question for today
Why is it so terribly wrong to suggest that there might be a connection between sexual abuse and homosexuality, but perfectly acceptable to say that the sex-abuse crisis shows the need to reconsider clerical celibacy and other aspects of Church teaching regarding sexuality?
Or to put it differently, why is it outrageous to suggest that a homosexual is more likely to molest an adolescent boy, but logical to suggest that a celibate is?
We know something about a homosexual: he likes boys. We know something about a celibate: he is continent. So of the two men-- one who likes boys, the other who controls himself-- which is more likely to molest boys?
Take your time. I know this is a tough one.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our September expenses ($33,073 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Ken_H -
Apr. 28, 2010 8:48 AM ET USA
And is there really a Bishop name "Pat Power"?
Posted by: Ken_H -
Apr. 28, 2010 8:47 AM ET USA
It IS a tough one! So tough, in fact, that anyone in the media who had to consider such weighty thoughts probably wouldn't have time to make their print or broadcast deadline. Too bad for that...
Posted by: BobJ70777069 -
Apr. 27, 2010 9:07 PM ET USA
How typical of the politically-correct crowd - deny what is obvious to anyone with a brain. To quote the movie: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"