Pope "Deeply Ashamed" of Abuse Scandal

[rlg94086]

Statiscally, pedophiles are more likely to be heterosexual. So let’s make a distinction. Ephebophiles are almost always homosexual. This is the REAL problem in the Catholic priest/bishop sex scandals that keeps getting swept under the rug by the defenders of homosexuality in the church. BTW, sex abuse is declining, due to media attention and aging clergy whose sex drives are waning.

The Church has also tightened up admission to the priesthood by screening more for homosexual tendencies.

 

[Annie_B]

Annie,

Respectfully, that is not true.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article642369.ece

While this article deals with heterosexual ephebophilic relationships, it is reasonable to state that men who have sex with a postpubescent male are homosexual ephebophiliacs.

EDIT ADD: Please don’t tell me I am defending the priests’ actions in this case…I am not. They used a position of authority to prey on adolescent boys who often have conflicting/confusing feelings of sexual love and attraction. IOW…I personally would not consider it proper “informed consent,” even if it were legal at their ages.

Ok - my mistake. A pedophile is MORE than one who sexually assaults a minor…here is the definition I found and the source. Maybe all pedophiles do not commit assaults, according to the definition. My point was that homosexuals AND heterosexuals can be pedophiles and to define these assaults on children as the result of homosexuality is just another way of avoiding the magnitude/scope of the problem.

Annie

1. pedophile. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
   …An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children. pedo·philic (-filik) -ADJECTIVE…

 

[Annie_B]

The Church has also tightened up admission to the priesthood by screening more for homosexual tendencies.

This is a good idea - as long as potential priests are being honest about it. These abusers are professional liars…

Annie

 

[rlg94086]

Ok - my mistake. A pedophile is MORE than one who sexually assaults a minor…here is the definition I found and the source. Maybe all pedophiles do not commit assaults, according to the definition. My point was that homosexuals AND heterosexuals can be pedophiles and** to define these assaults on children as the result of homosexuality is just another way of avoiding the magnitude/scope of the problem. **

Annie

1. pedophile. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
   …An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children. pedo·philic (-filik) -ADJECTIVE…

Yes, but the point made earlier is that 80% of the cases were male adolescents (i.e. 14 and over), so homosexuality really is a major issue in the scandal. Had it been a mix of girls and boys, predominantly under 13 years, it would have properly been a “pedophile scandal.” The number of “pedophile” cases is actually smaller than in the general public (including non-Catholic clergy).

 

[Annie_B]

No, I don’t believe it is true.

A pedophile is a pedophile, not necessarily homosexual. However, see my previous post, as any person, homosexual or heterosexual, who molests an adolescent, is not a pedophile.

To say that they ARE not pedophiles is in error; they MIGHT not be pedophiles, according to the technical definition of a pedophile.

Annie

 

[rlg94086]

This is a good idea - as long as potential priests are being honest about it. These abusers are professional liars…

Annie

Yep. Some will slip through, if they are determined and lie. But, I think the problem in the past was that homosexual men presenting themselves for the priesthood were treated the same as heterosexual men (i.e. both are required to live celibate lives, so what is the difference, right?). However, the scandal has taught the Church not to treat homosexual-oriented priests the same.

 

[Annie_B]

Yes, but the point made earlier is that 80% of the cases were male adolescents (i.e. 14 and over), so homosexuality really is a major issue in the scandal. Had it been a mix of girls and boys, predominantly under 13 years, it would have properly been a “pedophile scandal.” The number of “pedophile” cases is actually smaller than in the general public (including non-Catholic clergy).

Ok - I see your point. As far as percentages, they are only as accurate as the actual number of assaults that are actually reported. Let’s just agree that the two are difficult to separate in many cases? 20% is still huge. 1% is 1% too many.

Annie

 

[rlg94086]

To say that they ARE not pedophiles is in error; they MIGHT not be pedophiles, according to the technical definition of a pedophile.

Annie

An adolescent is post-pubescent. Therefore the molester of a adolescent is, by definition, not a pedophile.

 

[rlg94086]

Ok - I see your point. As far as percentages, they are only as accurate as the actual number of assaults that are actually reported. Let’s just agree that the two are difficult to separate in many cases? 20% is still huge. 1% is 1% too many.

Annie

Yes, but it is smaller than the general population, therefore there is not an “abundance of priests” who are pedophiles. It wasn’t 20% of priests…it is 20% of the cases of abuse.

 

[CreatioNova]

To say that they ARE not pedophiles is in error; they MIGHT not be pedophiles, according to the technical definition of a pedophile.

Annie

Is that not a bit like saying: to say married women ARE not lesbians is in error, they MIGHT not be lesbians

The definition is very clear - people who are attracted to, and have relations with, postpubescents are NOT paedophiles, they are ephebophiles.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Under JPII, Cardinal Ratzinger was one of the most powerful men in the Vatican. He was a strict enforcer of church doctrine and got the nickname “Cardinal No.” Starting in 1981 and until his election as Pope, he was in charge of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, the Vatican office that oversees doctrines of faith and morals. (Formerly known as the Holy Inquisition.) BXVI is extremely knowledgeable and intelligent, he is a scholar. In his Vatican position he had to have extensive knowledge about the sexual abuse problems in the United States and elsewhere. That is why the inquiry is relevant.

I am aware of all of this. Thank you.

You haven’t answered my question.

Was he responsible for the abuse?

Again, how is “what he knew and when he knew it” relevant today?

Suppose he knew about all this 10 years ago…20 years ago…so what? What difference would that make right now?

 

[CreatioNova]

.

Was he responsible for the abuse??

I don’t know what he personally knew as a bishop so I can’t answer that. My suspicion is he knew quite a lot, but I’ll never know as a fact what he did and did not know.

So, my opinion is no, he is not responsible for the abuse, but he is now accountable for it, and what is to be done regarding it.

 

[whatevergirl]

An adolescent is post-pubescent. Therefore the molester of a adolescent is, by definition, not a pedophile.

There was still a grave abuse of power, and ***coercing or forcing ***someone else into sexual acts–doesn’t matter if they are under age or not–is a crime. Albeit, in some instances, might not be pedophilia–but crimes were committed, and the RCC transferred these priests. Bottom line, our Pope has apologized and hopefully this will never occur again.

We all should be in agreement on this subject–the Church needs to really have a process in place that does not allow this type of thing to ever happen again.

 

[rlg94086]

There was still a grave abuse of power, and ***coercing or forcing ***someone else into sexual acts–doesn’t matter if they are under age or not–is a crime. Albeit, in some instances, might not be pedophilia–but crimes were committed, and the RCC transferred these priests. Bottom line, our Pope has apologized and hopefully this will never occur again.

We all should be in agreement on this subject–the Church needs to really have a process in place that does not allow this type of thing to ever happen again.

Indeed. With whom are you arguing?

rlg94086:

Please don’t tell me I am defending the priests’ actions in this case…I am not. They used a position of authority to prey on adolescent boys who often have conflicting/confusing feelings of sexual love and attraction. IOW…I personally would not consider it proper “informed consent,” even if it were legal at their ages.

 

[brockmac]

Well, as it turns out, the Pope did meet with a few (5 or 6, I believe) victims of sexual abuse by clergy. I think it is good that he met with some victims as opposed to a “victim’s group.” This meeting took place away from the media, and I suspect without lawyers or advocates. In this setting His Holiness was probably better able to be a pastor to these individuals than he would have been in some sort of concocted media event. I am more and more impressed with him daily.

Thanks be to the Holy Spirit for guiding the cardinals to elect this man as our Universal Shepherd.

 

[elgar]

Well, as it turns out, the Pope did meet with a few (5 or 6, I believe) victims of sexual abuse by clergy. I think it is good that he met with some victims as opposed to a “victim’s group.” This meeting took place away from the media, and I suspect without lawyers or advocates. In this setting His Holiness was probably better able to be a pastor to these individuals than he would have been in some sort of concocted media event. I am more and more impressed with him daily.

Thanks be to the Holy Spirit for guiding the cardinals to elect this man as our Universal Shepherd.

Kudos to Pope Benedict for meeting with those victims! From what I saw on a video, those people’s lives were touched by him in ways we can’t imagine. I know it has taken too darn long, but let’s hope this is the real beginning of a long healing process.

The laity needs to stay vigilant and demand accountability and justice from their priests and bishops even if one has to go to Rome to get it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

whatevergirl

There was still a grave abuse of power, and ***coercing or forcing ***someone else into sexual acts–doesn’t matter if they are under age or not–is a crime. Albeit, in some instances, might not be pedophilia–but crimes were committed,

Not necessarily. It depends on the age of consent in the state where it happened. Many states, the age of consent for a male is 16, some states I believe go as low as 14.

We all should be in agreement on this subject–the Church needs to really have a process in place that does not allow this type of thing to ever happen again.

I agree!

Regardless if it was legal according to age of consent laws, priest should not be doing it, period!

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I don’t know what he personally knew as a bishop so I can’t answer that. My suspicion is he knew quite a lot, but I’ll never know as a fact what he did and did not know.

So, my opinion is no, he is not responsible for the abuse, but he is now accountable for it, and what is to be done regarding it.

What he knew as a Bishop or Cardinal is a mute point. He had no more authority over other Bishops or Cardinals, where the scandals took place. As far as the Vatican was concerned, the local Bishops were to handle the problem, being they had better understanding of the situation and the laws of those nations.
The sexual abuse by priest, wasn’t confined just to the United States, so civil laws and ways of handling it, varied.

Jim

 

[elgar]

As far as the Vatican was concerned, the local Bishops were to handle the problem, being they had better understanding of the situation and the laws of those nations.
The sexual abuse by priest, wasn’t confined just to the United States, so civil laws and ways of handling it, varied.

Jim

True statement above, however, the Vatican is responsible for naming the bishops in the first place. According to Leon Podles in his book “Sacrilege,” the Vatican has a long history of appointing men who are non-confrontational by nature. So it should come as no surprise that it took so long to uncover. As much as I despise the media in most things, they were the ones that pushed things along.

I firmly believe we haven’t heard the last of it. Cardinal Mahoney is doing his best to cover his rear in LA. He is in deep trouble and he knows it. He’ll probably do his usual spin and try and change the subject to how he’s following the pope’s message in offering sanctuary to illegal immigrants.

 

[AHapka]

Well, as it turns out, the Pope did meet with a few (5 or 6, I believe) victims of sexual abuse by clergy. I think it is good that he met with some victims as opposed to a “victim’s group.” This meeting took place away from the media, and I suspect without lawyers or advocates. In this setting His Holiness was probably better able to be a pastor to these individuals than he would have been in some sort of concocted media event. I am more and more impressed with him daily.

Thanks be to the Holy Spirit for guiding the cardinals to elect this man as our Universal Shepherd.

I really love the way the Pope did it. Bore the criticism of people saying he should meet with the victims while privately making arrangements.

And only saying he met with them afterwards, avoiding a media circus, and offering privacy to those who did not wish to be named.

Very, very smart and loving at the same time. Still protecting his sheep from a media circus while ministering to them.