Expert: homosexuality clearly a factor in new priest abuse data

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Clergy in Eastern Orthodoxy can’t get married.

Orthodox priests can be married, but they have to be married before they are ordained. They can’t get married after ordination.The Eastern Rite Roman Catholic Church applies these same rules as the Orthodox Churches.
A Bishop in the Orthodox Church cannot be married and they are usually chosen from Orthodox monks who never marry.

As for married Roman Catholic priests it is small t tradition and this tradition can be changed, but should they be allowed to do so Catholics will have to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY more to the collection plate.

Priests who were married Anglican Ministers who have converted and been ordained as Catholic priests remain married and uncelibate,but should the priest’s wife die he may not remarry.Married men may be ordained deacons but unmarried men once so ordained cannot marry.

 

[1holycatholic]

Orthodox priests can be married, but they have to be married before they are ordained. They can’t get married after ordination.The Eastern Rite Roman Catholic Church applies these same rules as the Orthodox Churches.
A Bishop in the Orthodox Church cannot be married and they are usually chosen from Orthodox monks who never marry.

As for married Roman Catholic priests it is small t tradition and this tradition can be changed, but should they be allowed to do so Catholics will have to contribute SIGNIFICANTLY more to the collection plate.

Priests who were married Anglican Ministers who have converted and been ordained as Catholic priests remain married and uncelibate,but should the priest’s wife die he may not remarry.Married men may be ordained deacons but unmarried men once so ordained cannot marry.

Clergy in Eastern Orthodoxy can’t get married.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

If I were to poll people and ask if this sentence makes sense or if the last part clearly is at odds with the 1st part, what would the result be?.

The result, I hope, would be that people would acknowledge it as a sentence which makes perfect sense; because it does. Gender is not a primary factor in the selection of sexual partners for hebephiles even for those with a gender preference. Age is the primary factor.

But you don’t seem too impressed with percentages…

I’m very fond of percentages. Same-sex attracted hebephiles comprise only 0.7% of the general population of hebephiles so to blame 80% of these crimes on that microscopic segment is pure folly. The majority of hebephiles have no gender preference whatsoever. The gender of their victims is incidental and it should be no surprise that, in the case of the Catholic sex abuse scandal, most would be boys because of the common gender segregation in Catholic institutions.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

“…most would be boys because of the common gender segregation in Catholic institutions.”
You have been informed repeatedly and have ignored repeatedly that this is NOT the case for North America.

You have NO credibility whatsoever on this issue.You ignore,obfuscate,invent conflicting gibberish and use language that is so convoluted as to be laughable and dismiss anything that does not fit your agenda

If I was a professor and you handed a paper in that was full of the semantical unsupported contradictory nonsense you have posted,I would fail you.

I’d stop now as all you are doing at this point is embarrassing yourself and irritating us.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study.
Freund K, Watson RJ.
Source
Department of Behavioural Sexology, Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Toronto, Ont., Canada.
Abstract
Previous investigations have indicated that the ratio of sex offenders against female children vs. offenders against male children is approximately 2:1, while the ratio of gynephiles to androphiles among the general population is approximately 20:1. The present study investigated whether the etiology of preferred partner sex among pedophiles is related to the etiology of preferred partner sex among males preferring adult partners. Using phallometric test sensitivities to calculate the proportion of true pedophiles among various groups of sex offenders against children, and taking into consideration previously reported mean numbers of victims per offender group, the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1.THIS SUGGESTS THAT THE RESULTING PROPORTIONS OF TRUE PEDOPHILES AMONG PERSONS WITH A HOMOSEXUAL EROTIC DEVELOPMENT IS GREATER THAN IN PERSONS WHO DEVELOP HETEROSEXUALLY.This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

"This, of course, would not indicate that androphilic males have a greater propensity to offend against children."In other words this study is not an examination of actual homosexual abuse being greater than heterosexual abuse but does prove it exists.

This is a study of pedophelia not hebephelia but conclusions would not be difficult to extrapolate.Sorta blows your ridiculous posit straight out of the water doesn’t it?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

You have been informed repeatedly and have ignored repeatedly that this is NOT the case for North America.

No one here has proved any such thing.

This is a study of pedophelia not hebephelia but conclusions would not be difficult to extrapolate.Sorta blows your ridiculous posit straight out of the water doesn’t it?

Not at all. The problem with Freund’s studies is that fixated and bisexual offenders are lumped in with homosexual offenders. The study you posted has percentages based solely on the gender of the victim and not the gender preference (or lack thereof) of the offenders.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

See what I mean folks?A descent into the absurd.What a comeback."No,they haven’t"And someone who refuses to reveal his academic qualifications insists that a study(Of course,not HIS)is flawed.
Dead horse.Boring.Irritating.Fail.

 

[Kolbe300]

This thread is becoming quite comical. And it is a wonderful example of why studies such as these, especially on a subject like sexuality, are truly nothing more than an educated guessing game. For every study that “proves” one thing, it seems a person can find a study to “prove” the exact opposite.

See what I mean folks?A descent into the absurd.What a comeback."No,they haven’t"And someone who refuses to reveal his academic qualifications insists that a study(Of course,not HIS)is flawed.
Dead horse.Boring.Irritating.Fail.

I, for one, don’t see what you mean. While you may see Emperor’s objections as absurd, I see them as quite valid. I may not agree with every point he brings up, but he does bring up some very good points, especially with respect to terminology and definitions. Without variables in a study being absolutely defined and, more importantly, understood, a study is useless.

Take, for example, the lengthy article you quoted earlier on pedophilia and homosexuality. The Fruend study is mentioned and cited several times. However, the citations indicate that the author of your article believes the Fruend study to not be entirely accurate (flawed?) when the study makes findings that the author doesn’t appear to agree with. He uses the study to make his argument (when it helps), and then mentions how the study is “limited” (when it doesn’t).

Most people here seem to think the latest study done on the abuse crisis is completely flawed. Yet, I’ve seen no “academic qualifications”, as you say, for the objectors here.

We are all chasing our tails until the perfect study comes out. Sadly, I don’t believe the perfect study on any sexuality issue will ever come out. The issue is far too complex for perfection and the agendas on both sides will simply never agree.

This is a study of pedophelia not hebephelia but conclusions would not be difficult to extrapolate.

How difficult that would be is anyone’s guess. An extrapolation here would be incredibly risky, though, if one believes the sex abuse scandal wasn’t about pedophilia. The “this isn’t about pedophilia” theory would be skating on very, very thin ice. And it seems to me, as far as this forum goes, that a lot hangs on that theory.

 

[Robertanthony]

the agendas **on both sides **will simply never agree

There ain’t no agenda on both sides; if the study said 81% of abuses were committed on teenage girls I would not split hairs, twist facts, look for bogus studies, define terms in outlandish ways and say the “scientific community”, call a cat something else to take the “blame” away from whom said “blame” belongs to because heterosexual hebephiles (for argument’s sake, take it easy EmperorNapoleon no need to restate your position ad nauseam) would happen to be near and dear to my heart. A descent into the absurd it is.

 

[Kolbe300]

There ain’t no agenda on both sides;

I disagree. Take a look at the opinion of people outside of CAF. Most people see the sexual abuse of children as pedophilia. Even when the children are in the middle of, or just past puberty. In fact, most people aren’t even remotely concerned with the sexual development of the victims or the sexual orientation of the criminals. They see this abuse as just that: abuse and a crime. Whether it is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, whatever, it is the act of a sexual predator. Period.

if the study said 81% of abuses were committed on teenage girls I would not split hairs, twist facts, look for bogus studies, define terms in outlandish ways and say the “scientific community”, call a cat something else to take the “blame” away from whom said “blame” belongs to because heterosexual hebephiles (for argument’s sake, take it easy EmperorNapoleon no need to restate your position ad nauseam) would happen to be near and dear to my heart. A descent into the absurd it is.

You wouldn’t, it appears, until a study comes out that places blame where you don’t believe it belongs. Emperor’s “outlandish” terms are not outlandish in the “scientific community”. About ten minutes of research would show that. There are times when hairs need to be split for the sake of accuracy and, more importantly, understanding.

Here is my theory, and it’s pretty simple. If 81 percent of the victims had been teenage girls, this entire scandal would absolutely be considered a pedophilia scandal. I am certain (more so than just about anything), that we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all if 81 percent of the victims were teenage girls. It would be pedophilia and there wouldn’t be the slightest argument against that.

Heterosexuals are not a threat to children. Homosexuals are not a threat to children. Child sexual predators are a threat to children. A long debate over whether or not 81 percent of the victims were victimized by homosexuals gets us postively nowhere and it leaves the remaining 19 percent of victims unspoken for.

To make a long story short: it’s a debate I simply cannot believe we are having.

 

[PbloPicasso]

While the picture is complex in nature, what does appear to be clear is that homosexuality was not screened for in the seminaries during the 60s-80s, a time frame which coincides with the “sexual revolution”. During that time frame, instances of tolerated sexual behavior between seminarians have also been demonstrated as being a factor.

Unfortunately what you’ve said here is actually accurate. I personally knew far too many seminarians and priests that were far too tolerant of homosexuality and their acts. I would say we were mostly heterosexual though. But I see home in knowing that most of them were screened out eventually. Unfortunately, the only “straight” people I can name that did not go forward through ordination are few. Most of the ones I knew that dropped or were placed out were either bisexual or homosexual. You had to show more than the normal level of tolerance because of it. Rumor had it that our vocation director recruited like this. My assumption now is that he was not necessarily looking for homosexuals but men that would blend into the organization, diocese, climate, much like corporations or companies like to hire…“are they a good fit?”

I’d say that the ordained priests I know are “straight”. At least I believe so. I am very suspicious of the USCCB’s rejection of the homosexual priest not being an issue. In fact, it’s statistically known that homosexuals are more prone to promiscuous behavior (lack of monogamy). My suspicion comes from the abuse related to me by both a seminarian, banned from campus only after he graduated, and a priest that no longer acts as a priest but is now married.

That said, let’s look forward, not backward.

 

[Darryl1958]

…
That said, let’s look forward, not backward.

It seems like the Church took the proper corrective steps. She is now in a position to lead once more.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

There ain’t no agenda on both sides; if the study said 81% of abuses were committed on teenage girls I would not split hairs, twist facts, look for bogus studies, define terms in outlandish ways and say the “scientific community”, call a cat something else to take the “blame” away from whom said “blame” belongs to because heterosexual hebephiles (for argument’s sake, take it easy EmperorNapoleon no need to restate your position ad nauseam) would happen to be near and dear to my heart. A descent into the absurd it is.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

“Here is my theory, and it’s pretty simple. If 81 percent of the victims had been teenage girls, this entire scandal would absolutely be considered a pedophilia scandal. I am certain (more so than just about anything), that we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all if 81 percent of the victims were teenage girls. It would be pedophilia and there wouldn’t be the slightest argument against that.”

No it would be heterosexual hebephelia and if committed by priests it would be as outrageous.No matter which way you skin it 81 per cent of these crimes were homosexual in nature as they were committed against post pubescent boys.There is no agenda in my posits other than an adamant refusal to let homosexual apologists try to skew and spin reality.

What you are suggesting is outrageous,prejudicial,and entirely of your own construct.Please do NOT attempt to speak for the rest of us.I’m well aware as you have indicated that you have a dog in this fight.I have quoted a study that indicated that those with a homosexual orientation are inclined to be more attracted to children as sexual beings than heterosexuals yet goes on to say there is no indication that they would be more INCLINED top act out.

This issue is being deliberately clouded by an agenda driven Emperor Napoleon who is trying to prove that a cat is a dog…sometimes…maybe…sorta…if not an ant.

It is ludicrous,absurd,quite annoying and is now approaching the surreal.If this was a case of 81 per cent of the victims being female you would have every feminist organization in Nort America howling for these priests heads.If you dared suggest that anyone but heterosexual men were responsible they would be howling for YOUR head.And they would be right!

I repeat-this is beyond surreal and it is homosexual apologia gone stark raving mad.

 

[Darryl1958]

Well, men groping teenaged boys are homosexual perverts as far as I know. Men doing the same to teenage girls are no less perverted, but are not homosexual. those that show no preference are termed bisexual, and those who diddle the tiny tots are pedophiles.
It is now uncommon for men of any sexual persuasion to find youthful partners to be objects of sexual excitement. Those that find the prepubsecent exciting are a different kettle of fish altogether.
That is just ordinary use of the English language to say as much.

 

[1holycatholic]

Well, men groping teenaged boys are homosexual perverts as far as I know. Men doing the same to teenage girls are no less perverted, but are not homosexual. those that show no preference are termed bisexual, and those who diddle the tiny tots are pedophiles.
It is now uncommon for men of any sexual persuasion to find youthful partners to be objects of sexual excitement. Those that find the prepubsecent exciting are a different kettle of fish altogether.
That is just ordinary use of the English language to say as much.

:yup: There seems to be a lot of tap dancing around the fact that the overwhelming majority of the offenses were homosexual acts.

 

[Kolbe300]

No it would be heterosexual hebephelia and if committed by priests it would be as outrageous.

It would be just as outrageous. In fact, in 19 % of the cases, it* was *just outrageous. Although, I’ve never in my life read the news and seen the case of a teenage girl being molested described as heterosexual hebephelia. I’m not sure why it would be any different in this case.

No matter which way you skin it 81 per cent of these crimes were homosexual in nature as they were committed against post pubescent boys.

I can’t figure out why the stage of puberty of these victims is always given as a statement of fact when all we have to go on is age. It is, at best, a guess. And everything seems hinged upon it.

What you are suggesting is outrageous,prejudicial,and entirely of your own construct.

Call it what you want. It was my theory, my opinion, and I stand by it.

I’m well aware as you have indicated that you have a dog in this fight.

That’s just it, I don’t have a dog in this fight. If 100 % of the crimes were committed by homosexuals it wouldn’t add or detract from the heinousness of the crimes. I must not be making myself clear enough here. If we define “homosexual” in this case by nothing more than the gender of victim and victimizer then 81 percent of the crimes were homosexual in nature. I’m not arguing that. When we go into the sexual orientation of criminals, howerver, we are dealing with guesses and we’re delving into the pointless. How I view my own sexuality or that of any other person isn’t influenced (in the least) by the crimes of others. What I’ve been wondering is why the sexuality of the criminals seems to be so important to those on this forum.

I have quoted a study that indicated that those with a homosexual orientation are inclined to be more attracted to children as sexual beings than heterosexuals yet goes on to say there is no indication that they would be more INCLINED top act out.

Then why is the sexuality of the criminals important? If a homosexual is no more inclined to act out than a heterosexual, why is the sexuality of the criminals important AT ALL? **Again, why are we having this debate? **

It is ludicrous,absurd,quite annoying and is now approaching the surreal.

I agree, though we’re speaking of it from two different viewpoints.

If this was a case of 81 per cent of the victims being female you would have every feminist organization in Nort America howling for these priests heads.

So the feminists need a majority before they’re concerned? 19% isn’t enough to make them howl?

 

[1holycatholic]

If a homosexual is no more inclined to act out than a heterosexual, why is the sexuality of the criminals important AT ALL?

With more than four of five of the cases of abuse being homosexuals acting out why would anyone say a homosexual no more inclined to act out? The data doesn’t support such an assertion.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

It would be just as outrageous. In fact, in 19 % of the cases, it* was *just outrageous. Although, I’ve never in my life read the news and seen the case of a teenage girl being molested described as heterosexual hebephelia. I’m not sure why it would be any different in this case.

I can’t figure out why the stage of puberty of these victims is always given as a statement of fact when all we have to go on is age. It is, at best, a guess. And everything seems hinged upon it.

Call it what you want. It was my theory, my opinion, and I stand by it.

That’s just it, I don’t have a dog in this fight. If 100 % of the crimes were committed by homosexuals it wouldn’t add or detract from the heinousness of the crimes. I must not be making myself clear enough here. If we define “homosexual” in this case by nothing more than the gender of victim and victimizer then 81 percent of the crimes were homosexual in nature. I’m not arguing that. When we go into the sexual orientation of criminals, howerver, we are dealing with guesses and we’re delving into the pointless. How I view my own sexuality or that of any other person isn’t influenced (in the least) by the crimes of others. What I’ve been wondering is why the sexuality of the criminals seems to be so important to those on this forum.

Then why is the sexuality of the criminals important? If a homosexual is no more inclined to act out than a heterosexual, why is the sexuality of the criminals important AT ALL? **Again, why are we having this debate? **

I agree, though we’re speaking of it from two different viewpoints.

So the feminists need a majority before they’re concerned? 19% isn’t enough to make them howl?

Call N.O.W.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

With more than four of five of the cases of abuse being homosexuals acting out why would anyone say a homosexual no more inclined to act out? The data doesn’t support such an assertion.

I think you misinterpreted what the study said.The study did not examine the propensity of youth attracted homosexuals to act out.No conclusions could be drawn as that was not examined in the study.We are having this discussion because a psychiatrist said that these crimes were homosexual in nature and others are denying it.

Why is it so important to you?I freely admit that 4-5 percent of heterosexuals of both sexes are pedophiles.I am a heterosexual.I am not a pedophile.1.02 percent of priests suffer from homosexual hebephelia.I would be much more comfortable in having my son alone with any parish priest than any other person.

I think that you perceive that you feel you are being attacked by something akin to the “All Men Are Rapists” slur that was perpetrated by Brownmiller and Dworkin et al, rabid men hating feminazis in the eighties.I took it as a personal attack(it was) as did most men-it was merely part of the excesses of that particular Feminist Fascism of the time(although that theory has some supporters today)There ARE heterosexual rapists.Most men would horsewhip them if they had the chance.There are perverts amongst those of my sexuality-there are perverts amongst those of yours.