Catholic League Article Regarding Sexual Abuse

[josh_the_goat]

Last Friday, Bill Donohue commented that not all sexual abuse is equal, and that in many cases the sexual abuses may have been consensual. I don’t see how these comments can be rationalized. The priest’s position of authority over the victims of abuse eliminates any potential claim of consent in my mind.

I don’t think I could support any person claiming that the victims of abuse somehow consented willingly.

The article is at catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1991.

 

[Barbkw]

I was reading a court case from the Bishop Accountability website.

The affidavit centered on one parish where three teenage boys were sexually involved with three priests from their parish.

These three pederast priests used everything in their power to entice these teens’ promiscuous tendencies and sexual experimentation - toward bisexuality and homosexuality.

Very similar to the alledged actions by the mega church preacher who is currently in the news.

At that age, all of these young teens are being sexually abused. They are too young and too naive to realize the extent of the evil that lies in the hearts of these men whom they trust and admire.

 

[Scoobyshme]

I think each case is different and should be judged on its own merits.

But, in general, I wouldn’t equate a priest having sex with a 9 year old boy who has no idea what’s going on, to a priest having sex with a homosexual 17 year old, who’s also having sex with other males, too, of his own choice.

God, on the other hand, will hold the priest far more accountable than the 17 year old. From whom much is given, much will be required.

It’s all sin, but there are some sins worse than others in this realm, and it hinges on the level of innocence of the victim. A 9 year old is certainly more innocent than a 17 year old, wouldn’t you agree? I think that may have been his point.

 

[Barbkw]

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10090110.html

14 = 8th grade

“Homosexual activists in Britain working to lower age of consent to 14 years old!”

POSTED: September 10, 2010

“Ten years ago, after fierce lobbying by the the homosexual movement, Britain lowered the age of consent for homosexual sex acts to 16. Now they have announced they are working to lower it to 14.”

 

[josh_the_goat]

The problem that I have is that at 17 years old, people are still minors (at least in the U.S.). The priest’s position of authority to someone that is 17 can still be very strong to someone. Although a certain case may in fact be consensual, to say generally that sexual relations with a 17 year old is less severe than a 9 year old is wrong to me.

For someone with such a large voice in Catholic discussions, it seems very irresponsible and insensitive for Bill Donohue to say that some of the minor victims of the sexual abuse potentially brought it upon themselves.

 

[Barbkw]

The entire article with bolding on my part to emphasis Donohue’s point.

Monday October 4, 2010
NOT ALL SEXUAL ABUSE IS EQUAL

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a news story about a former priest who molested a male listed as John Doe:

On September 28, the Chicago Tribune reported that "former Chicago priest and convicted sex offender Daniel McCormick sexually abused him [Doe] while he was a grammar school student."

We then learn that the student was really a middle-school student, in the eighth grade, when the abuse began. The abuse reportedly continued for five years. According to the lawsuit, “McCormack inappropriately sexually touched, hugged, rubbed and/or abused Doe.”

It’s time to ask some tough questions. Why did this young man not object earlier? Why did he allow the “abuse” to continue until he was 18? The use of the quotes is deliberate: the charge against the former priest is not rape, but rubbing. While still objectionable, there is a glacial difference between being rubbed and raped.

Here’s what we know. We know that this case, like most of them, was the work of a homosexual, not a pedophile. And like most of the cases of priestly sexual misconduct, there was no rape involved. **Inappropriate touching is morally wrong, and the offenders should be punished, but the time has come to object to all those pundits who like to say that the scandal is all about child rape. Most of the cases did not involve children—they were post-pubescent males—and most weren’t raped. **

Why does this matter? Because those looking to sue the Catholic Church for being inappropriately rubbed decades ago are not exactly the poster boys for the victims of child rape. And because those who hate the Church continue to use the term child rape as a way of discrediting the Church. They lie about this being a pedophilia problem and they lie about the nature of the misconduct. That’s reason enough to call them on it.

 

[Barbkw]

I did find on Bishop Accountability that there was a wide wide range of what was termed sexual abuse.

The Jays report: usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/ is specific but is does not detail or categorize the sexual offences the way that the State judicial system would (state sex offender registry).

With young men, the term “sexual abuse” ranged from single occurances of inappropriate touching to multiple occurances of sodomy.

 

[Scoobyshme]

The problem that I have is that at 17 years old, people are still minors (at least in the U.S.). The priest’s position of authority to someone that is 17 can still be very strong to someone. Although a certain case may in fact be consensual, to say generally that sexual relations with a 17 year old is less severe than a 9 year old is wrong to me.

For someone with such a large voice in Catholic discussions, it seems very irresponsible and insensitive for Bill Donohue to say that some of the minor victims of the sexual abuse potentially brought it upon themselves.

josh, have you talked to many 17 year olds lately? I find the vast majority of them anything but respectful to any sort of authority. The culture has made them arrogant and rebellious, for the most part. There are exceptions, I’m sure, but they seem few and far between!

And I’m not sure many people view priests as authority figures any longer, unless they’re principles of Catholic high schools, etc.

 

[Digitonomy]

The problem that I have is that at 17 years old, people are still minors (at least in the U.S.). The priest’s position of authority to someone that is 17 can still be very strong to someone.

This could still be true at age 35 or 50.
josh the goat:

Although a certain case may in fact be consensual, to say generally that sexual relations with a 17 year old is less severe than a 9 year old is wrong to me.

I would have to disagree with you - would you say there is a decisive change only at age 18 where such acts becomes less severe?
josh the goat:

For someone with such a large voice in Catholic discussions, it seems very irresponsible and insensitive for Bill Donohue to say that some of the minor victims of the sexual abuse potentially brought it upon themselves.

Irresponsible and insensitive? Nah, that’s just how Bill is…

I have another criticism of this article - Donohue writes

While still objectionable, there is a glacial difference between being rubbed and raped.

In general conversation, glacial essentially means either “slow” or “cold.” What is a glacial difference?

 

[sidbrown]

I think one possible solution is to require all Catholic priests and bishops to get married and have sex the normal way approved by God.

 

[kaid100]

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/sep/10090110.html

14 = 8th grade

“Homosexual activists in Britain working to lower age of consent to 14 years old!”

POSTED: September 10, 2010

“Ten years ago, after fierce lobbying by the the homosexual movement, Britain lowered the age of consent for homosexual sex acts to 16. Now they have announced they are working to lower it to 14.”

Just to clarify, the age of consent for heterosexuals at this stage was already 16 and has been for a century.

The campaign a few years ago was to equalise it. Male homosexuality had an age of consent of 21 in 1967 when it was legalised, it was lowered to 18 in 1994 and 16 in 2000. Female homosexuality was never illegal, and in fact there was never even an age of consent until 2000. (of course if it was non-consensual the aggressor could have been prosecuted whatever their ages)

Personally I don’t think the age of consent should be lowered, or if it is there should be a limit on the age of the older partner when the two parties are a different age.

 

[estesbob]

I think one possible solution is to require all Catholic priests and bishops to get married and have sex the normal way approved by God.

Since the incidents of abuse is higher in Faiths with married clergy I hardly think this is a solution. By the way the most dangerous place for a child in terms of being abused is with relatives followed by teachers.

 

[kaid100]

I think one possible solution is to require all Catholic priests and bishops to get married and have sex the normal way approved by God.

Maybe “require” is too strong a word, “allow” might be better, but broadly I agree with you.

 

[puzzleannie]

Last Friday, Bill Donohue commented that not all sexual abuse is equal, and that in many cases the sexual abuses may have been consensual. I.

I wish he would stick to issues where his organization can make a real impact and not dilute their influence this way

by definition sexual contact with a minor–below the age of consent–is not consensual, that is why the law defines an age of consent. It is also btw why gay lib activists lobby to lower that age. more proof that those who deny the abuse crisis has connections to the promotion and attempt to legitimate “the gay lifestye” are naive at best and outright liars at worst.

since a the overwhelming majority of true pederasts are married or regluarly engage in relationships with women, the “married priest” argument is simply more naivete and ignorance and is obviously homosexual abuse. It is also documentated that most gays–those living out their homosexual tendencies–report that their first encounter occured below the age of consent and was initiated by an older teen or adult of the same sex.

the kernel of truth in Donohue’s arguement which is overshadowed by how it is presented, is that there is a difference in true pedophilia–sexual contact and abuse of prepubescent children of either sex–and sexual contact with older teenagers of the same sex as the abuser, which represent the majority of cases substantiated against priests. Encouraging those with a strong unresolved homosexual tendency to marry is hardly the sound way, psychologically or spiritually, to address the issue.