Gay priests before 1990

Zaph

smokingman, if you want to make wild leaps of logic that result in potentially defamatory statements like that, we'd prefer if you did it somewhere else thanks.

smokingman

smokingman wrote: »

<snip>

I do apologise mods, thought I had used enough vagueness to simply imply what I said.

Won't happen again.

Brian Shanahan

MrPudding wrote: »

I think you should post this in the Christianity forum. There are plenty of experts on the catholic church there.

if you are actually interested in getting an answer to your question, rather than trying to irritate people with your thinly veiled gay= child rapist slander, then you should ask there. good luck.

MrP

He honestly shouldn't be posting this anywhere. As you've rightly pointed out all he's doing is posting homophobic lying propoganda.

MrPudding

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

He honestly shouldn't be posting this anywhere. As you've rightly pointed out all he's doing is posting homophobic lying propoganda.

Agreed. I just thought it would be funny to see how long to lasted there.

MrP

kylith

Zen65 wrote: »

No, it does not.

Priests have historically had more unsupervised access to boys than to girls.

Exactly what I was going to post. It has to do with access more than anything else.

I'd imagine that gay priests would have found it quite easy to find other gay priests to have consensual sex with.

Zen65

kylith wrote: »

I'd imagine that gay priests would have found it quite easy to find other gay priests to have consensual sex with.

Yes, not just other priests . . . but other gay men. Of course it's 'safer' for two priests to keep a secret, but the laity can be perfectly discreet as we know from the many heterosexual relationships that were kept secret. I have no doubt that such relationships continue among the catholic clergy, and where consenting adults are involved I have no issue whatsoever with that.

The OP is very deeply flawed in its assertion, but it is not the first time I have read & heard this suggestion about a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. It is not the result of any rational, logical study, but rather a conclusion drawn by bigoted, homophobic minds.

Shrap

Turtwig wrote: »

No, they're no, yes and no.

No, they're no, yes and yes.

Anyway, to get down to the OP, the repression of teaching or learning about sexuality for young people to the point that they can't express any of their feelings either verbally or physically has got to produce some warped and antisocial sexual outbursts - stands to reason. Therefore, it's paedophilia brought on by the dynamic of sexually fcuked up authority figure versus child who can't say anything. I think the gender of the child, or indeed the gender of the repressed religious personnel is entirely irrelevant, as is the sexual orientation of the repressed individual.

Kidchameleon

Back in the day, priests were high standing members in the community. They had the respect of the people and were considered upstanding members of society. These things were very attractive to a person with pedophilic (is that even a word?) tendencies. Nobody would beleive a child if he/she accused the local priest of wrong doing. Priests also had a lot of access to children. It bothers me greatly when people blame the church on pedophiles, the churches mistake was covering up for them, they didn't create them. There are plenty of sick animals who are not in the priesthood.

Its the same thing with all these psycho's killing "in the name of Allah". Its just an excuse for them. These people would be killers, religion or no religion.

Absolam

No, yes, yes. Nothing in the OP merits consideration.

Cabaal

Zen65 wrote: »

No, it does not.

Priests have historically had more unsupervised access to boys than to girls.

*cough* alter boys
Alter girls didn't exist till the mid to late 90's, girls weren't worthy of standing up by the priests and ringing silly bells and the like

magicbastarder

if i ever form that anarcho-ambient-jazz-metal band i'm always threatening to do, i'm gonna call the band 'gay priests before 1990'.

Zen65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its the same thing with all these psycho's killing "in the name of Allah". Its just an excuse for them. These people would be killers, religion or no religion.

Well yes and no.

Violent people will use any excuse to justify their actions, certainly. A percentage of violent people may use religion to justify their hatred and therefore their actions, and in that respect I agree with you. But it cannot be denied that most fundamentalist religious teachings endorse murder, and hence people who are primarily inclined towards adherence to a religious cause will interpret the religious instruction as a reason for killing. In such cases it seems clear that it is the religious observance which prompts the violence, and not the other way around.

Hence while religion cannot be seen as the sole cause for these murders it is undoubtedly a cause for some of the killings. Evidence for this is two-fold:

• Religions which are not based on ancient teachings including sacrifices to a god do not generally have followers with a pre-disposition to violence. You will not find many people using their faith in Buddhism, Shintoism or even Scientology as justification for killing. (It is debatable whether or not Scientology is actually a 'religion').
  
• Persons with no history of having a pre-disposition to violence can become violent (or support violence) after immersion in a faith-based cult. This is what people refer to as 'radicalisation' through faith-based teachings

Buddhism and Shintoism are particularly interesting in this respect. A religion having no god (Buddhism) or many gods (Shintoism) does not seem to evoke violent feelings in the same way as those religions having only one god. It's the difference between following a football league versus following just one football team.

Kidchameleon

Indeed Zen65 I agree and may I add that pretty much everything in the world can turn people into killers. Money, love, patriotism would be a few examples.

Zen65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Indeed Zen65 I agree and may I add that pretty much everything in the world can turn people into killers. Money, love, patriotism would be a few examples.

Love and hatred (of people - or of a monotheist deity) are the two principal enablers of killing.

That can extend to love of country, or love of money / possessions in some cases (land being probably the most common).

But some countries have legends and myths which promote the idea of dying for your country. Ireland itself is an excellent poster-boy for such a philosophy - and so Irish Martyrs seem to have a special place in history as will be noted in particular next year when the 1916 uprising is commemorated. On the other hand I cannot ever recall hearing of somebody who sacrificed themselves for Australia. Their culture (which is far more secular in nature) does not suggest that dying for your country is a great deed.

Anyway, this is drifting off-topic and it's very early in the morning to be discussing such lofty concepts.

Hotblack Desiato

Zen65 wrote: »

On the other hand I cannot ever recall hearing of somebody who sacrificed themselves for Australia. Their culture (which is far more secular in nature) does not suggest that dying for your country is a great deed.

Ever hear of ANZAC Day? Or see one of the hundreds of RSLs? Dying for one's country may not be venerated as such in Australia, but serving in the military overseas is, and one tends to follow from the other.

Brian Shanahan

Zen65 wrote: »

Religions which are not based on ancient teachings including sacrifices to a god do not generally have followers with a pre-disposition to violence. You will not find many people using their faith in Buddhism, Shintoism or even Scientology as justification for killing. (It is debatable whether or not Scientology is actually a 'religion').

• Persons with no history of having a pre-disposition to violence can become violent (or support violence) after immersion in a faith-based cult. This is what people refer to as 'radicalisation' through faith-based teachings

Buddhism and Shintoism are particularly interesting in this respect. A religion having no god (Buddhism) or many gods (Shintoism) does not seem to evoke violent feelings in the same way as those religions having only one god. It's the difference between following a football league versus following just one football team.

Buddhism:
There was a large Tibetan empire in the 6th-9th centuries CE which was expansionist and aggressive in nature. While the empire started off adhereing to the bon animist beliefs, it quickly converted to buddhism, and quite a lot of it's expansion was due to proselytising buddhist beliefs in SE Asia (hence why the likes of Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos & Vietnam are majority buddhist today). Furthermore its final king was assassinated by a buddhist monk because he was allegedly trying to reconvert the country to bon. And look today at Burma and Sri Lanka where non buddhist minorities are heavily persecuted (often to the point of mass murder) with full blessings of religious leaders. And then you've got Aum Shinrikyo the Japanese buddhist terrorist group who released sarin gas into the Tokyo subway system in 1993. And then you've got the Mongols to think of, who were majority buddhist for most of their conquests.

People's views of buddhism being non-violent and atheistic (most Eastern forms of buddhism are deeply polytheistic, the comedy show Monkey for example gives an accurate description of Buddhist pantheon) is mostly an artefact of its westward spread in the 60s and 70s. Some very charismatic and dodgy people managed to emphasise the tolerance and peace aspects of buddhism and ignore the kill all infidels aspects and there were many people in the West at the time who had grown disillusioned with the Abrahamic faiths, yet not ready to take the final step and throw off religions altogether, so the manufactured buddhism they were being sold was greedily lapped up.

Shinto:
This is the religion the Japanese state used to great effect to brainwash its people, first to conquer large swathes of East Asia, second to view the conquered people as inferior (similar to Nazi Germany's views of Jews and Slavs) and thirdly to continue fighting suicidally long after any chance of victory or stalemate had disappeared. Enough said to refute its non-violence.

Zen65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ever hear of ANZAC Day? Or see one of the hundreds of RSLs? Dying for one's country may not be venerated as such in Australia, but serving in the military overseas is, and one tends to follow from the other.

There's a vast difference between martyrdom for one's country and taking a side in a war. Most of the veterans to whom Australia pays tribute on ANZAC day died fighting in a war against unjust oppressors - often oppressors of other countries or people; not fighting to colonize other countries on behalf of Australia. If anything, the national spirit of Australia venerates freedom of speech and freedom of allegiance rather than a blind love of country.

To be clear - I did not mean to imply that non-belief was equivalent to promoting peace, but rather that monotheism promotes the philosophy of martyrdom on a level you just do not find in polytheist or atheist cultures.

Zen65

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Buddhism:
There was a large Tibetan empire in the 6th-9th centuries CE which was expansionist and aggressive in nature.

True, but I'm talking about today's religious practices, or at least practices of the last 50 - 500 years. Once you go back to 6th century history you'll find almost every culture included an aggression at its core, because survival depended on it. The teachings of Buddha did not include any texts which could be seen as expansionist or aggressive - these attributes were introduced by the Tibetan empire and superimposed onto the culture. Although Buddhism was the prevalent faith at that time, its teachings did not directly promote aggression. Contrast this to the teachings of Islam or Judea-Christianity where violence is explicit in the 'holy texts'.

Shinto:
This is the religion the Japanese state used to great effect to brainwash its people, first to conquer large swathes of East Asia, second to view the conquered people as inferior (similar to Nazi Germany's views of Jews and Slavs) and thirdly to continue fighting suicidally long after any chance of victory or stalemate had disappeared. Enough said to refute its non-violence.

Okay, I did side-step this issue, but for (I believe) good reason. Shintoism in its original form was largely nothing more than vague folklore and tradition, a belief in the spiritual elements of humanity (and animality too) but without having a core text of any kind. You cannot for example quote the book of Shinto because in absolute terms it has not been written. While this is a pleasant attribute in many respects it is also a weakness because the beliefs are exposed to hijack, and that's what the Japanese state did to great effect by linking the veneration of ancestors to a form of nationalism. That off-shoot of Shinto (often termed 'State Shinto') was used as a support vehicle for the propagation of nationalism, which in turn promoted aggression.

As with Buddhism, there are no supporting texts at the core of the Shinto religion which promote violence. To the best of my knowledge there is actually no core Shinto text at all! There are beliefs however linked to both the Shinto & Buddhist faiths which attach very high virtue to perseverance, even past the point of any positive outcome. In battle this is seen as suicidal continuance of the fight in preference to surrender, and in work this is seen by the esteem bestowed on Karōshi (dying through over-work). I don't think I could see this as being a promotion of aggression in itself, but I grant you that the symptoms you describe resemble aggression.

In today's world, there are (almost) no suicidal Buddhist terrorists, nor Shinto terrorists. Japanese nationalism, though dented by their defeat in WW2, remains strong. Occupation of Japan by the US continues, and yet terror-cells are not being detected.

As with my previous comments on theism, I am not suggesting that the absence of monotheism eliminates violence, but the presence of it certainly does seem to promote it.

Could we BE any further off the topic of gay priests?

lazygal

Zen65 wrote: »

Could we BE any further off the topic of gay priests?

Any thoughts on biscuits? What about Jaffa "not biscuits" cakes?
Any strong feelings on Hawaiian pizza?

Zen65

lazygal wrote: »

Any strong feelings on Hawaiian pizza?

I do understand why people feel it's wrong and unnatural. But those juicy rings are irresistible!

lazygal

Zen65 wrote: »

I do understand why people feel it's wrong and unnatural. But those juicy rings are irresistible!

The pineapple is the best part. There, I said it.

Zen65

lazygal wrote: »

The pineapple is the best part. There, I said it.

I think the best part is when you get served a Hawaiian pizza in Hawaii. Because that means you're in Hawaii.

Hawaii!!

lazygal

Zen65 wrote: »

I think the best part is when you get served a Hawaiian pizza in Hawaii. Because that means you're in Hawaii.

Hawaii!!

Would it not just be a pizza there?

Zen65

lazygal wrote: »

Would it not just be a pizza there?

Like an Irish Bar in Ireland is just . . . a bar?

I guess you may be right. I'd still like to get to Hawaii and research this.

Brian Shanahan

Zen65 wrote: »

True, but I'm talking about today's religious practices, or at least practices of the last 50 - 500 years. Once you go back to 6th century history you'll find almost every culture included an aggression at its core, because survival depended on it. The teachings of Buddha did not include any texts which could be seen as expansionist or aggressive - these attributes were introduced by the Tibetan empire and superimposed onto the culture. Although Buddhism was the prevalent faith at that time, its teachings did not directly promote aggression. Contrast this to the teachings of Islam or Judea-Christianity where violence is explicit in the 'holy texts'.

*Cough, cough* Modern Sri Lanka, Modern Cambodia, Modern Thailand
*cough, cough*

The fact of the matter is that about the only significant religion where you can point out that there is a strong curent of nonviolence is Jainism, which in world terms is actually very small (with only about 6m adherents). All of the major religions now have been bred and spread on violence.

Zen65

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that about the only significant religion where you can point out that there is a strong curent of nonviolence is Jainism, which in world terms is actually very small (with only about 6m adherents). All of the major religions now have been bred and spread on violence.

I'm not well-versed on Jainism. Am I right in thinking that it is an atheist religion? By that I mean that there is no interventionist god worshipped? My (vague) recollection of a documentary I saw years ago was that, like Buddhism, the Jains honoured enlightened humans rather than deities? In any event with such a small declining population one might argue their non-violence is almost statistically insignificant.

*Cough, cough* Modern Sri Lanka, Modern Cambodia, Modern Thailand
*cough, cough*

Very subtle and thank you for sparing my blushes. I don't actually think that religion is at the core of the current conflicts - my rationale being similar to my view on the hijacking of the Shinto religion. There are a number of sub-divisions of Buddhism and some are certainly less peaceful than others, but I do not know of any branch where the religious texts promote violence? Do you?