Same Sex Attraction and the Abuse Crisis


When I took my first Safe Environment course years ago, I said to the presenter that I thought the offending priest were Homosexuals because all those offended were boys. I was told no it is the attributes, like soft skin, that was the attraction. I am not an anti homosexual person. But, the issue comes up again. I don’t know about the very young children but the boys and seminarians that were abused were abused by homosexuals IMO. That does not make all homosexuals unfit for the priesthood but it is a serious red flag. Seeing the damage done and considering whether it is fair to ask men with SSA to live in an all male priesthood, I favor a bane of homosexuals who have acted out. And closely monitoring all seminarians for sexual behavior.

My uncle was the vice rector of a seminary in the 1950’s. The vice rector dealt with discipline. Once he told my Mon, his sister, that he had to send a couple boys home. She ask what they did. They were on an excursion and the boys stopped in a small grocery store and they were told not to stop anywhere. My mom pleaded their case. He said if they really had a vocation they would never have taken the chance of being caught. So I am shocked when I hear of seminarians having sex and being allowed to stay.


Men with homosexual tendencies are not to be admitted to the seminary. That’s the current discipline of the Church.


I thought it was men with deed seated homosexual tendencies.


“Homosexuality” is properly defined as “sexual attraction to men.” Men who are attracted to girls aren’t ordinary heterosexuals, and men who are attracted to boys aren’t ordinary homosexuals. Attraction to girls isn’t a logical extension of attraction to women, and attraction to boys isn’t a logical extension of attraction to men. An “ordinary” heterosexual man wouldn’t automatically become sexually attracted to girls if there were no women around. Something else needs to happen first (I don’t know what).


Yeah that’s what it is.


Are you really shocked? Where have you been? Read Goodbye, Good Men. Many seminaries, not just a few, were run by active homosexuals. A number of bishops were active homosexuals themselves, or at least sympathetic/favorable to them. It is undeniable. We need to face up to this reality, or it will not change.


I’m just waiting for someone to drop by and start saying that homosexuality is just a scapegoat, that there’s no problem on having a homosexual clergy, that true problem is celibacy and so.


Frankly, I did not believe all those reports but now I do. We have to proceed with loving kindness but make no compromise with evil.


I understand that to be a restriction, but how did this not get enforced?


To be frank, I have no idea if homosexuality is the cause of the crisis or not. How do I figure it out?


Good question. I believe in certain cases “they” deliberately didn’t enforce it.


Fr. Altier stated in his homily that the wording of a report on past abuse was reworded for political correctness’ sake:

He said that in most of the abuse, 3% was with minors. The rest of it was mainly with post pubescent males - pederasty - a homosexual problem.


and the reports agree with him?


I don’t really see it as a homosexual problem or, at least, not a problem of homosexuality alone.

If there were so many homosexuals in the priesthood (and a lot of sources say there are/were), then an adult homosexual priest would not have difficulty finding another priest of like sexual orientation. Barring that, he had the option of finding someone outside of the church with whom to engage in homosexual, CONSENSUAL sex (NOT that he should)

I understand the issue of post pubescent males. And, it makes sense on the surface. However, since victims are bringing criminal charges against the priests for rape, my guess would be that this was unwilling sex. Honestly, I think (hope!) that most men find unwilling sex to be repugnant and would go to some length to avoid it…particularly when it comes with the probability of punishment/imprisonment. Given that there would have been both willing priests and willing lay people with whom the accused priests could have had chosen to have consensual, homosexual sex, this indicates to me that these issues of sexual abuse were perpetrated by men with either a disregard for the pain of rape for victims or even a thrill or a perversion for violence against others…particularly those who are vulnerable in some way.

That brings a different element into play. I think the larger issue than homosexuality is that these are men who are willing or even hoping to hurt others in a very brutal way in order to get their own sexual needs met. That is not characteristic of homosexual orientation so much as it’s characteristic of anything from extreme selfishness to a personality disorder to a mental illness.

Obviously, I’m not saying priests with homosexual orientation should violate their vows of celibacy with anyone. But I don’t know of evidence that being of homosexual orientation means you are just going to suddenly snap one day from the strain of celibacy and start attacking anyone and anything that is around.

In our society, we expect men, and women for that matter, to control their sexual urges until they can address them with a consensual partner. That’s not unreasonable and a vast majority men (again, I hope!), regardless of sexual orientation, would agree. It seems to me that the issue here is poor vetting…particularly with regards to psychological health.


Pederasty is not a homosexual problem… it is still rape… albeit statutory rape. These are rapists we are dealing with.


Well…it is part of it…the other part is that there is/was a cabal of “bad” priest that shared information, basically groomed their victims…these were like minded (be it SAS or gay) priest operating covertly together.

The majority of these cases involved men grooming young boys, not toddlers and small children, they were looking for someone to “share” mutual sexual gratification…soooooo…call that what you will…to me it is a predatory homosexual pederast.

Then the other issue is that the hierarchy knowingly concealed this information. Lastly the predators were not given over for legal action and the church again knowingly “moved” the predators effectively creating a huge rug in which to seep the crimes…banking on an out of sight out of mind strategy while hedging their bets on blind obedience and from their parishioners in order to keep them ignorant of the going’s on’s…


Male on male is a homosexual act, I don’t care what that person said.


I think you have that wrong. Few of the cases are forced. These guys think they are being loving and kind IMO. I have read the report.


Though most of the abuses that took place were homosexual in nature - male priests abusing male teenagers - this does not necessarily make the priests homosexual. I cannot be certain of this but a compelling argument that I have found is that in a prison, heterosexual men commit homosexual acts. These are men who are only around men on a constant basis. These are men who are heterosexual but their only sexual outlet is same sex acts. In the church, men have constantly been around men for centuries. Seminaries, rectories, religious orders. These are places where, historically, men are predominantly around men. I’m not saying that there are no homosexual priests, and I am not saying the acts are not homosexual in nature, but in my opinion, it does not necessarily make the committers of the abuse homosexual… just the acts they commit are. These acts could be acts of opportunity and not of their sexuality. It shows a disorder, just as prisoners do. Again, this is just my opinion.


Good point on the prison. In a parish you might note the women are all over the place. So priest have plenty access to women.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit