Cardinal Raymond Burke: ‘Feminized’ church and altar girls caused priest shortage

[LisaA]

And if it were just about sex, why do married men rape? Why do men in sexually active relationship rape? Because it is about power - it is about domination. Sexual domination is one of the most subjugating things a man can do to a woman. A narrow branch of evolutionary psychologists have attempted to argue that stranger rapes are prompted by sexual gratification, but that theory completely ignores the incidence of date rapes and marital rapes. (Palmer & Thornhill, A Natural History of Rape, Sex, Power, Conflict: Evolutionary and Feminist Perspectives, eds. David M. Buss and Neil M. Malamuth.)

Further, it has since been suggested that even the evolutionary psychology studies which offered those initial theories on sexual gratification were responding to a criminal justice system which was more likely to prosecute a certain type of offender (socioeconomically disadvantaged young men). (Barber, “Is rape about control or sex?” Psychology Today, April 2011)

Salter, A. C. (2003). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists and other sex offenders . New York : Basic Books. - Since you want my sources, I’d suggest this book. It will make very clear to you that the majority of molesters “groom” their victims in this manner, as a way of gaining power and control over them. That’s why they pick victims based on vulnerability, not attractiveness.

There are easily dozens of other studies which back up that assertion. This isn’t my opinion; it’s accepted fact in the psychiatric and psychological community.

Wow…don’t even know where to begin but starting with the language used by you and your sources “theories” “beliefs” “most likely” and ideas that prosecution is slanted to “disadvantaged young men.” Buzzwords often used in the social and psychological “sciences” but neither credible nor empirically demonstrated. Rape is actually about power? Again let’s look at the reality. Certainly the feeling of power and domination is an aphrodisiac or an adrenalin rush. It may ADD to the experience. But the objective is the sexual gratification, else why go through with and in fact complete the act if not for the sexual pleasure? You could say the same about any crime and would be laughed out of the room…it’s not the ladies’ purses snatched, it’s the feeling of power in snatching it? It’s not the jewelry stolen but the feeling of power as you go through a woman’s underwear drawer looking for it? The thrill the rush the adrenalin is part of all kinds of activity but it’s an aside and not the reason for committing the crime or engaging in the behavior. As to married men raping or date rapes (and the term has been dumbed down beyond reason) again some feeling of power adds to the experience but you could as easily ask why married men watch porn or have affairs if they are getting sex from their wives? Because the excitement, the over the top scenarios are highly stimulating and sadly quite addictive.

Don’t kid yourself. Rape is not simply about power. It’s about a heightened SEXUAL experience.

Aside from that we’ve demonstrated that the vast majority of youth were not raped or made to engage in sexual acts by brute force. They were seduced, threatened with being found out, given rewards or approval for their behavior. But again what was the objective? To obtain sexual pleasure. It boggles the mind that anyone believes that abusive priests simply wanted to feel power and domination over young males and that’;s why they broke their vows, betrayed their Lord, their Bishop, their flock, and committed what were horrible crimes…to feel power over a l5 year old boy? And again why just boys? After all if the objective was to find the easier target, why not approach girls? Or why are not both sexes equally represented if it were simply a power trip? Because the abusing priests were homosexuals.

It seems so obvious. I don’t know why such vigorous argument to put forth a false narrative.

 

[Sarcelle]

I have a mosque within a half-mile of my house, where there is very heavy traffic many a time. And there are mostly men there and they fast and they pray in non-vernacular. What I found amusing once was a sign in front of the mosque about stopping in for prayer while a closeby Catholic Church was advertizing a bake sale.

What is amusing about a bake sale?

 

[SMGS127]

It seems so obvious. I don’t know why such vigorous argument to put forth a false narrative.

Because not only is it not obvious, you’re actually incorrect. Studies have shown time and time again that attraction to children/pubescent early teens has no correlation with sexual orientation. There’s a reason that the John Jay Report explicitly stated that homosexual priests were not responsible for the abuse scandal.

There are significantly more reliable reasons (ease of access, entering into the priesthood because of knowledge of ease of access, etc.) that fully explain the abuse scandal. There is no need to go with an answer that gives you an easy target to blame but has no logical or rational basis behind it, especially when the John Jay Report authors explicitly stated that this was not a concern behind the scandal.

 

[sallybutler]

I had a friend who would not let her sons be alter servers in the early 80’s because of the priest scandals. She said if she had a daughter she’d probably let her be a server.

I suspect that is why there were alter girls–a lack of alter boys–not feminization of the church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Because not only is it not obvious, you’re actually incorrect. Studies have shown time and time again that attraction to children/pubescent early teens has no correlation with sexual orientation. There’s a reason that the John Jay Report explicitly stated that homosexual priests were not responsible for the abuse scandal.

There are significantly more reliable reasons (ease of access, entering into the priesthood because of knowledge of ease of access, etc.) that fully explain the abuse scandal. There is no need to go with an answer that gives you an easy target to blame but has no logical or rational basis behind it, especially when the John Jay Report authors explicitly stated that this was not a concern behind the scandal.

I wonder how the John Jay folks knew the perps were NOT homosexual. Did they just ask them? Did they take a poll of the perpetrators? That’s pretty doubtful. Did they interpret other data to come to that conclusion?

Since the victims were overwhelmingly young men, one would have to pretty convincingly overcome, it seems to me, the obvious conclusion that the perps were sexually attracted to men. Some have disputed the conclusion that the perps were not homosexual. frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

 

[Ridgerunner]

I had a friend who would not let her sons be alter servers in the early 80’s because of the priest scandals. She said if she had a daughter she’d probably let her be a server.

I suspect that is why there were alter girls–a lack of alter boys–not feminization of the church.

If the percentage of girl altar servers has gone up dramatically, which it has, one would then expect an increase in perp/girl molestations (which, to my knowledge, has not happened), if the previous perps were NOT primarily homosexual.

 

[SMGS127]

I wonder how the John Jay folks knew the perps were NOT homosexual. Did they just ask them? Did they take a poll of the perpetrators? That’s pretty doubtful. Did they interpret other data to come to that conclusion?

Since the victims were overwhelmingly young men, one would have to pretty convincingly overcome, it seems to me, the obvious conclusion that the perps were sexually attracted to men. Some have disputed the conclusion that the perps were not homosexual. frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3

The Family Research Council is a hate group. If you’re going to try to dispute me, try doing so with a group that doesn’t spout this bile:

“One of the primary goals of the homosexual rights movement is to abolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the ‘prophets’ of a new sexual order.”

And, again, I don’t find it believable that men are somehow sexually attracted to 11-12 year-olds inherently through their sexuality. I find it a ridiculous argument to make. As a lesbian, I’m not sexually attracted to any woman under the age of 17, period. 12-year-olds don’t even have secondary sexual characteristics!

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Family Research Council is a hate group. If you’re going to try to dispute me, try doing so with a group that doesn’t spout this bile:

And, again, I don’t find it believable that men are somehow sexually attracted to 11-12 year-olds inherently through their sexuality. I find it a ridiculous argument to make. As a lesbian, I’m not sexually attracted to any woman under the age of 17, period. 12-year-olds don’t even have secondary sexual characteristics!

I do not share your opinion concerning the Family Research Council. I do, however, understand why you consider it one.

I don’t think anyone was talking about 11-12 year old boys; most of whom would be pre-pubescent. Most of the victims were POST pubescent young men. And, I’m sure you would agree that male and female homosexuality are very different in many ways.

 

[Havard]

The Family Research Council is a hate group. If you’re going to try to dispute me, try doing so with a group that doesn’t spout this bile:

You can make a good case that they are ignorant about homosexuals and misguided, so I agree that we should be wary of citing their studies and writings. But I would require a lot more to justify labeling them as a hate group. That quotation is old (1999), and has been scrubbed. Their site says this, in response to the SLPC hate group listing:

Does FRC “hate” homosexuals?

As a Christian organization, we have an obligation to love our neighbor–including our neighbors who experience same-sex attractions. However, we believe sexual acts between persons of the same sex are objectively harmful to those who choose to engage in them and to society at large, in addition to being forbidden by Scripture. Since the essence of love is to desire the best for a person and act to bring that about, we believe the most loving thing we can do is discourage such self-destructive conduct, rather than affirm it. We are happy to debate those who disagree with us regarding the harms of homosexual conduct, but there is no justification for anyone to impugn our motives with false labels such as “hate.”

 

[pnewton]

So, by that theory, rape is a predominantly heterosexual predation problem? Even though we know rapists don’t rape because of the sex, but because the sex allows them to dominate?

I think a distinction needs to be made between forcible rape and statutory rape. The two are very different and are committed by very different people. Having dealt with both extensively, they are apples and oranges. Those on indecency with a child charges (underage sex), are by and large mild and unassuming. Those who commit the forcible, violent rape are by and much more assaultive.

 

[Havard]

What is amusing about a bake sale?

I think the implication is that prayer was the priority for the mosque, but not at the Catholic Church. But it’s just an ad out front. Bake sales just don’t do well without advertising, since they are irregular events. Nearly everyone already knows churches are open for prayer.

 

[pnewton]

The Family Research Council is a hate group

That is the opinion of the Southern Poverty Law Center. However, they themselves would qualify as a hate group if any parallel conservative organization were to engage in such stupid classifications based on objections to political free speech. They epitomize the hypocrisy of intolerance, as anyone with a modicum of discernment would know. At one time, they served a useful purpose of identifying threats of violence. Their expansion into threats against their ideologies has diminished their value even in that area.

 

[pnewton]

I think the implication is that prayer was the priority for the mosque, but not at the Catholic Church. But it’s just an ad out front. Bake sales just don’t do well without advertising, since they are irregular events. Nearly everyone already knows churches are open for prayer.

Maybe the message is that the mosque so seldom is a place of prayer that they have to advertise it. It’s all in interpretation.

 

[cena]

Absolutely. And lets add to that we should remove women’s religious orders. Lets oust the nuns even further. Heck, they played such a small part in the Church for all those decades setting up and running schools, hospitals, shelters and the like. Yeah, who needs them at all!

Yeah, letting girls be alter servers is simply destroying the Church.

Nuns and charity work are a different kind of work than altar serving.

 

[cena]

The Family Research Council is a hate group. If you’re going to try to dispute me, try doing so with a group that doesn’t spout this bile:

And, again, I don’t find it believable that men are somehow sexually attracted to 11-12 year-olds inherently through their sexuality. I find it a ridiculous argument to make. As a lesbian, I’m not sexually attracted to any woman under the age of 17, period. 12-year-olds don’t even have secondary sexual characteristics!

I know in the 70s or 80s there were pro homosexual groups trying to lower the age of consent in California. I have no idea if that is still a problem but it was .They didn’t just make that up.

 

[rotlex]

Nuns and charity work are a different kind of work than altar serving.

Of course they are. That’s not the point though. These forums at time can be infuriating when it comes to discussing women’s role in the Church. In our parish, if it weren’t for the female alter servers, we wouldn’t have any. And why can’t alter serving lead a young girl to consider being a nun?

My whole point was women have always played a significant role in the Church. Do I think they should be in the priesthood? No, but I do think that without them over the past hundred years, a lot of what the Church has accomplished would not have been done. I for one applaud the use of women in as many areas as possible, including alter serving.

 

[LisaA]

Because not only is it not obvious, you’re actually incorrect. Studies have shown time and time again that attraction to children/pubescent early teens has no correlation with sexual orientation. There’s a reason that the John Jay Report explicitly stated that homosexual priests were not responsible for the abuse scandal.

There are significantly more reliable reasons (ease of access, entering into the priesthood because of knowledge of ease of access, etc.) that fully explain the abuse scandal. There is no need to go with an answer that gives you an easy target to blame but has no logical or rational basis behind it, especially when the John Jay Report authors explicitly stated that this was not a concern behind the scandal.

Most of the victims were not CHILDREN with no secondary sexual characteristics. The majority were at least 14 and were already into puberty. Although the media delighted in using the term pedophile in reality almost none of predatory priests had victims in the 10 & under cohort which is the real definition of that term.A better term is pederasty and the definition of that group is ages 12 to 17…the exact group preyed upon by the majority of abusive priests.

The priests were adult males that presumably had relatively fixed sexual orientation and by a large margin boys were abused, not girls and not a reasonably balanced group. Given that the majority of males are attracted to the opposite sex, that 80+% of the victims were adolescent males says much more than a carefully worded, PC conclusion of one report. Do you really think that the attraction is only to youth and the perps didn’t care whether or not they had male or female genitalia? Do you think most straight males would be interested or sexually attracted to males of any age? Further there IS an attraction to youth and the young among homosexuals…organizations like NAMBLA exist to break down the age restrictions for gay sex but can you imagine a heterosexual based group wanting to legalize sex between adult males and l3 or 14 year old girls?

I know you have a dog in this fight and want to disavow us of the theory that homosexuality was a problem that manifested itself in this horrible scandal but as the saying goes, you want me to believe your assertion or what is patently obvious?

Also you and others almost seem to infer men entered the priesthood in order to have access to young men…are you really inferring this? I think during the years in question there were many closeted gays hiding out in the priesthood because they avoided all those embarrassing questions about why isn’t a nice boy like you married? But I don’t think the desire to abuse boys was on anyone’s wish list. I do think that gay males want to be in the company of other males vis a vis females and the seminary and priesthood in effect offered this environment.

 

[casslean]

Of course they are. That’s not the point though. These forums at time can be infuriating when it comes to discussing women’s role in the Church. In our parish, if it weren’t for the female alter servers, we wouldn’t have any. And why can’t alter serving lead a young girl to consider being a nun?

Even better, why can’t altar serving lead young women into becoming the kind of mother who would encourage her son to become a priest?

We had a homily on the topic of declining vocations several weeks ago, and as the priest giving it pointed out, the priesthood just isn’t considered the prestigious choice of career it once was. It isn’t presented as a career path, like it once was. That isn’t just a problem with the young men who may or may not pursue those paths - it’s a problem with the social structure in which they are growing up.

I think if we want to encourage vocations, we need everyone in the family and in the wider community to respect the priesthood and understand the priesthood, and a greater involvement in the church by everyone is a key means of doing that.

 

[LisaA]

Even better, why can’t altar serving lead young women into becoming the kind of mother who would encourage her son to become a priest?

We had a homily on the topic of declining vocations several weeks ago, and as the priest giving it pointed out, the priesthood just isn’t considered the prestigious choice of career it once was. It isn’t presented as a career path, like it once was. That isn’t just a problem with the young men who may or may not pursue those paths - it’s a problem with the social structure in which they are growing up.

I think if we want to encourage vocations, we need everyone in the family and in the wider community to respect the priesthood and understand the priesthood, and a greater involvement in the church by everyone is a key means of doing that.

On this I completely agree with you. I think that vocations to the priesthood and to Religious life declined as part of the uproar of the 1960s when we went from a country focused on “duty, honor, country” to “if it feels good do it.” I liken this to the way the military was viewed, post Vietnam, as a place for “losers” and those who couldn’t find anything else to do. It was only 9/11 that made us, as a country, understand that the young people serving their country are among our best and brightest. At this juncture, the military is one of if not the most respected group in our country. I think the priesthood particularly suffered from the abuse scandal and has not recovered as did the military after 9/11.

The other factor in my opinion is family size. Many of my Baby Boomer aged Catholic friends were from families of seven or ten or twelve! No more. I look at our parish and there are one or two families with five kids a couple with four and but the majority are “two and through.” With a big Catholic family often it seemed one child discerned a vocation and was encouraged by their parents. Now with two kids, it’s “what do you mean I wont have any grandchildren!” I honestly see few parents who are clearly promoting vocations among their children. But those who do, often see these desires come to fruition.

Our Director of Vocations (from our parish!!!) will be celebrating Mass this weekend and I am sure he will speak about this subject. I know there are two young men currently discerning and there may be more. Prayers and encouragement are following!

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

A couple of things
First, let me bring an excellent article by Msgr. Charles Pope into the discussion. I cited it in a thread about “Men at Mass”, but it belongs here too and it is definitely worth your time to read.

blog.adw.org/2014/11/a-post-satan-did-not-want-published-but-here-it-is-anyway-in-these-dark-days-the-church-needs-her-men-to-be-men/

I have commented before about how many priests give off effeminate vibes that make men uncomfortable around them. But even when they are not giving off these vibes, they are still beholden to the women in their parishes. Men will lay down their lives if there is honor in it. But when they can’t get that from their own parish priest or the women running their parish, there’s something very wrong there. I’ve attended Mass in at least 50 parishes around the country since my return to Catholicism and I can tell you there are not nearly enough strong men in the priesthood. Maybe 8 or 10 parishes had a strong priest. In that light, it shouldn’t surprise many that a lot of men aren’t interested in being led by somebody like one of the other 40 or so.

Now that boys are kept at a distance, that’s going to have an influence on new vocations as in the past, many boys who grew up to be priests had strong examples of priests in their formative years.

Last remark, strictly anecdotal. Older uncle told me years ago about his best friend in high school going to a seminary after graduation and coming back home that Christmas. At which time (this was in the mid 50’s) he confided in my uncle his shock at the presence of the gays at the seminary. A very visible clique. My uncle asked his friend what percentage. His friend said, at first it seemed like half because they were so visible, but after getting to know everyone, he thought it was about a quarter who were definitely gay and about half of the gays who were not chaste. My uncle’s friend talked to his confessor and was told not to talk about it to anyone on the outside or he’d find himself out on the street. With that background, one can easily see the conspiracy of silence that manifested itself when these cases started hitting the news in the 80’s.

Last takes, then I’ll move to the sidelines. Homosexual conduct in the clergy has been a problem off and on for at least 1000 years. One should look up the famous letter written by St Peter Damian to the Pope in the year 1049. A real eye opener, that. In any case, the positive that has come from this is that incoming seminarians are hopefully more closely vetted for their chastity, hence the hope is that we’ll see fewer occurrences (and just maybe fewer effeminate priests) as time goes on. But it will take a couple of generations of new priests to really rid the upper levels of the homosexual influence though I think the effeminate but chaste priests will always be with us.