Columns Opinion Thomas Reese: Signs of the Times

Pope to gay priests: Be celibate or get out

The God Loves Gays billboard project launched Aug. 9, 2014, on the crowdfunding site Indeigogo, and a billboard reading "God Loves Gays," with a cartoon God peaking out of white fluffy clouds and a giant rainbow, went up on Sept. 8, 2014, in Topeka, Kan. RNS photo by Sally Morrow

(RNS) — Nothing gets the pope on the front page of newspapers faster than saying something about homosexuality. This was evident earlier in the week when reports of a book-length interview with Pope Francis focused on what he had to say about gay priests.

Some portrayed his comments as a reversal of his more tolerant attitude toward gays, exemplified by his famous statement, “Who am I to judge?”

In truth, in this new interview he simply said to gay priests what he has always said to heterosexual priests: Observe celibacy or get out.

In his book “On Heaven and Earth,” written while he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis noted that mandatory celibacy for Roman Catholic priests is a law that could change. Many believe that he is open to optional celibacy, and it is hoped the topic will be discussed during his synod of the bishops for the Amazon region, which meets in Rome next October.

But in the 2010 book, he also strongly insisted that celibacy must be observed by priests who have made this commitment.

Pope Francis prays during an audience in St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican on July 31, 2018. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)

He would not throw out every priest who violated celibacy; individual lapses can be forgiven. If a priest falls, Francis wrote, “I help him to get on track again.” By that, he means doing penance and practicing celibacy.

But a priest who is incapable of observing celibacy should return to the lay state — better a good layman than a bad priest. No girlfriend on the side. No housekeeper “with benefits.” No hidden family.

“The double life is no good for us,” he wrote. “I don’t like it because it means building on falsehood.”

In the new interview, with a Spanish Claretian priest, the Rev. Fernando Prado, Francis says the same thing about gay priests.

“Homosexual priests, religious men and women should be urged to live celibacy wholly and, especially, to be perfectly responsible, trying to never create scandal in their communities or for the holy people of God by living a double life,” the pope said. “It would be better if they left the ministry or consecrated life rather than live a double life.”

What is remarkable about Francis’ comments is not that he is cracking down on gay priests but that he is applying the same standards to gay and heterosexual priests. In the past, the position of the popes was either negative or ambiguous about gay priests and seminarians.

The Vatican has tended to avoid using terms like “sexual orientation,” but rather talked of a “deep-seated tendency.” Some bishops interpreted this nonetheless as a “homosexual orientation,” and therefore banned anyone who considered themselves gay from the priesthood.

Others interpreted “deep-seated” as something akin to “uncontrollable” and therefore incapable of observing celibacy. In this interpretation, “deep-seated heterosexuality” would also be a problem. If the tendency was not “deep-seated,” if he could live a celibate life, then the man could enter the seminary and become a priest.

In this Nov. 14, 2011, file photo, then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick prays during the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ annual fall assembly in Baltimore. Allegations that McCarrick engaged in sex with adult seminarians have inflamed a long-running debate about the presence of gay men in the Roman Catholic priesthood. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Francis in this interview firmly places himself in the latter camp. He continues to use the phrase “deep-seated” but also talks of homosexual priests and others who take religious vows in the church living in celibacy wholly and responsibly. You do not urge a group of men to live in celibacy if you think they should be banned from the priesthood.

At the same time, Francis makes clear that there is no room in the priesthood for gays who do not observe celibacy. Some falsely thought that celibacy only applied to heterosexual sex. Worse yet, some priests and bishops preyed on seminarians, as was alleged with ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

But the vast majority of gay priests, like heterosexual priests, try to live celibate lives and serve the people of God in parishes across the world. The church would be at a loss without them.

About the author

Thomas Reese

The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit priest, is a Senior Analyst at RNS. Previously he was a columnist at the National Catholic Reporter (2015-17) and an associate editor (1978-85) and editor in chief (1998-2005) at America magazine. He was also a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University (1985-98 & 2006-15) where he wrote Archbishop, A Flock of Shepherds, and Inside the Vatican. Earlier he worked as a lobbyist for tax reform. He has a doctorate in political science from the University of California Berkeley. He entered the Jesuits in 1962 and was ordained a priest in 1974 after receiving a M.Div from the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley.

98 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • “The Pope’s comments have cheered some, who look for greater clarity and firmness in teaching that homosexual acts are sinful. But they have opened him to accusations of homophobia. What he said, in substance, was that priests with a gay orientation must remain chaste. But the same of course is true of celibate priests who are not gay. At a time when, as the Pope is well aware, there are voices trying to pin responsibility for the sexual abuse crisis on homosexuals in the priesthood, it would have been wiser for him to have said so. It would have been helpful, also, to remind us that a gay orientation, whether in a bishop, priest or a lay person, is no barrier to sanctity. It certainly does not make anyone more likely to be a potential child abuser.

    The desire to love and be loved is part of the human condition, and such love often has an erotic element. As Pope Benedict’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est points out, eros is inherently good. The integration of all these ideas into a coherent and convincing Catholic theology of sexuality is still a work in progress, and the journey referred to earlier is far from over. To this debate, gay and lesbian Catholics, priests, Religious and laity, have a key contribution that only they can make. They are not a problem; they are an asset.”

    ~ The Tablet, “How the Pope’s latest remarks on gay priests show a shift to a conservative mindset”

    https://www.thetablet.co.uk/editors-desk/1/15024/how-the-pope-s-latest-remarks-on-gay-priests-show-a-shift-to-a-conservative-mindset

  • Does this mean that non-celibate straight priests can remain in the priesthood? That seems to be the pope’s implication by omission.

  • Did you even read the article? Or, just run to the closet to put on your rainbow cape?
    From the article: “… he is applying the same standards to homosexual and heterosexual priests”.

  • Celibacy is honored quite often in the breach. There won’t be much change, no matter what any pope says. Biology is stronger than faith. People have different levels of libido.

  • Silly; you are getting what you want – acceptance in the RCC priesthood.
    Moral equivalency is what it’s all about – correct?
    Having homosexual priests makes homosexuality ok. If homosexuality is ok; then it must not be sinful.
    If it’s not sinful; then the other dominos can Be knocked down.

  • Celibacy is the rule with the exceptions readily found in other rites and certain exceptions.

    Unless and until an actual study is done on the effect of homosexuals in the priesthood, a study proposed by Bishop Bruskewtiz at the infamous 2002 bishops’ meeting where the bishops applied rules to everyone but themselves, a proposal which not so incidentally was nixed by none other than Theodore McCarrick, “It certainly does not make anyone more likely to be a potential child abuser.” is pure speculation.

  • Did you even read the article? He didn’t single out gay priests. He’s spoken in the past about straight priests and he is now applying the same standard to gay priests. Try to save your outrage for something that’s actually outrageous.

  • Repetitiveness worth repeating 6 times in this article, avoids the question: What good is telling yourself 6 times not to lust, then you lust anyhow afterward? What if there’s no possible break to the cycle? Or is there a True Religion out there, or even a Cogent Atheism somewhere, that can overcome this Pitiful Sexual Human Condition? Anyway, here’s that countdown (into the New Year of celibacy), with my best wishes for The Catholic Church:

    (1) “Be celibate or get out”.

    (2) “Observe celibacy or get out.”

    (3) “Homosexual priests … to live celibacy … rather than live a double life.”

    (4) “Live in celibacy … [or] be banned from the priesthood.”

    (5) “No … priesthood for gays who do not observe celibacy.”

    (6) “Gay priests … to live celibate lives”.

  • Well, the craziest thing would be telling priests they cannot marry but condoning their other intimate relationships on the side or on the sly. OF COURSE he is telling both gays and straights to not be making a monkey out of the church with shenanigans that anyone could ever know about. What else could he possibly do?

  • In the Catholic Encyclopedia, the one of a hundred years ago, are many stories of regular “cleanups” of uncelibate clergy. Straight concubinage was the thing back then. Read the histories of the various Councils and Synods to see how often the problem arose.
    Jesus, at Mt 18:15 ff., deals with the proper handling of ANY serious sin in the congregation, by ANY member. It begins with one-on-one counsel [‘first, gain your brother’] and progresses through expulsion from the group, excommunication.
    The unstated but primary purpose of the last step is to keep God’s from reproach over misdeeds by his people. [“hallowed be thy name”, remember?]

    Think of where the RCC might be today if this clear teaching had been followed. It wasn’t and won’t be.

  • The author of this little anti-Catholic diatribe, Arthur Frederick Ide, is a member of the National Abortion Rights Action League, Texas Abortion Rights Action League, People for the American Way.

    His anti-Semitic diatribe:

    “Moses: Making of Myth & Law : The Influence of Egyptian Sex, Religion and Law on the Writing of the Torah”

    His anti-Evangelical diatribe:

    “Evangelical Terrorism: Censorship, Falwell, Robertson & the Seamy Side of Christian”

    His anti-LGBT diatribe:

    “Homosexuals Anonymous: A Psychoanalytic and Theological Analysis of Colin Cook and His Cure for Homosexuality”

    all of these self-published books being available on Amazon.

  • I would rather read a headline: “Pope to abusive priests: ‘the Catholic Church will no longer protect or hide any of you. Anyone found guilty will be put out of the church and subject to the full measure of the law.'”

  • “Others interpreted “deep-seated” as something akin to “uncontrollable” and therefore incapable of observing celibacy.” Are they saying that homosexuals are slaves to their sex drives – making them less than heterosexuals?

  • I find that “acceptance in the RCC priesthood” very sad. Christ taught that homosexuals would not see the Kingdom of Heaven, yet the RCC wants them teaching?
     Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.1 Corinthians 6:9-11English Standard Version (ESV)

  • “It would have been helpful, also, to remind us that a gay orientation, whether in a bishop, priest or a lay person, is no barrier to sanctity…” If you think the pope thinks that, this is what the one in charge of it all thinks:

    Leviticus 18:22 – 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

    Leviticus 20:13 – If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
    The key contribution that homosexual who think they are RCC can make is to renounce their sin and become Christians

  • Aren’t all priests supposed to be celibate??? It the Pope allowing straight priest to break their vows.

  • The RCC is a lost church at the moment. Instead of being a militant church fighting for the souls of men, it’s handlers continue to change the church into their own image.

  • Jonah’s prophesy did not come true because Jonah is an example of a false prophet. This is why he tried to run away.

  • It is a new day, and this one has signs and wonders. “If you through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body, you shall live” The Spirit of the Dove is free.

  • Matt. 1:17 there were three times unto Jesus. Jesus is the fourth Day. The evil and adulterous generation is the fifth Day. How many days a week can you work?

  • if only it were that simple. He did also say that people with a “homosexual tendency” should not be accepted into the priesthood. That is not treating gay people the same as straight people with regard to celibacy. It goes one step further. If it were just the celibacy thing then, correct, there is not “there there”.

    Even a common Jesuit priest writing for the RNS can’t tell the truth these days. Shameful.

  • Gay priests? I doubt it.

    Homosexual priests. Same sex attracted priests. Homosexual hating homosexual priests. Sexually immature and confused priests. Pedophile priests.

    I would appreciate it muchly if catholic writers would stop lumping all of these different things together.

  • You’re ignoring your own theology.

    Itis the ACT that is immoral, not the orientation. Unless it isn’t. As in, if a man— presumably heterosexual — looks at a woman with lust and his heart, he is committed adultery with her.

  • Connelly/Arnzen again is wrong. Spanish scholar Pepe Rodriguez has found that 60% of priests in Spain are sexually active. The % surelty varies from country to country, but 90-98% is absurd.

  • Dear Pope Francis. Better to end the celibacy requirement so we have enough priests and so that the priests we do have are making choices fitting to how they are made and so that the priesthood begins to understand family life. The Catholic Church needs those within the clerical ranks who understand what it is to be committed in marriage, what a sex life in marriage really is, what it is to love, protect, raise a child and to let the adult child go. The priesthood and the hierarchy are missing the experience of the form of life that is chosen by most people – a form of life they think they can counsel others about. They lack understanding that comes with actual experience of the life of the laity. And, when it comes to figuring out how to counsel about the non-clerical life, only the clerics get to be involved in the conversation. Do you see something missing here?????

    After 1000 years of forced priestly celibacy, surely it is time to admit it doesn’t work. Forcing celibacy has never worked. That is not to say some people are not called to celibacy. It is to say that the call to the priesthood and the call to celibacy are separate callings, and one may have one without the other. Not all who are called to the priesthood are called to celibacy. Some are but not all. Respect that because after all these years it is abundantly clear that the requirement that all priests be celibate obviously does not work, it has never worked.

    Stop playing a game with the priesthood. Vianney took the priesthood into the absurd. The priest is not God. The priest is not Jesus. The priest is a guide, a leader of a community who come together to worship, pray, and seek to know how to live as God wants them to live. But get over this elevation of the priest to being a substitute for the actual presence of God or Jesus. The priest can lead us to an experience of the Presence, but the priest aint’ it.

  • Ahh…..thank you. 🙂
    You know Parker, it’s sad to watch a major assembly going down the drain – the Episcopalians, the ELCA, now the RCC – although it has been in that direction for a while. Very sad. If they consider themselves homosexuals, they are not Christians. God does not place Christians in Hell. (edited)

  • Actually, Romans 1 disagrees with you.
    “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.” Romans 1:26
    “…they exchanged the truth of God for a lie,” Vs 25
    No “orientation” about it. It is a choice as Christ made clear through this scripture. By their actions, they rejected Christ and Christ turned them over to a reprobate mind to do that which is not good – hence, they continued in their sin. No, orientation.

  • He didn’t go far enough. Does he want people turned over to a “debased mind to do what ought not to be done” (Romans 1:28) teaching God’s children?

  • They are all complementary Ben – they are all sexual sin, with the exception of “sexually immature”

  • 80% of all cases of child molestation in the Catholic Church involve priests engaging in sexual contact with boys and this is one reason why male homosexuals are referred to as pederasts, which is a Greek term that means “lovers of boys.” The cost to the Catholic Church because of these “lovers of boys” has been staggering. Outside the church, the rate at which homosexuals (both male and female) molest children is 20x that of heterosexuals. In addition, male homosexuals molest children at a much, much higher rate than male heterosexuals do… as the case of Jerry Sandusky so clearly indicates. As the American people have become increasingly aware of this connection between homosexuality and child molestation, polls indicate there has been an evaporation of support for homosexuality. If you support homosexuality, you are supporting pedophilia. It’s that simple.

  • All of which are lies. But don’t let it bother you.

    Oh! It doesn’t.

    Jerry Sandusky, lkke so many pedophiles, was heterosexually married, presentedhimself to the world as heterosexual, would have described himself and be described by his family, church, and community as heterosexual.

    Support for gay rights is between 65% and 75%. You are simply delusional. But you get points for repeating the same lies of the past 2000 years.

  • Pope Francis could actually do much more. On his next press conference, he could read 1 Cor. 10:13 and 1 Cor. 6:9-11 out loud, and point out to everybody — period — that Jesus can cleanse them, free them, heal them, restore them, and that NOTHING is too hard for Jesus. Tell everybody that, clergy or layperson or whatever, everybodycan be saved, cleansed, healed and freed not only from Homosexual Behavior but even from Gay-Self-Identity itself, if they wanna be healed and freed.

    In Christ, nobody has to be Gay (or other sin addictions) anymore. Christ can make people whole, he takes off ALL the chains.
    Pope Francis could tell them the truth: The infinitely powerful Lord Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, (Heb. 13:8), so He’s well able to do a complete Make-Over on ANYBODY, just like he did for the ancient Corinthians.

  • Be celibate or get out – without the quotes – comes from “Urge homosexual priests to live celibacy [or] to leave the ministry rather than to live a double life” – quote, unquote.

    “Pope wrote the title”? No, Thomas Reese here and Reuters elsewhere did, but those were Francis’ own words. Check out, too, his book, The Strength of a Vocation, released in Italy December 1 of last weekend.

    Source: Agence France-Presse, “Gay people should not join Catholic clergy, Pope Francis says: No room for ‘fashionable’ homosexuality and gay priests should be ‘impeccably responsible’ or leave”, The Guardian, December 2, 2018.

  • Celibacy and not fantasizing are still two different things. If they are celibate and still fantasizing, they are still unrepentantly sinning – hence, not Christian

  • I’m not sure what this has to do with gay priests? It sounds to me like he is just saying that celibacy is a rule for everyone. Everyone thinks it’s cool to bash the Pope as some reactionary when in fact he is one of the few western spiritual leaders standing up to Trump and the alt right.

  • Yes, Francis or any Pope of the future could do as you recommend in first paragraph, and we can all discuss such a 21st Century pronouncement from the Vatican if and when Francis or any future Pope makes it.

  • “Jerry Sandusky, lkke so many pedophiles, was heterosexually married…” etc.
    Did you miss the use of the term “double life?”

  • A lot of problems would be solved for the clergy, gay or straight…if the message from the Pope was that sex is positive and enjoyable, so partake in sexual activity in a responsible way…

    …And throw in that future Pope’s will be women, men, LGBT or straight. Everybody wins — except the Protestants !!

  • Didn’t miss it at all. And it doesn’t matter. All it goes to show is that the question is not as simple and lacking any nuance as so many anti gay, so called Christians are simply desperate to believe, in order to assure themselves of their place in heaven, or whatever their reasons might be for trying to scapegoat gay people.

  • The issue is really quite simple: no homosexual was ever to be ordained.

    Therefore, any homosexuals in the priesthood either lied, or was lied about, to get ordained.

    That being the case, the notion that anyone is trying to “scapegoat gay people” in the Catholic Church, particularly coming from an atheist anti-Catholic, is silliness personfied.

  • What it “goes to show” is that many perverts (of all stripes) maintain a theatre of “normal” life for public consumption as a calculated cover for their perversion. “Hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue,” as Rochefoucauld pointed out. That’s all the “nuance” anyone needs to understand what Sandusky did.

  • Exactly. Gay Goliath doesn’t want his slaves running off with Jesus and ditching the Plantation. So Goliath loves these scientific-sounding phrases like “sexual orientation”. The purpose of such phrases is trying to snow-job the same-sex-attracted people that God can’t do anything about “those feelings”, and ESPECIALLY that God can’t put the overwhelmingly powerful 1 Cor 10:13 on “those feelings”, just like He can on every other human temptation.

  • I agree with that, BIll.

    If all that the Pope were interested in was enforcing celibacy, then he could have stated that clearly. I find Father Reese’ reference to a book published 10 years ago to be quite a stretch. Most people who are reading what he said/wrote recently are not thinking of it as a follow-up to the 2010 book. I think that what he wrote is exactly what it appears to be — an attack on gays in the priesthood.

  • Sorry folks, I need a spot to respond to Susan Humphrey’s statement in the Pope-&-Homosexual-Priests thread that’s now dropped way down. Can’t find anything to really piggyback on, so I’m just posting it here. Now Mark Connelly has already gave a good reply to what Susan said about the “Fraternal Birth Order” hypothesis (the FBO is one of those “Gays Are Born That Way” snow-jobs.)

    But Slate Magazine, despite its VERY pro-gay slant, also mentioned a pretty good argument against the FBO hypothesis, (also called “maternal immunization” hypothesis). I wanted to quote and bookmark it for myself so I don’t forget. Gay activists continue to use their “Born-That-Way” sales-pitches, including FBO, so it’s important for Christians to continue responding.

    “Although the hypothesis sounds reasonable enough, it’s premised on a number of assumptions that haven’t been proven. For instance, no one has shown that there is a particular antigen that controls sexual orientation, let alone one designed to make men straight. And if that antigen does exist, does it control orientation only? Blanchard refers to its antibody attackers as “anti-male,” implying that the antigen controls for various aspects of masculinity. But when I asked him about this, he was noncommittal. Moreover, the hypothesis proposes a loose, two-way flow of antigens and antibodies between the fetus (whose antigens spread to the mother) and the mother (whose antibodies spread to the fetus). But this exchange has never been observed—and the antibodies and antigens in question are hypothetical, anyway. If they do exist, there’s no assurance that they perform this placental pirouette.”

    — from Mark Joseph Stern, “Born That Way?”, Slate online, June 28, 2013.

  • Perhaps because the priesthood is a homosocial structure? All male all the time. A real joy if you are a straight priest…

  • Well, yes! 50% of all child molestation occurs within the Holy Heterosexual Family, with Daddy being the perp. I’m glad you finally are beginning to understand.

    Well, apart from the calculated cover part. And the hypocrisy part. And the all the nuance part.

    It makes me very happy that I have managed finally, after all of this time, to educate a few hyper Christians that their simple solutions to complex problems are just that: simple minded, simplistic, and simply wrong.

    Now, would you explain it to mark/bob/Jose/Draco/dr/Matt?

  • nope.
    Leviticus 18:22 – 22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
    Romans 1:26 – Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men,
    James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

  • Isn’t that interesting Ben…..
    50% belongs to heterosexuals, who are 97% of the population, and the other 50% of the abuses of children belong to the homosexuals. – when they are only 3% of the population
    I had stats that the homosexuals were represented 3x as hetero, yours is even worse

  • I’m positive that you don’t understand anything, since the vast majority of children molested are girls, and that you just admitted that virtually half the world’s alleged heterosexuals are actually not heterosexual at all. But child molesters.
    Or something.
    still, I will flag it as hate speech.

  • Nope. Actual research disproves the holy hypocrite false assertion that blames male-victim pedophilia on gay men. Most such predators are able to perform sexually with adult women, but few, if any, ever have consensual sex with other adult males. If they were actually “gay,” the opposite would be true.

  • The whole, silly celibacy rule stems back to money and not what’s spiritually whole or holy. It was the Jesuit love of money that caused the Popes to tell priests to stay single and celibate a thousand years ago.

  • “are able to perform”.

    Come on.

    Multiple sources of data…John Jay…Pennsylvania, etc…show where the problem is.

    The jig is up.

  • Pathetically, you quote Bible verses as if they were a legitimate source of authority. But, the vast majority of Bible verses have about the same level of credibility as Donald Trump’s Tweets.

    However, I do think that some of the Bible authors deserve a pass on their nonsense because they lived in an era of profound ignorance, and were struggling to understand the world. But, the variety of human traits were very much the same thousands of years ago as they are today, and thus we can be certain that some of the Bible authors were knowingly committing fraud with their writings in order to achieve power, higher status, and possibly wealth for themselves. Trump, of course, is swimming in both categories: ignorance and fraud.

  • I’m not sure who you’re responding to – but it’s not to me (Your, “…apart from the calculated cover part. And the hypocrisy part. And the all the nuance part” is simply a way of declaring “I’m not going to respond to anything you actually said.”) You must be talking back and forth with the part of your brain that you believe represents the way Christians think. Far be it from me to intervene in your internal dialogues – apart from pointing out that the “Christian” part of your brain is an imaginary scarecrow (and you’re the crow) – but from the way you continually go back to jeering at your scarecrow, the pseudo-Christian part of your brain it represents just won’t leave you alone to think your own thoughts in your own way. What a bother! It’s no wonder you react to that with resentment and resistance – but transferring your resentment and resistance to actual, living, breathing, Christians is a classic case of projection. Use it if you must for your own mental stability and coherence…but the rest of us are not so constrained, and can recognize that you’ve misapplied the emotional energy of an empty internal abstraction to an external concrete reality – which is the very definition of “projection.”

  • You “quoted” me to announce that you were dismissing what I said – as I pointed out and you didn’t respond to.
    That’s bad for you …but of course that’s only if you think it’s “bad” to post an irrelevancy in response to an actual argument.
    And your response is full of snark – as usual – but (again) contains no answer to any point i actually made. Do us all a favor and keep your arguments with yourself where they originate: inside your own brain

  • The truth is not hate speech:
    “The prevalence of child sexual abuse is difficult to determine for a variety of reasons and estimates vary considerably. Finkelhor (1994) found that internationally, estimates vary from between seven percent and 36 percent for women, and three and 29 percent for men. A random sample of 2,869 18 to 24 year olds in the United Kingdom found that 11 percent reported having been sexually abused before the age of 13 years (Cawson et al. 2000). Price-Robertson, Bromfield and Vassallo’s (2010) summary of Australian prevalence studies estimates that four to eight percent of males and seven to 12 percent of females experience penetrative child sexual abuse and 12 to 16 percent of males and 23 to 36 percent of females experience non-penetrative child sexual abuse.”
    https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi429
    As males are less likely to report abuse, the numbers cannot really be substatiated
    “However, despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay lifestyle from pedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners. In this paper we will consider the following evidence linking homosexuality to pedophilia:

    Pedophiles are invariably males: Almost all sex crimes against children are committed by men.

    Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to girls).

    The 10 percent fallacy: Studies indicate that, contrary to the inaccurate but widely accepted claims of sex researcher Alfred Kinsey, homosexuals comprise between 1 to 3 percent of the population.

    Homosexuals are overrepresented in child sex offenses: Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

    Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between homosexuality and pedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of “boy-lovers” to be a legitimate gay rights issue.

    Pedophile themes abound in homosexual literary culture: Gay fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote “intergenerational intimacy.”
    “Homosexual apologists admit that some homosexuals sexually molest children, but they deny that homosexuals are more likely to commit such offenses. After all, they argue, the majority of child molestation cases are heterosexual in nature. While this is correct in terms of absolute numbers, this argument ignores the fact that homosexuals comprise only a very small percentage of the population.

    The evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls. To demonstrate this it is necessary to connect several statistics related to the problem of child sex abuse: 1) men are almost always the perpetrator; 2) up to one-third or more of child sex abuse cases are committed against boys; 3) less than three percent of the population are homosexuals. Thus, a tiny percentage of the population (homosexual men), commit one-third or more of the cases of child sexual molestation.”

    “Homosexual pedophiles sexually molest children at a far greater rate compared to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found, as we have noted above, that “approximately one-third of [child sex offenders] had victimized boys and two-thirds had victimized girls.” The authors then make a prescient observation: “Interestingly, this ratio differs substantially from the ratio of gynephiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature females) to androphiles (men who erotically prefer physically mature males), which is at least 20 to 1.” 17″
    http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.php?/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.htm

    “Careful studies indicate that cases of paedophilia occur with more frequency amongst same-sex couples than heterosexual couples. Although the homosexual community comprises a tiny minority of the population, this minority is responsible for one-third of all cases of child molestation in the US.[26] According to a Senior Fellow for cultural studies at the Family Research Council, Dr. Timothy J. Dailey, ‘the evidence indicates that both homosexuality and paedophilia are intersecting categories that include many different kinds of sexual behaviour’.”
    https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2017/08/childrens-welfare-sex-families/#_ftn27

    Facts are not hatred

  • Holy hypocrite “truth” is only good for gunpowder and making the garden grow, although it needs to age in both instances. “Fresh, ” neither horse manure nor holy hypocrite “preaching” are worth a cup of cold spit.

  • What’s funny…for years people have been quoting the JJ report, until they were pointed to the > 80 %and > 90% numbers!

    busload of dull clowns.

  • Holy hypocrites recycle their pseudo-science “research” from fake “research group” to fake “research group.” The names change but the faked statistics never do.

ADVERTISEMENTs