Expert: homosexuality clearly a factor in new priest abuse data

[cerad2]

The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association) defines pedophilia as sexual abuse of children under the age of 14. For some reason, the John Jay report uses 10 years old as the cut off date.

Turns out that almost 73% of the abuse cases involved children under the age of 14. Somewhat higher than 22%.

Anybody understand why?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Sorry, Ridge, but plain ordinary gay men know where and how to find other interested and willing gay men. Just ask former Senator Larry Craig…

But your main point is one worth examining. I’m not gay and I can’t claim to be able to think like they do. But I’m certainly familiar with the hetersexual man’s lustful temptation inclinations and it’s not uncommon at all for a hetero man to find a sexually developed 18 year old girl more physically sexually attractive than a 40 year old woman. I’d not be surprised if the same tendency occured often among men with same sex attraction (SSA). Girls don’t develop the sexual features attractive to (normal) men until about that age. Perhaps the attractive features to those with SSA don’t take that long to develop.

Now comes the amatuer psychology. A sexually active gay priest is ALREADY a man who is willing to behave in ways in direct contravention to the moral teachings he claims to hold dear. Is it so hard to believe that such a person is more willing to chuck OTHER inconvenient moral teachings that contradict what he desires? Duh!
So to me, the conclusion is obvious: sexually active homosexual priests are a clear and present danger to the Catholic Church and need to be removed from ministry immediately (same for hetero, probably). Those obedient to their promise of celibacy and who live out church teaching in their ministry are innocent until/unless proven guilty.

The study scope appears to be so tiptoeish around the issue that I doubt they asked the right questions to separate out the above. I still say this is a rebellion issue, not a SSA issue. Those priests that preached and lived rebellion to catholic moral teaching, not surprisingly, ended up committing sexually horrific acts. That’s what sin DOES folks!

As to your first point, perhaps homosexual priests know how to find other homosexuals, but I have also read that at least some homosexuals have a thing for wanting relations with straight men, finding straight men more attractive for some reason.

Regardless, your observation that some men find younger women more attractive (which evidently homosexuals share as to their own gender) is apt. We are given to understand that teacher relations with students of varying age (including over 18) are not at all uncommon. Worship of, and lust for, the youth was common among ancient Greeks, almost to the point of fetishism.

But one has to also consider that, at a point, most priests’ access to young men falls off. Homosexuals among them simply might find it more difficult to find young men who have come of age, other than overt homosexuals, whom they might not prefer anyway.

I absolutely agree with you that any priest who is actively engaged in sexual activities ought to be removed. Homosexuality is, of itself, “profoundly disordered” and one has to question whether a strong homosexual orientation on the part of a priest ought to also disqualify. If one is “profoundly disordered”, one needs to then question “how profoundly, and in what ways?” Is it really possible to thread the labyrinthe of a profound disorder?

A real problem exists, I think, in the fact that while the DSM includes pedophelia and hebephilia as mental disorders, the psych community (or its activists) have removed the equally profound disorder of homosexuality from its list of disorders, now considering it simply a “variant of normal”. Consequently, it is not terribly likely that the psychological
community is going to fund or encourage the kind of studies of homosexuality that might prove helpful in understanding its manifestations, causes and potential cures.

 

[wisdomseeker]

You hit the nail on the head.There is an excuse for everything.Sin?What;s that?.As Frances Kissling of the bogus “Catholics” For Choice lobby said,“We must get rid of the concept of evil”

It would be nice to hear our shepperd quoting God instead of quoting statistics.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

It would be nice to hear our shepperd quoting God instead of quoting statistics.

???

 

[po18guy]

Of course you are right. As for the '50s, I have a '50s education of the Encyclopedia Americana, and the article on homxsexuality has as much reliable knowledge as we no possess. It says something telling, though, that the rejection of homsexuality was largely a matter of convention. What has happened is that the convention has radically changed. That change was driven by the Sexual Revolution, not new scientific knowledge.

A simple time line of the sexual revolution, overlaid on key demographic indicators is also telling. Family unity, marriage duration, divorce rate, co-habitation rtes (how do you keep stats on these failures?), unwed pregnancy, sexual promiscuity levels, sexually-transmitted diseases, percentage of fathers in the home, decline of morals, even poverty rates (from single parent families), etc, etc, etc. Isn’t one of the factors thought to promote male SSA the lack of bonding with the father? What if there is no father, a vital factor missing in a high percentage of today’s young male lives? And also no father/daughter bonding, a factor which tends to suppress underage female sexuality in those daughters.

Looking at the big picture in such a time line, many, if not all of the societal ills that we see today can be traced to the effects, and ripple effect, of the sexual revolution. The subsequent growth of government, and the resultant taxation, from a myriad of programs which attempt to deal only with the symptoms; which penalize marriage; and which reward the number of fatherless children, causes even further poverty and family breakdown. As good as intentions may be, the results are uniformly failure. One wonders why the proposed solutions are always more of the same…

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Two questions: 1st I don’t understand why you write “probably” given what you stated (especially the 2 parts in bold character)?

I think it is the most likely outcome given what we know about hebephiles but its not a certainty because we’re talking about a hypothetical scenario.

2nd Do you have an a priori opinion that facts won’t budge.

No, but I’m also not willing to throw established scientific fact out the window so lightly and without just cause.

IOW would you accept the conclusion that homosexuality is the common denominator if you were presented with evidence that you found logically and intellectually satisfying?

Its important to differentiate between homosexuals/homosexuality and same-sex attracted hebephiles. For homosexuals, heterosexuals, and bisexuals; the gender preference of their partner is primary while the age preference is secondary and restricted to adults.The opposite holds true of same-sex and opposite-sex attracted hebephiles. I would find it highly unusual and suspect if homosexuality were to be declared as a primary or even secondary factor because of the age of the victims. Its not even remotely close to the age preference demographics in the general homosexual population and conflicts with established facts on the (lack of) gender orientation of most hebephiles.

There are only two other, and remote, possibilities: 1. The demographics of hebephiles are shifting towards gender preference. 2. The ratio of regressed homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals to their adult oriented counterparts is rising. It would require further study to determine if either of those possibilities are the case.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

You really do have difficulty accepting the obvious.I suspect that a mountain of evidence would not convince you.85 per cent of the victims were post pubescent males.This is aberrant homosexual BEHAVIOUR which logically is committed by some homosexuals some of whom happen to have been priests.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

You really do have difficulty accepting the obvious.I suspect that a mountain of evidence would not convince you.85 per cent of the victims were post pubescent males.This is aberrant homosexual BEHAVIOUR which logically is committed by some homosexuals some of whom happen to have been priests.

I believe that is affirming the consequent; a fallacy. Demonstrated as such by the established scientific literature on the subject of sexuality and orientation. The so-called “expert” is deviating from established scientific fact without any just cause for doing so. Unless he has conducted a study which irrefutibly proves that either of the two possibilities in my last post are true then it is simply the unsubstantiated opinion of an ordinary man who happens to be a psychiatrist.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

And I repeat:

You really do have difficulty accepting the obvious.I suspect that a mountain of evidence would not convince you.85 per cent of the victims were post pubescent males.This is aberrant homosexual BEHAVIOUR which logically is committed by some homosexuals some of whom happen to have been priests.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

You really do have difficulty accepting the obvious…

Repeating a fallacy doesnt make it any less fallacious.

 

[RobbyS]

The political and historical context of the early Catholic Church has changed significantly. Once it was a prudent idea, that priest should not get married, but today I don’t think this way too much any more. If a priest wants to get married - God Bless him. Personally I garner better insight into my family and marriage talking with our married Deacon. He knows firsthand where I am coming from and often times he’s been there/done that. I have always studied the Bible but for me it did not truly come alive until I got married. Once I became a Daddy, well the illumination was blinding. I like the way the Orthodox Church approaches it… why can’t we be the same? It’s been said before, St. Peter was married, nuff said.

A majority of Greek parish priests are bachelors, but not out of choice. They have to find a woman willing to live a “Christian” life before they are ordained. No married priests can become a bishop and monks play a very important role in their religious culture. As for historical context, our culture loathes the idea of chastity as much as it does celibacy. The power of the homosexual movement in our society, the number of couples living outside marriage and rampant divorse shows that the traditional family is also in ill-odor and Christian sexual morality is rejected.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Repeating a fallacy doesnt make it any less fallacious.

PLEASE take your own advice.Your desperation in trying to disprove the obvious is palapable.

 

[valentino]

Homosexual identity are no more prone to abuse.This could be true.Since most priests are heterosexual most don/t abuse teen girls or adult females.They control their passion with God’s help.I believe a homosexual is able to control his sexual desires just as much a heterosexual.Why not?Are homosexual,s desires somehow stronger than heterosexual desires?

 

[meltzerboy]

Maybe they do. This source seems to think so, and has data that claims to establish that the great majority of homosexuals have had sex with minors. inductivist.blogspot.com/2010/06/homosexuality-caused-by-imprinting.html

Also, of course, it says some 25% of adult homosexuals had their first homosexual experiences as minors. I have read higher numbers elsewhere, but whatever.

It’s possible, of course, that homosexuality is a circular thing. One is seduced by a homosexual during one’s formative years and comes to identify sexual pleasure with homosexuality. It may, in effect, feed on itself in a society. One might conclude, then, that the best way to prevent it is to “break the chain” of causation. How a society as far gone as ours might do that is problematic, particularly when the elites are so determined to involve children in homosexual awareness and approval at earlier and earlier ages.

That’s a nice little hypothesis regarding the causation of homosexuality. Unfortunately (or fortunately), it has NO scientific validity although it was a typical notion during the Freudian era and actually a distortion of Freud’s own theory about homosexuality. Most gay youth were never seduced by older men. That’s not the way one becomes homosexual. This doesn’t mean some men do not prey on youths, as Pax et Bonum rightly points out. Apart from this issue, who are these elites you mention who want to expose children to homosexual awareness and approval at earlier ages? I know the term is bandied about a lot these days, but I’m curious regarding how you define it. Liberals, leftists, Democrats, educators, Ivy League professors, socialists, or some other group?

 

[po18guy]

I believe that is affirming the consequent; a fallacy. Demonstrated as such by the established scientific literature on the subject of sexuality and orientation. The so-called “expert” is deviating from established scientific fact without any just cause for doing so. Unless he has conducted a study which irrefutibly proves that either of the two possibilities in my last post are true then it is simply the unsubstantiated opinion of an ordinary man who happens to be a psychiatrist.

Well, let’s consider: Did the subject Priests commit convenience store robberies, reckless driving, vote fraud or any other random anti-social behavior? No. They committed sex crimes. Homosexual sex crimes in the cases of 81% of the victims. Since many victims were violated multiple times, the raw numbers of homosexual sex incidents could indeed be closer to 90%. Where is the random pattern? Where is the AC/DC pattern? Where are the gerontophilia offenses? Where is the bestiality? It is almost exclusively male on male. In any other segment of society, we would call that homosexual. Let’s stop dancing around the problem and call it what it is - a homosexual activity problem in the clergy.

 

[wisdomseeker]

A simple time line of the sexual revolution, overlaid on key demographic indicators is also telling. Family unity, marriage duration, divorce rate, co-habitation rtes (how do you keep stats on these failures?), unwed pregnancy, sexual promiscuity levels, sexually-transmitted diseases, percentage of fathers in the home, decline of morals, even poverty rates (from single parent families), etc, etc, etc. Isn’t one of the factors thought to promote male SSA the lack of bonding with the father? What if there is no father, a vital factor missing in a high percentage of today’s young male lives? And also no father/daughter bonding, a factor which tends to suppress underage female sexuality in those daughters.

Looking at the big picture in such a time line, many, if not all of the societal ills that we see today can be traced to the effects, and ripple effect, of the sexual revolution. The subsequent growth of government, and the resultant taxation, from a myriad of programs which attempt to deal only with the symptoms; which penalize marriage; and which reward the number of fatherless children, causes even further poverty and family breakdown. As good as intentions may be, the results are uniformly failure. One wonders why the proposed solutions are always more of the same…

The abandonment of the faith by the government. since governments are exempt from the CC teachings, they are free to embrace humanistic ideology in which man is in charge and not God.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I believe that is affirming the consequent; a fallacy. Demonstrated as such by the established scientific literature on the subject of sexuality and orientation. The so-called “expert” is deviating from established scientific fact without any just cause for doing so. Unless he has conducted a study which irrefutibly proves that either of the two possibilities in my last post are true then it is simply the unsubstantiated opinion of an ordinary man who happens to be a psychiatrist.

God determines what is True and not man. Truth is revealed and it is not invented by man.
God says it is a sin, so it is. it doesnt matter what man says.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

It is almost exclusively male on male. In any other segment of society, we would call that homosexual…

Actually we wouldn’t because of the age of the victims and what we know of the gender preferences of hebephiles. Same-sex attracted hebephiles are incredibly rare in the general population. What we would call it in any other segment of society is a crime of opportunity on the part of hebephiles which have no gender preference.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Actually we wouldn’t because of the age of the victims and what we know of the gender preferences of hebephiles. Same-sex attracted hebephiles are incredibly rare in the general population. What we would call it in any other segment of society is a crime of opportunity on the part of hebephiles which have no gender preference.

The psychiatrist that I quoted at the beginning of this thread disagrees.I’ll go with a PSYCHIATRIST every time over an unqualified poster who is desperately grinding an axe.You make the most sweeping statements as is if you are Zeus on Mount Olympus without a shred of supporting evidence to back up your ludicrous posits.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Well, let’s consider: Did the subject Priests commit convenience store robberies, reckless driving, vote fraud or any other random anti-social behavior? No. They committed sex crimes. Homosexual sex crimes in the cases of 81% of the victims. Since many victims were violated multiple times, the raw numbers of homosexual sex incidents could indeed be closer to 90%. Where is the random pattern? Where is the AC/DC pattern? Where are the gerontophilia offenses? Where is the bestiality? It is almost exclusively male on male. In any other segment of society, we would call that homosexual. Let’s stop dancing around the problem and call it what it is - a homosexual activity problem in the clergy.