Is pedophilia more sinful than homosexuality?

[CHRISTINE77]

Homosexuals often prey on younger people, not necessarily children, but younger men than themselves. (Same with homosexual women). They are happy to recruit new blood into their group.

Actually the disorder of homosexuality has a lot to do with arrested development, they are trying to remain like grade school children, who at a certain age only play with playmates of their own sex.

Legally any person who indulges in sex with a minor is in DEEP trouble if they are caught and prosecuted. However, there are "children" who are really sexually mature and sexually active, who are still defined by law as children. So sometimes people are accused and convicted as being a pedophile, although they had sex with a 16 or 17 year old.

When a person, male or female, homosexual or heterosexual, wants to have sex or does have sex with a child who is not sexually mature, that is a very grave, terrible disorder and sin.

[Birdpreacher]

Originally Posted by NeedImprovement

Only included the quote above because it has some relevance , but since this thread began, I meant to point out that there is a link between active homosexuality and pederasty . The OP's question was looking at them separately , but they are most certainly linked :

STUDY SHOWS LINK BETWEEN HOMOSEXUALITY AND PEDOPHILIA

Gah! Not this argument. FRC and Dailey have both been eviscerated in peer review. No one takes them very seriously.

1992 controversy with A. Nicholas Groth, former director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections. Dailey distorted Groth's work to draw the conclusion that gay men molest boys at a high rate, when Groth's research said the opposite.

Needless to say, Groth wasn't happy about this and he wrote a letter to FRC saying so:

Dear Dr. Dailey:

On the web site www.frc.org you reference my work in your article on "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse". I am writing you to object to my name and research being associated in any way, shape, or form to lend legitimacy to the views proposed in your paper.

If you are, in fact, familiar with my research, you must realize that my studies have indicated that homosexual males pose less risk of sexual harm to children (both male and female)--from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate--than heterosexual males. Your statement that "the evidence indicates that disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as sexual partners" appears to come from the assumption that if an adult male is attracted to a male child, this adult male's sexual orientation is ipso facto homosexual.

Since your report, in my view, misrepresents the facts of what we know about this matter from scientific investigation, and does not indicate that my studies on this topic reach conclusions diametrically opposed to yours, I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views.

Yours truly,

A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D.


How many times can an organization suffer the embarrassment of having it's face cracked and on the ground?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-..._b_542008.html

With 76 footnotes, many of them referring to papers in scientific journals, this screed’s facade of scholarly rigor gives it some degree of truthiness. A careful check on what the sources actually say, however, belies this impression. Specifically, its central argument — that “the evidence indicates that homosexual men molest boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates at which heterosexual men molest girls” — doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

[TEPO]

Originally Posted by Bookcat

One can speak objectively as to the Matter. (The subjective sin can vary)

I would say that due the the little one involved in the sexual abuse of little children would be a -graver- grave sin.

Or would the gravity of the sexual part between the homosexual and the pedophile be equal...? Perhaps the difference is where the pedophile adds other sins to the one shared sin between the two.

The more sins in number then creates more distance from God..? The further one distances themselves from God, the worse hell gets...?

It's all speculation of course, but I don't see it as contrary to church teaching.

[underacloud]

Originally Posted by thistle

None of that makes any difference to your immortal soul. A mortal sin is a mortal sin if you die unrepentant and you go to Hell.
Also even if there are additional punishments in Hell for worse offenders again I do not see what difference it makes because the Church teaches that the chief punishment of Hell (which applies to everyone there) is eternal separation from God so what difference will some additional punishments make?

So you judge the gravity of sin ONLY with regard to the ultimate destination of the immortal soul of the sinner? By that logic, since venial sin does not rob us of sanctifying grace, would you conclude that venial sins are no worse than no sin at all?

Like I said, for repented mortal sins, temporal punishment remains, to be experienced in this life or in purgatory. The gravity of sins will make a substantial difference there. There are differences, and some sins are worse, and will receive worse temporal punishment, than others.

And what of the consequences of sin? Are these not to be considered in whether one sin is any worse than another? What of the victims? To consider sin only with regard to the soul of the sinner is to miss a key reason why we are called not to sin - love for our neighbour.

[Charlemagne II]

One would think that either sin, unrepented, is fatal to our immortal souls.

Pedophilia is greater, I think. One would be introducing a child to mortal sin.

"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Mark 18:6

[NeedImprovement]

Originally Posted by Birdpreacher

Gah! Not this argument. FRC and Dailey have both been eviscerated in peer review. No one takes them very seriously.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alvin-..._b_542008.html

While we’re on the subject of taking things seriously , citing the huffington post as a rebuttal was priceless (lol) .

Of course, the next link was to be expected ...

Originally Posted by Birdpreacher

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

Here’s a little snippet from the site’s home page :

This site features work by Dr. Gregory Herek, an internationally recognized authority on sexual prejudice (also called homophobia), hate crimes . . .

Gee, there’s that word again – homophobia .

The desired result of flinging that accusation of homophobe, or prejudiced around is to get people on the defensive. With him, it was a foregone conclusion, thus paving the way for articles such as Beyond Homophobia , a weblog about sexual orientation, prejudice, science and policy by Gregory Harek

In simple terms, anyone who agrees that marriage is solely between a man and a woman is seen as being homophobic and prejudiced - in the eyes of the great

Originally Posted by Birdpreacher

"peer"

, Gregory Harek .

If one clicks on that Beyond Homophobia link above and scrolls about half way down the page , they can read some of Dr. Harek's comments like this one (highlights mine) :

Now that the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8’s constitutionality, some marriage equality supporters are ready to begin collecting signatures for a new ballot measure to overturn it in next year’s election.

Instead, I hope Californians who support marriage rights for same-sex couples will take a deep collective breath and engage in level-headed strategizing about how best to achieve the long-range goal of marriage equality.

and , maybe this one too :

Last week’s Supreme Court decision has rightly evoked strong feelings among gay, lesbian, and bisexual Californians and their heterosexual supporters. That emotion can be harnessed to build a successful movement for marriage equality in California. But it shouldn’t push us prematurely into a ballot campaign that poses a significant risk not only of losing, but also of ultimately harming many lesbian, gay, and bisexual Californians.

- "push us " ...

Can you guess what side of the fence Gregory Harek is on guys ?

. . . Can’t see Dr. Harek being invited anytime soon to have breakfast with Pope Benedict XVI so they can discuss the depravity of same sex marriage .

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by NeedImprovement

While we’re on the subject of taking things seriously , citing the huffington post as a rebuttal was priceless (lol) .

Of course, the next link was to be expected ...



Here’s a little snippet from the site’s home page :


Gee, there’s that word again – homophobia .

Thanks for the catch. I noticed the Huffington link. I didn't know the other source was equally as silly.

[AHapka]

Originally Posted by thistle

None of that makes any difference to your immortal soul. A mortal sin is a mortal sin if you die unrepentant and you go to Hell.
Also even if there are additional punishments in Hell for worse offenders again I do not see what difference it makes because the Church teaches that the chief punishment of Hell (which applies to everyone there) is eternal separation from God so what difference will some additional punishments make?

True, but the Church defines sins as grave matter. Three things must be present for a sin to be mortal (grave matter, consent, full knowledge).

It is conceivable, especially with how some people have been taught, that they think homosexuality is not sinful or at least not serious. Therefore they may not have the same culpability that a person who has full knowledge would have. Thus they may not be in a state of mortal sin for that particular act.

The same cannot be said about pedophilia which both the Church and society in general clearly and strongly state is seriously and always wrong.

[Charlemagne II]

AHapka

It is conceivable, especially with how some people have been taught, that they think homosexuality is not sinful or at least not serious. Therefore they may not have the same culpability that a person who has full knowledge would have. Thus they may not be in a state of mortal sin for that particular act.

I don't understand how anyone in today's world cannot be aware that sodomy is sinful and unnatural sex. No matter who or how many defend it, sodomy is against the natural law, and the Catholic Church teaches that the natural law is as much a guide to moral acts as the teachings of the Church. No one is deprived of the natural law ... unless he wants to be deprived of it and accepts the devil's temptation to dismiss it. That too would be a mortal sin.

[mcrow]

I am not aware of a church teaching on it but I do believe some sins are worse than others (beyond venial and mortal).

I think that being a pedophile is a much more serious sin because innocents are being violated where as a homosexual is primarily harming themselves and a willing partner (most of the time).

Sins against children are by far more serious, IMO, than others.

[AHapka]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II

I don't understand how anyone in today's world cannot be aware that sodomy is sinful and unnatural sex. No matter who or how many defend it, sodomy is against the natural law, and the Catholic Church teaches that the natural law is as much a guide to moral acts as the teachings of the Church. No one is deprived of the natural law ... unless he wants to be deprived of it and accepts the devil's temptation to dismiss it. That too would be a mortal sin.

Think of the number of kids being raised by homosexual couples, especially in very gay-active areas. I'm sure they are taught from birth that homosexuality is right and that those opposed are wrong. Not to mention that there is no such thing as sin or God. They are probably shielded from any Church teaching. And what they are told about the Church probably is such that they wouldn't care to know about it.

I know it's written on a person's heart. But those people would have the most minimal culpability in my mind.

[NeedImprovement]

As soon as I think of them , I can't help but pray for them . It's actually at a point where same sex couples are being given preference over married heterosexual couples as adoptive parents . . .

Here's an excerpt from a ZENIT article a few years back, based on information shared by Dale O'Leary - a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association

O'Leary : . . . Recently, I spoke with a woman who has adopted a number of special needs children and is extremely active in the adoption movement. She said that she has observed a dramatic increase in adoptions by same-sex couples.

She believes that the social workers in the adoption field are disproportionately homosexual themselves or are extremely sympathetic to homosexual adoptions and are directing children to same-sex couples, when there are married heterosexual couples available. She is extremely concerned about this trend.

I asked how could so many same-sex couples qualify, given the evidence that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological and other problems than married heterosexual couples. She replied that it appeared to her that many of the same-sex couples who adopted had psychological and other problems that would have disqualified a married man and woman from adoption.

This, of course, is only anecdotal evidence, but well-designed studies that compare persons with same-sex attractions with the general public have found that persons with same-sex attractions are far more likely to suffer from psychological disorders.

A same-sex couple has, by definition, two persons at high risk for psychological disorders. The studies published in the Archives of General Psychiatry found that persons self-identified as homosexual in comparison to the general public had almost double the rate of suicidal ideation or attempts, substance abuse problems and psychological disorders. One of the studies found that 78.6% of the gay, lesbian or bisexual group suffered from multiple disorders.

And there are other problems: Domestic violence is more common among same-sex couples. Men with same-sex attractions are more likely to become infected with . . .

Lord, save us.

Q: Would children linger unloved in foster care if not placed with a same-sex couple?

O'Leary: Given the increase in infertility due to late marriage and the consequences of the pandemic of STDs, the number of securely married couples who want to adopt is very high. Due to abortion and the acceptance of single motherhood, the number of healthy babies being released for adoption is very low.

Therefore, since the demand overwhelming exceeds the supply, agencies should have no problems finding a virtually perfect placement for every healthy baby released at birth by the mother.

There is no reason for choosing a second-best placement, and adoption by a same-sex couple is by definition second-best, since it deprives the child of a parent of one sex and all the experiences that having a father and a mother provides.

[Elizabeth502]

This is a no-brainer, folks. There's nothing to guess about. Catholic moral theology lays it out clearly: the gravity of the sin relates not only to the matter but to the role/position between the two people involved, if the sin engages two people. Thus, causing deliberate serious physical injury to one's wife is objectively more serious than causing the same level of injury to another adult one is not married to.

Separately, in any situation involving a power differential (adult to child, teacher to student, therapist to patient, priest to lay person, etc.), any kind of abuse or injury is objectively more serious than between equals in status, because dependency and authority are involved. Add to that the innocence factor (mentioned a couple of times here), and you also magnify the gravity (vs. an adult with less power -- which is still serious but not as serious as that committed against someone of a very young age).

There are indeed degrees of sin, as the question implies, but in this case the answer is very straightforward. Two adult males or two adult females engaging in immoral behavior with each other is not as objectively sinful as pedophilia, as long as the two adults are consenting and not coerced. Not to be minimized, of course, but not comparable. And because of the dependency and innocence of the child, the psychological wounds are potentially permanent (& often verified to be, clinically), whereas an adult who injures himself spiritually & morally by engaging in homosexual behavior is more likely to have tools & capacities to recover more quickly and more permanently, should he or she choose to separate from those behaviors, as have many CAF users, to their great credit.

[Dakota Roberts]

Originally Posted by NeedImprovement

As soon as I think of them , I can't help but pray for them . It's actually at a point where same sex couples are being given preference over married heterosexual couples as adoptive parents . . .

Here's an excerpt from a ZENIT article a few years back, based on information shared by Dale O'Leary - a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association





Lord, save us.

Do you have any hard stats to go with that?

[TEPO]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

This is a no-brainer, folks. There's nothing to guess about. Catholic moral theology lays it out clearly: the gravity of the sin relates not only to the matter but to the role/position between the two people involved, if the sin engages two people. Thus, causing deliberate serious physical injury to one's wife is objectively more serious than causing the same level of injury to another adult one is not married to.

Separately, in any situation involving a power differential (adult to child, teacher to student, therapist to patient, priest to lay person, etc.), any kind of abuse or injury is objectively more serious than between equals in status, because dependency and authority are involved. Add to that the innocence factor (mentioned a couple of times here), and you also magnify the gravity (vs. an adult with less power -- which is still serious but not as serious as that committed against someone of a very young age).

There are indeed degrees of sin, as the question implies, but in this case the answer is very straightforward. Two adult males or two adult females engaging in immoral behavior with each other is not as objectively sinful as pedophilia, as long as the two adults are consenting and not coerced. Not to be minimized, of course, but not comparable. And because of the dependency and innocence of the child, the psychological wounds are potentially permanent (& often verified to be, clinically), whereas an adult who injures himself spiritually & morally by engaging in homosexual behavior is more likely to have tools & capacities to recover more quickly and more permanently, should he or she choose to separate from those behaviors, as have many CAF users, to their great credit.

Are you sure you're not conflating relativist ideology with moral truth..?

I believe that pedophilia can only be viewed as more sinful than homosexuality in that the sum of sins in the former exceed the sum of sins in the latter in some cases.

In other words -to be a pedophile you must be perverted, be willing to destroy a soul (murder), greedy, selfish, etc... What it boils down to is that sin can be allowed to build up to excessive measures, which if left unchecked -can develop into what we perceive as deranged behavior.

But the same level of derangement can develop from a homosexual if left unchecked. A homosexual with no regard to the idea that sin can build might spread disease (murder) or might attend gay rallies, in which causes other people, possibly even children to develop sinful tendencies (child abuse).

So when we view sins in light of gravity, we might in turn be allowing the ignorance of sin accumulation to build in our consciounce. All sins are deadly, but all sins seem to want to grow, and attach to other sins... Sin seems to be alive, and with an agenda... That agenda seems to be a desire to interlink with other sin.