Crocker91 said:

---

Edited for context. The data I have is from a guy who was in seminary in the late 70s and early 80s.

---

So in other words this is the time frame most of the current Bishops attended.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Crocker91 said:
Edited for context. The data I have is from a guy who was in seminary in the late 70s and early 80s.

---

So in other words this is the time frame most of the current Bishops attended.

---

I edited again for context. 80% of the gay guys in seminary were not celibate. The number was similar for gay men after their ordination.

Whether good or bad, the current episcopate are the successors to the apostles. I'm not in favor of corporate slander or calumny against them.

Crocker91 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Crocker91 said:
Edited for context. The data I have is from a guy who was in seminary in the late 70s and early 80s.

---

So in other words this is the time frame most of the current Bishops attended.

---

I edited again for context. 80% of the gay guys in seminary were not celibate. The number was similar for gay men after their ordination.

Whether good or bad, the current episcopate are the successors to the apostles. I'm not in favor of corporate slander or calumny against them.

---

I haven't seen many of your posts and would ask a personal question if you would entertain it. I'm not going to be insulting or anything like that, but I'm sure you could understand how I feel about your current marital status. As respectfully as possible; how do you reconcile that with your faith?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

---

Quote:


So in other words this is the time frame most of the current Bishops attended.

---

Crocker91 said:
I edited again for context. 80% of the gay guys in seminary were not celibate. The number was similar for gay men after their ordination.

Whether good or bad, the current episcopate are the successors to the apostles. I'm not in favor of corporate slander or calumny against them.

---

I haven't seen many of your posts and would ask a personal question if you would entertain it. I'm not going to be insulting or anything like that, but I'm sure you could understand how I feel about your current marital status. As respectfully as possible; how do you reconcile that with your faith?

---

Not insulting at all. If the reaction to the same-sex marriage argument had been more reasonable and allowed for some type of domestic partnership, I would have been all in on that.

However, as memory serves, the reaction was more shrill, "sanctity of marriage" language (ignoring no-fault divorce and feminism and their toxic, Satanic partnership that gravely damaged sacramental marriage) which ignored the reality that, in our society, marriage has devolved into primarily 1) a vehicle for my own self-gratification, and 2) a legal construct centered on property rights. At the time Obergefell was decided, there were 1,100+ rights and privileges (the vast majority concerning property) that only conveyed through legal marriage. That discrimination cannot be justified under our constitution.

So, I rather reluctantly had to legally marry as that was the only way to protect my then partner and the life we had built together and would continue to build. If civil unions had been embraced, that's the route we would have chosen. Even now, I still am quite deliberate in saying that we are "legally" married. I'm quite comfortable in the knowledge that we are not and will never be sacramentally married as that's a decision way above my pay grade.

Disagreement doesn't threaten me nor do I need unthinking acceptance to validate me. Every minute that God chooses to continue to imagine me into life and love me into being are more than enough for me.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

---

Quote:


So in other words this is the time frame most of the current Bishops attended.

---

Crocker91 said:
I edited again for context. 80% of the gay guys in seminary were not celibate. The number was similar for gay men after their ordination.

Whether good or bad, the current episcopate are the successors to the apostles. I'm not in favor of corporate slander or calumny against them.

---

Ok so in other words don't do the math or your a bigot, got it

---

If you're going to make assertions, make them on logic. Reductions to absurdity and falsehoods implying name-calling are weakness bordering on pathetic. They are indicative of a society where people are quite good at feeling and dismally bad at thinking.

FTR, I implied you were perilously close to being a calumnist because of your implication about the bishops. I have no thought with regard to any presence of bigotry as I have no evidence to shape such thoughts one way or the other.

Crocker91 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

+ 1 more quotes (click to expand)

---

Quote:


So in other words this is the time frame most of the current Bishops attended.

---

Crocker91 said:
I edited again for context. 80% of the gay guys in seminary were not celibate. The number was similar for gay men after their ordination.

Whether good or bad, the current episcopate are the successors to the apostles. I'm not in favor of corporate slander or calumny against them.

---

I haven't seen many of your posts and would ask a personal question if you would entertain it. I'm not going to be insulting or anything like that, but I'm sure you could understand how I feel about your current marital status. As respectfully as possible; how do you reconcile that with your faith?

---

Not insulting at all. If the reaction to the same-sex marriage argument had been more reasonable and allowed for some type of domestic partnership, I would have been all in on that.

However, as memory serves, the reaction was more shrill, "sanctity of marriage" language (ignoring no-fault divorce and feminism and their toxic, Satanic partnership that gravely damaged sacramental marriage) which ignored the reality that, in our society, marriage has devolved into primarily 1) a vehicle for my own self-gratification, and 2) a legal construct centered on property rights. At the time Obergefell was decided, there were 1,100+ rights and privileges (the vast majority concerning property) that only conveyed through legal marriage. That discrimination cannot be justified under our constitution.

So, I rather reluctantly had to legally marry as that was the only way to protect my then partner and the life we had built together and would continue to build. If civil unions had been embraced, that's the route we would have chosen. Even now, I still am quite deliberate in saying that we are "legally" married. I'm quite comfortable in the knowledge that we are not and will never be sacramentally married as that's a decision way above my pay grade.

Disagreement doesn't threaten me nor do I need unthinking acceptance to validate me. Every minute that God chooses to continue to imagine me into life and love me into being are more than enough for me.

---

asked and answered, thank you.

Quote:

---

"I don't know what he said at the end of that sentence, I don't think he knows either."

---

I corrected myself as I realized I had been in articulate and made a statement that could be misconstrued.

As I said in the restating and based on the first-hand accounts told to me, 80% of the gay men--not 80% of all seminarians, but 80% of the seminarians who were same sex attracted--were unfaithful to their vows during seminary. And a similar number of the gay men who completed seminary--not all seminarians but only those who entered with same-sex attraction--were unfaithful to their vow of celibacy with other non-minor persons from both inside and outside the clerical state.

I have no judgments on your character. I apologize if I implied that I did and if I further implied they would be negative. I unyieldingly hold that willful attacks on the episcopate en masse are inconsistent with faith in the apostolic succession.

I wish you good day and peace.

Crocker91 said:

---

Quote:

---

"I don't know what he said at the end of that sentence, I don't think he knows either."

---

I corrected myself as I realized I had been in articulate and made a statement that could be misconstrued.

As I said in the restating and based on the first-hand accounts told to me, 80% of the gay men--not 80% of all seminarians, but 80% of the seminarians who were same sex attracted--were unfaithful to their vows during seminary. And a similar number of the gay men who completed seminary--not all seminarians but only those who entered with same-sex attraction--were unfaithful to their vow of celibacy with other non-minor persons from both inside and outside the clerical state.

I have no judgments on your character. I apologize if I implied that I did and if I further implied they would be negative. I unyieldingly hold that willful attacks on the episcopate en masse are inconsistent with faith in the apostolic succession.

I wish you good day and peace.

---

This is an unrelated topic but I was talking to BallerStaf on the politics board. I think that pederasty and pedophilia is more of an issue in the gay community than it is among straights (obviously on a per capita basis). Do you agree with that or no?

From what I have read of queer theory, it seems that they argue that queer sexuality is definitionally transgressive and that ALL sexual taboos are artifacts of heteronormative oppression and must be challenged.

Quote:

---

This is an unrelated topic but I was talking to BallerStaf on the politics board. I think that pederasty and pedophilia is more of an issue in the gay community than it is among straights (obviously on a per capita basis). Do you agree with that or no?

---

I totally disagree about pedophilia--i.e., diddling children is NOT acceptable or more of an issue in the gay community than in the larger society. However, pederasty is much more common and, dare I say it, more tolerated in the gay community than it would be in the larger culture. A larger percentage of gay men will make inappropriate comments about say 15-18 year old boys that would not be tolerated from straight men about girls in that same age range. Far too many gay men defend their first sexual encounters with men 20-30 years their senior as completely ok because they were "consensual." Again, straights wouldn't defend such conduct.

Quote:

---

From what I have read of queer theory, it seems that they argue that queer sexuality is definitionally transgressive and that ALL sexual taboos are artifacts of heteronormative oppression and must be challenged.

---

I have heard the same theories espoused/advanced. The original version of The Normal Heart seems to give a great example by displaying the reaction to gay-sympathetic doctors who told gay men to just abstain from sex at the beginning of the AIDS crisis until medicine was able to figure out what was going on. The response from the community was that their sexual behavior was their entitlement and defined who they were.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Crocker91 said:

Quote:

---

Quote:
This is an unrelated topic but I was talking to BallerStaf on the politics board. I think that pederasty and pedophilia is more of an issue in the gay community than it is among straights (obviously on a per capita basis). Do you agree with that or no?

---

I totally disagree about pedophilia--i.e., diddling children is NOT acceptable or more of an issue in the gay community than in the larger society. However, pederasty is much more common and, dare I say it, more tolerated in the gay community than it would be in the larger culture. A larger percentage of gay men will make inappropriate comments about say 15-18 year old boys that would not be tolerated from straight men about girls in that same age range. Far too many gay men defend their first sexual encounters with men 20-30 years their senior as completely ok because they were "consensual." Again, straights wouldn't defend such conduct.

Quote:

---

Quote:
From what I have read of queer theory, it seems that they argue that queer sexuality is definitionally transgressive and that ALL sexual taboos are artifacts of heteronormative oppression and must be challenged.

---

I have heard the same theories espoused/advanced. The original version of The Normal Heart seems to give a great example by displaying the reaction to gay-sympathetic doctors who told gay men to just abstain from sex at the beginning of the AIDS crisis until medicine was able to figure out what was going on. The response from the community was that their sexual behavior was their entitlement and defined who they were.

---

You seem like a pretty good dude. I'm going to add you as the intention of one of my decades of the rosary tonight. God bless.

---

That is very kind and much appreciated.

Serviam said:

---

Crocker91 said:

---

Here's my bona fides: gay man, legally married, regularly practicing and would be described by most people as "devout." I would term it as trying my best to remain as true to "orthodoxy" as possible.

The issue was (and to the extent that it remains) homosexuality in the priesthood. The abuse of post-pubescent minors (as opposed to pedophilia) was and is a crime against God. It happened because men who couldn't deal with their sexuality sought to "escape" into the priesthood. Low and behold, that plan failed. The same pattern is repeated all the time in gay relationships. A person suppresses their sexual identity for years. They have gone through the dating and mating rituals in the same stages and phases as the society. When they later "come out," they revert back to an adolescent mindset. They practice dating and mating in a way that mirrors those practices during that stage of human development--but with one HUGE exception. There are no limits imposed by their partners to encourage virtuous development of sexuality. The relationship development that would come in a healthy situation becomes only a self-pleasure focused bacchanalia. So, yes, homosexuality in the priesthood was the root and branch cause of the crisis of abuse of minors.

Final note because it's important: I am close friends with a former priest. He left the priesthood because he's gay. There have never been nor do I expect there to be accusations against him. He was faithful to his vows until he punched out. However, he's shared plenty of stories of seminary and priesthood. Everyone knew who was gay. Everyone expected that they would not be faithful to God or to their vows. By their own estimates, at least 80% of these men slept around together in seminary, and a similar although slightly smaller number had homosexual relations with other priests and non-clerics (although not minors) during their active priesthood.

The "lavender mafia" didn't believe in celibacy. They didn't encourage anyone else to believe in it. They openly mocked the idea. They encouraged their brothers to disregard their vows.

---

Wow, thank you for sharing this. I of course knew the rumors and scuttlebut of what was going on in the seminaries, but never so starkly presented.

---

Just be cautious to take anecdotes like this as only that, one person's retelling from another. People have a tendency to use things like this as proof of degree of prevelancy

Crocker91 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Crocker91 said:
Edited for context. The data I have is from a guy who was in seminary in the late 70s and early 80s.

---

So in other words this is the time frame most of the current Bishops attended.

---

I edited again for context. 80% of the gay guys in seminary were not celibate. The number was similar for gay men after their ordination.

Whether good or bad, the current episcopate are the successors to the apostles. I'm not in favor of corporate slander or calumny against them.

---

At least according to the information you received from your former priest friend, not from your own first hand experience?

Quote:

---

At least according to the information you received from your former priest friend, not from your own first hand experience?

---

From him and from his former seminary brothers (many of whom who are still in active ministry) over the last 15+ years.

Just in case I'm not being understood, let me be clear:

• I do NOT believe that the majority of men in seminary or in the priesthood are same-sex attracted.
• I do NOT believe that all same-sex attracted men who enter the seminary will be unfaithful to their spouse, the Church.
• I agree with Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis that there IS a greater likelihood of SSA men failing to keep their vow of celibacy compared to OSA men.
• I agree with PBXVI and PF that SSA men should be excluded from seminary.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Serviam said:

---

Crocker91 said:

---

Here's my bona fides: gay man, legally married, regularly practicing and would be described by most people as "devout." I would term it as trying my best to remain as true to "orthodoxy" as possible.

The issue was (and to the extent that it remains) homosexuality in the priesthood. The abuse of post-pubescent minors (as opposed to pedophilia) was and is a crime against God. It happened because men who couldn't deal with their sexuality sought to "escape" into the priesthood. Low and behold, that plan failed. The same pattern is repeated all the time in gay relationships. A person suppresses their sexual identity for years. They have gone through the dating and mating rituals in the same stages and phases as the society. When they later "come out," they revert back to an adolescent mindset. They practice dating and mating in a way that mirrors those practices during that stage of human development--but with one HUGE exception. There are no limits imposed by their partners to encourage virtuous development of sexuality. The relationship development that would come in a healthy situation becomes only a self-pleasure focused bacchanalia. So, yes, homosexuality in the priesthood was the root and branch cause of the crisis of abuse of minors.

Final note because it's important: I am close friends with a former priest. He left the priesthood because he's gay. There have never been nor do I expect there to be accusations against him. He was faithful to his vows until he punched out. However, he's shared plenty of stories of seminary and priesthood. Everyone knew who was gay. Everyone expected that they would not be faithful to God or to their vows. By their own estimates, at least 80% of these men slept around together in seminary, and a similar although slightly smaller number had homosexual relations with other priests and non-clerics (although not minors) during their active priesthood.

The "lavender mafia" didn't believe in celibacy. They didn't encourage anyone else to believe in it. They openly mocked the idea. They encouraged their brothers to disregard their vows.

---

Wow, thank you for sharing this. I of course knew the rumors and scuttlebut of what was going on in the seminaries, but never so starkly presented.

---

Just be cautious to take anecdotes like this as only that, one person's retelling from another. People have a tendency to use things like this as proof of degree of prevelancy

---

You don't understand, when one-off anecdotes align with my biases I treat them as gospel truth

Crocker91 said:

---

Just in case I'm not being understood, let me be clear:

• I do NOT believe that the majority of men in seminary or in the priesthood are same-sex attracted.
• I do NOT believe that all same-sex attracted men who enter the seminary will be unfaithful to their spouse, the Church.
• I agree with Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis that there IS a greater likelihood of SSA men failing to keep their vow of celibacy compared to OSA men.
• I agree with PBXVI and PF that SSA men should be excluded from seminary.

---

I don't know if the others are misreading you, but this is how I took your first post. Thank you for sharing

Crocker91 said:

---

Just in case I'm not being understood, let me be clear:

• I do NOT believe that the majority of men in seminary or in the priesthood are same-sex attracted.
• I do NOT believe that all same-sex attracted men who enter the seminary will be unfaithful to their spouse, the Church.
• I agree with Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis that there IS a greater likelihood of SSA men failing to keep their vow of celibacy compared to OSA men.
• I agree with PBXVI and PF that SSA men should be excluded from seminary.

---

Thank you for the clarification. I didn't get this from your initial posts.