Pennsylvania Priest Caught in Sex Scandal

[Prodigal_Son]

Since when is 15 yrs old not a child? The priest was caught with a child; that = pedophilia. We can dress it up any way we want. I personally think that anyone who gets involved with a child and makes excuses to redefine them as adults is dangerously deluded.

Slow down, dude. The question is a question of perversion. It is a different kind of disorder to be attracted to pre-sexual children than to be attracted to post-sexual teenagers. It’s perfectly normal, for example, for a person to be attracted to a post-pubescent teenager of the opposite sex. I’m not saying it’s appropriate to act on the attraction, of course, but the attraction is normal.

Just as many ordinary straight men find 15-year-old girls attractive, many ordinary gay men find 15-year-old boys attractive. I don’t think this is cause for panic. It surely is a much greater offense to sexually exploit a 15-year-old than to have consensual sex with an adult. But the *attraction *to 15-year-olds is not something to panic about, whereas an attraction to prepubescents is certainly more serious.

(Nota bene: Joseph was over 20, I imagine, when he married the 14-year-old Mary. Do you really think he wasn’t attracted to her? Was his attraction something terrible?)

 

[seekerz]

pedophiles are attracted to pre pubsecent children.The gender doesn’t matter to them
.A priest
having sex with a 15 year old boy is case of homosexual rape.It it not pedophilia by any definition of the word. Nobody said these children were adults.

So they are not adults and not children? Now I’m really confused.

 

[seekerz]

Slow down, dude. The question is a question of perversion. It is a different kind of disorder to be attracted to pre-sexual children than to be attracted to post-sexual teenagers. It’s perfectly normal, for example, for a person to be attracted to a post-pubescent teenager of the opposite sex. I’m not saying it’s appropriate to act on the attraction, of course, but the attraction is normal.

Just as many ordinary straight men find 15-year-old girls attractive, many ordinary gay men find 15-year-old boys attractive. I don’t think this is cause for panic. It surely is a much greater offense to sexually exploit a 15-year-old than to have consensual sex with an adult. But the *attraction *to 15-year-olds is not something to panic about, whereas an attraction to prepubescents is certainly more serious.

(Nota bene: Joseph was over 20, I imagine, when he married the 14-year-old Mary. Do you really think he wasn’t attracted to her? Was his attraction something terrible?)

We are not talking about attractions, we are talking about ***acts ***in terms of 21st century norms. What does post-pubescent attraction even mean? It’s not disordered to be attracted to an 11 yr old boy who is just entering puberty?

 

[seekerz]

Homosexual attraction is still considered a disorder by our Church The definition of"children" is irrelevant tho a discussion of pedophilia because
the pedophile is not attracted by age or gender-they are attracted by lack of sexual development-that is children who have not reached puberty.

So why reference the APA? As if their standards are relevant to our discussion…

And what is the relevance of making a point to stress this supposed distinction? Please define pre- and post- pubescent, then tell me why it is even important to this incident? Is it less grave, less morally troubling…what?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We are not talking about attractions, we are talking about ***acts ***in terms of 21st century norms. What does post-pubescent attraction even mean? It’s not disordered to be attracted to an 11 yr old boy who is just entering puberty?

I agree that actions have their severity in accordance with the actual age of the people involved. But the term “pedophile” is not a term that refers to actions, but rather to attractions. A person could be a pedophile without ever having abused any children.

To call this priest a pedophile is simply incorrect. To say that he has abused a minor, or that he has corrupted a child, is correct.

 

[seekerz]

I agree that actions have their severity in accordance with the actual age of the people involved. But the term “pedophile” is not a term that refers to actions, but rather to attractions. A person could be a pedophile without ever having abused any children.

To call this priest a pedophile is simply incorrect. To say that he has abused a minor, or that he has corrupted a child, is correct.

The common use of the word pedophile is to describe someone having sexual relations with one too young to offer valid consent. I don’t understand the word play here. You have some information that he limited his activities to 15yr olds? And what age limit separates pre- from post-pubescent anyway?

 

[estesbob]

The common use of the word pedophile is to describe someone having sexual relations with one too young to offer valid consent. I don’t understand the word play here. You have some information that he limited his activities to 15yr olds? And what age limit separates pre- from post-pubescent anyway?

No it isnt . that is Pedastry. Puberty is not determined by age. For a girl it starts when she has her first period. For a boy it starts when his testicles start to fully develop and produce sperm, he starts to have facial hair and his voice deepens

The word play has been on the part of those who want to try and dismiss homosexuality as the prime cause of the sexual abuse problem that plagued the Chuych

 

[Brendan]

Post-pubescent children, pre-pubescent children, all = children.

The flaw in your argument is that the medical community is not stating that a human person under 18 is not a child.

Rather, they are making that distinction on what is pedophilia or not.

For example, would an 18 year old who finds a 16 year old to be attractive meet the classification of being a pedophile.

According to your definition, they would. So quite a number of high school seniors who are interested in a sophomore are actually pedophiles. Is that really what you are claiming?

The other logical disconnect is that no one, least of all the Church disagrees with the APA on what the definition of what homosexuality IS, but rather if it is a treatable mental disorder or not.

 

[Sarabande]

Ok… from what I understand speaking with therapists who work with child sex abuse survivors and from survivors, themselves, with whom I’m friends, as well as being a sexual molestation survivor myself, a pedophile is not interested in a child who is post-pubescent. They will often “drop” a child once he or she begins puberty as they are no longer sexually appealing to them.

These post-pubescent children, though, are still children, especially those who go through puberty early. A 56-year-old man wanting to have sex with a 15-year-old girl or boy is gross and creepy no matter which way you look at it, and I find it repulsive that any man - priest or not - would engage in that kind of activity. Unless the boy was pre-pubescent, though, he is technically not a pedophile. I looked 18-20 when I was 14 and there were men in their 20s and 30s who would try to flirt with me until they realized that I was underaged (when I or my mother would tell them) and then they’d get this freaked out face and leave me alone, thank God. I couldn’t stand it. That said, it shouldn’t lessen the crime, which I think some people try to do when it comes to the abuse scandal. It’s still repugnant, it’s still immoral, it’s still having sexual relations with a minor, which is illegal under the law.

What makes it worse in this situation, is that the adult involved is a priest, who should be following his vow of celibacy and practicing what he preached. It’s especially hard and painful for me to hear of this news because I knew him as the pastor of the parish my family attended and had even talked to him one-on-one for advice in music liturgy and teaching Latin to congregations. As a young woman in my early 20s at the time, I thought he had a lot of charisma and appeared to have genuine concern and love for his parish, especially for my generation and younger. Now, I’m stuck questioning all of his motives from that time and questioning the real reason why he had left our parish on sabbatical. It cuts the scars that I have even deeper to think another person I trusted and respected was actually involved in such an immoral sexual act.

 

[SaintAugustine]

If anything, the Church should consider reforming the celibacy requirement. Priests are human beings, and it’s been shown that celibacy tends to increase the likelihood for deviant sexual behavior in some people.

I’m confused by this comment. Are you saying that priests with same sex attraction should be allowed to sin? Or, are you claiming that celibacy causes priests to develop same sex attraction?

 

[SaintAugustine]

So they are not adults and not children? Now I’m really confused.

You must be confused, if you think that a sexually active teenager is equivalent to a 4 year old.

 

[seekerz]

You must be confused, if you think that a sexually active teenager is equivalent to a 4 year old.

I never said that. Where were we even discussing sexually active teenagers?

I am a mother. With a teenager. Nobody violates my child and then turns around and says it wasn’t so bad because he’s not in preschool. Sorry. That would be just a crying, desperately dishonest shame.

 

[seekerz]

The flaw in your argument is that the medical community is not stating that a human person under 18 is not a child.

Rather, they are making that distinction on what is pedophilia or not.

For example, would an 18 year old who finds a 16 year old to be attractive meet the classification of being a pedophile.

According to your definition, they would. So quite a number of high school seniors who are interested in a sophomore are actually pedophiles. Is that really what you are claiming?

The other logical disconnect is that no one, least of all the Church disagrees with the APA on what the definition of what homosexuality IS, but rather if it is a treatable mental disorder or not.

Which medical community? The same one that says same sex parenting is not harmful to kids? Since when are we accepting their behavioral standards?

I have not claimed that high school seniors are pedophiles, because they are CHILDREN too. Premarital sex is wrong, but it is not a crime against nature last I checked.

I am also not defining anything. I am asking, like I have asked (with no response) in multiple similar discussions: what is the line between pre- and post- pubescent? Is it the start of puberty, the completion of puberty or what?

More to the point with this 15 yr old. Who on this board knows if he HAS reached puberty? You do know that the same medical community assigns an age range of 12 to 16 for puberty in boys, right?

 

[seekerz]

No it isnt . that is Pedastry. Puberty is not determined by age. For a girl it starts when she has her first period. For a boy it starts when his testicles start to fully develop and produce sperm, he starts to have facial hair and his voice deepens

The word play has been on the part of those who want to try and dismiss homosexuality as the prime cause of the sexual abuse problem that plagued the Chuych

Yeah, because in common parlance most of us have ever heard the word ‘pederasty’ and of course we know how to spell it because we use it all the time…

The word play has nothing to do with dismissing homosexuality as a cause but I honestly hope it has also has nothing to do with blaming the victim.

 

[SaintAugustine]

I never said that. Where were we even discussing sexually active teenagers?

I am a mother. With a teenager. Nobody violates my child and then turns around and says it wasn’t so bad because he’s not in preschool. Sorry. That would be just a crying, desperately dishonest shame.

A pedophile preys on pre-pubescent children. A hebephile preys on post-pubescent children (usually 11-14 range). Ephebophiles are interested in adolescents (usually 15-19 range), aka teenagers.

It is true that the term pedophilia is sometimes commonly applied to sexual acts with someone below the age of consent (16-18 in the US, depending on location), but they are totally different issues, psychologically. Personally, I think it really does matter, because the sexual preference in hebephiles and ephebophiles are generally consistent (i.e. same sex OR opposite sex, but not generally both), whereas pedophiles are not. So, when you are talking about a group like priests, it does make a difference to know whether you are dealing with a pedophile or a homosexual ephebophile.

Referring to all the victims as children and all the perpetrators as pedophile is simplistic and doesn’t really tell us much about the actual issue. It’s more of an emotional appeal.

 

[opus101]

This whole thing nauseates me.

 

[seekerz]

A pedophile preys on pre-pubescent children. A hebephile preys on post-pubescent children (usually 11-14 range). Ephebophiles are interested in adolescents (usually 15-19 range), aka teenagers.

It is true that the term pedophilia is sometimes commonly applied to sexual acts with someone below the age of consent (16-18 in the US, depending on location), but they are totally different issues, psychologically. Personally, I think it really does matter, because the sexual preference in hebephiles and ephebophiles are generally consistent (i.e. same sex OR opposite sex, but not generally both), whereas pedophiles are not. So, when you are talking about a group like priests, it does make a difference to know whether you are dealing with a pedophile or a homosexual ephebophile.

Referring to all the victims as children and all the perpetrators as pedophile is simplistic and doesn’t really tell us much about the actual issue. It’s more of an emotional appeal.

All those multi-syllable terms would do is confuse the issue for the public. A person has sex with a child, for most people, they understand that as pedophilia. These fine distinctions are useful perhaps for professionals treating offenders - NOT for safeguarding the public by increasing awareness of these incidents.

 

[seekerz]

This whole thing nauseates me.

I can’t begin to tell you how much. And making this about one largely unheard of -philia instead of another equally obscure -philia is completely irrelevant to concerned parents.

 

[Brendan]

I have not claimed that high school seniors are pedophiles, because they are CHILDREN too. Premarital sex is wrong, but it is not a crime against nature last I checked.

Actually, you did. Here is the definition of pedophilia that you gave.

The common use of the word pedophile is to describe someone having sexual relations with one too young to offer valid consent

Under that definition, the 18 year old who is attracted to the 16 year old IS a pedophile.

More to the point with this 15 yr old. Who on this board knows if he HAS reached puberty? You do know that the same medical community assigns an age range of 12 to 16 for puberty in boys, right?

From the quote from the priest in the article, who claimed that he believed that the 15 year old was 18. That would be difficult to assert of the boy did not possess the biological changes brought about by puberty.

 

[seekerz]

Actually, you did. Here is the definition of pedophilia that you gave.

Under that definition, the 18 year old who is attracted to the 16 year old IS a pedophile.

From the quote from the priest in the article, who claimed that he believed that the 15 year old was 18. That would be difficult to assert of the boy did not possess the biological changes brought about by puberty.

It is common practice to take into the account the age differences between offender and victim (hence the phrase ‘dirty old men’), but you are correct: technically that would make the 18yr old a child molester in states where a 16 yr old cannot legally consent.

As for the pubertal stage of the child in the incident, are we taking the word of the same priest who claimed to be working on a ‘homily’ or something (I’m vague on his exact works right now)…? Guess to be really accurate we’d have to take some anatomical measurements, then before we can classify which obscure -philia this fits under?