One of the Vatican’s “solutions” for their perennial sex scandals is to start testing and screening candidates for the priesthood. Australia is even considering doing it: unfortunately, the targets are all wrong.
Melbourne’s Catholic Church has embraced a Vatican suggestion to test potential priests for sexual orientation. Those who “appear” gay will be banned.
The head of the Vatican committee that made the recommendations has made it clear celibate gays should also be banned because homosexuality is ”a type of deviation”.
I really want to know details about how these tests are going to be done. Do they hook the candidate up to a plethysmograph and then show them pictures of varying degrees of titillation to various sexual orientations? That sounds fun — they might get a flood of new prospects who are really just there for the test. Heck, if I was sufficiently bored, I might sign up … especially if the testing is done by hot novices in sexy wimples.
But, still, it’s all incredibly wrong-headed. Priests are people who are supposed to be celibate…it should hardly matter whether they are turned on by women or men or turnips, for that matter. There might even be a significant number of church leaders who are radical perverts deep down, but are in the priesthood specifically and sincerely for the whole denial of the flesh aspect. Why single out gays? Shouldn’t we be more worried about priests with uncontrollable urges towards children, or even heterosexual priests who are unable to resist the women who look up to them as authority figures?
This isn’t about correcting the problems of the church at all. It’s more about finding another opportunity to discriminate against gays.
How does one “appear” gay?
No, PZ, you don’t understand. You see, someone capable of being gay is also capable or raping children! Won’t somebody think of the children?
Oh it is SIMPLE! Use the Seinfeld test:
1. Ask a man to look at his watch. If he is gay he is wearing his watch face at the inside of his wrist; if he is straight he is wearing the watch face on the outside of his wrist.
2. Ask a man to check the bottom of his shoe. If he pulls his foot in FRONT of him he is straight; if he throws his leg behind him and looks back – he is a poof.
3. Ask a man to check his nails. If he folds his fingers into his palm and looks he is straight; if he fans his fingers out in front of him and looks – FAGGOLA!
Of course these rules do not apply to women – they are not sexual. Just vessels…!
SIMPLE!
What I don’t understand is that catholic priests are not supposed to have sexuality at all.
They’re singling out gays because its a convenient way to shift the blame – it wasn’t the Catholic church and its hierarchy that was to blame for the molestation of children, it was all the gays fault, blame the gays, not the church!
“Why single out gays?”
scapegoating
Demented medievalist fuckwits.
It’d fail to surprise me of ‘homosexuality’ and ‘pedophilia’ were synonymous to the Catholic church.
Man, is the Pope trying to set a record for most outrages sparked by his inane claims in the shortest amount of time.
We need another Pope Alexander VI. At least it’d be amusing on top of being harmful to the masses as Pope Palpatine is.
I also wonder if the Vatican has issued any specific statements forbidding him to be referred to as ‘Pope Palpatine,’ or if they just have the blanket statement about derision and dissonance shown towards him in the press.
I’m all for it, so long as they apply it to current men of the cloth, including the pope.
An even simpler test:
“Do you enjoy: Will & Grace/Fashion shows/any Rom-Com”
If they say “Yes”, “Oooh, yes” or “Why of COURTHE, thilly~” then they are invariably homosexual.
Girls excluded, they can’t be priests
That’s the thing… To them, “gay” means “uncontrollable urges towards children”. It’s a nasty prejudice that still won’t go away, despite the fact that modern homosexuality is specifically a matter between adults.
Eh well… It’s hard to expect a 1700 year old feudal oligarchy to be in tune with the times.
The chuch doesn’t have any problems, they’re infalible after all. Any problems they may be appearing to have are all due to the evil machinations of satan and his evil gay minions. Now that they’ve got that worked out it looks like it’s safe for me to go back to mass.
Stephen Fry was talking about similar tests on a recent episode of QI, except these test were originally used to catch straight people pretending to be gay because they didn’t want to join the army. how times have changed.
So, by keeping out the “gay” acting applicants, those that appear straight can get through.
Just because one is gay does not mean that one is a pedophile.
So they are able to keep out some of the gay pedophiles by means of the arbitrary system. What of the straight pedophiles?
What of those straight wannabe priests who are turned away?
This is going to blow up in the most spectacular way.
Not surprising. Dumbasses like our own Pastor (oh, that part was a lie) Pete Rooke try to deflect criticism of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy by saying, “Yes, we have a problem with homosexual priests,” blah, blah, blah. Totally stupid.
Relatedly, didn’t somebody reference a study here a while back demonstrating that there are actually more girls than boys who are sexually abused by Catholic clergy? I looked but was unable to find it.
I think you might be gay if you’re a guy who likes wearing a dress, but that might not be a standard the Vatican would care to enforce.
Why don’t they just change their name to the Church of Rabid Mindless Homophobia and have done with it.
Despite they’re being so enormously wrong here (as usual), maybe they are just concerned about protecting young Catholic boys from predators. After all, as we’ve recently learned from Brazil, the rape of a young girl is nothing to be worried about unless she has an abortion.
I recall at (my very Catholic) school being taught that homosexuality was a choice (and and immoral one at that). Is this a sign that the Catholic Church has finally accepted it is innate and not a choice?
Progress, of a sort, I suppose.
To make themselves feel superior?
To “fool” the public into thinking that they are “doing something” about their gross negligence and malfeasance in enabling the rapes of thousands of children?
@ #19
A step backwards that must be taken before a step forwards, as it were.
If women were allowed to be preists it would be the womens’ fault. The church is funny.
I thought Pope Ratzy’s red Prada shoes were faaaabulous and not in the least bit gay – wait, what?…
Why limit the test to POTENTIAL priests, have it as a “catch all” and also test those currently in service.
The Pope often gets around in a dress and a pair of red velvet Prada shoes. *cough* *cough* ..just saying.
I believe Redd Foxx proposed a verbal test in “Norman, Is That You?”
I can see it now:
CATHOLIC SCREENING PANEL: “Okay son, you’re doing fine. Now try saying ‘Mississippi’.”
APPLICANT: “Goddamnit.”
http://ant.sillydog.org/blog/pic/pope%20benedict%20prada.jpg
Nah, nah, you’ve all got it wrong. They want to keep out men who “appear gay” — in other words, men who aren’t self-loathing homosexuals. It’s not the gayness that bothers them, it’s a refusal to accept the proper appearance — to behave as if they were not gay.
Just as the church is strongly against priests appearing to be pedophiles. They don’t mind the pedos — they mind the ones who get outed.
In their minds, we’re all equally pervs in essence, and equally guilty of crimes due to that perversion — the game is one of proper kowtowing. Keep it under your dress, boy!
PZ asked:
Don’t be silly! The single biggest problem facing the Catholic Church today are the gay priests.
For one thing, think of the money that could be going to the needy that, instead, is being spent on fancy robes and tiaras.
It’s not only wrong-headed, it’s willfully wrong-headed. The Catholic church knows that the problem is paedophelia, not homosexuality. It’s just ignoring the wide gulf between these two things and lumping them together, as many Christian groups tend to do.
I know this because I’ve met a psychiatrist here in Massachusetts who consulted for the Vatican a few years ago, at the peak of the clergy abuse crisis. He presented his findings, and the evidence and numbers were clear: homosexuality had no correlation to the problems the church was facing. Quite the opposite, in fact. One might argue that the church should be actively looking for gay priests, as they are less likely to be paedophiles.
Funny side note: before presenting his findings at the conference he and the other experts the Vatican brought in were told they were not “allowed” to reach certain conclusions (talk about religion being the opposite of science!). Specifically, they were not allowed to conclude that priests should be permitted to marry, or to be female.
It is a very common misconception that gay people must also be child molesters. It is put forth so pervasively by Christians of all stripes that sufficiently ignorant people who don’t even seriously adhere to a religious doctrine still believe it.
It is also the Catholic Church’s official stand, so it isn’t surprising at all.
You are right, what sort of test is there to determine someones sexually who would want (and now have greater incentive) to hide it? I can’t believe a so-called western country would even consider such a thing. It sounds as ridiculous as those “Cure Your Gayness” classes. I suspect that lifting the celibacy requirements for priest would greatly improve this problem. You don’t hear much about sex with altar boys coming from protestant churches.
http://www.TheNewAtheist.com
Why not make this really scientific. For this, you need a validated control group … like the College of Cardinals.
Meh.
Someone needs to show them http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm , not that they would care.
“Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?
A discussion of gay sexuality and homosexual molestation”
Essentially shows out that straight men are perfectly capable of violating little boys.
Besides, there have been tons of cases where girls have been violated, do those cases magically not exist according to them because it’s not as closely linked to “OHNOESSODOMY!”? Probably -_-
Three successful applicants for the priesthood face one final test before their ordination.
The bishop tells them “In order for you to become priests you must demonstrate that your thoughts are not on this world.
“You will now strip and tie these little bells to the end of your penisses.”
Monsignor then brings in a scantily clad, nubile, young woman and instructs her to dance for the wannabe clegymen.
She sidles up to the first and wiggle her bottom:
DING-A-LING!
“Patrick! I’m so disappointed in you! Leave! Go to the showers and clean up.”
The stripper then moves to the next guy and shakes her boobs:
DING-A-LING!
“Ramon! Not you too! Off! To the showers.”
Finally the woman moves to the last prospective priest. She wags what she’s got. She rubs against him. She whispers sweet nothings in his ear.
Nothing.
The bishop positively cries with joy: “Oh, Guillaume! I am so happy to see what sturdy stuff you are made of. You truly are going to make an excellent priest. Tomorrow you will begin preparations for your ordination.
“But for now, go join Ramon and Patrick in the shower.”
DING-A-LINGA-LINGA-LING!
I’ll have to disagree. If somebody gets their jollies from turnips, I don’t think that they should be giving anybody advice on how to live their lives. Turnip Fuckers should stick to retail jobs, IMO, but not in a grocery store.
Excellent! Blake at #7
I have my next RockBand band name….am retiring the
“BoyShagging Crucifictional Asshats”.
Most humble thanks.
Tax Religion.
Tark
Does anyone else think that “hot novices in sexy wimples”
sounds like a great idea for a band’s name?
HS
uh… this is so wrong I don’t know where to begin. Pedophiles are pedophiles. It has nothing to do with being gay…. and what really also disturbs me is that they seem completely ok with the idea that priests also rape little girls.
‘appear to be gay’? This is a REALLY bad criteria choice! The church should know that: Some priests also ‘appear’ to be normal, sane people, after all.
Gay priests aren’t the problem. Pedophiles are. Not the same thing, asshole Vatican dildos. This will do nothing to “solve” the church’s centuries-old problem. But if the church is successful, then it won’t have a scapegoat any longer, and maybe people will begin to open their eyes. That is probably wishful thinking, though.
Another term for gays is sissies. As we all know, sissies are girly, hence the Schwarzeneggian term girly-men. If girly-men are allowed to be priests, then it’s a short step to allowing girlies to be priests. So to avoid that slippery slope the Catholic hierarchy is black balling homosexual men. Preventing gays from being priests now will prevent women from being priests in the future. QE everlovin’ D.
To define their morality as something special, that’s why. It’s the same reason this issue is so important to the Protestants and Muslims, too.
“Morality” is supposed to be the domain of religion. And yet most basic matters of right and wrong which come up in a diverse, secular society don’t require religious belief of any kind. Don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal or murder — don’t cause unnecessary harm — don’t need to be engraved on a stone tablet lest people who want to live fairly with their neighbors fail to come up with them. They’re reasonable.
If faith gets too reasonable, it becomes secular philosophy. If faith-based morality is too reasonable, it’s just ethics for anyone and everyone. So the religious need to set themselves apart, as special and different. They have to find some sort of “wrong” which you need to be religious in order to justify as being wrong.
Straight people often have instinctive distasteful reactions against having sex with someone of the same sex (not always, but often enough.) And yet, there’s no good reason to feel that way, and it can be changed or overcome. It can also be fostered and emphasized and encouraged. That’s what religion does. It helps believers identify themselves as more sensitive and moral than outsiders, because they can see a Big Picture of Wrongness where there’s Rebellion Against What God Intended. Secularists only see people in love.
Rule #2: No poofters!
As I was looking at these comments, there were two solutions to the church’s problem (assuming I cared about solving the church’s problem) that occurred to me. Then I hit Bostonian’s comment at #29 and found that my solutions were specifically ruled out by the church hierarchy. Two perfectly good ideas that I was willing to give away for free. Okay, well, just be that way, then.
I grew up in Ireland and had a priest as a religious education teacher in secondary school. He once brought up the subject of homosexuality and the Catholic churches attitude to it. According to him the church disapproved of the act of homosexuality but not of homosexuals themselves.
This prompted one of my classmates to innocently ask the logical question of whether this meant the best thing for the church to do was to actively recruit homosexuals into the priesthood (where the celibate life would be perfectly suited to the churches supposed position.)
Talk about hitting a raw nerve!
The priest immediately flew off the handle and started to whack my classmate around the head, screaming insults at him all the while – all of this from a normally quite a contemplative cleric!
The thing I particularly remember about the incident (apart from the priest’s rage) is the fact that the whole class of 14 year olds seemed to think the question was a serious and legitimate point while the priest took it as some sort of personal insult!
I thought the RCC policy was that it is okay to be gay, as long as you don’t engage in homosexual acts. That whole “love the sinner, hate the sin” deal.
As a gay male and former (or non-practising) Catholic, I see this as additional cover for their “sins” of the past. It won’t wash. Also, I’ve seen articles about heterosexual priests in African forcing themselves on young nuns. They should shitcan the whole celibacy thing, but, you know… tradition.
If they’re serious about this, they won’t be able to get enough priests to fill the ranks unless the get better at shaming heterosexuals. Right now, I don’t think they can shame enough of them sufficiently to make them swear off sex.
This is driven by the old canard that homosexuality and pedophilia are connected and that it is latent homosexuality, and not the unnatural rejection of perfectly healthy sexual impulses for years upon years, which drives priests to molest little boys. No doubt there are some predators who enter the priesthood specifically for this purpose, but I would suggest that choir boys are young, naive,defenseless and impressionable; in other words, the perfect target for a man driven to madness by denying himself the perfectly natural practice of sexual impulse. In other words, the church makes these men into pedophiles, they don’t come to it as such.
So if the priest is a heterosexual pedophile, that’s okay?
It does make one wonder if they truly don’t understand the difference between homosexual and pedophile.
OTOH, we’re talking about the church’s attack on queers instead of priests buggaring little boys, so it’s probably a PR win for them.
Frog @ #27 nailed it. Lot’s of self hating, non-effeminate priests, the less masculine clergy will be purged.
There are a lot of gays in the catholic church and there is a reason for this. They are ashamed of their homosexuality and feel like the church offers them an avenue to repent their sins (but not necessarily stop practicing). Catholicism is also a lot like Judaism in that it is something you are born into and can become an identity outside of your own beliefs. But, we all know this.
I also can see how a person who thinks themselves deviant would want to be celibate and what better way of doing that than to have a high official telling you that you can never have sex again. So, I can see how the church would attract child molesters who want to stop their instincts only to have daily temptations so I can’t see how “screening” is going to fix anything.
Qwerty: If they shit-canned celibacy, how would they be any different than the Anglicans or Lutherans? I’d bet such thinking has more to do with it than anything else.
@34
Wouldn’t it be much easier and simpler to have Caledonia do her erotic tempo dance in praise to the God Eros instead of having to resort to tingalingaling?
Oh it is SIMPLE! Use the Seinfeld test:
That is much older than Seinfeld. I remember this from junior high (7th grade) which would be around 1970, and I’m sure it was not new then.
But then again, back then it was just identified as girls do “these”, boys do “those”. I don’t remember any specific reference to “gay” or “straight”. (other than no boy wanting to be labeled “girlie”)
Of course…
It has the Chatholic church that has to made the equation: Homosexuality equals children abuse, which is cleary false.
Even the equation Pedofilia = children abuse is not completely true.
Pedofilia is a mental sicknes, and acording the reports on sexual abuse by the unicef, most pedofiles do not abuse children.
http://www.paralax.com.mx/antivirus/bin/Aprovecharsedelabuso.pdf
(sorry… i do not know where is the english version)
One of the point of the reports, is that the mayority of the acts of sexual abuse on children, are done by heterosexuals. And only about 15% of the case of abuse are by pederasts.
So we have different things. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, it is not a determinant on sexual abuse.
Strictly speaking, Paedophilia is a mental disease, a form of paraphilia. While in lay and legal terms it has been equated with pederasty or sexual abuse of minors, it is not the same.
Even more, most of the cases of sexual abuse, are done on girls by heterosexual… But most of them are not reported. Probably for every case of a boy abused are four girls abused. But somehow only the abuse of boys gets in to the press.
So… the problem is not being gay, not even being a pedophile.
The problem is the people that are in position of power over the children (boys are girls), and enjoy it. I could be a priest (of any religion), or a principal, even a member of the family.
But it is easier to point to a group and declare they are “inmoral”. no matter if they have or not facts to support it.
The problem on sexual abuse is not exclusive of the Catholic church…
for example: http://www.exjws.net/sexabuse/index.htm
A quick search would find cases of sexual abuse on minors in almost all religions…
But the Catholic church has been the most powerfull and has use his power to protect the guilty.
Question 1: Have you ever worked in this bookstore?
Their leader wears Prada slippers, for fuck’s sake!!!! I’m not sure what you have to do to appear gay in an organization where the bossman wears a flippin dress with so much gold it’d make Elvis embarrassed!!!! And his subordinates wear red velvet dressing gowns. I mean (swooon) Reeeeeahly Daaaahling!!!!
I really don’t understand this.
As far as I’m concerned, someone becomes a priest only if :
1. They’re gay and don’t want people to know.
2. They’re a pedophile and don’t want people to know, or want to have access to kids.
3. They really believe in God.
By refusing to take teh gays they’ve just raised the percentage of child molestors. Well done church. Well done.
No, no, this is good. Now all you good catholic mothers and fathers can rest assured that your little altarboy won’t be raped by teh gay priest. He’ll be raped by the manly he-man priest instead.
Yeah, I know. Eases my mind a ton, too.
#51 TC
It does make one wonder if they truly don’t understand the difference between homosexual and pedophile.
Oh, they don’t. They’ve never even properly tried addressed the issue. They never involved any psychologists or sex therapists in their decision (I don’t think they even consulted Dear Abby), they just jumped straight to “the gays did it”
I guess gays are just easier scapegoats than the Jews, nowadays.
A few years ago, when I made an attempt to go through RCIA (please don’t ask me to explain my state of mind), the very first thing the priest did was show us A Man For All Seasons. The very second thing he did was explain to us that we needed to show the resolve of a Thomas More in the face of The Gay Agenda.
This shortly after the bishop had gone through such trouble to explain to me that the Catholic Church is a “big tent”. I should have known that he meant this in the purely Republican sense.
Are homosexuals more likely to molest boys than are heterosexuals? I’m pretty sure that heterosexuals, by virtue of sheer number, are responsible for most molestation of boys, but I don’t know the likelihood.
Are pedophilic priests pedophiles before they enter the priesthood or do the urges arise from unnatural celibacy?
I knew there was a reason for those funky hats. They are hiding Holy Gaydars.
Since the vast majority of child molesters are heterosexual, the tests for homosexuality should be the one true test for admittance to the catholic priesthood.
This news about the tests & screening is nothing new, as the following report indicates.
Twelve priests were about to be ordained. The final test was for them to line up in a straight row, totally naked, while a beautiful, pert-breasted nude model danced before them.
Each priest had a small bell attached to his penis. They were told that anyone whose bell rang when the nude model danced in front of them would not be ordained, because he had not reached a state of spiritual purity.
The beautiful model danced before the first candidate, with no reaction. She proceeded down the line with the same response from all the priests until she got to the final priest.
As she danced, his bell began to ring so loudly that it flew off and fell clattering to the ground. Embarrassed, he took a few steps forward and bent over to pick up the bell…
Then all the other bells started to ring.
shamwowmytonguehurts @ 64
Are homosexuals more likely to molest boys than are heterosexuals? I’m pretty sure that heterosexuals, by virtue of sheer number, are responsible for most molestation of boys,
Acording th the UNICEF about 80% of the cases of sexual abuse on children are by heterosexuals.
And most of the victims of sexual abuse… are girls.
So when you hear a scandal of boys molested… think on the cases you do not hear….
Or maybe people think it is ok to abuse girls???
On the subject of clerical celibacy:
I once asked a devout Irish Catholic friend of mine whether he thought that the church might someday reverse its position on the matter, and he said,
“No, of course not, because it settles the matter of inheritance.”
In other words, when a priest dies, all of his worldly wealth is inherited by the church, and not his spouse or offspring.
T
They’ve already weeded out the turnip lovers. Potatoes on the other hand…
They dont care about women or children you see. If they are sexually abused well the Catholic church could care less. Remember they want women to no longer even have control over their bodies at all. They are after all plaything for men and to bear young. Just like the Taliban believe. They passed a Pro-Rape bill just this week in Afghanistan. They just dont want a lots of hot man on man action happening because every gay thatI know knows the best place to score a date is at the seminary or at church. Men rule there so it is a 24/7 party!
And the second most affected victim of catholic heteronormism gets it yet again.
The vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexual.
Targeting homosexuals with the jokes is pretty much taking the catholic line, except whereas they are consistently homophobic, you are only homophobic when you can get a cheap laugh out of it.
Laughing at homosexuals instead of the paedophiles is just as catholic as the Catholics.
Dimwits.
Here is an important video that all Pharyngulites must see. It sums up the oppositions views perfectly:
As some of the comments have noted, this just doesn’t make any sense.
1) It absolutely appears to be an admission that homosexuality is innate, and not just the action. As has been noted, the RCC claims it is not anti-homosexual, just anti-gay sex. But these guys have done nothing wrong, even according to the church. Just the fact they exist is the problem.
2) As PZ notes, priests are supposed to be celebate, so who cares who they are attracted to. And why are hetero priests who have sexual relations with women exempt from church concern? The church teaches that sex outside marriage is adultery. Yet a priest who commits adultery is only defrocked? Why is hetero adultery acceptable, but homo sex not?
This doesn’t pass the gaffaw test in the least.
And the second most affected victim of catholic heteronormism gets it yet again.
The vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexual.
Targeting homosexuals with the jokes is pretty much taking the catholic line, except whereas they are consistently homophobic, you are only homophobic when you can get a cheap laugh out of it.
Laughing at us homosexual normal people instead of the paedophile priests is just as catholic as the Catholics.
Dimwits.
#1 “How does one “appear” gay?”
Easy. You ask then… YOU appear gay. Catholic logic in motion!
Just keep quit and follow the Pope.
nanahuatzin @68
If that’s true, then homosexuals are responsible for disproportionately more child sex abuse. Less than 4% of men are exclusively homosexual and they’re committing 20% of all child sex abuse? Unless I’m missing another orientation, are 16% of men are classified as bisexual? Please tell me my statistical reasoning is bad.
The Protoevangelion of James is a biography of the “Virgin” Mary. In which it says she was visibly pregnant before “when she was not yet 13 summers old”. So unless my math and biology is wrong, she could have been knocked up between the ages of 11 and 12 (not yet 13 is 12). So in an absolute-based moral system that does not change does that make the christian god a pedophile?
@77
Fuck you
Okay, the cracker’s the body of this dead dude, see. But he’s really alive. And it’s really not a cracker, it’s a dude.
So when you eat this dude’s body, the most important important thing is that you’re not gay.
The priest who conducted my wedding was an old friend of mine that I had lost touch with. I don’t know who was more shocked, him or me, specially since I knew he was bisexual. Guess who disappeared before the wedding? My husband quit the church soon after that. Idiots.
And PZ can you just go ahead and give Sastra another Molly?
Akheloios
The vast majority of paedophiles are heterosexual.
Please provide a link (or more) to support this. Please don’t pull a Houston Friend.
It may not be as simple as homosexuality
vs. paedophilia. See this.
Admittedly, the part about ‘appearing to be gay’ is also
wrongheaded & disheartening.
Er…the priest who was SUPPOSED to conduct my wedding. Making dinner and posting, not a good mix.
They should start at the top
Pablo@#74,
You, like so many others misunderstand what celibacy is.
The Bavarian author Ludwig Thoma explained it in his
‘Filserbriefe” brilliantly:
“Celibacy does not mean priest can’t love,
that is quite wrong!
Celibacy protects the priest from the consequences of love
which is marriage.”
There you have it!
Is this Pope trying to set some kind of record for stupid decisions?
They just keep on coming.
Oh, Mary… you really have no idea.
There’s playfully kinky, there’s seriously kinky, there’s lifestyle kinky, there’s hardcore kinky, there’s edgeplayers, and then there’s Catholic clergy (See the Science Purity scale for comparison–they’re the mathematicians). It’s not a universal quality, but when you run into current or former Catholic clergy in a kink venue–just make sure you intended to play that hard before you agree to the scene.
Just because one is gay does not mean that one is a pedophile.
Oh dear. Likewise, just because one is Mexican does not mean that one is lazy.
They want to keep out men who “appear gay” — in other words, men who aren’t self-loathing homosexuals. It’s not the gayness that bothers them, it’s a refusal to accept the proper appearance — to behave as if they were not gay.
Oh dear oh dear.
Surely it’s possible to fight the stereotypes without promoting them or attacking those who don’t fit them.
Is this not the most asinine thing you have ever heard? And yes, I think this has been covered (probably in several posts above) – but are they going to test for pedophiles too? That’s where they really should focus their testing.
Gee, thank you nothing’s sacred for quoting my words and implying that I am using stereotypes. It is a point that I, being a part of the GLBT community, have to keep pointing out to people.
But I do like being compared to a racist.
I think it’s a way for the catholic church to dissociate itself from the child abuse scandals and all that – by drawing a connection to gay folks and blaming it on that, the church itself comes out clean, and doubly so after it starts enforcing measures against gays.
It’s the classic scapegoat tactic.
WBPNYC noted: Oh it is SIMPLE! Use the Seinfeld test:
1. Ask a man to look at his watch. If he is gay he is wearing his watch face at the inside of his wrist; if he is straight he is wearing the watch face on the outside of his wrist.
Doesn’t always work—my father wore his watch that way-he learned to do that while flying bombers in WWII-much easier to see his watch when it was to the inside when he was flying the planes.
The man wasn’t gay, but he was Catholic!
@85
Yeah, Ratzinger had my gaydar pinging from the get-go, more so than that e-harmony guy.
What a great idea! That would surely have helped these children!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/16/2304692.htm
</sarcasm>
Sounds like Ratzinger, alias Benedict, alias John Paul II’s Dick Cheney, is projecting again. if that guy isn’t a repressed closet case, I’ve never seen one.
How does one “appear” gay?
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1401/1473802105_e653e5f20c.jpg?v=0
that might work?
They think they are being clever…actually they are digging the catlick grave deeper into the mud of dogmatism.
They will have a cave in …now’t so sure…
Hopefully it will bury them all alive…and they can pretend they are in hell together…psychopaths and bigotry…a combination made in heaven…
“Okay, any of you guys who are a little too comfortable wearing a cassock, line up over there.”
How does one appear gay?
There’s an article at sciam.com called “There’s something queer about that face”, that shows people can accurately gauge sexual orientation based solely on pictures of faces, with tell-tale hair and and eyebrow styles controlled for. I’d link it, but I keep getting spyware when I go to that site.
If it’s true that insufficient prenatal androgen exposure is a cause for male homosexuality, then it’s plausible that facial bone and musculature structure would end up subtly less masculinized.
The Catholic church doesn’t care about the transgressions of its own members. The “good” ones — the most objectively moral — simply called for laicization of serial sex offenders, not criminalization.
Since the 1940’s, according to some newly-revealed papers, bishops have been warned of the widespread problem, enough so some called for buying a private island to put the offenders.
Some nimrod on the religion clause blog was calling for “perspective” regarding it, comparing it to the harm done by “atheistic” Communism, Nazism, and Maoism. My perspective is that the Catholic church is a den of immoral self-serving louts who wouldn’t be able to accurately identify morality even if a deity DID reveal it to them. They’re ticks on human life and progress, and the best of them are deluded fools wasting their time and energy.
This is s dumb,
I’ve heard that, according to FBI statistics, most pedophiles don’t discriminate when it comes to the gender of their victims. Being a pedophile has nothing to do with being gay.
Surely everyone heard in early school days the story of how they do it.
All the candidates line up with bells attached to each one’s penis and only one candidate reacts to the naked lady.
His bell rings and falls off, he bends to pick it up and all the other bells ring. Simple.
Acording th the UNICEF about 80% of the cases of sexual abuse on children are by heterosexuals.
here’s all the UNICEF statistics for the US that I can find:
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/usa_statistics.html
interesting and useful, but I’m not seeing data on cases of sexual abuse.
Am I missing it somewhere?
this would indeed be useful info if UNICEF actually has done statistical surveys on this subject.
I don’t know, Akheloios, I think Teh Gayz can take jokes even in poor taste, especially to ridicule religious hypocrisy. Speaking of which, the photo provided by Feynmaniac was an eye-opener. I always wondered what the Wicked Witch of the East looked like before the house fell on her.
here’s a site with a huge list of statistics on child sexual abuse:
http://www.yellodyno.com/html/child_molester_stats.html
lots of different sources, all cited under each statistic.
No, I’m not going to research each one.
and, no, I can’t seem to find any statistics relating to the percentage of abusers that are homosexual.
I rather think a lot of assumptions are made, because most of the abuse appears to be committed by males.
yes, you missed two whole orientations: heterosexual women and homosexual women. but since #68 didn’t bother to provide a citation for his statement, it’s impossible to know who is responsible for the remaining 20%, so your assumptions are unwarranted.
The Roman Catholic Church is an anti-gay hate organization. No surprise there.
These guys single out homosexuals because latching on to the least-examined conventional wisdom on the topic is as much thinking about sexuality as they can handle.
It has to do with the sort of men who wind up in the priesthood–the hierarchy especially (parish priests tend to be less crazy). The theory is that giving up sex is a sacrifice for these guys. In practice, however, that requirement is a beacon for any Catholic man who simply can’t deal with that part of his life at all.
So policy is made by people who can’t deal with gay sex, can’t deal with straight sex, can barely even deal with married couples trying to make babies. It’s a milieu in which sexophobia passes for normal.
Consider the decades (centuries?) of shuffling pedophile priests: While covering their asses was certainly a motive for this irresponsible behavior, it was also the MO that best allowed a bishop to make this whole icky, horrific, scary business go away as quickly as possible. Sweep it under the rug? Fine, just make it go away!
You can see it in the utter lack of nuance in their pronouncements on the subject. Of course a priest who intimidates teenage boys into servicing him sexually gets treated the same as one who has an inconvenient affair with a consenting adult; of course it’s preferable that a nine-year-old with a life-threatening pregnancy die instead of get an abortion; of course the problem with the priesthood is the homosexuals.
Or, y’know, maybe it’s not, but discerning the difference would entail thinking about it–and what kind of low-life sinners would they be if they intentionally thought about sex?
You really pissed me off.
Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse. Vol. 4, No. 2, Sexual Abuse of Children (Summer – Autumn, 1994), pp. 31-53
‘Most sexual abuse is committed by men (90%) and by persons known to the child (70% to 90%) with family members constituting one-third to one-half of the perpetrators against girls and 10% to 20% of the perpetrators against boys. Family members constitute a higher percentage of the perpetrators in child protective agency cases because the mandate of these agencies generally precludes their involvement in extrofamily abuse.’
Child Sexual Abuse – a Study of Controversy and Construction
Hallberg and Rigne, Gothenburg University.
‘As a specific form of sexual abuse, incest sis seen as the worst. Th existence of a taboo does, of course, not exclude the possibility of incest occurring, the point is that the taboo exists as the norm for the behaviour.’
‘Why is it, then, that these very old and recognisable [problems have been focussed as especially problematic and urgent over the past 15 years? Since the ;ate 1970s, sexual abuse of children has been identified as a social problem and publically debated, professionally attended and scientifically researched on a vest scale. It appears to be spreading in epidemic proportions, and to be much more frequent than on e had previously thought.’
You really pissed me off.
Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse. Vol. 4, No. 2, Sexual Abuse of Children (Summer – Autumn, 1994), pp. 31-53
‘Most sexual abuse is committed by men (90%) and by persons known to the child (70% to 90%) with family members constituting one-third to one-half of the perpetrators against girls and 10% to 20% of the perpetrators against boys. Family members constitute a higher percentage of the perpetrators in child protective agency cases because the mandate of these agencies generally precludes their involvement in extrofamily abuse.’
Child Sexual Abuse – a Study of Controversy and Construction
Hallberg and Rigne, Gothenburg University.
‘As a specific form of sexual abuse, incest is seen as the worst. The existence of a taboo does, of course, not exclude the possibility of incest occurring, the point is that the taboo exists as the norm for the behaviour.’
‘Why is it, then, that these very old and recognisable problems have been focussed as especially problematic and urgent over the past 15 years? Since the late 1970s, sexual abuse of children has been identified as a social problem and publicly debated, professionally attended and scientifically researched on a vest scale. It appears to be spreading in epidemic proportions, and to be much more frequent than on e had previously thought.’
The Pope may not be gay, but his boyfriend, Georg Gänswein, appears to be. So very pretty.
I thought that the whole boy-loving business was usually done by straight men when women weren’t available. Gays like manly men, as often as not. And some sickos, nominally straight, just like abusing children, male or female doesn’t matter.
But yeah, if I was in a boys club like the Catholic Church, I’d be worried about my backside, too. This isn’t about protecting kids at all–it’s so the straight priests can sleep sound o’ nights. They don’t want to wake up some morning with a sticky smile.
@110:
OK, so provided we just look at familial abuse (the mandate of these agencies generally precludes their involvement in extrofamily abuse.’), is it fair to conclude, from the above cite, that since 90% of the abusers are male, and since 1/3 to 1/2 of the the abuse was directed at females, that heterosexual abusers in this case vastly outnumber homosexual?
seriously, one could make a case for that, but the way the stats are presented makes it a bit unclear to me.
Does anyone really expect that a bunch of professional virgins has any understanding about any aspects of sex or sexual orientation?
As a Christian, I found many of the comments here very hurtful. I do not think that the Science community fully recognizes the problem that we here in Religion face. We Christian men are often exposed to the buttocks (and the demesnes that there adjacent lie) much earlier than Atheist men. You see, it is important for Christians to remain true to Him until marriage, and this means–among other sacrifices, in the name of our Saviour–putting off vaginal intercourse, in order to achieve an eventual true & beautiful union with one another and with God. To this end, we regularly engage in sex á la Négresse for months, possibly years, before marriage, starting as early as 14, and carrying on at surprisingly high degrees of regularity. This so-called badonkadonk fixation (see: Freud) may persist in the hearts of otherwise valiant Christian men, even past the point where the vag becomes available for sin-free penetration. You might think that homosexuality is a simple matter of genetic programming, but for many of us Christian men, it is conditioned.
Gee, thank you nothing’s sacred for quoting my words and implying that I am using stereotypes.
It’s a simple fact that your phrasing promoted the stereotype, regardless of your intent.
But I do like being compared to a racist.
What racist did I compare you to? The construction was analogous; either they both promote stereotypes or they both don’t. Somehow you recognize the problem with the second one but not the first. That’s what such analogies are for — to induce recognition. But some people are so defensive that it doesn’t work for them.
I really valued the religious education I received at a Catholic high school. It told me that it was okay that I am a lesbian, and to ignore the hate-filled Baptists down the street, because homosexuality is not a disease and is perfectly normal. (Well, except that gay sex doesn’t lead to procreation, so they shouldn’t have sex – which I accepted because I’m also mostly asexual so didn’t really care and straight people shouldn’t have sex if they’re not trying to make a baby, but they do it anyway, so gay people can have sex anyway, too.)
Oddly enough, it also taught me in depth about the history of the Catholic church and most other religions, and about questioning the church’s doctrines rather than following them without thought. Of course, one of my religious education teachers was Episcopalian, another wasn’t religious at all, and the third was an ex-seminary student cum biologist – I didn’t get into the class taught by the nun.
But the point of this is that I learned a lot about my Catholic heritage and was introduced to my favorite field of study ever (comparative mythology) by those classes, and I came out of there well on my way to atheism, with what I feel is a good moral compass, because we were taught logic and philosophy and ethics.
So whenever I hear about this Pope Benedict and all the stupid shit that’s coming out of the Vatican these last few years, I get very angry. It’s all just totally invalidating the cool points that the Church got thanks to my high school religion classes, and it makes me ashamed of my heritage. But at least I know that my family have the good wisdom to ignore most of the idiocy, even if they persist in being religiously Catholic as well as culturally Catholic.
is it fair to conclude, from the above cite, that since 90% of the abusers are male, and since 1/3 to 1/2 of the the abuse was directed at females, that heterosexual abusers in this case vastly outnumber homosexual?
Honestly, I wouldn’t draw any hard and fast conclusions about homo/hetero sexual orientation from statistics on abuse of children. It’s often about an attraction to children (regardless of gender) or about power or about availability of victims.
There are two reasons for this. The first is, obviously, prejudice. The second is that the Catholic church does not really care if priests molest girls.
I’m not just saying that. I recently watch “Deliver Us From Evil” (a documentary about just one pedo priest and his many victims, both males and females among them). One of the female victims interviewed says she reported her abuser; the response she got was that it wasn’t such a big deal, although if she had been a boy the bishop would have had to take it seriously.
That pisses me off about the reporting—people only seem to mention the male victims. Like if a girl is molested, who cares?
badonkadonk fixation
LOL
I recently watch “Deliver Us From Evil” (a documentary about just one pedo priest and his many victims, both males and females among them). One of the female victims interviewed says she reported her abuser; the response she got was that it wasn’t such a big deal, although if she had been a boy the bishop would have had to take it seriously.
Outstanding documentary. Also disturbing as hell. (I’ve used it in classes)
As a Christian, I found many of the comments here very hurtful.
I was going to comment on how Christians use being offended as a club for bashing people until I read the rest and nearly died laughing.
It’s often about an attraction to children (regardless of gender) or about power or about availability of victims.
I’m sure, and I’ve heard that said many times, and it makes perfect sense from what I know about psychology, and yet the point here was one of citation.
It would be VERY good to cite the exact reports that have looked at the issue in depth, to forestall more random ejaculations about what is and is not at issue here wrt to child sexual abuse.
I’m sure you’ve run across those references? I don’t seem to have them at hand.
btw, how’s life as a postdoc?
Obviously, they want to give the appearance of doing something about the problem – shutting the stable door after the horse has been molested, so to speak.
Why doesn’t Pope Palpatine just pray to God, Jesus, any of the numerous ‘Our Ladies’ or whatever the heck else these crazy bastards pray to and ask them to stop the molesting from happening? He’s God’s number-one guy on earth after all.
Surely that’s not that big a thing to ask an omnipotent being to do.
Maybe they float
Maybe they float
“ahh, but what also floats?”
I’m sure you’ve run across those references? I don’t seem to have them at hand.
I don’t have ’em. Don’t keep track of this issue (do recall reading that even many men who abuse boys identify as heterosexual, but can’t recall any citations).
Let’s be honest though, the distinctions and/or connections between desire, identity, behavior and power are lost on the hierarchy of the anti-gay child-rapist protection racket.
Menyambal @ 112:
Aren’t the “manly men” who have sex with those unmanly gays gay themselves?
When cutting through the crap and lies
We find, with really no surprise,
That Jesus hung around with guys
And told us “love your brothers”
His choice of lifestyle still survives
As priests and monks still live their lives
With one another–never wives–
The brotherhood just smothers.
And when the homosexual beast
That lives within each Catholic priest
Is bottled up, and not released
It’s likely to explode!
So nip the problem in the bud,
With “eat my body, drink my blood”
And each potential priestly stud
Has sanctity bestowed.
The church thinks that the problem’s faced
By having priests assert they’re chaste,
But Freud would say they’ve just displaced
Their homosexual urges.
See, ever since the world began
Some men have loved their fellow man–
A truth the Church can never ban
Despite their futile purges.
There are, of course, some other ways;
They could embrace their fellow gays,
Not blame them for the sad malaise
Of scandal, sin, and shame
The church, not gays, in thought and deed
Has sinned–a fact they won’t concede.
Now more and more, their numbers bleed…
There’s none but them to blame.
additional rant at…
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/03/hangs-around-with-men-check.html
Maybe you “appear gay” by wearing lots of gold and fine silk and never marrying.
Let’s be honest though, the distinctions and/or connections between desire, identity, behavior and power are lost on the hierarchy of the anti-gay child-rapist protection racket.
true.
much like evidence is lost on creationists (see Alan Clarke in Watchmen thread for perfect example).
still, if you run across a good one, you still have my email. I’d like to add it to my collection for future reference.
Please tell me my statistical reasoning is bad.
It’s not. More likely the statistic given by shamwowmytonguehurts is wrong — non-heterosexuals being responsible for 20% of sexual abuse of children seems too high.
*sigh*
another gem from da cuttlefish.
*claps*
Amen Brother
*giggles*
@117
Yeah, the same here, I received a classically catholic education as a probably gay male, the guidance was towards a asexual life apart from the laity or the religious.
However, when I discovered my sexuality, at least bisexuality, the old divisions were swept away.
Why should I as a gay male be forced into a exclusively homosexual male lifestyle as a part of a monastery? The same way as most homosexual women were forced into nunneries?
Homosexuals have always been, and continue to be, forced into reclusive life as part of an contemplative order.
Those who take sexual advantage of the young are paedophiles by definition, quite identifiable as those who want to, or do, take advantage of any children available.
Homosexuals are quite obviously different as homosexuals desire sexual relations with those of the same sex.
[meta]
re MAJeff @427, I was going to search for references then I became paranoid* and considered how my searches might show up on a data-mining exercise.
* Stupid Australian Government, bah.
There’s an article at sciam.com called “There’s something queer about that face”, that shows people can accurately gauge sexual orientation based solely on pictures of faces, with tell-tale hair and and eyebrow styles controlled for.
This one’s definitely not controlled, but might be interesting anyway: http://www.okcupid.com/gaydar
found this… give it a thought:
Unfortunately, when people expect the offender to be a monster and the accused is a respectable person, then doubt is shed on the veracity of the victim’s allegations-the child is thought to be mistaken or even lying. Generally speaking we have not found any social or demographic characteristics that differentiate the child molester from the general population, not his race, religion, intelligence, education, vocation, socioeconomic class, or the like.
The Child Molesters: Clinical Observations – Part I
By A. Nicholas Groth, PhD, William F. Hobson, MS, Thomas S. Gary, MEd.
http://www.mhawestchester.org/mhaeducation/incestmono7.asp
Some child sexual abusers are diagnosed as pedophiles, meaning that they exhibit recurrent, intense, sexually arousing fantasies, urges or behaviors related to sexual contact with a prepubescent child over a period of at least six months duration. 2 However, not all sexual abuse occurs with young children, and not all child sexual abusers fit this clinical diagnosis.
Some researchers have identified a similar condition, ephebophilia, which refers to individuals who exhibit these same fantasies, urges or behaviors towards post-pubescent
youths.3 While some offenders evidence a clear preference for particular types of victims with regard to age and gender, many do not. Individuals who molest children may be
heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual with regard to victim selection. Child sexual abusers who prefer female victims are more likely to be diagnosed as pedophiles than those who
prefer male children while child sexual abusers who prefer male victims tend to target boys who are slightly older.
3 Martin P. Kafka, “Sexual Molesters of Adolescents, Ephebophilia, and Catholic Clergy: A Review and Synthesis,” in Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church: Scientific and Legal Perspectives, ed. R. Karl Hanson, Friedemann Pfäfflin, and Manfred Lütz (Vatican: Libreria Editrico Vaticana, 2004).
4 American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV.
Empirical studies on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church are limited. However, a number of descriptive studies have been reported which have examined small, often clinical samples of clergy. These studies suffer from a number of methodological weaknesses, such as small, non-representative samples, which limit their findings and make it impossible to draw any type of meaningful generalization about child sexual abuse in the
Church. This literature, however, has focused attention on a number of important topics to be considered in studying the issues within the Church, including the difference between sexually offending and non-offending priests,9 the difference between sexually offending priests and sexual offenders in the general population,10 personality characteristics or backgrounds of sexually offending priests,11 the link between child sexual abuse and
substance abuse,12 and the emotional or psychological development of abusive priests.13 The survey instrument completed for each priest against whom allegations of abuse had been made incorporated questions associated with these topics.
9 Robert J. Camargo, “Factor, Cluster, and Discriminant Analyses of Data on Sexually Active Clergy: The Molesters of
Youth Identified,” American Journal of Forensic Psychology 15 (2, 1997): 5-24.
10 Thomas W. Haywood et al., “Psychological Aspects of Sexual Functioning Among Cleric and Non-cleric Alleged Sex
Offenders,” Child Abuse & Neglect 20 (6, 1996): 527-536; and R. Langevin, S. Curnoe, and J. Bain, “A Study of Clerics Who
Commit Sexual Offenses: Are They Different From Other Sex Offenders?” Child Abuse & Neglect 24 (4, 2000): 535-545.
11 Calvin S.L. Fones et al., “The Sexual Struggles of 23 Clergymen: A Follow-up study. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 25
(1999): 183-195; Richard Irons and Mark Laaser, “The Abduction of Fidelity: Sexual Exploitation by Clergy- Experience with
Inpatient Assessment.” Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity 1 (2, 1994): 119-129; and Thomas G. Plante, “Catholic Priests Who Sexually Abuse Minors: Why Do We Hear So Much Yet Know So Little?” Pastoral Psychology 44 (5, 1996): 305-310.
12 Mary F. Ruzicka, “Predictor Variables of Clergy Pedophiles,” Psychological Reports 80 (1997): 589-590.
13 Eugene C. Kennedy, Victor J. Heckler, and Frank J. Kobler, “Clinical Assessment of a Profession: Roman Catholic
Clergymen,” Journal of Clinical Psychology 33 (1, 1977): 120-128; and Thomas P. Doyle, “Roman Catholic Clericalism,
Religious Duress, and Clergy Sexual Abuse,” Pastoral Psychology 51(3, 2003): 189-231.
So.. there are some studies on Clergy abuse… The church should start there… before start throwing stones…
nothing’s sacred @ #89
Oh dear. Likewise, just because one is Mexican does not mean that one is lazy.
Hey…. I AM MEXICAN!!!!!
Having been raised Catholic (and, obviously, having left), I have a question: why are the calls for allowing priests to marry so popular from people like us? There seem to be a few rationales, and I’m not sure I get them. I don’t think letting priests marry will reduce child sexual abuse much – if someone wants to molest little little boys, he’s going to do it if he’s married or not, and non-pedophile priests have easier avenues of sexual activity than molesting little boys. Then again, this assumes that the non-pedophile priests are, like the rest of us, so disgusted by child abuse that they would sooner cut off their own hand than touch a child. Aside from that, the church is a private organisation (more or less) and if they only want celibate males to be a member of the club, what’s wrong with that? For one thing, the church is a private organisation / sovereign state (or something) and it should be able to set its own rules, and for another, if the church is spearheading its own effort to slowly choke off its leadership, it’s our duty to encourage the effort.
Nothing’s sacred, this is my original post.
Where was I playing with stereotypes? I was pointing out that this is going to blow up in a most spectacular way for the Australian Catholic Church.
Wrong. You are using a bad apology and ended with the if I am defensive, there most be something true about your charge. You make a bullshit charge about me. And you couple that with more bullshit.
hamwowmytonguehurts @77
If that’s true, then homosexuals are responsible for disproportionately more child sex abuse. Less than 4% of men are exclusively homosexual and they’re committing 20% of all child sex abuse?
Hello. Yoy a right… i made a mistake, i should have wrote “80% of heterosexual male.”
There are also women who commit sexual abuse.
I wrote an article about this about 10 years ago… i can remember most of the figures… but i do not have at hand the article to puit the exact sources…(it must be somewhere in my warehouse)…
As soon as i recover my article, i would put the source. or.. i would google for a while. I promise i would return with the info. I think it is important.
@139:
thanks! that’s exactly what I was looking for.
cheers
So one comment(77) and one link (139) in 140 posts that at least touch the problem? Im disappointed.
Lets ignore the garbage the RCC is spouting about measuring and testing priest candidates for being homosexual,the Germans tried that with criminals and it didnt work very well,nice to see that Ratzi remembers the old traditions though.
(Although that my city of Melbourne is at the forefront of this is embarrassing)
As to this homo-pedo debate,as pointed out in No 77,the real issue here is that horny virgins are in a position of power and opportunity with young children,male or female,it has absolutely nothing at all to do with being homo-,or heterosexual.
The RCC might need it to be a homosexuality issue to keep their perceived leadership on morality,but we should know better.
PZ: “There might even be a significant number of church leaders who are radical perverts deep down, but are in the priesthood specifically and sincerely for the whole denial of the flesh aspect.”
And also church leaders who don’t deny themselves much in the realm of flesh… Google “Marcial Maciel” or “Legionaries of Christ”, for instance.
Wont the tests have to be administered regularly, considering the church thinks homosexuality is a choice?
I say the Pope should get tested every six months, minimum.
I think the looks at the candidates record/CD collection. Judy Garland records are a dead give away.
Banning Gays from the Priesthood is like banning Boys from Boy Scouts!
You’re a sad case, Jeanine. Many people, when such things are pointed out, say “I didn’t mean it like that, but thanks for pointing it out”. But you’re different.
SteveM @43
If you go back and re-read the rules, you’ll find that the No Poofters rule is actually rules 1, 3, 5 and 7.
Rule 1: No Poofters
Rule 2: No member of the department is to mistreat the Abbos, if there’s anybody looking
Rule 3: No Poofters
Rule 4: Now this year I don’t want to catch anybody not drinking
Rule 5: No Poofters
Rule 6: There is no rule 6
Rule 7: No Poofters
P.S.
ended with the if I am defensive, there most be something true about your charge.
No, really, I said nothing like that. With reasoning powers like that, it’s no wonder that my points are lost on you.
Gosh, Janine, if I had known you were such a self-loathing jerk I never would’ve flirted with you so shamelessly.
;)
(BTW, not sure if you caught it on the earlier thread, but nothing’s sacred is truth machine in a bad disguise. Just so you know.)
Hey…. I AM MEXICAN!!!!!
Apparently you found that phrasing offensive … that was the point, if you read the whole comment clearly.
I thought this was merely a case of the pedophile pope and his cat-lick buddies getting rid of the competition. As far as the “appear gay” criteria, we all know that will be determined by the “takes one to know one” test.
Many people, when such things are pointed out, say “I didn’t mean it like that, but thanks for pointing it out”.
I wonder if you have grasped the fact that YOU are the only one who was confused by what she said?
meh, probably not.
stop dropping bait for attention. You seem like an intelligent person. Stick with commentary instead of metacommentary.
A bad disguise should always include a fake moustache – glasses and a hat are great, but the moustache is what really makes it bad.
I wonder if you have grasped the fact that YOU are the only one who was confused by what she said?
I am not at all confused by what she said (and whether I am or not, neither of us could possibly know whether I’m “the only one”). I know exactly what she intended, and it was all good. I simply made a point about the fact that her specific phrasing incorporated the stereotype. It wasn’t about her at all.
Stick with commentary instead of metacommentary.
Such transparent hypocrisy. Ah well, I am familiar with it and should expect it. Bye now.
That’s exactly what I was picturing, kind of falling off with the glue starting to show on one side…
Such transparent hypocrisy. Ah well, I am familiar with it and should expect it. Bye now.
ah, that was easy.
just a little smoke and the beast is exposed. Just had to make sure.
bye, TM.
That signifies the blood on their hands as they actively hid the priests who were raping kids. Benedict, as the fool who engineered Cardinal Law’s retreat from Boston, should be the one wearing the bloodiest rags.
As for the comment above about Alexander, he was quite the citizen, wasn’t he. No wonder his daughter, Lucretia, is right up there with Marie Antoinette, in the popular imagination. Half a millennium later and we have a college of cardinals presided over by a pope who is every bit as corrupt, but not (apparently) with the sins of the flesh that Alexander indulged in (I don’t think that Mr. Ratzinger ever acknowledged having a bunch of kids).
“A bad disguise should always include a fake moustache – glasses and a hat are great, but the moustache is what really makes it bad.”
Let’s not forget that essential characteristic, the terrible accent. That’s the clincher for me. For some reason, in my head at least, it’s always French.
You’re right PZ. Regardless of sexual orientation, it’s supposed to be the priest’s obligation to veer away from the “sins of the flesh.”
Worse, gay priests in the RCC have already proven (regardless of their religion) that they have bigger balls than the Vatican put together:
Rev. Mychal F. Judge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mychal_Judge
Fuck you RCC – why do you slap it in the face of your very own who have truly made a difference?
Unfortunately, he’s simply returned to what’s supposed to be a fun, lighthearted thread to bash people some more over there.
:(
Which leads to it falling off entirely but, instead of removing it completely, it gets turned into a goatee or soul-patch type arrangement. It’s in a film, but I can’t recall which. I reckon there’s one with John Candy where he starts off with a wig that later becomes a beard and, after that, chest hair.
Or perhaps not in that order.
What’s this I hear? The RCC attacks gays rather than deal with sexual predators or weed out corruption in their ranks? The church hierarchy does nothing about abuse of girls? I am shocked, I tell you. Simply shocked.
Unfortunately, he’s simply returned to what’s supposed to be a fun, lighthearted thread to bash people some more over there.
*shrug*
it’s what he likes to do. I have to admit, he does it well. It’s possible he can’t even resist doing so.
I’ve always enjoyed his primary comments on an issue, always hated his meta-commentary as it is usually little more than inflammatory bait, right or wrong.
nuff said, since he’s left this thread and will likely accuse us all of talking about him when he “can’t defend himself”.
:P
Several years ago I saw the play of (Mario Vargas Llosa’s) La Fiesta del chivo. One of the main characters – based on a real person – had a scar on his cheek. During one of the most intense scenes, it started to fall off, and hung there for what seemed an eternity while he subtly tried to get it back in place. For those of us in the front rows it was painful. Felt so sorry for the guy.
As I see it, if being nasty to people is what you like to do, and/or you can’t keep yourself from doing it, you have a real problem.
how these tests are going to be done…
Weigh their loafers.
So far none of my roles has required me to wear/affix anything that could fall off. And my next is as a butler, unscarred and unwigged. Well, unless there’s something the director hasn’t told me…
Did you do the killing? :-)
This, of course, is the same Catholic Church that excommunicated everyone involved in the abortion of the girl in Brazil who was pregnant due to rape.
“Maybe you didn’t hear me. I’m a Cath-o-lic priest. Historically, that falls somewhere between chorus boy and florist.” -Father Dan, Jeffrey
If ‘nothing sacred’ = ‘truth machine,’ then his manners and temper have much improved, from what I’ve seen. Glad to see him again.
As I see it, if being nasty to people is what you like to do, and/or you can’t keep yourself from doing it, you have a real problem.
well, most of us do of one kind or another.
It’s been so long that I don’t think I take anybody’s specific nastiness personally any more. Of course, I also project the same expectation when I’m nasty myself, which is probably unwarranted.
Jeffrey
I’m gonna have to watch that again soon. What a wonderful movie.
Right. See the “Empedoclean Evolution” thread. Less profanity is all. (Not that it would be saying much if it were the case.)
No, I’m more the comic relief snarky-dry-witted Jeeves kind of butler than the murderous sort. Most of the cast have realised I’m not actually acting very much in order to play the part…
I don’t of the first at all, and if the second (very temporarily) I feel guilty. If either progressed in any way, I would suspect that I had anger or anger-management problems and do something about it.
Yes, well, sometimes it is personal.
Boo-hoo. The church is going to continue on discriminating just as it has all along. And I don’t really care. If you want to start a club and then start restricting membership to that club, then that’s your business and you should have every right to do so. Whether it’s the no poor people, no ugly people, no girls, no Homers, or no gays club–fine. It all just seems pretty childish. But, don’t despair: Fabulous guys should be doing much more fabulous things with their lives anyways.
New Atheist @ # 30: You don’t hear much about sex with altar boys coming from protestant churches.
Uh, do Protestant churches have altar boys?
They do have regular clericopedophiliac scandals…
If either progressed in any way, I would suspect that I had anger or anger-management problems and do something about it.
good point.
Ah, the fun part to play.
Nanahuatzin:
According to my Spanish-English dictionary, “Aprovecharse del Abuso” means “Take Advantage of Abuse”.
WTF???
So guys in flowery robes, jeweled scepters and fabulous hats are now going to fight amongst themselves over who appears gay. and this isn’t an article from the onion?????
Because gays are one of the few groups that can be safely discriminated against without the rest of the world calling one out as a stinking pitstain on the t-shirt of life.
Evangelatheist#155, you got that right!
Indeed. The offered me a larger – but less fun – part; I turned them down in favour of the butler. Better character > number of lines as far as I’m concerned. I’ll get plenty of chances to play bigger roles; there aren’t that many as good fun as this one.
Blue Fielder @ # 187: … gays are one of the few groups that can be safely discriminated against without the rest of the world calling one out as a stinking pitstain on the t-shirt of life.
It bears mentioning that they prob’ly have a rule against atheists too…
Wowbagger, is this role a local stage performance, or is it something that will be on TV?
How is it that Catholic priests have or claim to have ANY expertise in matters sexual? Where to they acquire this expertise? (OK, there are a FEW formerly married men who later became priests—but is the pope one of those. No).
Stephanurus
Fear not. It means “Profiting from Abuse” (subtitled “The Sexual Exploitation of Children”), and is in fact a UN report from 2001. Here it is in English:
http://new.vawnet.org/category/documents.php?docid=650
Kel wrote:
No, a local stage performance – and it’s amateur; I’m not a professional (in a talent or a monetary capacity). I do have a normal job, which I should probably spend more time doing when I’m at it – damned SIWOTI.
I do the majority of my ranting when I’m at home – though (obviously) I do throw a few comments in between tasks while at the office.
Maybe the test could be to observe how much the prospective priests wiggle their toes with joy while
consuming the frakkin’ crackerconsummating their relationship with Jebus. Donohue would make a grand adjudicator.Evidently the RCC has a very influential political body nicknamed the lavender mafia within the church’s sphere, which has pissed off the more butch homophobes within the church. Rod Dreher goes apeshit about.
“Judy, Liza, Barbara, Bette. These are names I won’t forget.” – Will&Grace
Just one isn’t enough. I think you have to look for at least a couple icons.
ew.
This place needs a better dungeon.
I thought I heard a buzzing from someone who is banned from here…
must be my imagination.
You’re a sad case, nothing’s scared. You take a sentence out of context and compare the structure of said sentence to a racist statement, implying that I am merely dealing with stereotypes. And then you expect me to thank you for it. You are the one who is different, you lack social skills.
So you are TM. Big surprise there.
Funny thing, in expecting people to be wowed by your flash of insight, your share the same type of arrogance as maggie.
Same, as you probably noticed. Ranting is best done at home, but of an evening this place is largely a ghost town. My main rants are on the weekends when I have the morning to let loose and the afternoon to get drunk.
Wish we could see it, Wowbagger! Can’t they record it and then put a black dot over your face?
:)
As has been said, of course they have the right to determine membership requirements and exclusion criteria of their club according to any silly idea they wish.
I just hope they wont claim that this will solve the paedophilia/paederasty problems. And also, once the gays are out (at least nominally), start to crank up the scapegoating without internal opposition.
Ichthyic @126
Wood!! Throw her in the lake and she if she floats!
Anyone remember the Monty Python – The Spanish Inquisition sketch? The Catholic Church is turning into an alternative comedy show.
I haven’t forgotten it.
I just never expect it.
No kings,
Robert
I grew up in a devout Catholic family. I went to CCD for years, did community service in the church I grew up in, taught CCD myself. I left at age 26 just about when I couldn’t stand the sex abuse scandal any more and I realized that a) my faith had been dead for years and b) I couldn’t tell the difference between our priest and some Flanderesque Baptist preacher.
I am disgusted with the Catholic Church. I think Joey Ratz has destroyed whatever respectability JP2 ever gave it, and I think JP2 proved to be vastly overrated as a church leader anyway, but at least he didn’t behave as the open fascist JRatz has. At this point I believe the only thing the RCC has going for it is parts of the Church school system and its social services, and even those are tainted with the anti-gay and misogynist hangups of the leadership. I want to see them bled dry and publicly humiliated. I want to see the congregations of the churches they’ve closed in the US given posession of the church buildings and the Vatican expropriated by the Italian government on whatever pretext it can come up with. I want to see the pain-fetishist, fascist bastards who maintain church doctrine and drive its missionary efforts frogmarched in chains through the wards of African hospitals, the favelas of Brazil, the former Magdalene laundries of Ireland, and every other place on Earth where the Church’s give-with-one-hand, take-with-the-other approach to charity and community has negated the good they’ve done. I want to see the neofeudalists running the church exiled to parochial vicarates in dying parishes, and I want to see JRatz himself busted for indecent exposure in a jack shack on the wrong side of the Tiber.
And I don’t even have a personal grudge against them. Now someone who’s actually been abused… they could get nasty.
hey i taught the wiper already slept, he is still working till late night ! take a rest tonight …..tomorrow still have things to wipe….
I’m going to break into your house and crap on your dining room table, Simon.
obviously, you seem to be OK with that kind of behavior, since that’s exactly what you’re doing here.
This should come as no surprise to any one. It seems that the Roman Catholic Church has been aware of their pedophile priests for at least five decades.
I thought the church was screening to keep out homosexuals not pedophiles. I think the point of the story is they are trying to stop the all out gay lovefest going on behind church doors. They are trying to stomp out the love that no one may speak of! What a bunch of wet blankets. If the Catholic church got rid of only half the gays in their employ there would be maybe three priests left and one bishop.
That’s one option – but then you wouldn’t be able to enjoy it as much, since (not unsurprisingly for a British butler character) a lot of it is dependent on facial expressions – my expressive face is one of the better weapons in my theatrical arsenal.
Not so good for serious roles, though – I still manage to look funny, even when I don’t want to be.
They could save money on testing by cashing in on external variables.
Like, get a hot nurse in a low cut tight nursey uniform to attach the plethysmograph sensor.
No need to go any further than that. No wood no collar.
But removing teh gays from the Catlick Clergy would be like removing the potheads from Whole Foods Market, there wouldn’t be anybody left to do any work.
We should turn it into an Adelaide Pharyngula meetup!
I don’t know if anyone would take me seriously ever again after seeing me on stage – assuming, that is, that anyone takes me seriously now…
Celibacy is just as much –if not more so– a “deviation” as homosexuality.
The RCC is well past it’s time, and it should realize that. Especially in the US. If the government taxed their real estate alone, the budget deficit would be solved. Who cares about who’s gay and who isn’t.
Gay is a state of mind, and I’m willing to believe it’s not a choice. You are gay, or you are not gay. There is no test for it, and any “Church” official cannot determine what a person prefers.
If one chooses to serve the “Church”, it is not for trolling for kids, it’s for saving and enlightening people. Weirdos exist in all facets of our society. I choose to not believe in the biblical ‘God”, after many years of study, but when I did, my opinion of the Catholic church was one of scorn.
According to the ‘Bible”, man was given a choice by God: eat the apple and be a sheep, or think for yourself.
If you think for yourself, you are a heretic and subject to DEATH! Such a benevolent ‘god’.
If the RCC wants to decide who people think they are, we’re going back to medieval times. Love that progress. God Bless!
I’m pretty sure that the catholic church defines homosexuality as actually involving homosexual sex, which means that by their definition its impossible for a homosexual to be celibate, because anyone with homosexual urges who doesn’t actually engage in homosexual sex isn’t actually a homosexual if they hate themselves for it and never consumate their urges.
I know that’s dumb, and its not 100% compatible with the idea that some people might “appear” homosexual, but what do you want from them, scientific and psychologically accurate views on sexual orientation?
Janine @ 210:
Voltaire snarked about it in Candide, IIRC, talking about an STD (I want to say Cunegonde had it, but it may have been Pangloss) — the fun part is that the priest in question was a Jesuit, and I was reading it at Boston College…
Having brown hair should be banned from the Church because it’s a deviation!!!oneon
Teh stupid, burn, etc.
Desert Son @206:
No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!
A lot of you taking the moral highground over the catholic church are acting just as homophobic. Lots of your “jokes” while not only being typical and unfunny are homophobic.
What I find troubling is that the church would accept anyone as a priest who could make the decision at a young age to never have sex — ever. Obviously, the church is only getting people who’s sexual development is being seriously stalled and therefor more prone to taking advantage of both children and adults in their churches.
Maybe castrate all priests? That would be a good solution. Make them show how serious they are about joining.
“…celibate gays…”
Isn’t that an oxymoron?
oh australia
I’ve been in a few catholic churches…I consider them interesting historical artifacts. The really nice ones look like they were designed by Liberace, and the people who run the festivities there wear silly hats, fine fabrics, and have a collection of boys who get down on their knees with their mouthes open so that they may “receive the body of christ”..yeah, nothing gay about that at all.
dboy
Come off it, Peggy. Being a pedophile is a requirement to become a catlick priest. ‘Let the the small children come to me’ and all that stuff, you know, suppossedly uttered by their perverted mentor, jaycee the lay-about, son of mary the town mattress.
Another recommended feat is being an ex Nazi or mafioso, because then you really understand how the RCC operates.
I don’t mean to sound gay or anything, but I’m right behind you.
hehehe
I never could understand why religions blame the homosexuals for all the evils of the world; it must be part of their training to deny nature. Man was created not evolved, the Jews killed Jesus so all past present and future Jews are all hellbound, condoms cause AIDS, and of course homosexuals are the root of all evil. Global warming? Homosexuals. Natural catastrophes? Yep, homosexuals caused them all because they angered a just and loving god.
@Dboy
You might want to check out the Spanish Missions here in the Philippines then :)
They’re solidly built even for their time, given they also doubled as strongholds to help the local villages fend off against Muslim raiders in the past. Most of them arenowhere near as glamorous as their Western counterparts, but they look like miniature forts.
It’s bad enough that women are excluded from the priesthood for absolutely no good reason at all, but to rule out 10% of the male population as well simply as a transparent *public relations excercise* is really serving up those levels of inhumanity we’ve come to expect from the catholic church.
The sadder thing is that according to most religious nutbags, when a priest abuses somebody (whether it’s a girl, boy, man or woman) it’s an isolated case, and somehow they’re fully justified in hiding this atrocity and it’s not institutionalized pedofilia and abuse at all…
Apparently it’s something which needsenabling loving understanding when priests abuse women and boys, but it’s evil, wrong and twisted to even appear to like the occasional bout of bumsex between consenting adults.
PeterKarim @ 222:
No. No more than “celibate straights”.
Someone who is gay is sexually attracted to people of their own sex, irrespective of whether they’ve acted on it.
implying that I am merely dealing with stereotypes.
No, really, I didn’t do that. I even said that your intent was all good, that it’s not about you, that it was merely about the phrasing. But all that is lost on you. As I said, a sad case.
HA! This is great news. Really. The traditional options for a young catholic man are (chaste and) celibate priest or husband. It’s always going to have been mostly gay men “called” to the former. It’s no coincidence that they have been struggling to recruit (in the developed world) since it became possible to live as an out gay man.
If they stop hiring gays they are finished. All that will be left are a few straight boys who are deeply neurotic about sex (and probably such raging misogynists that they won’t even manage to hide it and will push women away from the church) and an almost negligible number who are actually serious about the “denying the flesh to be close God” thing.
Branches of the RCC over large parts of the developed world will probably have to split from Rome and allow married priests just to survive.
This cant be truth machine.
“A sad case?”
Seriously,if thats truthy,he’s on happy pills or something….
“This isn’t about correcting the problems of the church at all. It’s more about finding another opportunity to discriminate against gays.”
That’s it. How asinine. Blame your problems on gays!
But, the whole celebate priest thing is all about denying human nature. The RCC is good at denying human nature.
Give people a healthy, regular sexual outlet (x-y, x-x, or y-y) and you will have far fewer of these cases (abuse of children and others). You’ll never get to zero; but at least it would actually help.
“Those who ‘appear’ gay will be banned.”
Sounds like a wonderfully scientific method of choosing! I wonder what the p-value of this test will be?! … Idiots.
Yeah, I thought of that just as I posted.
***
Even if it weren’t widely known around here that Janine is gay, and not prone to stereotyping her own or any categories of people, that sentence – though the phrasing is perhaps not the most fortunate – can be read in a different manner than yours. It’s hard to pull all of this apart, but I believe that even if I weren’t familiar with Janine, in context and in the absence of other comments leading to that reading, I would have read it as I did. Like if the Left Anarchist Central Committee were considering a purge of intellectuals, other anarchists opposed to the measure are discussing it, and someone says “Just because one is an intellectual doesn’t mean one is a counterrevolutionary” – I wouldn’t hear that as playing to the accusation, even if I didn’t know the person saying it is herself an intellectual.
In any event, something like “Careful – that could possibly be read by some as supporting the stereotype” or “You’re not suggesting there’s anything at all to the stereeotype, are you?” would have been better than what you wrote. Then again, as Janine remarked, you lack social skills.
“that sentence – though the phrasing is perhaps not the most fortunate – can be read in a different manner than yours. It’s hard to pull all of this apart, but I believe that even if I weren’t familiar with Janine, in context and in the absence of other comments leading to that reading, I would have read it as I did”
Just throwing in my two cents: I read it like you did (I think) without even realizing Janine had posted it (I sometimes read the comments too quick).
Also I apparently don’t know what “throwing in my two cents” means. And I (overuse parentheses)
Yeah, that sentence was a bit confusing, wasn’t it? (I’ve requested that people cut me some slack for any comments composed prior to noon – I’m not at my sharpest in the morning, to say the least.) But it appears you read me correctly.
Tell me about it! (I do not have a problem! I can stop any time I want!)
nothing’s sacred, if not saying ‘thank you’ for insulting me makes me a sad case, it is my deepest desire to be the saddest sack of shit you can find. Fuck you.
bumsex
Sex with homeless winos? Pervert!
“and probably such raging misogynists that they won’t even manage to hide it ”
… they’ve been hiding it?
OK…so where are they gonna find new recruits? On that premise, most of the existing clergy will be banned if they rely on the stereotypes. I mean, men in dresses hanging out together…that looks pretty gay….doesn’t it
A lot of you taking the moral highground over the catholic church are acting just as homophobic. Lots of your “jokes” while not only being typical and unfunny are homophobic.
Concern troll is concerned and trolling.
You don’t quite get it, do you? Most of us have no problem with homosexuality; some of us even are (not me personally, but I’m on the hetero side of bi). The problem is that the RCC has a huge problem with it, and therefore to them it’s an insult. The thrust of the humor is essentially needling them for losing their shit over something that is fundamentally harmless, especially when it applies to them and they’re being hypocritical about it.
Pablo @ #74:
You’re looking at it from the wrong perspective. If you take this new policy as the answer to “How can we divert our flock’s anger at the ugly sexual abuse scandal we’ve been covering up off of our leadership and refocus it on an already-disliked outgroup?” then it makes perfect sense. They’ll dismiss a few scapegoats and hope that blaming everything on evil gay infiltrators will quiet the mutinous rumblings from the rank-and-file.
Possibly this is only of marginal relevance, but it’s an interesting factoid to mull over all the same: a gay guy who was brought up as a Catholic once told me the standard way that Catholic families dealt with gay sons was to send them into the priesthood. Make of that what you will.
Instead of a test for “gayness”, perhaps the Catholic church could apply a test for sanity. These men are voluntarily signing up to never have sex for the rest of their lives. If that’s what they want why not just get married?
Well… using that criteria, we must avail ourselves of the following:
The Pope wears bright red Gucci shoes.
If that’s not screaming GAY while waving a thick lubed up dildo, then I don’t know what gay is.
Number8Dave:
I’ve never heard that said for sure, but I’ve speculated along those lines for years. Not to mention I can think of at least a couple of nuns i’ve known who were almost certainly lesbians. (My 5th-grade homeroom teacher, for one.)
I would like to think I can leave my turnips alone with a priest.
I mean imagine you go and get your turnip back from church and you look at it, and while everything looks the same you just know something bad happened. And then the priest goes on and on about how nice the turnip is and how well the turnip fits in with the others at the church… and you look at your turnip and you just know.
You know its all in what the turnip is not saying.
I would like to think I can leave my turnips alone with a priest.
oh, turnips are fine.
It’s bananas you have to worry about.
nothing’s sacred, if not saying ‘thank you’ for insulting me makes me a sad case
Not once have you correctly characterized my statements.
Fuck you.
Sad, all that misdirected anger.
I…uh…just…ah…
*faints*
SC! Are you OK? Do you need a hand getting up? Here, have some water.
Quick, give her a tankard of week old grog. It will raise the almost dead.
Thanks, guys. Feeling much better. Too much irony in my diet today, I guess.
*fan fan fan fan fan fan fan fan*
*fan*
Oh, no! This is starting to feel like when I really do faint. Yikes.
(Thanks, Sven.:))
Yes, because pointing at the Catholic hierarchy and saying “haha you guys dress like a bunch of poofs” is really going to get them to reexamine their homophobia.
If K-12 taught you anything, you should remember that people repeatedly targeted by gay-baiting do eventually become reactionary homophobes in order to compensate, regardless of their actual orientation.
I’m sure the Catholic hierarchy is sitting up late reading this comment thread.
That was Brian X’s rationalization for gay-baiting jokes here, not mine.
If there’s little chance of the Catholic hierarchy taking notice of a Pharyngula thread, then I’ve got to agree with Akheloios and jeff. The only people hurt by homophobic jokes here will be some of the GLBT readership.
I am a proud member of the GLBT readership.
Thank you for guarding my delicate sensibilies.
“The only people hurt by homophobic jokes here will be some of the GLBT readership.”
As part of that readership I don’t really take much offense to the jokes.
Has anyone who is LGBT/GLBT/LBTGQOMGWTF been offended?
Also does anyone else get hungry whenever that acronym is used?
http://estrip.org/elmwood/users/lilho/images/0205/lg_blt1855.jpg
I said “some of.” I am not insisting that I can read your minds, nor that you should be bothered by anything that bothers me. Your opinions are welcome.
Likewise, I do ask that those who are bothered are not dismissed and ignored just because you two didn’t mind.
Akheloios found some of the jokes homophobic and offensive. Jeff did as well, and while he did not mention his orientation, even straight people can be legitimately offended by homophobia; I would wish that more of them were.
I find some of the jokes to be homophobic. It does bother me when gays are used as the punchline to hurt Catholics or anyone else, not for the Catholics’ sake, but because we shouldn’t be an easy punchline in the first place.
I know you can acknowledge that it feels different when everyone around is gay, and the jokes are made in acknowledgment of the pain this world can inflict on us. I’m not comfortable with those same jokes in mixed company. Even well meaning straight people are capable of causing harm, and many are too often just excited to have license to tell some gay-baiting jokes. And they usually aren’t laughing for the reasons we are.
If they claim they have a test to find out if an individual is gay, even though this individual is celibate, would that not be admitting that people are born gay? I thought it was a staple in their disapproval of the gay people, that people were not born gay. If this were to be believed true, then they would have to consider that god creates gay people. Wow, wouldn’t that be an interesting catholic development!
From the perspective of someone who lives in Australia, it seems we take very little notice of what our church does around here unless it tries to interfere in public affairs (at which point it often cops a stern finger wagging). I heard about this story on Pharyngula before I saw it as a small side article in the newspaper, only because I went looking for it.
Don’t worry PZ our church may be (almost) as backward as those in the States or elsewhere, but unlike the US it would seem Aussies don’t give two tosses what the church is up to. But the LGBT community fights them a lot.
Yes, priests are supposed to be celebate. However, I’ve read (possibly Andrew Greeley-priest socialogist)that many gay priests consider themselves somehow exempt from that committment. I guess because they’re not having sex with a woman so it doesn’t count?
I read but don’t comment here much (too everyone’s relief – I apparently can’t stop being long winded), but for some reason this got under my skin…
I can’t freaking believe that I’m going to say something that actually, for a moment, may sound like a defense of the RCatholic Church, especially not that fucktard Ratzinger, but the RC Church actually _does_ have a “problem with gay priests.”
Apart from the child sex abuse scandals (which, as others have pointed out doesn’t actually have much to do with homosexuality) the problem is not with them being gay, it’s with them apparently not being celibate (as tigerlilly just pointed out). You have a church that says that all sex outside procreative marital sex is wrong, has a sanctioned and specified role for men who theoretically will give up sex, and a homosexual population looking to find a role for themselves in a community where they are prohibited from having real relationships of their own – no wonder you get a lot of devout Catholic gays becoming priests. Then it turns out that religion isn’t actually a cure for one of the most basic human animal drives – sex – and they find out that celibacy isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. This is also going to be a problem with heterosexual priests, but since most priests live in all-male households/communities, there’s a lot less “occasions of sin” to tempt them. (Unless of course they get their jollies abusing female adolescents – most “altarboys” are female these days, at least in my parents’ parish.)
The result is that the Seminaries now have the reputation of having more homosexual sex going on than a San Francisco bath-house circa 1980. This has caused some small embarrassment for the hierarchy. Not to mention hurting recruitment (like they needed any help there).
But Ratzinger and the rest of that crew don’t actually want to have a conversation about sexuality, celibacy, and it’s role in producing a lot of psychologically F*&%ed up individuals who will go on to run their organization, so instead their solution to it is to try and toss out the gays. Any way that they can avoid any kind of real self examination and plaster over the flaws in their increasingly dis-functional world view — which, hey, was exactly the same approach they took to the child sex-abuse cases until the law got involved and they couldn’t cover it up any more.
Cover all your bases in the College of Cardinals by adding in a healthy dose of old fashioned self justification through homophobia and the wholesale swallowing of the filthy myth that all gay men are out of control sexual predators/pedophiles, and I think that about sums up where this is coming from.
As for “testing” for what current church doctrine tells us is a choice and not an inherent part of a person, Gee whiz, hypocrisy from the RCC, who’da thunk? Isn’t it great that these are the people that RCatholics are told to consult about problems in their marriages, families and “spiritual” lives?
I’m never going to think of harvest festivals in the same way again.
Over 85% of the children molested by priests were boys. This is why the Church has a problem with gay priests. Dumb ass. How are you a professor? Do you teach at a mental institute?
it’s all just totally invalidating the cool points that the Church got thanks to my high school religion classes.