Conservative faction attempt to deflect sex abuse scandal

[LateCatholic]

Pennsylvania grand jury noted

That’s the PA report we’ve been talking about. It specifically said that the abuse of adults by priests “may be worse” than that of children in terms of numbers.

 

[Annie]

What you wrote in your original post

It is estimated that the actual number of abuse claims is 3x that reported. That means, of the ~3000 rapes/assaults committed by Pennsylvania priests:

You did not say who did that estimating or where that number came from or how it was arrived at.

When I asked you earlier in the thread to provide some evidence for those numbers, you did not respond.

In this reply, you mention a study. Is this from the Grand Jury report? Or some other “study”? If so, what study?

I am confused because you say investigators for the study had only one year to investigate, but the grand jury was convened for two years.

If you are speaking of another study, please link to it.

 

[LateCatholic]

clearly a problem dealing with homosexuality,

You still haven’t answered the following:

1. Then why were so many girls attacked?
2. Were the Bishops who hid this gay?

I would like to point out the following:

• The "80% " number you are using is misleading. This number (actually 81%) is referring to attacks on boys 11 years or older, ie 11-16. Church defenders bring this number up because technically (by some definitions), attacking 11 year olds is called “hebephilia” not “pedophelia”. I’ve listened to homilies where priests literally say we are over-reacting to the problem, because most of these pervert these priests are hebephiles, not pedophiles.
• You then claim hebephilia is a homosexual issue - even though this refers to 13,12, even 11 year old children. No study has ever linked pedophilia or hebephelia to homosexuality. For example, the best one I could find in YOUR FAVOR was that of 175 sexual attackers of children: 1% lesbian, 13% bi-sexual, 40% ‘fixated on children’ (no adult attraction whatsoever, male or female), and the rest heterosexual. Not one attackers was found to be just ‘gay’ (adult male - adult male).
• If you just refer to actual boys that are through puberty, the numbers are far, far lower (perhaps 30% of the attacks)

And as I said before, you are more than welcome to argue that there are too many gays in the priesthood. I’m fine with that. But to say that priests are attacking and raping children BECAUSE they are gay is flat out insane, and further angers society against Catholicism.

 

[Annie]

For those of you still continuing this ridiculous idea that this is a gay problem, see link.

Throughout this thread I have said that is a predator problem and not a homosexual problem, so I don’t know why you keep including me with those who say it is a homosexual problem.

The fact that you use extrapolated numbers doesn’t change the ratios, BTW.

 

[LateCatholic]

The fact that you use extrapolated numbers doesn’t change the ratios, BTW.

I never changed the ratios. My point is that, for some reason, 2500 attacks on boys aged 11-16 make it a “homosexual” problem. Yet, 500 attacks on girls aged 11-16 don’t make it a “heterosexual” problem. Would 600 make it a heterosexual problem? 1000? 3000? Why even make that distinction AT ALL unless you are deflecting?

Throughout this thread I have said that is a predator problem and not a homosexual problem

Then you are on my side.

When I asked you earlier in the thread to provide some evidence for those numbers, you did not respond.

In this reply, you mention a study. Is this from the Grand Jury report? Or some other “study”? If so, what study?

I am confused because you say investigators for the study had only one year to investigate, but the grand jury was convened for two years.

The PA Grand Jury report:

Quote:
“The investigation, one of the broadest inquiries into church sex abuse in U.S. history, identified 1,000 children who were victims, but reported that there probably are thousands more.”

So ‘thousands’ by definition is at least 2000 more (could be higher). since 16% were girls, that’s where I got my approximate 500 number. (16% times 3000 = 480). This number could be much higher.

regarding the “two years” versus “one year” - I was going by memory. I knew it was a fixed time investigation.

 

[Annie]

I am just stunned. No one said 3x… the report said “there may be 1000s more…” and you have thus justified using “500 girls” abused to fight against the idea that this is a homosexual problem? 160 girls to 800 boys wasn’t good enough for your argument?

This is a bad way to argue a point. It weakens your credibility when you do something like this.

 

[Rubee]

I’m just curious. How many of these 840 boys were pre-teen? Ie 11, 12? Just wondering: will help me determine how I judge this problem re these numbers. Obviously homosexual people are not inherently predators. However, if there are more gay predators than heterosexual predators in the priesthood, we have to ask ourselves why: Why is the priesthood more attractive to that type of predator than to the other?

 

[LateCatholic]

But it is not true that he has said rape is normal either, whether heterosexual or homosexual rape. You do yourself a disservice when you blatantly put horrible things into the mouths of others, create a major strawman and not a benign one either. He said heterosexuality was normal, not heterosexual rape .

I completely disagree. It is the side I am arguing against that is “not benign”.
To specifically describe rape as “homosexual” and ignore the heterosexual instances is not acceptable and implies malevolent intent. Clearly, if we were discussing 5 rapes, and 4 were by black men, and 1 was by a white man, what would you say if I even brought up the term “black rape”? I think my anger an animosity is more than justified.

Secondly, 2,500 out of 3,000 indicates something to me, given most were young men rather than children

Do you realize your definition of “young men” includes 11 year olds? The actual breakdown of from the report:

1000 documented attacks. Probably “thousands more” (which is were I got the 3000):

3% against children 10 yrs old or younger (sex not specified)
16% against girls age 11-16
81% against boys age 11-16

It is significant especially given that the church has had a standard rule excluding from the priesthood people still experiencing strong same sex attraction tendencies which was thwarted at about the same period/decades as all these ugly scandals

Why are you making this connection??? Why does “gay”=“abuse children” but not “straight”=“abuse children”? You have no logical, statistical, or rational justification. Priest attack girls. They attack women. Why are you highlighting the homosexual attacks and not the others?

Further, studies have shown that of people that sexually attack children, close to half state they have NO ATTRACTION to adults whatsoever. They are said to be neither homosexual nor heterosexual. The remaining fit fairly must into standard gay/straight breakdowns.
Do you have any statistics whatsoever indicating that a gay man has a higher propensity to attack 11 year old boys than a straight man does to attack an 11 yr old girl?

Lastly, it is simply an inconvenient truth that the Catholic teaching on homosexuality is that it is gravely disordered.

Again, where does the Church teach homosexuals are child molesters? Why is Church teaching relevant at all?

 

[LateCatholic]

Your entire approach is based on your clear belief that homosexuality is perfectly normal, on par with heterosexuality, which of course is contrary to Catholic belief.

No - I believe homosexuals deserve the same treatment and rights as heterosexuals. Period. “normal” is irrelevant. Being ‘left-handed’ is not normal by any definition. Being born deaf is not normal.

Church teaching is completely irrelevant because the Church does not teach that gays are pedophiles. It is YOU that is making that connection by saying I “should not be surprised” when a segment of the Catholic population wants to demonize the gay community and find a scapegoat for this scandal. Clearly that is what some conservatives want.

This scandal has always been about the abuse of power. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, studies have show that the sexual abuse of adult women by priests is even more pervasive than attacks on children.

Saying that this is because we have too many gay priests only makes the problem worse.

 

[Rubee]

Your animosity does not justify lying: the poster never said heteeosexual rape was normal. You invented that. What he said is clearly written here. You are the one asking us to ignore the fact that these people preferred males to females to the tune of 800:190 and asking us to call that meaningless.

 

[Rubee]

I also have not said homosexuality is synonymous with pedophilia, more inventions from you. I am just looking at the numbers and drawing the conclusion that these are men attracted to males over female.

 

[Rubee]

Clearly, if we were discussing 5 rapes, and 4 were by black men, and 1 was by a white man, what would you say if I even brought up the term “black rape”?

No. But if the attacks targetted black people to white people 81% to 16%, I would have to ask myself why and not rubish that as a meaningless statistic. And even that would be a bad comparison given races are more segregated than genders!

If we are attracting the predator that prefers male victims, we must ask why and what it is about us that makes us a haven for this kind. How that is supposed to be irrelevant, Idk: Im just supposed to take it from you that this doesnt matter.

 

[Rubee]

Further, studies have shown that of people that sexually attack children, close to half state they have NO ATTRACTION to adults whatsoever.

Ah, so you’re mixing up all sorts of studies to draw conclusions about one specific phenomenon: sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. Were these studies you refer to done on Catholuc clergy involved in abuse and if not, was the sample used for that study one that targetted male vs female victims to the tune of 81% to 16%? Further more, is it using “attracted to children” to mean attracted to people under 10, or does it include the 11 to 16 bracket?

 

[Rubee]

Lastly, I dont think for two seconds that beung gay makes people prone to abuse: you are making all sorts of wrong conclusions from my points. I do however strongly suspect thar the Catholic clergy is attractive to gay abusers for a reason and I want to find out why, given they account for most of the attacks.

 

[LateCatholic]

Your animosity does not justify lying: the poster never said heteeosexual rape was normal.

As I clearly pointed out, there are implicit points being made. If you highlight one subset of a group and not the whole, you are implicitly making a statement. I fail to see how you can even argue this.

Please address my example. Say we broke down these attacks by the race of the priest, and found that 80% were by white priests and 20% by black priests (to reverse the racism).

if I said “Clearly we have a Caucasian problem in the preisthood”, you would find that ridiculous. And it would be. Yet you make the same claim for homosexuality.

Now I DO understand that the Church teaches homosexual acts are wrong. That’s why this conversation is not ridiculous. But how do you in any way make the connection that being gay makes you want to rape children?

This scandal is about the abuse of power. To say it is about homosexuality is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

Please address my comment of how other studies have shown male priests attacks on grown women is perhaps even more pervasive than attacks on children.

Please address my comment on how HUNDREDS of girls were attacked (in Pennsylvania alone). How do you think those victims feel when you say it is a “homosexual” problem? How does a girl who was raped by a priest feel when you say that? Do they deserve less compassion? I dare you as a Christian to say to their faces that this is homosexual problem.

To be honest, your implicit tone and explicit comments that I am “not benign” shows a complete lack of empathy to what is happening here…

You are the one asking us to ignore the fact that these people preferred males to females to the tune of 800:190 and asking us to call that meaningless.

Incorrect. I am asking you to realize that being gay doesn’t imply you have a higher propensity to commit sexual assault.

Quite the contrary. Consider:

In the United States, there are 750000 registered sex offenders (male and female). That’s a percentage of approximately 0.37%, or about 4 out of every 1000 adults. That includes ALL sex offenders, not just those that attack children. The number of child attackers is much lower. But we will keep that number.

Studies, investigations, and legal documents (such as bankruptcy filings) show that the number of priests reasonably accused, indicted or convicted of sexual assault on children is 4-8%. We’ll call it 6% to be fair.

That means if I take 1000 random people and 1000 random priests, I will find 4 sex offenders but 60 priests that are child molesters.
Maybe this isn’t a “homosexual” problem but perhaps a “priesthood” problem???

 

[Rubee]

Please address my example. Say we broke down these attacks by the race of the priest, and found that 80% were by white priests and 20% by black priests (to reverse the racism).

if I said “Clearly we have a Caucasian problem in the preisthood”, you would find that ridiculous. And it would be. Yet you make the same claim for homosexuality.

But race is miles from sexual preference. This is a problem inherently about sex, so that example is misleading. I have answered your black and white question above. If we found that our Carholic Clergy in the US were targetting Black children 8:2, we would not consider that irrelevant. We would consider that black children are vulnerable for a reason and would want to find out why to stop it. That would not mean we dont care about white victims, thatd be insane. In addition, that is miles from sex, unlike sexual preference.

 

[Rubee]

Incorrect. I am asking you to realize that being gay doesn’t imply you have a higher propensity to commit sexual assault.

Well then you can just rest, because I don’t think that at all! I dont think being gay makes you more likely to be abusive. I think this is a separate question from the one asking if Catholic clergy abuse involves more gay predators than heterosexual and the further question about why.

 

[Rubee]

To be honest, your implicit tone and explicit comments that I am “not benign” shows a complete lack of empathy to what is happening here…

Obviously something about my tone rubs many people the wrong way. I can only apologize for that because I dont know that I can change it.

But again, I do not believe being gay makes people abusive in any way. I think being gay is something entirely separate from abuse which doesn’t know gender or orientation. I do however think our clergy is attracting a particular kind of predator probably because of the celibacy rule. That’s speculative but I don’t think far fetched. The numbers tell us these abusers seek male victims. Perhaps the celibacy rule is off-putting to heterosexual offenders but not gay ones: who really knows? Our clergy is not a naturally occuring kind of population so statistics do matter to show us what structures produce what results IMO.

 

[LateCatholic]

The numbers tell us these abusers seek male victims. Perhaps the celibacy rule is off-putting to heterosexual offenders but not gay ones:

The point is that such a distinction is irrelevant and takes away from solving the real problem. You fell for the trap exactly. How can you say “off-putting to heterosexual men” when hundreds of girls were attacked and studies indicate attacks on adult woman exceeds attacks on children?

Consider another example - almost all serial killers are white males age 30-50. Should we get rid of white males age 30-50? Of course not. So why get rid of gay priests? Now I am NOT saying that gay priests should be allowed. I am saying that making a connection that being gay makes you sexually attack children is not acceptable. It disguises and redirects us away from the real problem.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

1. Then why were so many girls attacked?
2. Were the Bishops who hid this gay?

1. Because there were heterosexual predators too.
2. Some were, some weren’t. They were mainly cowards more afraid of scandal than justice and protecting the innocent.

Again, the mere existence of female victims does not negate the fact that the overwhelming majority of the victims were male.

Being homosexual does not make someone a sexual predator and I have never claimed it does. But as far as sexual predators go in the church, they are overwhelmingly homosexual. That you want to ignore this because other types of abuse also occurred is disturbing.