Future pope resisted defrocking priest

[pollylodges]

I think one problem is that the RCC has to distinguish between homosexuals and pedophiles.

A question that has to be asked is this: Why aren’t there more cases (scandals) of homosexual affairs involving adult priests’ with other priests (or Bishops, Cardinals, Eucharistic ministers, Deacons and the like)?

As I understand it - It is only a sin for someone to be a practicing homosexual in the Catholic Church. A person who is Gay Can be a priest as long as he is Celibate (and he doesn’t support the Gay lifestyle etc).

Pedophiles target children. There is malice involved. It could very well be that that is why men who are pedophiles go into the priesthood in the first place. They are criminals.

 

[Scoobyshme]

CLARIFICATION is needed!

Consider the following points.

1. The local bishop has both the responsibility and authority to pull any priest in his diocese from active ministry, at his discretion! That’s the most the Church can do to protect children.
2. “Defrocking” a priest (poor term - should be “laicizing”) does not make him no longer a priest. ALL it does is release him from his vows of celibacy! When a priest is ordained, it is permanent. He is a priest FOREVER, “in the order of Mechizedek.”
3. Until 2001, the only thing that Ratzinger’s office had authority over was cases of abuse by priests that concerned the Confessional! Not abuse cases.
4. The priest in California was asking to be laicized. When he was laicized, he got married and continued to abuse children. The problem was not with the Church as much as with the individual. The Church removed him from parish ministry early on, if I recall correctly.

Please read the following article by Fr. Joseph Fessio, who is much more thorough in his article than me.

insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/04/lets-get-the-story-straight-defrocking-and-divorce-fr-joseph-fessio-sj.html

Bottom line, I think, is that the media has an active campaign against the Catholic Church, and especially against the Pope. Keep in mind that about 80% of the decision makers at the New York Times who decide what gets put on the front page are outright radical gays They clearly have an ax to grind against the Church because the Church says homosexual acts are gravely disordered and immoral.

Don’t let the media frame the issue. Get the straight facts first so you’re not suckered in. Then, you won’t be quite so upset with the Church and you’ll be able to put your ire where it belongs…with the anti-Catholic bigots in the media.

 

[pollylodges]

Are you responding to my comment?

 

[estesbob]

I think one problem is that the RCC has to distinguish between homosexuals and pedophiles.

A question that has to be asked is this: Why aren’t there more cases (scandals) of homosexual affairs involving adult priests’ with other priests (or Bishops, Cardinals, Eucharistic ministers, Deacons and the like)?

As I understand it - It is only a sin for someone to be a practicing homosexual in the Catholic Church. A person who is Gay Can be a priest as long as he is Celibate (and he doesn’t support the Gay lifestyle etc).

Pedophiles target children. There is malice involved. It could very well be that that is why men who are pedophiles go into the priesthood in the first place. They are criminals.

And oit should be noted that tere was almost NO pediophilia involved in the reported abuses. It was almost exclusively homosexual rape of post pubscescent males.

 

[pollylodges]

And oit should be noted that tere was almost NO pediophilia involved in the reported abuses. It was almost exclusively homosexual rape of post pubscescent males.

I’m sorry, but the two responses to my comment are just knee-jerk reactions to what I said.

You are Parroting the “Donahue” line of these problems. He is only doing more damage.

Even if your premise was correct- is the “homosexual rape”, as you put it, of 200 “post pubescent:” deaf children somehow mitigated?

-Or the cases in Ireland?

 

[seekerz]

And oit should be noted that tere was almost NO pediophilia involved in the reported abuses. It was almost exclusively homosexual rape of post pubscescent males.

Interesting distinction. What is the cut-off age for pedophilia anyway?

 

[estesbob]

I’m sorry, but the two responses to my comment are just knee-jerk reactions to what I said.

You are Parroting the “Donahue” line of these problems. He is only doing more damage.

Even if your premise was correct- is the “homosexual rape”, as you put it, of 200 “post pubescent:” deaf children somehow mitigated?

-Or the cases in Ireland?

I am just correcting your comments that seemed to indicate this was a problem of llowing pediohiliacs into the Proesthood. if we dont acknowledge what the problem is we cant adress it.

If you have read my posts you would know I am outraged by these abuses-have talked both to my Pastor and my Bishop. However when misinformation(like that we saw from the NYT) is peddled it must be corrected.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Are you responding to my comment?

Polly, no. My response was not for you. It was a general response to this thread in an effort to put it in proper perspective vs. the perspective provided by the anti-Catholic media.

 

[seekerz]

I’m sorry, but the two responses to my comment are just knee-jerk reactions to what I said.

You are Parroting the “Donahue” line of these problems. He is only doing more damage.

Even if your premise was correct- is the “homosexual rape”, as you put it, of 200 “post pubescent:” deaf children somehow mitigated?

-Or the cases in Ireland?

I agree with you that Donahue is just doing more damage. I listened to him and cringed.

1. What differentiates post-pubescent boys from children? Seems like those using this defense forgot to include these definitions.
2. In drawing conclusions from the ages of the victims, no one seems to take into account the opportunity priests had for encountering the different age groups in a setting conducive to abuse. Teenage boys of the time for which we have statistics were less likely to be holding on to mama’s apron strings, that’s for sure and definitely more likely than teenage girls to encounter priests alone socially.

In my mind, what needs to be addressed before this theory can hold any water, is what social setting was most conducive to abuse and what sex and age group of children was most likely to be encountered in that setting.

1. As it stands, without the above being addressed, this “homosexual theory” just sounds like a clumsy attempt to shift blame unto a social demographic that already does not meet our moral standards as Catholics. Taken to the extreme, it can also be seen as a subtle attempt to blame the victim.

 

[Spirithound]

Interesting distinction. What is the cut-off age for pedophilia anyway?

Puberty?

 

[estesbob]

Puberty?

A pediophliac preys eqaully and boys and girls-the young age is the attraction-not the sex. It is important we recognize the probelm for what it was-homosexual rape. Weeding pediophiles out of the Priesthood would have eliminated less than 10% of the absues.

 

[pollylodges]

Pedophiles are predators, they scope out play grounds, deliberately get involved with activities that will place them around children so they can do what they do. There is a sociopathic/pathological elment to it that is more in line with serial killers than with homosexuals.

They also try to “blend in” with the normal population They are manipulative and in more than a few cases have cultivated a respectable reputation within the community they live. The Naricissitic element of their personality is the means by which they do this.

This is why the priesthood is an attractive position in society for them to have.

 

[seekerz]

Puberty?

I asked for an age, not a physiologic process. Why do you ‘homosexual rape’ apologists shy away from giving an age? Without that, we can’t even begin a serious conversation.

 

[seekerz]

A pediophliac preys eqaully and boys and girls-the young age is the attraction-not the sex. It is important we recognize the probelm for what it was-homosexual rape. Weeding pediophiles out of the Priesthood would have eliminated less than 10% of the absues.

If you apply puberty as the cut-off for pedophilia then which is it, the start of puberty or the completion of it? Considering that girls may start puberty as young as five or six, are you seriously arguing that sexual abuse of a five or six year old girl is heterosexual rape (as in rape of a woman) and not pedophilia? Similarly for boys, who may start puberty as young as eight or nine?

By the way, this use of puberty as a cut-off, is it a legal definition, a moral definition…what?

 

[estesbob]

If you apply puberty as the cut-off for pedophilia then which is it, the start of puberty or the completion of it? Considering that girls may start puberty as young as five or six, are you seriously arguing that sexual abuse of a five or six year old girl is heterosexual rape (as in rape of a woman) and not pedophilia? Similarly for boys, who may start puberty as young as eight or nine?

By the way, this use of puberty as a cut-off, is it a legal definition, a moral definition…what?

I am pointing out that over 90% of the abuse was homosexual rape of post pubsecent boys. There were very, very few girls of any age abused This was not a problem with pediphilic Priests-it was a problem with homosexual priests. .

 

[curlycool89]

If you apply puberty as the cut-off for pedophilia then which is it, the start of puberty or the completion of it? Considering that girls may start puberty as young as five or six, are you seriously arguing that sexual abuse of a five or six year old girl is heterosexual rape (as in rape of a woman) and not pedophilia? Similarly for boys, who may start puberty as young as eight or nine?

By the way, this use of puberty as a cut-off, is it a legal definition, a moral definition…what?

Maybe I don’t pay the most attention physiology stuff, but when did some girls start going through puberty at 5?

Secondly, I think we’d take the average age of puberty. So let’s say in the 12-14 range most guys and girls have gone through puberty.

 

[seekerz]

I am pointing out that over 90% of the abuse was homosexual rape of post pubsecent boys. There were very, very few girls of any age abused This was not a problem with pediphilic Priests-it was a problem with homosexual priests. .

So please define post pubescent boys by age, since the data does not seem to include (to my knowledge) a description of the victims’ anatomy but only of their sexes and ages.

 

[estesbob]

So please define post pubescent boys by age, since the data does not seem to include (to my knowledge) a description of the victims’ anatomy but only of their sexes and ages.

**postpubescent medical definition **
post·pu·bes·cent (pōstˌpyo͞o-bĕsˈənt)
adjective Occurring after puberty.

yourdictionary.com/medical/postpubescent

Puberty generally begins later in boys, at an average age of 11 1/2 to 12 years.

pediatrics.about.com/cs/conditions/a/early_puberty.htm

 

[seekerz]

Maybe I don’t pay the most attention physiology stuff, but when did some girls start going through puberty at 5?

Secondly, I think we’d take the average age of puberty. So let’s say in the 12-14 range most guys and girls have gone through puberty.

This isn’t the time to go with ‘lets say’. If you are going with the homosexual explanation for abuse, then you better have your definitions correct otherwise the whole house of cards collapses.

Yes a girl may begin puberty as young as 5 or 6 although that is the exception rather than the rule. This is just to show that there is no way to determine accurately just by looking at ages of victims, who was post pubertal and who was not.

For most girls, 8 to 13 and for most boys 9 to 14, is the age at which the changes of puberty begin.

So to claim that the rape of an 11 year old boy is post pubescent homosexual rape challenges credulity; some boys of that age may hardly have begun puberty.

Boys complete puberty anywhere between the age of 14 and 18. It has been inexplicably difficult to get a definition of post pubescent anywhere on these threads but if medical experts are to be believed, completion of the above age (14 to 18) would probably be the time they could accurately be described as post-pubescent.

With those definitions and age ranges in mind, maybe someone could be motivated to look at the data again and come up with a more logical and coherent basis for this ‘homosexual rape’ argument?

 

[seekerz]

**postpubescent medical definition **
post·pu·bes·cent (pōstˌpyo͞o-bĕsˈənt)
adjective Occurring after puberty.

yourdictionary.com/medical/postpubescent

Puberty generally begins later in boys, at an average age of 11 1/2 to 12 years.

pediatrics.about.com/cs/conditions/a/early_puberty.htm

Okay, so using an age (or age range), tell me who is a post pubescent boy. (Note the suffix - post; I assume that requires that puberty has not just been started but has been completed).