Inside The Mind Of A Priest Abuser

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael_T
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bobby A. Greene:
Homosexuals do desire to have sex with children or else a group like NAMBLA would not exist.
Men do desire to rape women or else there would not be so many rapes.
Men do desire to beat their wives or else there would not be so many domestic-violence cases.

Of course, in each of these examples, the word**“all”** is being implied when only “some” is true. “Some” men desire to commit rape: that cannot justify us in assuming that “all” or even “most” men desire to commit rape, nor that “being male” is evidence of any desire to rape.

So with wife-batterers: “being a husband” is not proof of a desire to batter one’s wife.

So with homosexuals: “being a homosexual” is not proof of a desire to molest children.

As for NAMBLA: there are “some” husbands who do batter their wives. The majority do not.
There are “some” men who do rape women. Most of us do not, nor desire to.
And there are “some” homosexual males who are also pedophiles. That proves nothing about the majority of homosexual males.
 
YingYangMon:
Bobby A. Greene:
Homosexuals do desire to have sex with children or else a group like NAMBLA would not exist.
Not all homosexuals have such a desire.

All homosexual pedophiles do.
As do all heterosexual pedophiles.
For some reason, YingYangMom, the phrase “pearls before swine” comes to mind. Some people are filled with prejudice and hate and think that they know it all, in spite of the authentic teaching of the Church and those who have actually dealt with the issues at hand.
 
40.png
Reepicheep:
Men do desire to rape women or else there would not be so many rapes.
Men do desire to beat their wives or else there would not be so many domestic-violence cases.

Of course, in each of these examples, the word**“all”** is being implied when only “some” is true. “Some” men desire to commit rape: that cannot justify us in assuming that “all” or even “most” men desire to commit rape, nor that “being male” is evidence of any desire to rape.

So with wife-batterers: “being a husband” is not proof of a desire to batter one’s wife.

So with homosexuals: “being a homosexual” is not proof of a desire to molest children.

As for NAMBLA: there are “some” husbands who do batter their wives. The majority do not.
There are “some” men who do rape women. Most of us do not, nor desire to.
And there are “some” homosexual males who are also pedophiles. That proves nothing about the majority of homosexual males.
A most excellent explanation from a most honorable and noble mouse!

Pedophilia is NOT necessarily homosexual in nature.
Pederasty generally IS associated with homosexuality.
Both types of sexually deviant priest have been a part of the recent scandals.
The media have chosen not to differentiate and to label it all as pedophilia. Most disgraceful and the cause of much confusion.
 
Well, here’s what some people can’t seem to understand:

Homosexuality is a form of sexual perversion.
Pederasty is a more extreme form of sexual perversion that includes the sin of scandal.
Pedophilia is an even more extreme form of sexual perversion that includes the sin of scandal.
Bestiality is yet an even more extreme form of sexual perversion.

Some people think that all forms of perversion are exactly the same, so they simple-mindedly say that bestiality=homosexuality. They are not the same nor are they even on the same level or spectrum. As an aside, this is the kind of mindset that would call fornication or adultery an “illicit moral act.” :rolleyes:

To be absolutely crystal clear, homosexuality in males is an eroticization of a gender-identity deficit. In other words, a man who did not properly attain his gender identity will seek it out in sexual partners who are MEN. It’s a reparative search is for MANLY traits, not childish traits. Some post-pubescent teens have some of these traits nearly exclusively so pederasty may be on the homosexuality spectrum. In any case, it’s a perversion of a normal and natural inclination for males to bond with one another through non-sexual means.

pedophilia and bestiality are just sick and I can only think that there must be some sort of demonic involvement there.

Granted, in many cases, there may be some demonic involvement in homosexuality, but the source is usually issues relative to gender identity deficits.

But, then again, some people just want to put everything in a label and put it to the side. I wonder what some people would think if someone posted, “all Irishmen are drunks.”
 
40.png
iserve:
Cardinal Mahoney is a problem- this has been evident from way back when he got into a huge battle with Mother Angelica when she called his bluff. His actions don’t surprise me.
Okay - I NEED details. This sounds good. 🙂
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
Some post-pubescent teens have some of these traits nearly exclusively so pederasty may be on the homosexuality spectrum.
I agree with most of your post, but this one needs fleshing out. If it doesn’t arise out of a specifically homosexual attraction, why wouldn’t such a criminal be equally interested in the bodies of barely pubescent girls? There would seem to be little physical difference given the physical intention of the pederast.

Given what I’ve learned so far, it seems like a dodge to say pederasts are not always a subset of homosexuals. (Which, of course, does NOT imply that all homosexuals are inclined towards pederasty)
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
Well, here’s what some people can’t seem to understand:

Homosexuality is a form of sexual perversion.
Pederasty is a more extreme form of sexual perversion that includes the sin of scandal.
Pedophilia is an even more extreme form of sexual perversion that includes the sin of scandal.
Bestiality is yet an even more extreme form of sexual perversion.
To take a quote from another thread which I am in total agreement:

"The pedophile and the pedorast are both horns on the same homosexual devil."
 
It sounds like the rhetoric agaisnt homosexuals has reached the norm for just about every other sort of discrimination.
It is so easy to generalize and characterize a whole group of folks with the misdeeds of a few.

I am not a homosexual but I am a member of another minority. Discrimination is blatantly wrong whether it is used against a minority racial group, a faith (such as Catholics) or a sexual orientation such as gays. We are told to hate the sin and not the sinner, that is a hugely difficult thing to separate. But we must try or we will be judged just as harshly for our sins.

We must treat gays with charity and Christ-like kindness. That is God’s command to us. To do anything less is not to be a Christian.

When we assign stereotypes to a group of individuals we do them a huge disservice, and we foster an atmosphere of hatred. I do not agree with the gay lifestyle, I believe the Church’s teachings on this is correct. However I think gays have a much harder road to travel than most other folks. The Church is asking them to refrain from sexual activity and to live a life of celibracy.

That is a very difficult thing to do. I can’t imagine being married to my wife and being told we could not be intimate with each other. I would think it would be nearly impossible. I do not understand gays as I find homosexual attraction to be quite repulsive. However I suppose gays say similar things about heterosexual attraction.

Christ’s Peace.

I’ve heard it said that folks in Boston are the most bigotted folks in the country. IF I were to believe that, I would judge all Bostonians alike. I do not. I don’t think that is true, there may be some discrimination in Boston, maybe even a lot, but I believe there are many good folks there as well and I hope it is many many more good folks than bad.
 
BTW what did the cardinal do or not do that reflects poorly on the Church ??
 
Bobby A. Greene:
To take a quote from another thread which I am in total agreement:

"The pedophile and the pedorast are both horns on the same homosexual devil."
:mad: So, you’re saying that all homosexually attracted people are devils?

Amazing.

[sarcasm] :rolleyes:
Here’s a prayer for you Mr. Greene:

Stand in the middle of church (make sure you stand to signify your perfect state)
Look up at the tabernacle and with a sweeping gesture say:

“God, I thank you that I’m better than other men. Thank you for making me practically perfect in every way. I thank you that I was able to identify with my own gender and didn’t turn out to be like those homasexial devils who will all burn in hell because You hate them just like I do. I hope to one day watch and applaud as every single person who has ever had a single homasexial thought is tossed into the lake of fire. I know that there is no hope for the reprobate homasexial devils and that You created them as kindling for the flames of hell. Thank you for making me so much better than those terrible sinners who actively chose to be fodder for the demons and that I am not like them.”[/sarcasm] :rolleyes:
 
40.png
manualman:
I agree with most of your post, but this one needs fleshing out. If it doesn’t arise out of a specifically homosexual attraction, why wouldn’t such a criminal be equally interested in the bodies of barely pubescent girls? There would seem to be little physical difference given the physical intention of the pederast.

Given what I’ve learned so far, it seems like a dodge to say pederasts are not always a subset of homosexuals. (Which, of course, does NOT imply that all homosexuals are inclined towards pederasty)
You’re correct, generally speaking, but most homosexually attracted men are looking for the masculine in another MAN, not the child.
 
Bobby A. Greene:
To take a quote from another thread which I am in total agreement:

"The pedophile and the pedorast are both horns on the same homosexual devil."
You above post comes across as outrageous and rude and uncharitable. Can you please explain how this rhetoric is conducive toward constructive dialogue? It comes across as inflammatory, would you not agree that this is your intention? If your intent was meant otherwise, then you need to explain, rephrase and apologize. :tsktsk:
 
Bobby A. Greene:
That is a tautology. Pedophilia is a manifestation of homosexuality, i.e. homosexuality = pedophilia! They are not two seperate dysfunctional behaviours.
Can you give information to back up your claims? A great deal of research, and the personal experience of some on this board (and elsewhere, of course) suggest otherwise.
 
Bobby A. Greene:
That is a tautology. Pedophilia is a manifestation of homosexuality, i.e. homosexuality = pedophilia! They are not two seperate dysfunctional behaviours.
Are you a professional psychologist or psychiatrist? How do you explain the numerous cases of heterosexual-only pedophiles?
 
The Priesthood: A Closer Look
Select Stories from Across the Nation




A Glimpse at the Mind of a Pedophile
A former priest who served under Mahony in the Stockton Diocese describes his ploys.

By Jean Guccione - LA Times Staff Writer
May 11, 2005


In a chillingly frank account, a former Roman Catholic priest, promoted 20 years ago by Roger M. Mahony, recently described his decades-long career as a pedophile, including his sexual tastes and how he groomed his young victims for abuse.

In a 15-hour videotaped deposition in March, Oliver O’Grady described how his heart raced when one of the slim, playful boys he preferred toweled off after a swim. He also said he liked to lift little girls’ skirts and peek at their underpants.

Asked to demonstrate how he would lure one of his estimated 25 victims into his arms, the 59-year-old Irish native softened his voice, flashed an avuncular smile and looked directly into the video camera.

“Hi, Sally,” O’Grady improvised. “How are you doing? Come here. I want to give you a hug. You are a sweetheart. You know that. You are very special to me. I like you a lot.”

If his hug met no resistance, O’Grady testified, he would take the child’s compliance as “permission” to molest.

The deposition came in connection with lawsuits filed against the Stockton Diocese over alleged abuse by clergy. Mahony, who was bishop of Stockton from 1980 to 1985 before heading the Los Angeles Archdiocese, inherited O’Grady, who had admitted years earlier to molesting an 11-year-old girl. In 1984, police investigated a therapist’s report that O’Grady had molested a boy.

After police declined to file charges, Mahony transferred O’Grady to a rural parish and later promoted him to pastor there, where he allegedly molested three more victims, including a baby girl who suffered vaginal scarring, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers. Mahony has said he was unaware of any molestation reports. The additional victims were molested after he left the diocese.

“The cardinal acted on the information he had, just as the police investigator did,” church attorney Don Woods said.

Costa Mesa-based plaintiffs’ attorney John C. Manly conducted the deposition in Ireland. The now-defrocked priest, an Irish citizen and native of Limerick, was deported from the U.S. in 2001, after serving seven years in California state prison for sexually abusing two brothers. He lives in Thurles, Ireland.

A transcript of the deposition was filed Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, where the Stockton Diocese is defending four lawsuits alleging that the church failed to protect parishioners from abuse. Manly filed the transcript in opposing a church motion to dismiss one of the suits.

O’Grady, on the video, asked why church officials did not remove him from ministry after he committed the molestations.

"I think it probably would have been best if, back in 1984, they said, ‘Look, we need to put a halt to this. We need to take you out,’ " O’Grady told lawyers during the questioning. “But even the 1984 situation, as I understand it, was handled as best it could have been handled at the time.”

Woods said Tuesday that O’Grady "was not trying to say what should have been done. He’s saying I wish it could have been done differently.

“It’s a lament from hindsight,” he said.

An attorney for the Stockton Diocese, Paul Balestracci, declined to comment, noting the open lawsuits over O’Grady’s misconduct.

O’Grady’s deposition offers a far-reaching, and often disturbing, glimpse into the mind of a convicted pedophile. Still, there were times during the marathon question-and-answer session when he was less than candid.

He refused to name any of his 25 victims, invoking his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. He at first denied molesting one little girl, then the next day admitted that he had lied and that he had abused her. He said his abuse ended in the mid-1980s, but in his criminal case he had pleaded guilty to molestations as late as 1991.

continue reading:

snapnetwork.org/priest_stories/glimpse_mind_pedophile.htm
 
40.png
manualman:
A most excellent explanation from a most honorable and noble mouse!

Pedophilia is NOT necessarily homosexual in nature.
Pederasty generally IS associated with homosexuality.
Both types of sexually deviant priest have been a part of the recent scandals.
The media have chosen not to differentiate and to label it all as pedophilia. Most disgraceful and the cause of much confusion.
Again, the pedophile and the pedorast are both horns on the same homosexual devil!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top