the abusers even more. They are not the only organization that have done this... we have seen similar stories from the USA Gymnastics organization, universities, media companies and movie production companies - but the Church certainly did on a scale that it almost unfathomable.

It was bad, very bad. And still is, although obviously the bad priests are getting weeded out.

It happens in many subsets, organizations etc. People try to keep things quiet. Look at the me too movement in Hollywood for example. Most of Hollywood knows/knew who the bad guys are/were. The rest of the world is just hearing about such things recently.

Not really sure what you are looking for as far as replies/answers.

I haven’t been here in RG&T for quite a long time, so I don’t know some of the posters. But, this is not a good representative opinion of how most Catholics think and imo the teachings of the Church.

The words problem and infested simply aren’t in real Catholism vocabulary. Let alone what else the poster might be saying, which I tuned out once I read that.

Agree with everything you said Tame. Well, except I dunno about the ceremonial duties thing. But, that not really the important stuff. You nailed it. Good post.

it's okay to disagree and I don't claim to know it all.

why don't you enlighten us

As far as what most Catholic think, neither one of us can prove either way. My claim is most Catholics don’t think that way. If you insist they do, then fine. The readers here can guess themselves.

As far as the teachings of the Church, you made the statement. The onus is on you to show any encyclical, official pronouncements or even publications or quotes from most officials in the Church who using such bigoted language feel this way.

I’m not arguing there isn’t a decent number of homosexual and or effeminate men (not all effeminate men are gay and vice versa btw) in the Church (priests I assume you mean). It's just that your description, language, tone and inferences to the teachings of the Church need more than your statements to stand as true.

To put it simply: show your work.

I don't think that most Catholics think this way, not even close. Although I don't think this hold much relevance given what the average Catholic believes.

I'm not trying to prove anything as true as I don't have that authority and can't account for all the variables. What am referencing is traditional priests and subject matter experts that weigh in on the abuse scandal.

Can you reference something specific? Who are these priests and "subject matter experts" that are saying this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MMiI_UGUVY

Fr. Ripperger is great theologian:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgwVjNuRDzk

On what basis do you believe he is a "great theologian"? And to what extent and on what basis do you believe that this is a representative position in the space of Catholic thought? Furthermore, on what basis is he a "subject matter expert"?