S
somecanadian
Guest
Same in my diocese.
This is an article from psychology, in which pedophilia is a term that does not include attraction to teenagers. Also, the study is taken from society at large, which does not account for the skewing that a specific group must deal with. Especially when homosexual relationships could not be public and open, entering the priesthood for the purpose of homosexual relationships could easily skew the data, and I believe was one of the causes of the child abuse crisis. Then, as with other careers, the access to victims attracted some who saw the priesthood as a means to an end. The same thing happened to the scouts, and it still happens in teaching. This will always be a problem for the Church.The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
It also talks about the difference between pedophilia and child molestation.
Delete the word “pedophile” and you’re closer! The majority of BOYS molested were adolescents, not toddlers. We’re in homosexual territory here, not pedophiles. If you’re going after a 12 year-old boy as a priest, you’re not a pedophile. Which is NOT to say there weren’t ALSO pedophiles. There were. And yes, some were into females. There is enough perversion to go around, for sure, in all its forms.I think it’s safe to presume the abuse problem in the Church, specifically, might have been a homosexual pedophile problem.
Let’s face it, if you were a homosexual man, the priesthood was an attractive option. As I’ve said many times elsewhere, I’ve known a fairly large number (20?) of homosexual men who were in the seminary and dropped out.Especially when homosexual relationships could not be public and open, entering the priesthood for the purpose of homosexual relationships could easily skew the data, and I believe was one of the causes of the child abuse crisis.
I don’t think that would end harassment or abuse anywhere. Butterflies gonna fly, birds gonna sing, molesters gonna molest, no matter where they are.A final thought: This goes for the military, universities, corporations, and the church as well. Instead of circling the wagons and trying to fend off criticism of those bad apples who are caught, why on earth wouldn’t you want to create as much distance between yourself (as an institution) and the bad apples? Why wouldn’t you say–if you were in the army–“Our code of honor forbids such activities, and forbids tolerating such activities by others. If you are credibly accused, we will immediately remove you from your job and have an expert third-party investigate the allegations. If you are found guilty, we will prosecute you. If we can’t prove your guilt in a court of law but it seems reasonable that you are involved in such activities, we will immediately give you a dishonorable discharge.” You know what? That would end sexual harassment overnight. Same if an equivalent announcement was made in the church. Or anywhere. Why oh why do these institutions defend the accused instead of distancing themselves??? They’re certainly NOT protecting the institution they belong to.
Of course I agree to some extent. You can’t eliminate a determined predator who is immune to the prospect of punishment. But on the other hand, let’s take another crime, say embezzlement. You don’t have a corporate culture that simply transfers an embezzler to another department or branch. You don’t have situations (I hope) where all the people in the accounting department are aware that “Steve” is embezzling, but they ignore it. And you don’t have a situation where potential, hopeful embezzlers say to themselves, “I’m going to work for Corporation X because I know I can embezzle and get away with it.” All I’m saying is you need to take immediate action as an organization to distance yourselves from criminals or all kinds.I don’t think that would end harassment or abuse anywhere. Butterflies gonna fly, birds gonna sing, molesters gonna molest, no matter where they are.
We already do what you suggested. We have laws, some even carrying the death penalty, against all sorts of crimes, and people continue to commit them in ever-increasing numbers.
Are you aware of the current policies in place in the US since 2002? What more would you suggest?The Church needs to do a better job of screening candidates for the seminary, and it needs to stop covering up even one incident of abuse.
ConstantLearner never claimed all priests molest children. Perhaps you should take your own advice about care and charity.Flagged…not all priests molest children. Consider your words more carefully and charitably.
Even if so – and most of us understood the original post – it was cleared up earlier in the thread.That’s an honest misunderstanding. The word choice was a bit confusing.