Pedophile Priests Pedophilia Crisis And The Rest of the Story

[rlg94086]

**The second part of your statement contradicts the first. **

No - not at all. Read carefully. There is a difference between the “priesthood” and the “general population.” If you don’t understand the difference, I can’t help you.

manualman:

It is far too easy to jump to conclusions based on the facts here, and I have certainly seen far too many people assert that somebody who is gay is far more likely to sexually abuse a child.

And they would be wrong in the case of the general population. However, the data from the priest abuse cases would certainly point to a problem with ‘gay’ priests.

manualman:

THAT is what I meant by it being a lie that the catholic church had a ‘gay priest’ problem. The PROBLEM is that we had a sexual abuser priest problem. Many of them may have been gay. Many may have been equal opportunity abusers who simply had FAR more access to boys than girls. I don’t know, and statistics can’t tell the difference.

That is a ridiculous assumption on your part with no evidence to back it up.

manualman:

What I DO know is that abusers come in all flavors and the church is (finally) right to recommend that we guard against them all without bias in the training programs. Focusing only on gay abusers would be merely reactionary instead of forward looking.

Yes. As someone else already pointed out, the training programs ignore the statistics. I’m glad, however, that they instituted the training. I’m also glad that the Church recognized the problem with homosexually-oriented priests and put out guidelines for discernment. The fact that they did this supports the fact that the Church sees it as a ‘gay’ problem, even if you don’t.

 

[manualman]

That is a ridiculous assumption on your part with no evidence to back it up.

You can’t seriously be challenging me for evidence that priests historically have had VASTLY more opportunity to abuse boys than girls. READ some of the accounts of abuse. Some of these abusers took boys camping, to water parks, to out of town events that required hotel stays. Even in the 1950’s and 60’s parents would have quickly picked up on a priest wanting to do such things with their DAUGHTERS! But it was commonplace with boys. As an altar boy myself growing up I ran errands, went to Cubs games and got other face time with priests that the girls NEVER got. And that was in the more liberal 70’s and 80’s. Think about it more instead of merely labeling it ridiculous. Must I bring evidence to prove grass is green too?

I read those seminary guidelines when they came out and agree with them. Strange that I can’t recall them saying “gays can’t be priests since gays are more likely to sexually abuse children.” Can YOU provide some evidence of that motivation??

What I DO recall was the recognition something to the effect that someone with a persistant SSA AND a sincere desire to live chastely for Christ would find it nearly impossible to determine the difference between a genuine call to the priesthood versus a decision to go to the priesthood by default for seeming lack of other vocations. Therefore such candidates should NOT be accepted to the seminary until/unless the SSA proved to be a transitory/immature phase grown out of.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending homosexual behavior here. But I’m also leery of the very human tendency to treat others sins and sinful inclinations as far worse than ‘our’ sins.

 

[rlg94086]

You can’t seriously be challenging me for evidence that priests historically have had VASTLY more opportunity to abuse boys than girls…

No, I’m challenging your assumption that “many may have been equal opportunity abusers.” There is absolutely no evidence to jump to such a conclusion.

 

[manualman]

No, I’m challenging your assumption that “many may have been equal opportunity abusers.” There is absolutely no evidence to jump to such a conclusion.

It’s not a conclusion, it is a potential explanation for the 80%+ number of victims that were boys. Your presumption that the abusers were homosexuals is every bit as much an assumption. If you examine prison rapes, the vast majority of victims are male too. Do you assume all such convict rape offenders are homosexuals?

What I am saying here is that sexual deviancy is not as simple as you are making it out to be.

 

[rlg94086]

It’s not a conclusion, it is a potential explanation for the 80%+ number of victims that were boys. Your presumption that the abusers were homosexuals is every bit as much an assumption. If you examine prison rapes, the vast majority of victims are male too. Do you assume all such convict rape offenders are homosexuals?

So, you are comparing priests to convicted criminals in an all-male institution? Nice.

Priests have access to women. To assume that they are “equal opportunity abusers” based on access to young men is specious.

manualman:

What I am saying here is that sexual deviancy is not as simple as you are making it out to be.

Well, one thing that is simple enough to understand is that a pedophile has an attraction to male and female victims who have not reached puberty; whereas, an ephebophile preys on adolescents and has a preference for either boys or girls. The cases of abuse were predominantly male teenagers. Why you choose to ignore these facts and continue with your assumption that the priests were potentially “equal opportunity abusers” is indeed very complex. But then, you believe the priesthood is equivalent to prison life, so …

 

[rlg94086]

I read those seminary guidelines when they came out and agree with them. Strange that I can’t recall them saying “gays can’t be priests since gays are more likely to sexually abuse children.” Can YOU provide some evidence of that motivation??

What I DO recall was the recognition something to the effect that someone with a persistant SSA AND a sincere desire to live chastely for Christ would find it nearly impossible to determine the difference between a genuine call to the priesthood versus a decision to go to the priesthood by default for seeming lack of other vocations. Therefore such candidates should NOT be accepted to the seminary until/unless the SSA proved to be a transitory/immature phase grown out of.

Here is an interview with Cardinal Cottier regarding the release of the document:
zenit.org/article-14714?l=english

I would like to add something to what is much talked about – too much, perhaps, I don’t know: pedophilia and homosexuality.

There is a word that is never used and that, however, is important when we see the work that priests do; it is the word "ephebophilia."

It is not pedophilia, which is attraction to small boys, but refers to attraction to adolescents. It is a very ambiguous and decisive age for every one. And I think** it is a very extended form of homosexuality.**

I think it is necessary to present this clarification, as families entrust adolescents to priests – scouts, summer camps, pilgrimages, groups. In those cases, these boys must be totally respected.

 

[Dave_H]

What causes people like this to become priests? Is it predominate in Catholiscsm or do we hear about this in Protestant denomiations as well.
Dave H

 

[Ronsatron]

Hello all,

I am failing to see the actual point here. If people want to call it a homosexual problem, then that is fine. (Though why not just call it a “ephebophilia” problem instead?).
It is the same as labelling rapist men who rape young girls a ‘heterosexual’ problem, when this does not reflect on the general population.

Where does that get us? Should the person who was querying before only trust her kids with 20% of gay priests and 80% of heterosexual ones? Should the priesthood ban any gay person from becoming a priest? Or should it stop anyone who it feels is at risk of sexual crimes in general regardless of sexuality?

Added to this, the reason why the catholic church gets such a hard time on this is because it actually responsible for years of physical and sexual abuse by sheltering and protecting sexual offenders. I think everyone understands that there are people in all walks of life who are sex offenders, but it is the fact that they were protected by the CC that is the issue.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

Hello all,

I am failing to see the actual point here. If people want to call it a homosexual problem, then that is fine. (Though why not just call it a “ephebophilia” problem instead?).
It is the same as labelling rapist men who rape young girls a ‘heterosexual’ problem, when this does not reflect on the general population.

Most people do not understand the term ‘ephebophilia’ but do understand pedophilia and homosexuality and know the difference between one who acts on their urges and one who refutes them.
Any man, as I said before, who rapes a child is not simply a homosexual or a heterosexual but let us call him or her, if a woman, a sexual abuser, a pedophile. I prefer not to get into the issue of semantics so I call it what it clearly is.

Where does that get us? Should the person who was querying before only trust her kids with 20% of gay priests and 80% of heterosexual ones? Should the priesthood ban any gay person from becoming a priest? Or should it stop anyone who it feels is at risk of sexual crimes in general regardless of sexuality?

The Catholic Church especially after the scandal should thwart the contact of any child with someone who has even an inclination towards deviant acts even if they do not act on them. And yes, anyone wishing to enter the priesthood and admits to being gay should not be allowed to take vows. A gay person although not acting on his or her inclination is always fighting the urge to act and that in itself would be to much a chance for the CC to take.

Added to this, the reason why the catholic church gets such a hard time on this is because it actually responsible for years of physical and sexual abuse by sheltering and protecting sexual offenders. I think everyone understands that there are people in all walks of life who are sex offenders, but it is the fact that they were protected by the CC that is the issue.

I fully agree that the most outrageous act was hiding the evil acts in the first place and transferring the priests to other non-suspecting parishes. The CC should and has from my reading made a 180 degree turn and now will be open with the authorities about any abuses committed. I as a Catholic, and should I sit on a jury in judgement of a priest or any abuser of a child, would not hesitate in finding guilt for not only the perpetrator but the abettors as well./QUOTE]

 

[Ronsatron]

Hi Diane,

I do agree with alot of what you say here, and am pleased you are not trying to defend the way the CC behaved in the past.

The Catholic Church especially after the scandal should thwart the contact of any child with someone who has even an inclination towards deviant acts even if they do not act on them. And yes, anyone wishing to enter the priesthood and admits to being gay should not be allowed to take vows. A gay person although not acting on his or her inclination is always fighting the urge to act and that in itself would be to much a chance for the CC to take.

The only think I have a query with is the above statement. Surely a heterosexual person entering the priesthood also has urges that need to be kept under control? Otherwise it is tarring all homosexuals with the same brush were as I thought being gay was not a sin, it is homosexual acts?
I don’t know how it could be managed, but I feel that screening for anyone who potenially could sexually abuse anyone is the way forward, not just a blanket ban on gay people-- as it was not 100% ephebophilia accoring to the research mentioned earlier.

Regards.

 

[buffalo]

Hi Diane,

I do agree with alot of what you say here, and am pleased you are not trying to defend the way the CC behaved in the past.

The Catholic Church especially after the scandal should thwart the contact of any child with someone who has even an inclination towards deviant acts even if they do not act on them. And yes, anyone wishing to enter the priesthood and admits to being gay should not be allowed to take vows. A gay person although not acting on his or her inclination is always fighting the urge to act and that in itself would be to much a chance for the CC to take.

The only think I have a query with is the above statement. Surely a heterosexual person entering the priesthood also has urges that need to be kept under control? Otherwise it is tarring all homosexuals with the same brush were as I thought being gay was not a sin, it is homosexual acts?
I don’t know how it could be managed, but I feel that screening for anyone who potenially could sexually abuse anyone is the way forward, not just a blanket ban on gay people-- as it was not 100% ephebophilia accoring to the research mentioned earlier.

Regards.

Goodbye Good Men does a great job explaining how the homosexual takeover of the seminaries excluded good hetero faithful men from entering or staying in the seminary.

http://www.aquinasandmore.com/images/items/2952lg.jpg

 

[Diane_Lynn]

Hi Diane,

I do agree with alot of what you say here, and am pleased you are not trying to defend the way the CC behaved in the past.

The Catholic Church especially after the scandal should thwart the contact of any child with someone who has even an inclination towards deviant acts even if they do not act on them. And yes, anyone wishing to enter the priesthood and admits to being gay should not be allowed to take vows. A gay person although not acting on his or her inclination is always fighting the urge to act and that in itself would be to much a chance for the CC to take.

The only think I have a query with is the above statement. Surely a heterosexual person entering the priesthood also has urges that need to be kept under control? Otherwise it is tarring all homosexuals with the same brush were as I thought being gay was not a sin, it is homosexual acts?
I don’t know how it could be managed, but I feel that screening for anyone who potenially could sexually abuse anyone is the way forward, not just a blanket ban on gay people-- as it was not 100% ephebophilia accoring to the research mentioned earlier.

Regards.

I would tend to agree with you. I would add to the prohibition from the priesthood anyone who might be unable to withhold their sexual inclinations especially in regard to children. I hopefully do not brand everyone with the same iron but forgive me if I appear to be extremely cautious. I think I just might be that.
Perhaps you might agree that a person who is attracted to same sex would be in the wrong environment where his attraction would be exacerbated especially since he is expected to not be tempted by sexual urges yet be surrounded by those to whom he is attacted. A priest walks a delicate line of behavior and that for me is rather clear and if he goes off course it not only damages the child but also the parish and the church as a whole.
We need to keep a watchful eye yet always remember: The Beatitudes: Matthew 5-10. Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[rlg94086]

Hi Diane,

I do agree with alot of what you say here, and am pleased you are not trying to defend the way the CC behaved in the past.

The Catholic Church especially after the scandal should thwart the contact of any child with someone who has even an inclination towards deviant acts even if they do not act on them. And yes, anyone wishing to enter the priesthood and admits to being gay should not be allowed to take vows. A gay person although not acting on his or her inclination is always fighting the urge to act and that in itself would be to much a chance for the CC to take.

The only think I have a query with is the above statement. Surely a heterosexual person entering the priesthood also has urges that need to be kept under control? Otherwise it is tarring all homosexuals with the same brush were as I thought being gay was not a sin, it is homosexual acts?
I don’t know how it could be managed, but I feel that screening for anyone who potenially could sexually abuse anyone is the way forward, not just a blanket ban on gay people-- as it was not 100% ephebophilia accoring to the research mentioned earlier.

Regards.

So, two points. The Church does not ban everyone who “admits to being gay” - just those with “deep-seated” tendencies.

The Church does do their best to screen out “anyone who potentially could sexually abuse anyone.” They do this by determining the sexual maturity of the candidate.

Ronsatron:

Where does that get us? Should the person who was querying before only trust her kids with 20% of gay priests and 80% of heterosexual ones? Should the priesthood ban any gay person from becoming a priest? Or should it stop anyone who it feels is at risk of sexual crimes in general regardless of sexuality?

First of all, what’s with the strange percentages? Yes, 80% of the *cases *involved male adolescents. That doesn’t mean that 80% of homosexually-oriented priests are abusers. As far as whom to trust your kids with, you use the same saftey precautions as you do with teachers, relatives, etc.

 

[manualman]

Why you choose to ignore these facts and continue with your assumption that the priests were potentially “equal opportunity abusers” is indeed very complex. But then, you believe the priesthood is equivalent to prison life, so …

You sir, are a disgraceful conversationalist. No point in continuing with someone unable to disagree gracefully.

 

[rlg94086]

You sir, are a disgraceful conversationalist. No point in continuing with someone unable to disagree gracefully.

I’m sorry you feel that way. You yelled in your posts, accused me of making out sexual deviancy to be simple, etc. I’ve answered all of your charges without yelling and provided the evidence that you demanded.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

So, two points. The Church does not ban everyone who “admits to being gay” - just those with “deep-seated” tendencies.

And that is what should be the criteria.

My statement was in reference to those who admit to being gay which to me denotes an active role whereas being one with homosexual tendencies would be something other. Perhaps I too am guilty of confusing the issue with semantics.

The CC bans the active homosexuals from becoming priests but does not ban someone from being part of the CC just because they are homosexual. A homosexual who is involved in acts is considered a sinner and therefore would not be invited to share in the sacrements of the church either. Taking of communion as an example requires that one be free of sin and confess any mortal sins with the intent of not commiting them again. If active and would continue to be then a homosexual should not be taking communion in the first place and of course would not be welcome to be a priest either.

The Church does do their best to screen out “anyone who potentially could sexually abuse anyone.” They do this by determining the sexual maturity of the candidate.

First of all, what’s with the strange percentages? Yes, 80% of the *cases *involved male adolescents. That doesn’t mean that 80% of homosexually-oriented priests are abusers. As far as whom to trust your kids with, you use the same saftey precautions as you do with teachers, relatives, et

Yes, these percentiles seem rather confusing.

 

[rlg94086]

Diane_Lynn:

My statement was in reference to those who admit to being gay which to me denotes an active role whereas being one with homosexual tendencies would be something other. Perhaps I too am guilty of confusing the issue with semantics.

The CC bans the active homosexuals from becoming priests but does not ban someone from being part of the CC just because they are homosexual. A homosexual who is involved in acts is considered a sinner and therefore would not be invited to share in the sacrements of the church either. Taking of communion as an example requires that one be free of sin and confess any mortal sins with the intent of not commiting them again. If active and would continue to be then a homosexual should not be taking communion in the first place and of course would not be welcome to be a priest either.

Hi Diane,

Yes, we completely agree. The semantics of “gay,” versus “homosexually-oriented” or “homosexual” gets confusing. Here is what the document from the Vatican states:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

…while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

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. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

Of course, an “active” heterosexual would also not be welcome as a priest either.

 

[Ronsatron]

First of all, what’s with the strange percentages? Yes, 80% of the *cases *involved male adolescents. That doesn’t mean that 80% of homosexually-oriented priests are abusers. As far as whom to trust your kids with, you use the same saftey precautions as you do with teachers, relatives, etc.

Please ignore my previous post, reading back on it it does not convey the message I was trying to, or make alot of sense. I am just not sure about the label ‘homosexual problem’. (I know not everyone uses this). Although hopefully not intentional, it does seem to lump everyone into the same basket. I think the label ‘sexual abuse’ problem is much more suitable, as it was not only gay clergy who were abusing their position and children.

Regarding who to trust kids with, I agree. If my child (when born) decides to be a catholic, then I wont have any less reason to trust them with a priest than I would with a teacher-after normal precautions as you say.

Regards

 

[rlg94086]

Please ignore my previous post, reading back on it it does not convey the message I was trying to, or make alot of sense. I am just not sure about the label ‘homosexual problem’. (I know not everyone uses this). Although hopefully not intentional, it does seem to lump everyone into the same basket. I think the label ‘sexual abuse’ problem is much more suitable, as it was not only gay clergy who were abusing their position and children.

Hi Ronsatron,

The reason there is attention being paid to “gay” or “homosexually-oriented” clergy is due to the high percentage (80%) of the cases. Assuming that the number of homosexually-oriented priests is much smaller than the number of heterosexually-oriented priests, then the percentage of homosexually-oriented priests who sexually abused minors is much higher than the percentage of heterosexually-oriented priests who sexually abused minors.

If you are going to fix a problem, it is important to understand the proper scope of the problem. Lumping everyone together and ignoring the details wouldn’t help the situation. As far as the safety of our children, someone else noted that the percentage of priests who abused is lower than the percentage of abusers in the general population, regardless of how you label the abusers. So, our children *are *safer with priests, but it is still important that parents remain vigilent.

 

[blackrobe]

Is there anything that I can read that shows what the Church is doing about this problem? I am not Catholic, but I am being drawn to the Catholic Church. However, a big problem for me is that I could not allow my children to be alone with a priest.

All evidence confirms that your child is at far greater risk from teachers than priests, or from non-priests, for that matter. Even accepting the worst estimates, the incidence of abuse by Catholic priests is less than the general population and far less than educators.

Your reasoning reminds me of parents I know who will not allow their children in a house with a firearm when bathtubs, bicycles, and stairways are greater dangers by orders of magnitude.

AMDG
jsa