Gay cover-up must end

[JimG]

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.

But in fact some seminaries were ruled by what was known then as a lavender mafia. Those behaviors were not denounced, but tolerated. Reform had to begin with the seminaries.

 

[Soutane]

Please do not allow others Catholic or not,media or not to perpetuate the DELIBERATE media myth that the problem is pedophilia which it is not.Pedophilia is primarily a heterosexual affliction with the victims USUALLY being of the opposite sex.Hebephilia(Canadian) or Ephebophilia(American) is a homosexual affliction wherein the object of desire are young men and pubescent boys which is PRECISELY the problem that the Church faces today.80% of the victims fall within that category.Ever wonder why the Church is pilloried by homosexuals for it’s condemnation of so-called same sex marriage but nary a word is said about THE SCANDAL because they understand EXACTLY what is going on.Why is the media repeating the lie of pedophilia when the problem is primarily predatory homosexual “chickenhawk” behaviour,a derisive term that ORIGINATED in the homosexual culture.
Could it be that homosexuals are the new Sacred Cows of the PC media?THINK about it.It’ll eventually come out in the wash then we’ll be labeled pedophiliac homophobes.

I’m willing to be crucified or martyred emotionally or physically for the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the horrible sins of some of its members but I’m not willing to suffer and die for a lie,without insisting that the TRUTH be spoken.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

the latin church is by far the most corrupt church in catholicism. i go to a byzantine rite parish who’s heirarchy are very devoted to our Blessed Mother and obedient to pope. no surprise that they haven’t had the sex abuse scandals that the roman rite has. for they have maintained the orthodox faith and right worship. no vatican ii novelties in the liturgy, no female altar girls…

i won’t subject my family to the effeminate post vatican ii church.

 

[CradleCath]

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.

This is just nonsense. We are not trying to say anything about homosexuals IN GENERAL. The Catholic Church is speaking about the pederasty crisis within the priesthood.

The Boy Scouts of America’s1991 Position Statement states: “We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.”

The rest of the world can decide for themselves whether the gay population is over-represented in child sexual abuse. Hopefully, young boys will benefit from this horrible experience in our Church. I know for a fact that Little League coaches, YMCA leaders & other organizations are watching us to see if we have the courage to be called homophobic.

I believe that the CCC. of the Church deals with the subject of homosexuality & pederasty perfectly:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. **Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. **
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. **They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. **These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 

[Soutane]

the latin church is by far the most corrupt church in catholicism. i go to a byzantine rite parish who’s heirarchy are very devoted to our Blessed Mother and obedient to pope. no surprise that they haven’t had the sex abuse scandals that the roman rite has. for they have maintained the orthodox faith and right worship. no vatican ii novelties in the liturgy, no female altar girls…

i won’t subject my family to the effeminate post vatican ii church.

The Latin Church may have the highest numbers of hebephiliacs within Catholicism as it is the branch with the largest number of adherents but to call it “corrupt” goes beyond the pale and you owe every Roman Catholic an apology.As far as I know the Byzantines are still part of the Catholic church so your smugness is both unwarranted and unbecoming.If you belong to the Catholic Church vatican 2 has most definitely affected the Byzantines,the maronites etc.To suggest otherwise is to reveal your own ignorance.If you think the Roman or Latin rite is effeminate that’s just another form of name calling.You are part of the universal Church and like it or not our problems are your problems.Our priest does not allow female altar servers so be careful with your sweeping brush of condemnation.If you are saying that your church rejects Vatican 2 you are in schism and most definitely NOT obedient to the Pope.Please reconsider your rather inaccurate and ill-conceived post.

 

[Soutane]

The Latin Church may have the highest numbers of hebephiliacs within Catholicism as it is the branch with the largest number of adherents but to call it “corrupt” goes beyond the pale and you owe every Roman Catholic an apology.As far as I know the Byzantines are still part of the Catholic church so your smugness is both unwarranted and unbecoming.If you belong to the Catholic Church vatican 2 has most definitely affected the Byzantines,the maronites etc.To suggest otherwise is to reveal your own ignorance.If you think the Roman or Latin rite is effeminate that’s just another form of name calling.You are part of the universal Church and like it or not our problems are your problems.Our priest does not allow female altar servers so be careful with your sweeping brush of condemnation.If you are saying that your church rejects Vatican 2 you are in schism and most definitely NOT obedient to the Pope.Please reconsider your rather inaccurate and ill-conceived post.

Catholic priest who was defrocked amid allegations he molested a boy in one diocese was hired by another, where he socialized with teens and young men studying to be priests, The Post has learned.

Despite warnings from the Bridgeport, Conn., Roman Catholic Diocese, Albert McGoldrick was given a job as an assistant to the bishop of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy, a diocese headquartered in Stamford, Conn., but which also has churches in New York.

“There’s no reason why this guy should be back working with boys,” said private investigator Vito Colucci, who would not disclose his client. “People are furious . . . These are boys, 17, 18, 19, 20 years old from the Ukraine - naive boys who are looking to get into the priesthood.”

Colucci said he confronted McGoldrick, 58, in December about young men at St. Basil College in Stamford visiting his seminary-owned house, and asked, “Can you see why my clients are upset with this?”

"He said, ‘No,’ " Colucci recalled.

McGoldrick resigned as a priest in the Bridgeport Diocese in 2002 after a man claimed to have been molested by him in 1979, when he was 15. McGoldrick was then defrocked by the diocese.

In 2003, the unidentified accuser and 39 others accepted a $21 million settlement from the diocese to end lawsuits alleging molestation by dozens of priests, including McGoldrick.

McGoldrick was hired by the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Stamford, which swears allegiance to Pope Benedict, who during his visit here last week blasted pedophile priests.

The Bridgeport Diocese “kept the Ukrainian eparchy fully informed of Mr. McGoldrick’s situation and status,” said Bridgeport Diocese spokesman Joseph McAleer. “The diocese, moreover, has consistently and strenuously objected to his employment by the eparchy.”

Several months ago - after Colucci began making inquiries - McGoldrick stopped working for the Ukrainian bishop.

But Colucci said McGoldrick - who could not be reached for comment - was seen recently at his seminary-owned house across the street from St. Basil.

dan.mangan@nypost.com

Read more: nypost.com/p/news/regional/item_UNDhsvY5frHHqYi1iRLzJP;jsessionid=CC0135A3ECD7A49690F2023CB3A80978#ixzz0kxRiCBlW

 

[Santi2]

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.

Thank you very much.

I do not agree, however, that any independent research that looks into the sexual orientation of the offending priests would have the homosexual community in general within the remit of its study. The Church, afterall, cannot control and be responsible for those who are not within its domain. The research would simply be exclusive to the offending priests. As CradleCath said: “The rest of the world can decide for themselves whether the gay population is over-represented in child sexual abuse” in the Catholic Church. Then, presenting Cases 1, 2 & 3 surely will not hurt the Church anymore than it is hurting now. And, as I have commented earlier, in the clamour for equality, the homosexual community will have to accept the bad as well as the good.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

And, as I have commented earlier, in the clamour for equality, the homosexual community will have to accept the bad as well as the good.

True. Let us assume that 80% of the priests who raped children are homosexual.
But 100% were Catholic. Therefore, rather than merely blaming homosexuality, one should blame Catholicism for being intrinsically paedophillic.

Such logic is obviously ridiculous. So why is the Church using this as an excuse to attack homosexuality, when by the same logic, Catholicism itself is a worse problem?

For what it’s worth… and to state the obvious… neither Catholicism nor Homosexuality is the cause. The problem is the institutional covering-up of paedophilia in the Church. That’s not an integral, inseparable part of the Church though, no matter how traditional it is.

 

[Santi2]

Such logic is obviously ridiculous. So why is the Church using this as an excuse to attack homosexuality, when by the same logic, Catholicism itself is a worse problem?

As far as I can see, the problem has not been addressed and it would follow that the Church does not have anything to employ as an excuse to “attack” with.

In what way is Catholicism the problem? We are taught that:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition

.
If there was any problem at all, I am inclined to give regard to Manualman’s submission in respect of those who had "hoped and expected that Holy Orders would help them resist their inclinations and live celibately ". Celibacy, as being crucial to our Church’s teaching on chastity, can be achieved outside of Holy Orders. And that, I reckon is where the problem began. The Church has failed, in the case of the offending priests, with the screening processes for the priesthood. And, I am also inclined to believe that in some way where Catechism teaches in light of “respect, compassion and sensitivity”, the Church has also been taken advantage of.

 

[Santi2]

The problem is the institutional covering-up of paedophilia in the Church.

I may be one of the very few who would view it differently and apply the “but for” principle.

 

[unafraid]

True. Let us assume that 80% of the priests who raped children are homosexual.
But 100% were Catholic. Therefore, rather than merely blaming homosexuality, one should blame Catholicism for being intrinsically paedophillic.

Such logic is obviously ridiculous. So why is the Church using this as an excuse to attack homosexuality, when by the same logic, Catholicism itself is a worse problem?

For what it’s worth… and to state the obvious… neither Catholicism nor Homosexuality is the cause. The problem is the institutional covering-up of paedophilia in the Church. That’s not an integral, inseparable part of the Church though, no matter how traditional it is.

If this is a serious post, any response to it directly would be deemed uncharitable, so I’ll just speak in generalities. Here is the definition of the word “convolution”: A twisting, coiling, or winding together.

As an aside, my friend and I have begun a challenge. We each must compose as many sentences as we can, using the term,“pedophilia”, in and out of context. This endeavor, it turns out, is much easier than anticipated as it seems it only takes a willingness to use the term repeatedly. Therefore, we are both still writing and no one has yet won the challenge. It appears that there are myriad permutations to draw from. Imagine that.

 

[manualman]

True. Let us assume that 80% of the priests who raped children are homosexual.
But 100% were Catholic. Therefore, rather than merely blaming homosexuality, one should blame Catholicism for being intrinsically paedophillic.

Such logic is obviously ridiculous. So why is the Church using this as an excuse to attack homosexuality, when by the same logic, Catholicism itself is a worse problem?

For what it’s worth… and to state the obvious… neither Catholicism nor Homosexuality is the cause. The problem is the institutional covering-up of paedophilia in the Church. That’s not an integral, inseparable part of the Church though, no matter how traditional it is.

Zoe, you realize, of course, that CAF posters don’t speak for the Church! The Church, as I noted earlier, has been quite careful NOT to “use this as an excuse to attack homosexuality.” This entire thread consists of people complaining about how the Church isn’t pointing the finger at homosexuality as the “cause” of the abuse crisis.

The “problem” isn’t the institutional coverup either. The root problem is that there are far more human beings on the planet than we’d like to admit who are willing to exploit children for their own sexual gratification. THAT is the root problem. The coverup certainly made it worse, but the abusers are the problem. Why do they abuse? You make the same point I’ve been trying to make: the fact that priest abusers tended towards homosexual preference is not evidence that homosexuals elsewhere are more likely to be child sex abusers! The priest abusers had TWO unrelated sexual deviancies: homosexuality AND underage sexual abusive tendencies.

I do not dispute the assertions of some that there has, at times and places, been a “lavender mafia” in the priesthood. I think that is a problem in its own right that needs addressing and the Vatican is attempting to correct it.

My major concern with this entire thread is that it could become a “this is all the fault of the gays” type scapegoating session. There is a good reason the bishops haven’t stooped to that level.

 

[markeverett49]

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

He wouldn’t have liked it, I’m sure, though this just puts the question one step back: how did so many homosexuals become ordained in the Roman Cathlic Church? If that is a failure, then the Church has more failures on its hands than that of some predator priests and their enablers.

 

[JimG]

Zoe, you realize, of course, that CAF posters don’t speak for the Church! The Church, as I noted earlier, has been quite careful NOT to “use this as an excuse to attack homosexuality.” This entire thread consists of people complaining about how the Church isn’t pointing the finger at homosexuality as the “cause” of the abuse crisis.

The “problem” isn’t the institutional coverup either. The root problem is that there are far more human beings on the planet than we’d like to admit who are willing to exploit children for their own sexual gratification. THAT is the root problem. The coverup certainly made it worse, but the abusers are the problem. Why do they abuse? You make the same point I’ve been trying to make: the fact that priest abusers tended towards homosexual preference is not evidence that homosexuals elsewhere are more likely to be child sex abusers! The priest abusers had TWO unrelated sexual deviancies: homosexuality AND underage sexual abusive tendencies.

I do not dispute the assertions of some that there has, at times and places, been a “lavender mafia” in the priesthood. I think that is a problem in its own right that needs addressing and the Vatican is attempting to correct it.

My major concern with this entire thread is that it could become a “this is all the fault of the gays” type scapegoating session. There is a good reason the bishops haven’t stooped to that level.

But simply recognizing the roots of the problem in order to properly deal with it, does not constitute a scapegoating session. Most gays are not Catholic priests, and most Catholic priests are not gays. But the child molestation crisis seems to be at base a pederasty crisis.

In the past, many seminaries simply did not ask candidates about their sexual histories or inclinations because it was thought that to deny ordination on such a basis would constitute a denial of civil rights. At the same time, men who expressed orthodox Catholic belief as to sexual morality were often deemed “too rigid” to be seminarians or priests. The result was foreseeable.

See Chapter 4 of Goodbye Good Men.

 

[seekerz]

But simply recognizing the roots of the problem in order to properly deal with it, does not constitute a scapegoating session. Most gays are not Catholic priests, and most Catholic priests are not gays. But the child molestation crisis seems to be at base a pederasty crisis.

In the past, many seminaries simply did not ask candidates about their sexual histories or inclinations because it was thought that to deny ordination on such a basis would constitute a denial of civil rights. At the same time, men who expressed orthodox Catholic belief as to sexual morality were often deemed “too rigid” to be seminarians or priests. The result was foreseeable.

See Chapter 4 of Goodbye Good Men.

So enlighten us on the real “roots” of the problem? Did it perchance begin (or even peak) with the much vaunted John Jay study? When was the earliest this problem (whatever kind of -philia you perceive it to be) identified in the Church and what was its prevalence if indeed there are statistics?

 

[JimG]

So enlighten us on the real “roots” of the problem? Did it perchance begin (or even peak) with the much vaunted John Jay study? When was the earliest this problem (whatever kind of -philia you perceive it to be) identified in the Church and what was its prevalence if indeed there are statistics?

The John Jay Study is a statistical analysis of the nature and scope of the abuse of minors in the Catholic Church. It was written long after the peak of the problem. It does contain statistics about the peak years of abuse, and the extent to which it occurred in particular years and with respect to particular ordination classes.

But the situation in particular seminaries during those years is recounted in Michael Rose’s book, Goodbye Good Men, which can be found online, as can the John Jay study. Both are worth reading.

 

[unafraid]

I will repeat this:

Being a homosexual is NOT a sin. How can something you are born with be a sin. The only argument that makes sense is to say that homosexual acts are sinful- i.e. acting on your homosexual nature (even though I disagree with this). So there is no reason to throw homosexuals out of the Church.

The idea that it is the homosexuals who are the basis of the rape and molestation of children is completely absurd. Homosexuals are no more likely to be sexual criminals than are heterosexuals.

No, of course not. It was just a bunch of sexually ambiguous priests, compelled by an encompassing sexual desire, for nothing in particular, acting out on anything they could get their hands on. It is just coincidence that the victims were predominantly young males. I assume these sexually ambiguous priests were allowed to have pets? Why then are we discussing pederasty rather than bestiality? Afterall, you submit that no specific object for their desire can be identified. Why not the dog, or the cat?

No, you are right, it is absurd to implicate homosexuality within the clergy as being central to the abuse crisis. These were just a bunch of guys compelled by unmitigated and unbridled sexual drives finding release wherever they could. Anything with a pulse would suffice. Rubbish!! All desire has a specific object. It is a plain fact of nature.

 

[Catherine_S]

This* is*** an older article** but** it still helps to form a larger picture of the** why** behind this hellish **abuse **of **children **!!
.
Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican

GENEVA, September 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in the US and abroad was a matter of homosexuals preying on adolescent boys, not one of pedophilia, said the Vatican’s representative at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland. It is “more correct,” said Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males, than pedophilia, in relation to the scandals.

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17," said Tomasi. His statement is backed up by a report commissioned by the US bishops that found that in the overwhelming majority of cases the clergy involved were homosexuals, with 81 percent of victims being adolescent males.
Tomasi also responded to criticisms, saying that while the Catholic Church has been “busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it.” According to information from various sources, the problem of sexual abuse of minors in religious organizations is widespread among Protestant churches and Jewish communities.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

If you belong to the Catholic Church vatican 2 has most definitely affected the Byzantines,the maronites etc.To suggest otherwise is to reveal your own ignorance.If you think the Roman or Latin rite is effeminate that’s just another form of name calling.You are part of the universal Church and like it or not our problems are your problems.

the roman rite parishes that i’ve been to are dominated by women, have touchy feelie music with piano or guitar, no latin, no incense, altar girls, swarms of lay eucharistic ministers, lame touchy feel good homilies… etc. it’s pathetic. no wonder men are driven away. if these novelities are part of vatican ii, i do reject it.

the pope celebrates the liturgy in latin with gregorian chant and distributes communion on the tounge kneeling yet most u.s. bishops could care less. the eastern rite churches are much more loyal to the pope.

show me the evidence that the byzantine rite–or sspx/fssp–has the sexual abuse scandals that the post vatican ii feel good church has had.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

This* is*** an older article** but** it still helps to form a larger picture of the** why** behind this hellish **abuse **of **children **!!
.
Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican

GENEVA, September 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in the US and abroad was a matter of homosexuals preying on adolescent boys, not one of pedophilia, said the Vatican’s representative at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland. It is “more correct,” said Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males, than pedophilia, in relation to the scandals.

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17," said Tomasi. His statement is backed up by a report commissioned by the US bishops that found that in the overwhelming majority of cases the clergy involved were homosexuals, with 81 percent of victims being adolescent males.
Tomasi also responded to criticisms, saying that while the Catholic Church has been “busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it.” According to information from various sources, the problem of sexual abuse of minors in religious organizations is widespread among Protestant churches and Jewish communities.

Okay. So, the men involved in this scandal were predominantly active homosexual persons. Now, I’m curious about something because it’s always emphasized with such enthusiasm (homosexual problem, not paedophilia problem).

Is this emphasis that the scandal is a homosexual problem vs. paedophilia problem intended for accuracy (with the appropriate qualifiers, i.e., not all homosexual persons are involved or support such behavior and that some condemn this behavior (as I do)) or an attempt to demonize all homosexual persons?