Same Sex Attraction and the Abuse Crisis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
glorybe said:
Male on male is a homosexual act, I don’t care what that person said.
Click to expand...
It’s very clear from extensive research on prisoners that heterosexual men, when given no other outlet than other men, will perform homosexual acts, returning to exclusively heterosexual sex once released back into society. That is not the same thing as having a homosexual orientation.
BlueMaxx said:
a cabal of “bad” priest that shared information, basically groomed their victims…these were like minded (be it SAS or gay) priest operating covertly together.
Click to expand...
Okay, interesting. Hadn’t heard that. Again, though, “grooming” behavior is characteristic of predatory behavior, not homosexual orientation, necessarily
BlueMaxx said:
Lastly the predators were not given over for legal action and the church again knowingly “moved” the predators effectively creating a huge rug in which to seep the crimes
Click to expand...
Not to mention, reinforcing the “I can do whatever I want to meet my needs for sex/predation”.
BlueMaxx said:
banking on an out of sight out of mind strategy
Click to expand...
I’m sure this was true in some cases, tragically. But removal to a different environment was a common recommendation of psychiatrists and counselors who were “curing” their patients of pedophilia/statutory rape behavior. I’m sure it was easy to take their advice, but mainstream society was dealing with sexual predators in this way, as well.
 
True, but the level of access is not the same. Women are not in seminary, and during the peak time period of the PA abuse cases, there probably were no altar girls either.
 
Priests, Deacons, Bishops, seminarians, altar servers etc for the longest time, were predominantly around males. There really is no denying that. I’m not saying this is proof of anything, just that there was a much greater opportunity for homosexual acts to take place.
 
Last edited:
Mtdobbs said:
Priests, Deacons, Bishops, seminarians, altar servers etc for the longest time, were predominantly around males.
Click to expand...
You paint with a very broad brush. Priest during the school year are housed together, pray and eat together. There classes may be co-ed. Married deacons mostly live normal family lives. Alter servers both male and femalr live in families.
Mtdobbs said:
There really is no denying that.
Click to expand...
Yes there is because I just did.
 
Predatory was the key word. He made it clear that it is not all men dealing with same-sex attraction, but a predatory subset. If I understood him correctly…There are honorable priests dealing with this issue, & then there are others who do as they please - even sharing victims.
 
Last edited:
There is a whole dynamic in the prison setting that isn’t addressed here. Homosexual acts in prison are completely separate from homosexual acts at seminary or in the church. It’s pretty crazy actually when you think about it to compare prison settings in the accident occur within present settings to behaviors and people outside of the prison settings.
 
What kind of touching? I’m sure people touched inappropriately will feel violated.
 
@Mtdobbs, I’m agreeing with you on the prison analogy, not trying to refute it. My comment about access was responding to the person who said there are women all over the place in parishes.
 
Right…that is why in my opinion rape is really not the correct terminology…
This was child seduction…as sick as that even sounds it is much worse typing it.

However, rape connotes a violent and sudden horrific act for the most part…one in which (not always) the rapist commit the crime and flees leaving the victim.

These priest did not do that, they brainwashed, manipulated and sickeningly seduced these children (for lack of a better description) to the point the child could not, would not tell anyone, allowing the priest to return continually to the victim.
It is a distinction that needs to be made. These were not spontaneous rapist, these were predatory wolves. They did not operate in a vacuum. Like most cases of pedophiles (think NAMBLA) a lot had a group they could communicate with within the church, whether to brag or share “trophy” stories and compare notes or worse yet victms.

It is a sick world to even start to try and fathom, made worse that satan was able to infiltrate the church to such a degree.
 
Last edited:
Read the report. I am not comfortable going into descriptions here.
Most of the youth felt violated, IMO. I guess, like I said, if you call touching rape so be it. When I think of rape it is something of a graver nature. One problem we have is everyone have a different definition in their head. We need statistical data and firm definitions to understand this issue and be able to discuss it intelligently.
 
Theo2 said:
Read the report. I am not comfortable going into descriptions here.
Most of the youth felt violated, IMO. I guess, like I said, if you call touching rape so be it. When I think of rape it is something of a graver nature. One problem we have is everyone have a different definition in their head. We need statistical data and firm definitions to understand this issue and be able to discuss it intelligently.
Click to expand...
How so? I do not follow…
 
You said…

When I think of rape it is something of a graver nature.

I am not following the context? Sorry if I am misunderstanding…
 
It really depends on definitions. I don’t know if touching is considered rape but Merriam Webster says that the word molest can mean “to force physical and usually sexual contact on”. So if it was not rape, it could easily be molestation, which is a vile act whether its classified as rape or not.

I have looked up the definition of rape and it almost always implies more than just touching. Molesting on the other hand is to force sexual contact on.
 
Last edited:
Well, Merriam Webster defines rape as…

Definition of rape​

1 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person’s will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception

Do you think that that is where the “touching” stopped?
Or do you think it was all just “inappropriate touching”?

Not trying to be combative at all…I know some people only think and define rape as some forcible penetration…but is that really true?
 
Inappropriate touching is not what I would call it at all. In some cases, if it was only touching, it would not be classified as rape, it would be classified as molestation. If it went further, as in forced intercourse, it would be classified as rape. Both are heinous and abhorrent. In no way would I downplay the offence committed.

This is just an issue with semantics - the branch of linguistics dealing with meaning. I have no problem with somebody calling it rape. I am only making references to what it is most likely called in legal documents.
 
Last edited:
I agree…a child victim would have no way of being able to process any difference, all they will understand is hurt, confusion and guilt…that is where the predators evil comes into play…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top