Expert: homosexuality clearly a factor in new priest abuse data

[po18guy]

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.

Are you ignoring the elephant in the living room? Where are the 50% female victims? Or 40%, or 30%? Are you ignoring the reported fact that homosexual behavior was tolerated in some seminaries of the 60s and 70s? Not heterosexual, but homosexual. This is a disordered sexual drive that, only in the cases being investigated, was predatory upon victims of emerging sexuality. Are you trying to sterilize this by dissecting the demographic of the victims, when it is the actions of the perpetrators that must be analyzed? To me it is clearly homosexual. Homosexual behavior in the perpetrators’ youth, continuing into adult seminary is obviously adult homosexual behavior. Post-ordination, those fellow adult homosexual partners were no longer as available, having been dispersed among the parishes.

In the interest of all involved, and for a solution to be found, we must not reduce this phenomenon through gross over-simplification to simple criminal behavior, because it clearly is not. It is disordered sexual behavior, with the vast majority of targeted victims of the same sex as the perpetrator. There are few pre-pubescent “children” involved. Some analysts in our culture have, with the apparent agenda to suppress the homosexual nature of the incidents, simply redefined the concept of “child” to 21 years of age (and as high as 24 in rare cases). This inflation and distortion of the definition of child is used when accusing priests, but not in regard to the military. Do we have children fighting in Afghanistan then? This reasoning is ludicrous, and again points to the fact that homosexual behavior is held to be a negative only when Catholic priests practice it. I view this as blatant hypocrisy.

It these are simple crimes, where is the randomness? There is virtually none. It is specific and targeted at same sex. Age factors are useful only in determining the degree of criminality in this predominantly homosexual behavior. As to raw numbers, 81% is considered an absolute landslide in politics. Why not in same-sex victims of sexual criminality - especially when many perpetrators also engaged in other forms of undisputed homosexual behavior?

It certainly is a very complex problem to correct, but we do a disservice if we treat it like any other crime.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

You see the homosexuals are DESPERATE that it not be perceived as a homosexual problem as they would have to acknowledge there is a problem of chicken hawkism among some in their social structure.

The media accommodates these Sacred Cows by referring to it as pedophelia instead of male homosexual hebephelia.Radical homosexuals mock the Church and Catholicism at every opportunity-witness the blasphemies in San Francisco on Good Friday and Easter.But they will not say one PEEP about the homosexual predation of 1.02 per cent of Catholic priests.Gee,I wonder why.

I suspect that is why some come up with the most outlandish argumentation to "prove"that it is anything but homosexuality,probably out of misplaced sympathies but I am not privy to their agenda although I am convinced it will be claimed as merely a “scientific”,one.

The Emperor(NOT aimed at you Emperor Napoleon-merely an apt aphorism)wears no clothes.

 

[irishpatrick]

Straight men like female. Simple stuff really.

 

[po18guy]

Straight men like female. Simple stuff really.

Too simple for some, apparently. As Fr. Corapi says, “the devil’s favorite color is gray”.

 

[irishpatrick]

Too simple for some, apparently. As Fr. Corapi says, “the devil’s favorite color is gray”.

Yes, taking the direct path seems like a lost skill today.

 

[Kolbe300]

I have one very simple question: Why? Why is the sexual orientation of *sexual predators *being debated here ad naseum? Why is it so unbelievably important for so many on these forums to ensure the sex abuse scandal is a homosexual problem?

I honestly doubt that this argument, this emphatic push to make sure the men who horribly victimized the children of this Church are identified as homosexuals rather than pedophiles or hebophiles (or whatever stinking “phile” you’d like to use), has ever been made before in the history of this world. Human nature, one would assume, would lead folks to give perpetrators of these crimes the worst possible title. Personally, I’ve always felt pedophile fit the bill, regardless of textbook definitions. In my opinion, nothing says sexual predator of children quite like “pedophile” does. But, alas, one must not go redefining words. That leaves me with one choice of title - sexual predator. It may be less satisfying (for me), but it’s inarguably true.

As I read through these threads, I’m always amazed at how many here seem to know which victims were and weren’t post-pubescent. I must have missed that part of the study because all I saw were victims ages. I saw the chart that showed the majority of cases being children between the ages of 11 and 15. We all know that we can’t define a child between the ages of 11 and 15 as post pubescent simply by their age, right? It seems like a bit of a gray area to me that has somehow become solid “fact” here. It’s kind of important when we’re using these “facts” to determine the sexuality of a sexual predator.

It makes me wonder, it really does. What would the reaction be of some forum members if their 13 or 14 year old daughter, God forbid, was molested by a child predator? Would the stage of their daughter’s puberty be a factor in the title they give the predator? Would they demand that folks stop calling the perp a pedophile when he’s so clearly a heterosexual? Would they be concerned about the predators sexuality at all?

This entire thread makes me feel sorry for the female victims of the sexual abuse crisis. 20 percent of the victims were female, but we won’t be talking about them. Not here, anyways. It seems the sexuality of the criminals is what’s really important, especially if they’re homosexual. At least it is here. I just don’t get that.

The Church won’t ordain an admitted pedophile. The Church won’t ordain homosexuals. The Church has already taken that stand. That begs the question, though. What is the Church doing about the heterosexuals? Is 20 percent somehow acceptable? And why aren’t we talking about that?

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

I have one very simple question: Why? Why is the sexual orientation of *sexual predators *being debated here ad naseum? Why is it so unbelievably important for so many on these forums to ensure the sex abuse scandal is a homosexual problem?

I honestly doubt that this argument, this emphatic push to make sure the men who horribly victimized the children of this Church are identified as homosexuals rather than pedophiles or hebophiles (or whatever stinking “phile” you’d like to use), has ever been made before in the history of this world. Human nature, one would assume, would lead folks to give perpetrators of these crimes the worst possible title. Personally, I’ve always felt pedophile fit the bill, regardless of textbook definitions. In my opinion, nothing says sexual predator of children quite like “pedophile” does. But, alas, one must not go redefining words. That leaves me with one choice of title - sexual predator. It may be less satisfying (for me), but it’s inarguably true.

As I read through these threads, I’m always amazed at how many here seem to know which victims were and weren’t post-pubescent. I must have missed that part of the study because all I saw were victims ages. I saw the chart that showed the majority of cases being children between the ages of 11 and 15. We all know that we can’t define a child between the ages of 11 and 15 as post pubescent simply by their age, right? It seems like a bit of a gray area to me that has somehow become solid “fact” here. It’s kind of important when we’re using these “facts” to determine the sexuality of a sexual predator.

It makes me wonder, it really does. What would the reaction be of some forum members if their 13 or 14 year old daughter, God forbid, was molested by a child predator? Would the stage of their daughter’s puberty be a factor in the title they give the predator? Would they demand that folks stop calling the perp a pedophile when he’s so clearly a heterosexual? Would they be concerned about the predators sexuality at all?

This entire thread makes me feel sorry for the female victims of the sexual abuse crisis. 20 percent of the victims were female, but we won’t be talking about them. Not here, anyways. It seems the sexuality of the criminals is what’s really important, especially if they’re homosexual. At least it is here. I just don’t get that.

The Church won’t ordain an admitted pedophile. The Church won’t ordain homosexuals. The Church has already taken that stand. That begs the question, though. What is the Church doing about the heterosexuals? Is 20 percent somehow acceptable? And why aren’t we talking about that?

Quit trying to obfuscate the issue.A report comes out that is so biased and politically correct that it DENIES the homosexuality of these crimes and a psychiatrists response is the issue of this thread.The problem is was and always has been a homosexual one in clergy who suffer homosexual hebephelia.

"The Church won’t ordain an admitted pedophile. The Church won’t ordain homosexuals. The Church has already taken that stand"Yep and you can count on all those with that predeliction to admit it.Don’t be naiive.If there has been a heterosexual predation that was discovered,the priest has been reported to the authorities.laicised and monetary reparations made but the problem is miniscule compared to homosexual predation and you are trying to promote an equivalency where none exists.Go back and read the first post.

 

[meltzerboy]

I have one very simple question: Why? Why is the sexual orientation of *sexual predators *being debated here ad naseum? Why is it so unbelievably important for so many on these forums to ensure the sex abuse scandal is a homosexual problem?

I honestly doubt that this argument, this emphatic push to make sure the men who horribly victimized the children of this Church are identified as homosexuals rather than pedophiles or hebophiles (or whatever stinking “phile” you’d like to use), has ever been made before in the history of this world. Human nature, one would assume, would lead folks to give perpetrators of these crimes the worst possible title. Personally, I’ve always felt pedophile fit the bill, regardless of textbook definitions. In my opinion, nothing says sexual predator of children quite like “pedophile” does. But, alas, one must not go redefining words. That leaves me with one choice of title - sexual predator. It may be less satisfying (for me), but it’s inarguably true.

As I read through these threads, I’m always amazed at how many here seem to know which victims were and weren’t post-pubescent. I must have missed that part of the study because all I saw were victims ages. I saw the chart that showed the majority of cases being children between the ages of 11 and 15. We all know that we can’t define a child between the ages of 11 and 15 as post pubescent simply by their age, right? It seems like a bit of a gray area to me that has somehow become solid “fact” here. It’s kind of important when we’re using these “facts” to determine the sexuality of a sexual predator.

It makes me wonder, it really does. What would the reaction be of some forum members if their 13 or 14 year old daughter, God forbid, was molested by a child predator? Would the stage of their daughter’s puberty be a factor in the title they give the predator? Would they demand that folks stop calling the perp a pedophile when he’s so clearly a heterosexual? Would they be concerned about the predators sexuality at all?

This entire thread makes me feel sorry for the female victims of the sexual abuse crisis. 20 percent of the victims were female, but we won’t be talking about them. Not here, anyways. It seems the sexuality of the criminals is what’s really important, especially if they’re homosexual. At least it is here. I just don’t get that.

The Church won’t ordain an admitted pedophile. The Church won’t ordain homosexuals. The Church has already taken that stand. That begs the question, though. What is the Church doing about the heterosexuals? Is 20 percent somehow acceptable? And why aren’t we talking about that?

What a great post, and so on target! These are indeed sexual predators, whether they be pedophiles (your preferred term), hebephiles, homosexuals, or heterosexuals, and should be treated accordingly by the Church.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

"20 percent of the victims were female,"Actually 15 per cent but who’s counting.
That figure includes grown women seduced by priests.If you are trying to make a Feminist statement may I cordially suggest you do your own research and start your own thread,I’d be most interested in reading it.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

What a great post, and so on target! These are indeed sexual predators, whether they be pedophiles (your preferred term), hebephiles, homosexuals, or heterosexuals, and should be treated accordingly by the Church.

They are.

Those who would sully or debauch the young, whether bishops, other clergy, religious, teachers, parents, legislators, or officials who help them in the evil they do, aborters, compulsive sex-educators, the list is very long: “Better a millstone were hanged about their necks” as Jesus said.

 

[po18guy]

I have one very simple question: Why? Why is the sexual orientation of *sexual predators *being debated here ad naseum?

Excuse me! I thought that the concept of a forum was a free and open exchange of ideas. My bad.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

The present drive to legitimize homosexuality has never been driven by science but by “faith.” Not religious faith but belief in the “new anthropology,” which denies the non-material and supposes man to be just a clever ape.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

The present drive to legitimize homosexuality has never been driven by science but by “faith.” Not religious faith but belief in the “new anthropology,” which denies the non-material and supposes man to be just a clever ape.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

The present drive to legitimize homosexuality has never been driven by science but by “faith.” Not religious faith but belief in the “new anthropology,” which denies the non-material and supposes man to be just a clever ape.

It is a quest of endorsement with penalties in the works for those who disagree.The shield is becoming a sword and the aim is to punish and persecute Catholic and non-Catholic Christians,Jews,Muslims,the followers of the Dali Lama but especially the Catholic Church which is the only Institution that uncategorically calls a sin a sin.Homosexualists aim to indoctrinate the young that homosexuality is not an aberration practiced by one per cent of the population but quite normal when biologically it makes no sense what so ever…Just look at the curricula IMPOSED upon schools in Ontario.

Same sex genital sex is a mortal sin-WHY is that so difficult for putative Catholics to comprehend as is heterosexual sex between unmarried couples?That is Church teaching and if you disagree please find another Church.You’ll be happier.We’ll be MUCH happier.

 

[Kolbe300]

Quit trying to obfuscate the issue.A report comes out that is so biased and politically correct that it DENIES the homosexuality of these crimes and a psychiatrists response is the issue of this thread.

Trust me, I’m not trying to obfuscate the issue. This forum does a fine job of that without any of my help. And I’m not so sure the report was as biased and politically correct as it was simply not what people wanted to hear. Was the report correct or incorrect? I don’t know. What I do know is that no report is going to either sufficiently solve or excuse the problem. If I have derailed the thread with my post, forgive me.

The problem is was and always has been a homosexual one in clergy who suffer homosexual hebephelia.

As for this issue, I believe the word homosexual should always be followed by either hebophila, pedophilia, or predator. If it’s simply described as a “homosexual problem” then that makes me and the vast majority of homsexuals who don’t prey on children a part of the problem. Maybe you don’t understand why I feel that way, and I wouldn’t expect you to. Afterall, I’ve been around these forums long enough to get it.

Yep and you can count on all those with that predeliction to admit it.Don’t be naiive.

I didn’t say they would admit it. I just said what the Church’s stand is on their ordination. If you think there is a better way to keep homosexuals from the priesthood maybe you should pass that along.

If there has been a heterosexual predation that was discovered,the priest has been reported to the authorities.laicised and monetary reparations made but the problem is miniscule compared to homosexual predation and you are trying to promote an equivalency where none exists.

There has been heterosexual predation. Take a look at the John Jay report.

Go back and read the first post.

Why?

Actually 15 per cent but who’s counting.
That figure includes grown women seduced by priests.

Are we looking at the same initial John Jay study? 15 percent of the victims were female in the instance of single-victim cases. In the overall study, 19 percent of the victims were female. I will ground myself for a week for rounding that up to 20. Could you point me to where the numbers include grown women being seduced? All the charts I see in the study stop at the age of 17. And I ask that in all sincerity, I may have missed it.

If you are trying to make a Feminist statement may I cordially suggest you do your own research and start your own thread,I’d be most interested in reading it.

Now that’s funny! (The feminist part.)

Peace!

 

[Kolbe300]

Excuse me!

You’re excused!

I thought that the concept of a forum was a free and open exchange of ideas. My bad.

I think a forum is a free and open exchange of ideas. I wasn’t arguing otherwise. I was just curious why the debate, with regards to this issue, was over the sexuality of sexual predators. It’s like debating the color of a shark’s eyes after he’s eaten 20 people. It makes a great debate, but I don’t see the point. I could be completely wrong though, in which case - my bad!

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Trust me, I’m not trying to obfuscate the issue. This forum does a fine job of that without any of my help. And I’m not so sure the report was as biased and politically correct as it was simply not what people wanted to hear. Was the report correct or incorrect? I don’t know. What I do know is that no report is going to either sufficiently solve or excuse the problem. If I have derailed the thread with my post, forgive me.

As for this issue, I believe the word homosexual should always be followed by either hebophila, pedophilia, or predator. If it’s simply described as a “homosexual problem” then that makes me and the vast majority of homsexuals who don’t prey on children a part of the problem. Maybe you don’t understand why I feel that way, and I wouldn’t expect you to. Afterall, I’ve been around these forums long enough to get it.

I didn’t say they would admit it. I just said what the Church’s stand is on their ordination. If you think there is a better way to keep homosexuals from the priesthood maybe you should pass that along.

There has been heterosexual predation. Take a look at the John Jay report.

Why?

Are we looking at the same initial John Jay study? 15 percent of the victims were female in the instance of single-victim cases. In the overall study, 19 percent of the victims were female. I will ground myself for a week for rounding that up to 20. Could you point me to where the numbers include grown women being seduced? All the charts I see in the study stop at the age of 17. And I ask that in all sincerity, I may have missed it.

Now that’s funny! (The feminist part.)

Peace!

I won’t respond to each of the points you have brought up as they have been dealt with in previous posts.

“As for this issue, I believe the word homosexual should always be followed by either hebophila, pedophilia, or predator. If it’s simply described as a “homosexual problem” then that makes me and the vast majority of homsexuals who don’t prey on children a part of the problem. Maybe you don’t understand why I feel that way, and I wouldn’t expect you to. Afterall, I’ve been around these forums long enough to get it.”

Would you please reread each of my posts and see how I have distinguished between the average homosexual and those who suffer this horrible sickness.I resent that you seem to be saying that I am intimating all homosexuals are guilty of this,That is as ludicrous as saying all heterosexual are pedophiles.

 

[mexilad]

My thinking is that a homosexual seminarian is likely to form erotic friendships with fellow seminarians and then as he gets older to look with fondness on youngsters who remind him of his former loves. He becomes a pederast, which historically is quite comon in societies where homosexualiyty is tolerated. Every new relationship reproduces his school experience except now he is the older party. It seems to have worked this way in all male English boarding schools. So it is a kind of arrrested development. Back in the '50s, a psychology professor explained it this way: all children under say 12 are “homosexual” in the loose sense of preferring their own sex to the other. As they reach puberty, they begin to be attracted by the other sex. BUT, crossing the “divide” is not easy for most of us, and some never do.

Crossing that so called divide was pretty darn easy for me. Frankly, I was unaware that a divide existed until I read your post.

To mention another very good post in this thread, I think we need to teach that there is evil. Sexuality is not evil in itself. Sex within marraige and celebicy are both blessings from God. Homosexual behavior is evil, while the desires or temptations are not. I think that is the basis for a simple strategy to combat this evil thing that has riddled the priesthood and shaken the faithful.

 

[Kolbe300]

Would you please reread each of my posts and see how I have distinguished between the average homosexual and those who suffer this horrible sickness.I resent that you seem to be saying that I am intimating all homosexuals are guilty of this,That is as ludicrous as saying all heterosexual are pedophiles.

Pax et Bonum, I wasn’t calling you out as intimating that all homosexuals are guilty of this stuff. I apologize if I came across like that. You have indeed distinguished the differences here. (Something many on the forum don’t do.) You do seem to have a strong desire to make sure the “homosexual” part of the equation is noted. It’s important to you, I see that. I get it.

My curiosity, and why I joined the discussion to begin with, is why that seems so important to people. Honestly, it comes across on these forums as if people would be disappointed if it was just pedophilia. It’s as if people really want this to be a homosexual problem at its core. As a devout Catholic who happens to have a homosexual orientation, I find that slightly irritating.

Like I said, I meant no offense and apologize if you were offended. You do much better than most in distinguishing the differences here.

Peace!

 

[po18guy]

I wasn’t arguing otherwise. I was just curious why the debate, with regards to this issue, was over the sexuality of sexual predators. It’s like debating the color of a shark’s eyes after he’s eaten 20 people. It makes a great debate, but I don’t see the point. I could be completely wrong though, in which case - my bad!

The priests who sinned have been described as “confused”. Yet, for all of this confusion, they seemed to settle on male victims to the tune of over 4 out of 5. It seems also that the criminologists, sociologists, psychologists and psychiatrists are likewise obscure on causal factors. There is a category of “phile” that does these things, but it is a subset of a larger group of sexually disordered individuals. And that larger set is predominantly homosexual. Only in this age, and in this culture of relativism, is this even debated. So, if you must blame something or someone, blame relativism for clouding our decision-making capabilities.