81 PERCENT of the victims were boys

  • Thread starter Thread starter HumbleSinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HumbleSinner

Guest
ARTICLE
GUEST COLUMN
Protecting the Lavender Mafia?
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/images/img-titlebreak.gif
April 2005****By Ken Skuba

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/leaders/0405-skuba.jpg One of the requirements of teaching CCD in the Diocese of Scranton is attendance at a diocesan-sponsored training course on sexual abuse. So in November I attended one and watched the video Protecting God’s Children at a local Catholic school.

Protecting God’s Children, produced by The National Catholic Risk Retention Group Inc., achieves its main objective: raising the awareness of diocesan volunteers and employees about the widespread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our society. What troubles me, though, about Protecting God’s Children is that it misses the mark by diverting attention away from the root cause of the clergy sex abuse scandal, which was the catalyst for this course in the first place.

Arguably, the intention of the training course is not to find the exact coordinates of the scandal’s epicenter, but rather to give Church workers a set of tools to identify and prevent sexual predators from causing harm to children. I think the course does this. However effective the course might be, I would argue that Protecting God’s Children will fail to stop clergy sexual abuse. In order to solve a problem, one must understand its root cause. Knowing the root cause, one can then take corrective action that goes to the root of the problem. The best approach to problem-resolution is usually the most direct approach, the one that aims at the target and hits it. Using a hunting analogy, if I am hunting for a spring gobbler, I would not take aim at a hen. As I sat through the two-hour training course that night, I could not help thinking that the Church had shot the hen.

What is the root cause of the clergy sexual abuse scandal? Reading Michael S. Rose’s Goodbye Good Men reinforced my growing realization about the nature of clergy sexual abuse: It was the work of homosexual predators in the priesthood. Were there cases of priests molesting girls? Yes. Were there cases of lay employees molesting young people? Yes. But, the reason some 50 Church workers in my Diocese were attending a training course that night was because of homosexual priests.

As I watched the video recounting the stories of four abuse victims (two girls and two boys), I recalled one glaring statistic from the John Jay study, provided for the Church: 81 percent. Eighty-one percent of the victims in the Church’s sexual abuse scandal were boys molested or raped by clergy. The following is a quote from the National Review Board’s report on the crisis: “That 81 percent of the reported victims of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy were boys shows that the crisis was characterized by homosexual behavior.”

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0405-skuba
 
81% is a very big number and probably says what you say.

But, don’t we all (and I guess I shouldn’t assume this) also agree that the problem involved a moral failure? Doesn’t the message come through just as strongly that something has caused a moral decline within the Church?

The commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery” – doesn’t that broadly prohibit all sexual misconduct?

And, then, there’s the apparent lack of response of the bishops to properly control matters in their own dioceses. While they are individually responsible for their own dioceses, they seem to have abdicated to some common strategy of management of all forms of sexual misconduct under their purview.

And, now…why shouldn’t each priest not have to carry (that is, pay for, some personal liability insurance)?

Am I alone? Am I the only one who thinks that the bishops and priests "haven’t gotten ‘it’ "?

We may excuse JPII because of his age and health, but now we have a new Pope, and shouldn’t the matter be given some extended thought? It seems the Vatican has not yet officially “bought off” on the U.S. Bishops’ policy. It doesn’t seem that this matter is over yet, by any stretch of the imagination.

We see many excellent maneuvers to divert our attention, but this is not over yet.

I am very happy that the modern Catechism was published, but I don’t see any moral guidance in this area in the CCC, but I’m still working through it.
 
40.png
HumbleSinner:
As I watched the video recounting the stories of four abuse victims (two girls and two boys), I recalled one glaring statistic from the John Jay study, provided for the Church: 81 percent. Eighty-one percent of the victims in the Church’s sexual abuse scandal were boys molested or raped by clergy. The following is a quote from the National Review Board’s report on the crisis: “That 81 percent of the reported victims of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy were boys shows that the crisis was characterized by homosexual behavior.”
Click to expand...
I’ve taken the same course – there is also a continuing education requirement via the internet.

And yes, I have noticed the insistance on the Politically Correct position that “Child molestation is not homosexuality.”

It reminds me of one priest (who had sex with girls) who said it wasn’t a violation of his priestly vows “if there is no passion.”

Pure bumf!
 
What the course says about child abuse occurring among both heterosexuals and homosexuals is probably true. Still, it struck me as odd that in response to an outbreak of predatory homosexual behavior, this particular point was emphasized.

I also read somewhere that there were a few particular seminary class years that were inordinately responsible for most of the abuse cases, but I have not been able to find that info again.
 
HumbleSinner said:
ARTICLE
GUEST COLUMN
Protecting the Lavender Mafia?
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/images/img-titlebreak.gif
April 2005****By Ken Skuba

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/leaders/0405-skuba.jpg One of the requirements of teaching CCD in the Diocese of Scranton is attendance at a diocesan-sponsored training course on sexual abuse. So in November I attended one and watched the video Protecting God’s Children at a local Catholic school.

Protecting God’s Children, produced by The National Catholic Risk Retention Group Inc., achieves its main objective: raising the awareness of diocesan volunteers and employees about the widespread problem of sexual abuse of minors in our society. What troubles me, though, about Protecting God’s Children is that it misses the mark by diverting attention away from the root cause of the clergy sex abuse scandal, which was the catalyst for this course in the first place.

Arguably, the intention of the training course is not to find the exact coordinates of the scandal’s epicenter, but rather to give Church workers a set of tools to identify and prevent sexual predators from causing harm to children. I think the course does this. However effective the course might be, I would argue that Protecting God’s Children will fail to stop clergy sexual abuse. In order to solve a problem, one must understand its root cause. Knowing the root cause, one can then take corrective action that goes to the root of the problem. The best approach to problem-resolution is usually the most direct approach, the one that aims at the target and hits it. Using a hunting analogy, if I am hunting for a spring gobbler, I would not take aim at a hen. As I sat through the two-hour training course that night, I could not help thinking that the Church had shot the hen.

What is the root cause of the clergy sexual abuse scandal? Reading Michael S. Rose’s Goodbye Good Men reinforced my growing realization about the nature of clergy sexual abuse: It was the work of homosexual predators in the priesthood. Were there cases of priests molesting girls? Yes. Were there cases of lay employees molesting young people? Yes. But, the reason some 50 Church workers in my Diocese were attending a training course that night was because of homosexual priests.

As I watched the video recounting the stories of four abuse victims (two girls and two boys), I recalled one glaring statistic from the John Jay study, provided for the Church: 81 percent. Eighty-one percent of the victims in the Church’s sexual abuse scandal were boys molested or raped by clergy. The following is a quote from the National Review Board’s report on the crisis: “That 81 percent of the reported victims of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy were boys shows that the crisis was characterized by homosexual behavior.”

newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0405-skuba
Click to expand...

I’ve seen counts showing 95% were boys.

89% is the percentage of boys which seems to be the most common number.
 
40.png
JimG:
What the course says about child abuse occurring among both heterosexuals and homosexuals is probably true. Still, it struck me as odd that in response to an outbreak of predatory homosexual behavior, this particular point was emphasized.

I also read somewhere that there were a few particular seminary class years that were inordinately responsible for most of the abuse cases, but I have not been able to find that info again.
Click to expand...
The course – at least what I took – was firm that child molestors are NOT homosexuals. Which struck me as not only false, but pushing an agenda.
 
I have no objection to the principle that the church needs to put in place measures to protect against ALL forms of sexual exploitation of young people.

I believe the secular media have FAILED to see that the real story in all this is that there are a surprisingly large number of sexual deviants in our culture seeking positions of authority over young people today - and we must be vigilant with ANYONE who has regular private access to young people. Instead the media chose to ‘play’ it as a juicy, specifically catholic scandal.

In choosing to apply the lesson to wider principles, the church is actually being responsible.

However, PC sensibilities ARE making disturbing contributions. The Rockford, IL Diocese brochure describing the Protecting God’s Children program emphasizes that the youngest children are “ESPECIALLY AT RISK” (emphasis mine). This is flat out dishonorable disinformation. The FACTS are that pubescent teenage boys are ESPECIALLY AT RISK. It is an outrage that the literature would suggest that peak vigilance should be directed elsewhere.
 
40.png
manualman:
I have no objection to the principle that the church needs to put in place measures to protect against ALL forms of sexual exploitation of young people.

I believe the secular media have FAILED to see that the real story in all this is that there are a surprisingly large number of sexual deviants in our culture seeking positions of authority over young people today - and we must be vigilant with ANYONE who has regular private access to young people. Instead the media chose to ‘play’ it as a juicy, specifically catholic scandal.
Click to expand...
While those who are already prejudiced against the Church have certainly used this scandal (something those who created it by not properly handing claims of abuse should have forseen), no knowledgeable, fair-minded person consider priests to be more likely to be pedophiles than members of any other group of men.
40.png
manualman:
In choosing to apply the lesson to wider principles, the church is actually being responsible.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed.
40.png
manualman:
However, PC sensibilities ARE making disturbing contributions. The Rockford, IL Diocese brochure describing the Protecting God’s Children program emphasizes that the youngest children are “ESPECIALLY AT RISK” (emphasis mine). This is flat out dishonorable disinformation. The FACTS are that pubescent teenage boys are ESPECIALLY AT RISK. It is an outrage that the literature would suggest that peak vigilance should be directed elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I said earlier, there appears to be an agenda influencing the program.
 
vern humphrey:
The course – at least what I took – was firm that child molestors are NOT homosexuals. Which struck me as not only false, but pushing an agenda.
Click to expand...
The Gay Studies Department at the University of Chicago generated a surprising study a year or two ago indicating that male homosexuals are dyed-in-the-wool “grazers” with little interest in self-control and non-promiscuity. The study defined “non-promiscuous” as 15 sex partners or less! The average male homosexual interviewed by the study team – I remember that the total number of male homosexual interviewees was about 2,000 – admitted to approximately 50 sex partners. The 50% above the mathematical mean had all had more than 50 sex partners. Some of them had had hundreds of sex partners. Very few – almost none – refrained from promiscuous behavior.

Thus, the homosexuality of the culprit priests is probably very important. It may indicate little or no self-control, sexually.
 
Actually George Wiegel, in Courage to Be Catholic, points out that the largest portion of victims were adolescent men, not boys.

This further substantiates that homosexuality lies at the epicenter. The molestation cases were older men seeking younger men - that’s homosexuality. Psychologically speeking this is different from pederasty (the true term for molesting children). Pederasty is a desire for pre-pubescent children.
So the biggest problem wasn’t pederasty, or child molesting, it was actualy homosexuality - and in many cases homosexual rape.
 
I took this course last night an quickly made myself unpopular. I took issue with the their claiming it was a myth that homosexuals were more likely to molest than heterosexauls. The basis for this statement was that heterosexauls were the majority of molestors. I commented that about 35% of molestations nationwide were by homosexuals and that they made up less than 3% of the population-the facilitator had no response to this. i also pointed out that almost all the Priest abuses were carried out by homosexual men against post puberty males. I told her that we should quit claiming that the Church’s problem was with pediophilic priests-it was with homosexual priests. Well that put the cat anmong the pigeons, The group then decidedthat the definition of pediophilia was anyone over 20 who molests anyone under 20. They then smugly declared that homosexuality was NOT part of the problem.

The Church will not solve this problem until they admit that homosexuality amd the Priesthood are not compatible.
 
40.png
estesbob:
I took this course last night an quickly made myself unpopular. I took issue with the their claiming it was a myth that homosexuals were more likely to molest than heterosexauls. The basis for this statement was that heterosexauls were the majority of molestors. I commented that about 35% of molestations nationwide were by homosexuals and that they made up less than 3% of the population-the facilitator had no response to this. i also pointed out that almost all the Priest abuses were carried out by homosexual men against post puberty males. I told her that we should quit claiming that the Church’s problem was with pediophilic priests-it was with homosexual priests. Well that put the cat anmong the pigeons, The group then decidedthat the definition of pediophilia was anyone over 20 who molests anyone under 20. They then smugly declared that homosexuality was NOT part of the problem.

The Church will not solve this problem until they admit that homosexuality amd the Priesthood are not compatible.
Click to expand...
Amen.

But let us also guard against the trap of labeling disapproval of homosexual acts as “Hate Speech.”
 
vern humphrey:
Amen.

But let us also guard against the trap of labeling disapproval of homosexual acts as “Hate Speech.”
Click to expand...
Yes, if estebob had taken that program in Canada he could have been at risk for prosecution for his comments.
 
40.png
JimG:
Yes, if estebob had taken that program in Canada he could have been at risk for prosecution for his comments.
Click to expand...
When I worked at General Motors there was an engineer who attended a meeting where there was some hostility between the department he represented and the one he was meeting with. There was a lady there with a problem with her eye. He innocently asked her, “What’s wrong with your eye?”

She filed a complaint, and he was ordered to attend sensitivity training. He was talking to me about it, and I suggested he look in a mirror – he was Black. He filed a counter-complaint, and that put the cat amongst the pigeons.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

But in days to come the Church will be under more and more pressure to conform to secular standards in Canada – count on it.
 
Black Jaque:
Actually George Wiegel, in Courage to Be Catholic, points out that the largest portion of victims were adolescent men, not boys.

This further substantiates that homosexuality lies at the epicenter. The molestation cases were older men seeking younger men - that’s homosexuality. Psychologically speeking this is different from pederasty (the true term for molesting children). Pederasty is a desire for pre-pubescent children.
So the biggest problem wasn’t pederasty, or child molesting, it was actualy homosexuality - and in many cases homosexual rape.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? I thought pedophilia was the crime against pre-pubescent kids and pederasty was essentially statutory homosexual rape against pubescent age boys. Please double check your definitions and clarify.
 
Right, pederasty is sex with boys.

My dictionary doesn’t have pedophilia, which could be the heterosexual version of pederasty.

My point was that the scandal within the Church was largely NOT pederasty - it involved mostly post-pubescent men.
 
Whether pederasts or pedophiles, can anyone explain to me why so many homosexuals are attracted to the priesthood? Could it be because they were convinced the bishops would hide and protect them if they were found out? Could it be because they knew that in the confessional they could easily find and lure children and young men into their perverse webs?
 
Gilbert Keith:
Whether pederasts or pedophiles, can anyone explain to me why so many homosexuals are attracted to the priesthood? Could it be because they were convinced the bishops would hide and protect them if they were found out? Could it be because they knew that in the confessional they could easily find and lure children and young men into their perverse webs?
Click to expand...
They aren’t. If you take a thousand priests selected at random, and a thousand US Marines selected at random, you will find no more homosexuals among the priests than among the Marines.

The problem is not that we have a lot of homosexuals or other sexual predators in the priesthood. The problem is that when one was uncovered, the bishops swept it under the rug, and simply transferred the offender to new hunting grounds.
 
The problem is not that we have a lot of homosexuals or other sexual predators in the priesthood. The problem is that when one was uncovered, the bishops swept it under the rug, and simply transferred the offender to new hunting grounds.
Click to expand...
:bowdown:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top