Looking for the stats on “homosexuality & pedophilia”

[ImQuiet]

ou’re referring to) classified the abusers as pedophiles, hebepophiles, and ephebophiles, the first of these being classified as a psychiatric disorder and the

This is certainly the argument put forward by the homosexual lobby. It is wholly unconvincing, and completely at odds with the facts and with history and with what goes on around the world.

How so? I just described how predetory priests were found to suffer from one or some combination of pedophilia, hebeophilia, and/or ephebophilia. I’m citing these from the John Jay report, which to my knowledge is the definitive authority on the subject.

although the sexual abuse of children in the Church was homosexual in action, this was due to the disorder or behavioral issue

Homosexuals committed abuse. On teenagers. Very, very few abused children. It is inexcusable. It means we must prevent homosexuals from entering the clergyy

Pedophile, Hebophiles, and Ephebophiles committed abuse on children and adolescents. Were some of them gay? Yes. Were some of them straight? Yes. I agree, it is inexcusable. The Church needs to be better about letting these people into the clergy.

-snip-

Could you cite something more reliable than WND for this? Aside from that, Baldwin’s report cites sources that are in reference to pedophilia and the paraphilia I’ve been talking about. Pedophilia is a disorder, and not indicative of an individual’s sexual orientation.

I’m not saying that the LGBTQ+ community is without it’s problems. (Like it’s not-insignificant support for Desmond is Amazing, for example.) Pedophilia isn’t one of them, and they’ve been very vocal about rejecting movements such as NAMBALA among others.

 

[ImQuiet]

Fully expecting this to be removed/catch a ban, worth it. Accurate meme is accurate. Homosexuals target children.

This is actually homophobia. I have friends who are LGBTQ. They’re perfectly normal people, and you’re spitting in their face by posting talking points from 4chan.
Hope that ban is worth it.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion_IRC:

majority of clergy abuse victims were male

Yep. Access is a factor, whether you like it or not.

I don’t like it one bit

Pedophiles deliberately seek out environments where they have trusted access to the victims they seek to groom.

The Church is exactly the sort of place they would seek to infiltrate - masquerading as clergy.

 

[EarthenVessel]

Are you referring to the Ruth Institute report?

http://www.ruthinstitute.org/press/...tation-in-catholic-clerical-sex-abuse-scandal

 

[Rau]

However, we do not try to correlate sexual violence against women and girls with heterosexuality.

Well yes, but efforts are never made to correlate the obviously linked. The vast majority of people are primarily heterosexual. The majority of men are physically stronger than women. There is an absence of sexual attacks by homosexual men against women. Is a study needed to uncover the relevant factors here?

In the case of clerical abuse, boys and girls are not equally available to the abusers, so the prevalence of boys among victims requires investigation to understand the real driver. Is it purely opportunistic or is a same sex victim preferred by the abuser.

The real problem was that the priesthood and the religious life attracted a large number of men for whom it provided opportunities to abuse children and vulnerable people of both sexes. Bishops and religious superiors failed to understand the nature and impact of their crimes and prioritized institutional self-interest over the interests of victims.

Agreed.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion_IRC:

-snip-

Could you cite something more reliable than WND for this

Um…just to be clear, WND isn’t the researcher, it is reporting (citing) the research. And um…one more thing, impugning the reputation/honesty of researcher is not an intellectual response to the data that source is presenting. By all means, challenge the data with competing research findings - but please don’t make unsubstantiated (ad hominem) slurs like that.

And I notice you seem to have skipped my reference to the (secular) data from the Royal Commission in Aust. Do you think they can be relied upon.

 

[Neithan]

This is actually homophobia.

There is a subset of people among the “LGBTQ” who do target children and it is nefarious. It’s not “homophobia” to point that out; however, I don’t know what @JamesV.Cameron’s motives are and it’s definitely wrong to generalize about people. Nuances are important and many devout and faithful Catholics (some I know personally) deserve better than that.

 

[Neithan]

It’s an issue in society, generally. Given the abuse crisis this is hypocritical: someone could make a meme (and many have) generalizing this way about the clergy.

 

[Neithan]

It just doesn’t help to confuse and obscure the problem.

The church has already directed that men with a sexual disorientation should not be ordained. I’m curious how closely seminaries have followed it.

 

[Rau]

It’s the disorder, not the orientation.

The psychologists take the position that homosexuality is an “orientation” but not a “disorder”. The basis for this distinction is one based on certain practical considerations - certainly not any kind of in-depth understanding of the cause. If I recall, the factors that led to homosexuality not being regarded as a “disorder” are things like:

• the condition does not pose a threat to anybody;
• the condition is often not a source of distress to the individual;
• the condition does not prevent the individual functioning in society.
• most homosexuals do not desire treatment (and of course, there is no accepted treatment!)

So while it is hard to conclude that homosexuality is not the consequence of some departure from a norm, it is easy to understand why it is classified as “not a disorder”.

 

[Rau]

I certainly don’t think every homosexual wants to groom or rape children. But it’s a big enough issue in the LGBT community that I think the meme is highlighting it for a reason.

It would be a mistake to conclude that the existence of a meme is evidence of its enduring truth!

 

[Freddy]

I shall wear it as a badge of honor.

You are an embarrassment to the Catholic faith. A shameful post.

 

[Michaelangelo]

A homosexual who doesn’t molest kids but engages in homosexual sex act is still sexual deviant who partakes in unnatural and immoral behavior.

How can something occurring in nature be unnatural?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Just because something occurs in nature doesn’t mean it’s in accordance with natural law.

“Natural law” is a philosophical invention which the rest of the universe had no part in.

By design, sexual organs are designed for reproduction as a primary function. Disorders lead to misuse.

Misuse according to whom?

 

[StudentMI]

I have same sex attraction. I can detect a bit of homophobia (an oft abused term by the left but still a real thing, which is why the Catechism cas for acceptance) in this thread.

However, I will say this. From my time in the gay scene, there was a disturbing mixing on occasion of rhetoric that seemed to imply pedophiliac actions or feelings, or ebephiliac. It was odd and I don’t care to go into specifics, and I never witnessed or heard of anyone acting out on those feelings but the way things were said was weird among some gay men I knew. Even my ex partner noticed it and found it disturbing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You could say then that heterosexual men are prone to pedophilia of little girls if you add girls to the equation .

I think you could also safely say that few heterosexual men will want to have sex with teenage boys under any circumstances whatever, access or no access.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Natural law is the order to which God set the universe.

That has not been proven in any of the natural sciences. It is a concept in philosophy.

Misuse according to God and the Church He founded.

Which has zero bearing on the society or the world as a whole which even the church recognizes.

 

[Freddy]

Oh dear. Freddy, please forgive me

It’s not me you should be asking to forgive you.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Yet would seem to be relevant on a catholic forum. I don’t care if you don’t recognize moral truths. That’s not my problem.

It is indeed relevant if you argue that something is unnatural even if it occurrs in nature among animals who can’t sin. Then you are applying moral philosophy on beings it was never intended for.

 

[Michaelangelo]

I’m not implying animals can sin. But they can suffer from unnatural impulses the same as humans can. They just don’t suffer eternal consequences for their decisions.

As far as we know they can’t do anything that is not part of their nature. What you are doing is applying the moral doctrine you adhear to on beings without moral.