The new acceptance of sodomy

NOPE. They had to know it would all come “out in the wash” sooner or later. Covering up to protect the Faithful is never a good idea. The truth sets people free not covering up the truth.


You are suggesting some connection between “sodomites” (by which I assume you mean gay men) and child abuse? That seems to be the only plausible reading of your post.


They aren’t permitted to be priests anyway.

Sorry, but I don’t understand your reply. “87%”? You mean 87% of gay men are paedophiles? 87% of paedophiles are gay men? Neither of those statements would be accurate. You are correct that gay men are prohibited from become priests, apparently even if celibate, which I always thought seemed a bit strange.


Yesterday I was watching a program on youtube about slavery here in the US…one part was referring to the treatment of slaves who attempted to escape…they were not only beaten…but they were then sodomized in front of the other slaves…men…women and children…to show what would happen to them if they tried to escape…it was to instill fear into them…never heard of that before…it was pretty disgusting.

87% of the predatory priests predated on males.

Ah. So you WERE drawing a connection between homosexuality and the rape of young children. Some of us weren’t sure. Glad you cleared that up.

Don’t know why, but I have this mental image of you pumping the air when you discovered that figure in some web site. ‘Look guys! It’s as plain as day. Here is the direct link between sodomites and paedophilia!’ Skipping over the fact that all the people you are describing are priests.


I don’t believe this is accurate. My understanding is that gay men who are not able to conform to Church teachings cannot become priests (i.e. the non-chaste, or those who promote a lack of chastity). I know there is some debate on this topic, but that is my understanding of the latest guidance (unless there is something new).

After Ancient Rome began Christianization 1 Century AD - Sodomy went out the window with those who accepted the GOSPEL…

““How could a Catholic priest ever come to think that it was morally acceptable for him to engage in sodomy?””

It was very easy once the Enemy infiltrated / took over - many Seminaries … with his Nudges for active male/male Homosexual Sex… Immature boys were easy targets for ‘conversion’

I have no idea where you are getting that figure from or how accurate it could possibly be, but let’s accept that it’s accurate.

First, you have to accept that committing a sexual offence against somebody doesn’t mean that you are sexually attracted to that person. In the Middle East and Africa, for example, male-on-male sexual rape and sexual assault is quite widespread in conflicts, despite the fact that homosexuality is also taboo in these societies. In fact, it may be precisely because homosexuality is such a taboo that it is resorted to in warfare situations. Likewise, priests who sexually assault seminarians, altar boys, or choirboys are not necessarily attracted to other males in an erotic way. The driving force may be a desire to cause physical or emotional harm.

Secondly, you are making a huge and inaccurate assumption about the correlation between adult sexual attraction and paedophile sexual attraction. In short, somebody who is attracted to adults of the opposite sex can also be attracted to children of the opposite sex, same sex, or both. This is why there are so many men who outwardly live as normal heterosexuals but who also sexually abuse boys. It’s not that they are actually gay. It’s that despite being attracted to adult women, they also have an attraction to boys. This is actually very common and is documented over and over. Until quite recent times it was actually quite widely accepted (though not condoned) that men would be attracted to boys. A gay man is somebody who wants to have sex with other men. Most paedophiles who abuse young boys would probably be repulsed by the idea of having sex with an adult man. Though less common, there will also be female paedophiles who abuse girls who would never consider entering a sexual relationship with a woman. I think you are looking at sexual orientation and sexual attraction in a very simplified way.

Thirdly, you have to consider the fact that most sex offenders are opportunists. They will take their victims as and when they find them. If you’re a priest, you will mostly have access to boys and young men: seminarians, altar servers, choirboys, schoolboys, Boy Scouts. Girls were generally excluded from many activities in the Church, meaning that priests had less access to them. Had girls been more readily available, priests would probably have abused them too. There are also plenty of documented accounts of nuns and sisters committing sexual abuse too. Mostly their victims were girls and young women. Again, nuns and sisters generally had access to girls and young women.


That is encouraging, if true. I had understood that that was always the case but that the rules had recently been made even stricter to mean that gay men, even if celibate, would be prevented from becoming priests.

To be fair, some people read the “rules” that way. I am not sure there are rules, there is guidance, published in 2005, I think. The guidance does not say that all gay men are precluded. It says that gay men with “deeply seated tendencies” and those that “promote gay culture” should not be admitted to seminary. There is obviously room to debate what those terms mean, but it would have been easy to say “no gay guys,” and that is not what the guidance says.

[quote=“Londoner, post:197, topic:559143, full:true”]
In fact, it may be precisely because homosexuality is such a taboo that it is resorted to
The driving force may be

. In short, somebody who is attracted to adults of the opposite sex can also be .

Most paedophiles who abuse young boys would probably be

Had girls been more readily available, priests would probably have "

Hi Londoner,
I was reading your comments and they seemed to rely on a great deal of speculation, given their wording. I pulled the portions which caught my attention and am wondering if you have documentation which supports the ideas you shared.
Thanks and may God bless you.

[quote=“jeannetherese, post:200, topic:559143, full:true”]

I think that you may be missing the point of Londoner’s post. Which was to dismantle the abhorrent suggestion that homosexuality and paedophilia are somehow connected.

Are you are now asking for ‘documentation’ to back that up? Which does make it appear that the aforementioned abhorrent suggestion is one that you might consider to be true.

You can always clarify that as you see fit. I’d hate to put you in the same boat as those who promote such views.


Someone suggesting that there is a connection between homosexuality and child rape is not a homophobe. Maybe someone could suggest what term we could use to describe you.

And lololol? Is this the junior section?

1 Like

You haven’t said anything at all. You have actually avoided doing so. You have only inferred. I’m not sure why the reticence. I can help out in that regard if you like:

Do you believe that there is a valid connection between homosexuality and the rape of young children?

I wonder what you are willing to say?

1 Like

You didn’t make anything clear. You originally quoted an obscure figure in relation to abuse by priests. But now we are all crystal clear that you believe that any given homosexual is almost certainly a child rapist.

I think it’s great that we get these views out in the fresh air. Out where everyone can see them. I hope as many people as possible read them.


Now Brad, you know that just isn’t true, because you tried the same nonsense with me earlier, which leaves no doubt that you understood. :wink:

So do I. The House of God needs a thorough cleansing.

St. Peter Damian, pray for us.

Edited to add: The fact that I address the immense correlation between homosexual contact between priests and underage victims (and overage as well) doesn’t mean I don’t also acknowledge that the church has far more priests who are SSA and don’t touch children, even though they shouldn’t be priests. Just because they aren’t criminals doesn’t mean they should be admitted to the presbyterate.


Thanks. I have an aversion to long articles unless I’m getting paid to read them, in which case I have to read them.

1 Like

You can draw whatever straw conclusions you wish, but that facts from the John Jay report are that 87% of the abuse cases involving priests are male on younger male.
I didn’t have to use any of the inflammatory words there, just the facts. Connect them as you wish.
(as an aside, I still read some people automatically dismissing the married priesthood. It may or may not be part of the answer, but to reflexively dismiss a viable alternative is foolish, and Christ does not want us to be fools)

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