• PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think you missed the point of my last paragraph. It’s not about whether or not they’re gay. You sexually repress anyone hard enough, and they’ll start acting out in immoral ways. After all, if you’ve always been told that your natural feelings are immoral, then why not act immorally in other ways too? I’m sure there was also a lot of self-hatred too, in the same way that some of the loudest bigots are closeted. The kids weren’t abused because they were boys; They were abused because they were convenient targets who could be easily silenced.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yes, but you prefaced that with a long story about why there were so many gay men as priests. If it had nothing to do with gay men, just people in general, why did you think it was relevant to say there were a ton of gay priests?

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Because the gay men were part of the church specifically because they were gay, and were sexually repressed by the very same institution.

        • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The point is that it doesn’t matter if they were gay. Straight priests were also sexually repressed by the church. It’s the sexual repression that matters, not the sexual identity of the person. But you led up to your conclusion with a big story about gay people, which implies that gay people were somehow more inclined to acting out on repression than straight people.