RCC bans ordination of Gays and supporters..

..unless they happen to paedophiles.

Then it's "Bring on the choirboys!"

Originally posted by howardgee

So what?

EDIT: You're realising that only now? The report's been out for nearly a week.

Originally posted by howardgee

So what?

Edit: someone already got there.

Edit: what report?

Originally posted by howardgee
..unless they happen to paedophiles.

Then it's "Bring on the choirboys!"

Original post lost - not sure wot appened.

Originally posted by howardgee
..unless they happen to [be] paedophiles.

The strong correlation between ephebophily and homosexual orientation is a good reason to ban active homosexuals from seminaries and, hence, the priesthood.

Let priests be married and stop pretending sex is a sin.
Is that too much to ask?

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Let priests be married and stop pretending sex is a sin.
Is that too much to ask?

Married men can become priests under certain circumstances. And sex is not a sin.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
The strong correlation between ephebophily and homosexual orientation is a good reason to ban active homosexuals from seminaries and, hence, the priesthood.

So says the RCC. Not those who study mental pathologies...

"Ephebophilia

Ephebophilia, also known as hebephilia, is the condition in which adults are dependent on the sexual attraction to postpubescent adolescents. Pederasty refers to attraction toward male adolescents. Attraction to female adolescents is sometimes referred to as "Lolita syndrome" or "Lolita Complex" (an equivalent term for males is the uncommon "Shota Complex"😉. These terms are used in contrast with pedophilia; however pedophilia is sometimes used more broadly in the western world to describe both ephebophilia and attraction to younger children, i.e. any person younger than the legal age of consent.

Sexual desires including youths are common among adults with a heterosexual or homosexual orientation, though their attraction is not specifically to persons that young. Only when it is a specific and exclusive attraction, is it labeled ephebophilia as a sexual condition or orientation. It should also be noted that unlike pedophilia, attraction to adolescents has never been regarded by psychologists as pathological. In fact, it has often been considered normative in some societies, such as those in which adolescent girls have been married to adult men. Nonetheless, it is often illegal for adults to act on an attraction to adolescents below a certain age, and such activity is disapproved of in many societies."
[From http://www.measuroo.com/Leg-P/Pedophilia.php ]

Originally posted by echecero
So says the RCC. Not those who study mental pathologies...

"Ephebophilia

Ephebophilia, also known as hebephilia, is the condition in which adults are dependent on the sexual attraction to postpubescent adolescents. Pederasty refers to attraction toward male adolescents. Attraction to female adolescents is sometimes referred to as "Lolita syndrome" ...[text shortened]... ity is disapproved of in many societies."
[From http://www.measuroo.com/Leg-P/Pedophilia.php ]

Correction: The strong correlation between actual abuse of postpubescent boys by men* and homosexual orientation is a good reason to ban active homosexuals from seminaries and, hence, the priesthood.

Better?

---
* regardless of whether the abuser is exclusively attracted to postpubescent boys or boys & men.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Correction: The strong correlation between actual abuse of postpubescent boys by men* and homosexual orientation is a good reason to ban active homosexuals from seminaries and, hence, the priesthood.

Better?

---
* regardless of whether the abuser is exclusively attracted to postpubescent boys or boys & men.

So basically, you are claiming a strong correlation between homosexuality and homosexuality!

Wow.
Stop the presses - this is amazing!

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Correction: The strong correlation between actual abuse of postpubescent boys* and homosexual orientation is a good reason to ban active homosexuals from seminaries and, hence, the priesthood.

Better?

---
* regardless of whether the abuser is exclusively attracted to postpubescent boys or boys & men.

Since we mean homosexual men in this context (there being no priestesses), I think that this correlation gains nothing: a man who is attracted to males is going to be termed a homosexual. A man who sexually abuses postpubescent boys is clearly going to be termed a homosexual.

The important question is whether there is a correlation between men who engage in (or wish to engage in) homosexual relations with other adult males and men who sexually abuse postpubescent boys.

Why is this the important question? Because if no such correlation exists, then banning all homosexuals isn't effectively combatting the problem, and actually changes nothing.

Can you provide any evidence of either your suggested correlation or the one that I have posited? Further, is there any evidence of a causal relationship?

Originally posted by howardgee
So basically, you are claiming a strong correlation between homosexuality and homosexuality!

Wow.
Stop the presses - this is amazing!

Good. At least one less person will bring up the old argument about married priests being the solution to abuse scandals.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Good. At least one less person will bring up the old argument about married priests being the solution to abuse scandals.

Hrm. I don't know about that. I believe there to be a strong correlation between unmarried adult clergy and priests who sexually abuse children.... :-)

Originally posted by echecero
Hrm. I don't know about that. I believe there to be a strong correlation between unmarried adult clergy and priests who sexually abuse children.... :-)

Exactly the same percentage as that of married men who abuse children.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Exactly the same percentage as that of married men who abuse children.

That may be. Of course, the percentages of homosexuals who abuse children seem to be the same as that of heterosexuals.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsabuse1.htm#25
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Sexual_abuse_an_overview?OpenDocument
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

It appears that the actual issue is whether homosexual men should be allowed to be priests and the only actual basis that should be used to determine that is the fact of homosexuality, since that is the only defining factor. Banning them based on the rate of child abuse, which seems to be on par with married men and unmarried clergy seems to indicate that we would need to change to women, since they seem to be the only group with a statistically smaller rate of abuse (although that seems to be uncertain, since it hasn't been studied as much).