Gay cover-up must end

[markeverett49]

One reason the John Jay study doesn’t draw the conclusion some here wish it had is that there are cases such as Fr. Maciel’s: he molested many boys but also fathered children by (at least two) women.

But as I’ve said before, even if it is a matter of “a homosexual cover-up” then who is responsible for that? Bishops!

 

[Prof_K]

Citing the actual numbers of cases is not spin, just fact. Read the John Jay study as to the types of abuse that occurred. 80% was same-sex abuse. The study doesn’t draw the obvious conclusion, apparently unwilling to tread too heavily on political correctness.

But the numbers speak for themselves.

Read the book “Goodbye, Good Men,” for a description of the state of some seminaries in those days. Keep in mind that we are talking of priests generally who came out of seminary some 20 to 40 years ago. The seminaries have, hopefully, been reformed by now.

That is the key. If 80% really were same sex acts, and if the population of priest is similar to the population as a whole (only 1-4% homosexual) than a small percentage of homosexual priests are committed the vast majority of acts and homosexually oriented priest are many, many times more likely to commit such acts.

 

[Santi2]

I think everybody in the Church has been VERY reluctant to shine a light on the fact that 80%+ of the abuse cases were homosexual in nature for GOOD reasons. It is a steep and well-greased slope from pointing out this fact to concluding that gays are naturally inclined to abuse teenage kids. The evidence in the John Jay report does not and cannot support this notion **(since abuser priests are NOT a representative sample of the homosexual population!). ** Sensationalist reporting being what it is plus human nature loving to find a scapegoat together WOULD make an inevitable result: gay bashing.

For all the anti-catholic bias out there, let’s admit that it’s vanishing rare for a priest of outspoken catholic layman to be beaten, chained to a pickup truck and dragged to death. Unheard of, actually (in modern America, anyways). Not so unheard of for gay guys. The church must be VERY careful not to give ammunition to the old and (thankfully) now unpopular sin of physical violence against gays. Satan would love nothing better than to revive both gay bashing and lay the blame for it at the door of the Catholic Church!

What SHOULD the Church do in response to the John Jay data? Exactly what they’ve done. Quietly change the seminary admittance criteria to ensure that homosexuals aren’t ordained to the priesthood and do a Vatican visitation of all seminaries to look for potential problems there that may have enabled this to go on far too long. Low key, out of the spotlight. No gay bashing, just action. On record, and in public reaffirm that we are ALL sinners and that violence or unjust discrimination against homosexuals (note that is different than certain JUST forms of discrimination) is itself the sin of casting the first stone…

I do think the partsof VIRTUS where they explicitly said that the youngest are the most at risk was a bit stupid. They SHOULD be emphasizing the opposite: don’t presume that your teenage boy is too old to be at risk!

I agree that the abusers are not representative of the entire homosexual community, in the same way that the abusers are not representative of the entire community of priests in the Church. However, does the report say anything about the sexual orientation of the abusers?

I appreciate your caution against attitude that could lead to gay-bashing but, if it were the case that a majority of these abusers were homosexuals and sexual orientation led them to such deplorable acts, should’nt we be honest about it? I and my brother have been confonted by gay protesters in front of my Church and I am increasingly becoming a very uncharitable person because of it. My brother is a priest and, ironically, despite being spat at and ridiculed by these unsavoury characters, he was the one who stopped me from head-on confrontation. I don’t get it. That my brother should suffer because of political correctness?

 

[buffalo]

One reason the John Jay study doesn’t draw the conclusion some here wish it had is that there are cases such as Fr. Maciel’s: he molested many boys but also fathered children by (at least two) women.

But as I’ve said before, even if it is a matter of “a homosexual cover-up” then who is responsible for that? Bishops!

In Rose’s book he makes the case that as the homosexual culture began to prevail in the seminaries, good devotional orthodox young men were pushed out of the seminaries because they were too “rigid”. That left who? - homosexual seminarians, who became priests and then bishops. The culture became homosexual. It seems they all knew. They got a big boost when the APA removed homosexuality as a mental illness in 1972.

Now on the other hand - when a priest was accused of molesting a young man the recourse was to remove them from duty and they were send to rehab. Now remember at the time the gods of psychology had much influence. The therapist concludes that the priest is fit to serve again and recommends this to the bishop. So what happens? They are reassigned.

Well we know now we shouldn’'t depend on the psychologists.

Looking at the data the peak period was in the 70’s and 80’s. The Church is slowly purging herself of this culture.

 

[markeverett49]

The ‘god of psychology’ had no influence on Catholic theology except when bishops wanted to use it to cover their own butts. The Church didn’t reverse its teaching on homosexuality because the DSM changed, did it? No. The bishops used psychologists as a dodge to keep from disciplining priests who were molesting children. Now they want to blame everything on the psychologists, who were only advising bishops, not making policy. (When therapists said ‘never let this man back into a parish,’ they tended to be ignored.)

But again, when you are talking about ‘orthodox’ guys being sent away and liberal ones accepted, these were the actions of priests and bishops. You can’t get around that.

 

[buffalo]

The ‘god of psychology’ had no influence on Catholic theology except when bishops wanted to use it to cover their own butts. The Church didn’t reverse its teaching on homosexuality because the DSM changed, did it? No. The bishops used psychologists as a dodge to keep from disciplining priests who were molesting children. Now they want to blame everything on the psychologists, who were only advising bishops, not making policy. (When therapists said ‘never let this man back into a parish,’ they tended to be ignored.)

But again, when you are talking about ‘orthodox’ guys being sent away and liberal ones accepted, these were the actions of priests and bishops. You can’t get around that.

I am making no defense for sinful actions and decisions. Wrong is wrong. But it is important to understand the why’s so they do not repeat. This whole episode is a hard lesson in truth and shows us that the Church’s teachings stand on solid ground. We humans need direction.

The bishops deferred to the “gods of psychology” for whatever the reason. And why would homosexual bishops desire to turn over their fellow clergy? They were justifying their own behaviors or desires as being OK and normal in society. I maintain that secularism and liberalism were contributing factors to the crisis. The smoke of Satan had entered the church. As you say the Church did not reverse herself on teaching, although in the “Spirit of Vatican II” many teachings were challenged and I am convinced many thought there would be great changes sanctioned by the Church. There was plenty of experimentation going on.

The John Jay Study does show some priests being disciplined, convicted and sent to jail.

 

[markeverett49]

I maintain that secularism and liberalism were contributing factors to the crisis. QUOTE]

Provided that you grant this was all taking place BEFORE Vatican II. The most notorious of the Boston priests, and certainly the Wisonsin monster, were Old School priests, and the bishops covering up for them, shuttling them around, were also pre-Vatican II clerics!

 

[LCMS_No_More]

In that process one cannot change their innate attractions, Straight men do not wake-up one day and say “ooh, that man over their sure looks great, or ooh that teenage high school guy looks great.” For the vast majority of males, sexual atraction is set in near concrete and is very close to unmovable. Those are facts that must be considered in all this.

And there’s a very, very good reason for that. Heterosexuality is the end result of the process of psychosexual development. Generally speaking, persons with same-sex attractions are arrested in their psychosexual development for many different reasons. The nature of the reasons varies from person to person as everyone is unique. The issues for one will almost always be different from the issues for others, but there is generally an overlap (Person A has issue 1, 2, and 3 and Person B has issue 1, 2 and 4). Of course, there are heterosexual persons with issues, but they are not the same in nature or how they interact in a same-sex attracted person.

 

[Catherine_S]

The media want to avoid revealing the homosexual predation. They have an agenda which is to advance homosexuality. They always portray homosexuals as victims of an unjust society, a society that denies them their deviant acts.

Here is how we can have some impact:

Share the info in forums
Write the editor in your local paper
Add your reader’s comments to newspaper articles
Make sure all your friends and family know
Make sure your Congressmen know.
Blog
Ask your Pastor to publish the facts in the bulletin
Send emails to friends and family together with the links

:yyeess:!!

 

[Zoe_Brain]

That is the key. If 80% really were same sex acts, and if the population of priest is similar to the population as a whole (only 1-4% homosexual) than a small percentage of homosexual priests are committed the vast majority of acts and homosexually oriented priest are many, many times more likely to commit such acts.

But if pedophiles are attracted to children regardless of sex, and they have access to more male potential victims than female potential victims - which seems to be the case, does it not? Then the pattern would be the same. That seems to be the case.

If gays were responsible 80% of the time, that would preclude the rapists from raping girls when given access to them.Yet time after time, we see the pattern of pedophiles raping girls when given access to them, as well as fathering children.

If there were altar girls in addition to alter boys, then the teen and pre-teen pregnancies that would result would have made the problem obvious, as it did in the middle ages, before priests were allowed less access to underage girls than they have now.

Having said that… “priests” is far too general. I firmly believe that the vast majority of the priesthood are being unfairly treated. Not all are pedophiles. Not even most. Only a substantial proportion, one in twenty at most, probably one in fifty.

 

[Timothias]

It absolutely disgusts me to read the drivel by some people on this subject. The problem is without doubt a homosexual problem and it personally disgusts me that the Church allows itself to be scandalised by it.

It is absolutely scandalous that bishops and priests are homosexual in the first place because most of them are severely defective in nature.

What do you think St Paul would have said about homosexual priests or St Peter for that matter?

The Catholic Church is dying much like the Anglican Church and it’s funny because as it tolerates more liberal or completely oppositional gospel views we go further down the drain. Look at the Anglican Church its only growth area is in Africa where they promote strong Gospel views, not those of defective weirdos.

We are called by Christ to increase our growth in him and try and try. Those who partake of homosexuality and revel in it, as do many priests and Bishops let alone anyone else is a complete disgrace to the Church and to God.

Sure we all sin, but we are not to glorify it, with the promotion of homosexual bishops and priests etc we are glorifying Sin and that is not the sign that God wanted for his followers.

Eg. My brother and I were both considering as options the priesthood or being Christian brothers etc. but the simple realisation that at the seminary there were homosexuals who were being gladly accepted, simply turned us away. My brother has completely fallen away from the faith and that is down to what he observed at the seminary amongst other things. I certainly don’t have the love of the Catholic Church as much any more for much the same reasons. Although I still be catholic, I certainly have very little or no respect for many of the priests and bishops.

Its sad but when we promote that which is bad there is only one outcome and that is what the Church is experiencing now.

 

[Seamus_L]

We live in a society that’s now so perverse that it’s offended by the suggestion that men who molest boys are in fact Gay, because that would reflect badly on those who only commit abominable acts with other consenting adult males.

 

[CradleCath]

The term is hebephile or ephebophile. Sexual attraction to underage but post-pubescent adolescents.

rossum

I also thought that the correct term is “ephebophile”, but have since found that the sexual abuse of young boys in the Church…both pubescent & post-pubescent… is nothing but old-fashioned pederasty. It is against the Laws of God & the laws of man, an abomination, yet it has occured throughout history.

What one must remember is, had the hierarchy obeyed the Laws of the Church & the wishes of our Popes through the centuries, this never would have occured.

[SIGN] Pope John XXIII, on February 2, 1961, promulgated a document called “Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders,”** signed by Pope John XXIII.** The relevant section had one sentence on homosexuality: "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with the evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious danger[/SIGN]

Pope Benedict XVI has promulgated another document concerning the ordination of gays:

[SIGN]This appeared in one article I read & seems to be the way both secular society & many members of the hierarchy are SPINNING the latest from Pope Benedict, his**…Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders **
“The Roman Catholic Church allows the ordination of men who have, in the past, experienced same sex attraction, but only on the condition that they have lived without engaging in homosexual culture or acts for several years, and can be psychologically verified as having their same-sex attraction under control”. [/SIGN]

**[SIGN]This is what the actual Instruction says:

In the light of such teaching, this dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to **state clearly **that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, annot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, **present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or who support the so-called ‘gay culture’.[/SIGN]

What can “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” mean except that the man has a homosexual orientation?? I have deep-seated heterosexual tendencies…that means I’m a heterosexual.

Another part of the Instruction addresses adolescents who have EXPERIMENTED with homosexuality & found themselves to be heterosexual:

[SIGN]Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies **that were only the expression of **a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. [/SIGN]

There are many places in the Church where homosexuals & lesbians may serve, but the priesthood & the religious orders are not among them.

I have much compassion for those who suffer from same-sex attraction. Those who remain celibate must suffer from lonliness. I don’t
believe that they choose this in most cases (Hollywood is the exception here , but neither do I believe that people are born with a sexual orientation that perverts the natural use of our sexual organs. I don’t believe that those who indulge in bestiality are “born that way”, either.

 

[seekerz]

But if pedophiles are attracted to children regardless of sex, and they have access to more male potential victims than female potential victims - which seems to be the case, does it not? Then the pattern would be the same. That seems to be the case.

If gays were responsible 80% of the time, that would preclude the rapists from raping girls when given access to them.Yet time after time, we see the pattern of pedophiles raping girls when given access to them, as well as fathering children.

If there were altar girls in addition to alter boys, then the teen and pre-teen pregnancies that would result would have made the problem obvious, as it did in the middle ages, before priests were allowed less access to underage girls than they have now.

Having said that… “priests” is far too general. I firmly believe that the vast majority of the priesthood are being unfairly treated. Not all are pedophiles. Not even most. Only a substantial proportion, one in twenty at most, probably one in fifty.

At last someone who seems to ask the same questions I do. The fact that 80% of the cases were against boys could simply be explained by opportunity. As I posted in another thread, it’s like saying that the vast majority of football injuries are seen in young males, therefore young girls must be more resistant to such injuries. The fact is way more boys find themselves on a football field at risk of such injuries. To compare male and female incidence of something that both sexes are not equally exposed to makes no sense to me.

So what were the settings in which abuse most commonly occurred and were both boys and girls equally likely to be in such settings? Without addressing this, it’s not possible to fairly compare incidence according to sex.

Also, how many of these incidents were repeated abuse (at least some must have been). So at what age did most incidents begin? To me that distinction is as important as simply listing ages and drawing conclusions from them as to whether this is pedophilia versus some other perversion defined by age.

 

[Timothias]

homosexuals are deviant by nature, in that in asmuch they are defective as needed by nature. Now it does not matter whether, whether they are born that way or are ‘fashioned’ that way or any combination thereof. Disorder in science leads to further disorder, so it is NATURAL for those who are more disordered to continue or indulge in disorder that is affected their disorder, that is why they have a greater disposition towards being paedophiles or any other variation to that theme.

It simply means that the risk is greater that homosexuals will be naughty, no iffs buts or maybe’s, now irrespective of one’s view of how people become to be homosexual, it is not a done thing to promote that which is bad.

For eg. We don’t generally go and promote that dwarves promote the dwarve way of life, becasue dwarfism has so many defects beside simly being shorter, now we should not hide them in cupboards etc, but they should be treated as anyone else, however the difficulty always comes in, how do you tolerate without promoting, well you can’t by positive development, in other words your only option is to say the defect is bad, and then try and help the people deal with their defect.

We are all going to die one day and when we do we either will face some judgment (if God exists) or we fade away to dust forever, Now if God exists and cares about our instruction in any way he has to have made sure we get the “good oil” on what to do or not do.

All the homosexuals out there who want to justify their lifestyle within a Christian environment need to throw out St paul for starters,but naturally enough when you do that you can pick and choose.

Now we all pick and choose and we all sin, but lets say we have a sin of stealing, We cannot expect Christian development if we go round telling everyone that stealing is good, We have to deal with it as a defect and attempt to imporve our christian development, homosexuals have a strong tendancy to need to justify their disposition, so therefor they have to glorify it.

 

[manualman]

But if pedophiles are attracted to children regardless of sex, and they have access to more male potential victims than female potential victims - which seems to be the case, does it not? Then the pattern would be the same. That seems to be the case.

If gays were responsible 80% of the time, that would preclude the rapists from raping girls when given access to them.Yet time after time, we see the pattern of pedophiles raping girls when given access to them, as well as fathering children.

If there were altar girls in addition to alter boys, then the teen and pre-teen pregnancies that would result would have made the problem obvious, as it did in the middle ages, before priests were allowed less access to underage girls than they have now.

Having said that… “priests” is far too general. I firmly believe that the vast majority of the priesthood are being unfairly treated. Not all are pedophiles. Not even most. Only a substantial proportion, one in twenty at most, probably one in fifty.

I’m always impressed at the clear efforts you put into your posts to be fair rather than reactionary. Nice work.

I had the same initial reaction to the 80% figure as you: Duh! There WERE no “altar girls” until at least the 1980’s…

But somebody else around here made an important point. They dug into the John Jay data a bit and found some mighty disturbing things. If your assumption is correct that the abusers are equal opportunity monsters, then we should see equal incidents of abuse among the younger boys (grades 4-8) than boys of grade 9-11,right? Priests actually have more access to the younger altar boys since there are far more catholic elementary school kids than catholic high school kids. More to your point, the data should show a steadily increasing incidence of girl abuse as a percentage of cases throughout the 80’s and 90’s as the number of altar girls actually surpassed the number of altar boys. Surprise! Not present in the data. As I understand it, the John Jay report data clearly shows a consistent preference in abuser priests for pubescent boys that doesn’t change much over the decades as the population of “easy target” victims changed in composition. No, it’s not universal and yes, there DO appear to be ‘textbook’ pedophiles present that abused both boys and girls, but not many.

You are entirely correct that a textbook pedophile won’t care if his victim is a boy or girl. The hard data here suggests that the typical predator priest simply isn’t a pedophile. He’s a different sort of sicko predator. One that appears to have clear preference for older boys. You can call that any name you want, but the data requires an explanation more than hand-waving. You’ve shown great capacity for research in the past. Why not actually READ the whole John Jay report numbers and tell us what you think?

I’m confident that the bishops are trying to do the right thing and avoid taking advantage of a scapegoat to blame their mistakes (and sins) upon. In some cases, such as Milwaukee’s Bishop Weakland, the bishop himself has a history of seducing at least one far younger man who was in a subordinate position, which suggests that some of the coverup itself was possibly self-preservation.

But in the end, the priest abuse is a unique situation that cannot and should not be used to demonize the larger population of those with a SSA. Even if true, there is no reasonable way to expose the homosexual inclinations of abuser priests without igniting an unreasonable popular scapegoating effect and its inevitable angry backlash against the Church. Sometimes the bishops DO get things right!

 

[Santi2]

But in the end, the priest abuse is a unique situation that cannot and should not be used to demonize the larger population of those with a SSA. Even if true, there is no reasonable way to expose the homosexual inclinations of abuser priests without igniting an unreasonable popular scapegoating effect and its inevitable angry backlash against the Church. Sometimes the bishops DO get things right!

Please be patient with me. I am really trying hard to understand what you have just said. Why would there be a scapegoating effect if an independent research find it to be the case? Should’nt the homosexual community, in the clamour for equality, accept the bad with the good? Would it also not be the case, if it were true, that it only helps the Church in respect of its teachings on chastity? How did the Bishops get it right? Please help.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

All the homosexuals out there who want to justify their lifestyle within a Christian environment need to throw out St paul for starters,but naturally enough when you do that you can pick and choose.

FALSE!!!

Try qualifying your statement and you may get to some nugget of truth, otherwise, you’re just quoting political talking points.

 

[manualman]

Glad to clarify. For this 80%+ statistics to say anything about homosexuals in general, you need to convincingly demonstrate that the abuser priests were typical examples of the homosexual population. Can you? No way! Abuser priest/seminarians, even in the worst of seminaries, had to be aware of Christian morality in the matter of adultery, homosexual sex and child abuse. The very fact that they stayed in a place that specifically denounced the behaviors they were inclined to says something right there about their character.

Either 1. they hoped and expected that Holy Orders would help tem resist their inclinations and live celibately or 2. they simply perceived the priesthood as a means to gain access to vulnerable prey or 3. Case #1 deteriorated over the years into Case #2 above. But the existence of case#2 implies that abuser priests that target boys only cannot be cited as a representative sample of homosexuals in general.

If it still isn’t clear, try this. Child sexual abuse is a form of sexual deviancy. So is homosexuality. Priest abusers seem to be largely a population that has BOTH forms of deviancy. You can’t simply jump to the conclusion that ALL homosexual populations have both inclinations. The first rule of statistics is that they don’t have any validity if the sample taken isn’t representative of the entire population. I’m not sure where you could GET a representative sample of the entire homosexual population as regards incidence of sexual abuse of minors, but I’m pretty sure we can rule out abuser priests as a representative group.

 

[unafraid]

Anyone who has lived long enough has to admit that the very nature of priests had patently changed, generation by generation, until anyone with eyes could see that there were more and more priests popping up who seemed patently effeminate.

There were whispers between the boys in the sacristy before we went out to serve mass as alter boys, “Ya think Father Gene’s a flamer?”, someone would answer, “Could be. What about Deacon Eric?” Silence, then giggles and nods. It just seemed to blow in with the new Church designs, the modern mass and all the folk music and the like. One minute you had Father Duffy shootin’ hoops with the fellas in the playground, and the next you had a priest who ,if you tossed him a ball, acted like he’d never seen such an object.

Yes, it is true, the very natures of priests visibly changed, and, seemingly, it happened overnight. The connection between this phenomenon and the abuse crisis is certainly not coincidental. A fully evolved masculine nature is the ideal in priestly candidates. This is no time to be politically correct. We must seek out the new Galileans to lead us back to solid ground.