Scapegoat of recent scandal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aroosi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t understand why people with SSA were ever allowed to be priests. Just for the simple fact that for the most part, priests don’t live alone. That is a major potential occasion of sin. If we are going to allow people with SSA to be priests, why not just house priests and nuns together, then?? People that are supposed to have a vow of celibacy shouldn’t be housed with people that they have a potential to be tempted by. That being said, there is no scapegoat. The Pope is being pragmatic by not allowing people with SSA into seminary, thereby instantly slashing the abuse rate in the church by 80%.
 
bullish1 said:
40.png
nenabunena:
don’t think that homosexuals generally are more likely to be abusive than heterosexuals
Click to expand...
If the number of homosexual priests is 30% and 80% of the priest sexual assaults are against boys by homosexual priests, then the homosexual priests are 15 times more likely to committ abuse than heterosexual priest. The facts have no pity on an argument to the contrary!!!
Click to expand...
The statistics still don’t support the notion that gay men in general are more likely to be sexually abusive than straight men. The most that could be concluded is that the kinds of men with same-sex attraction who are attracted to the priesthood are perhaps more likely to be abusive.
 
As someone who’s currently working in child protection, this is true.

A lot of fathers are doing unspeakable things to their daughters. It’s honestly really horrifying.
 
ConstantLearner said:
it ignores the changes needed in the Church to ensure this never happens again.
Click to expand...
!! Simply banning gay people won’t solve the problem. The pessimist in me also thinks nobody would care about the 20% of abuse because it’s a small number/proportionate to general statistics of sexual abuse. I mean…we are already ignoring it now.

Edit: we also don’t know for sure if men (who are potential abusers) who would enter the priesthood would be honest about their orientation. Or that straight priests would not abuse boys. Over here we found that there are adult men who abused boys but they had expressed that they’re not attracted to adult men, only small boys for example. Because of that, they don’t label themselves as gay.
 
Last edited:
I also agree that gay men are not more likely to be abusive than straight ones, in general society. This could be an unpopular viewpoint but I feel like this scandal is caused by infiltrators, for the most part. People that have no fear of God and may in fact not even believe in God. It’s very hard for me to believe that a person like Mccarrick believes in God at all. That also goes for that drug fueled orgy at the Vatican apartment that I read about. Clergy that fear God do not do things like that. The Church has been infiltrated just like the Episcopal Church was, except thanks to the Holy Spirit, our infiltrators haven’t been able to prevail. To be pragmatic and nip this in the bud, the only sane thing to do is to not allow gay clergy in the church to start with. It makes zero sense to have gay men living together with other men even if they are supposed to be celibate.
 
Child abusers tend to gravitate towards jobs that will give them access to kids. It’s highly possible that these priests were not entering the priesthood because they were holy devout men answering God’s call. But that they saw the priesthood as a powerful position.

Edit: must they live together? The priests in my parish live alone.
 
Last edited:
The priests in my parish have a rectory with separate bedrooms and common living areas. We have 4 priests.
 
Lea101 said:
The pessimist in me also thinks nobody would care about the 20% of abuse because it’s a small number/proportionate to general statistics of sexual abuse. I mean…we are already ignoring it now.
Click to expand...
It’s not that we are ignoring it now; it’s that the subject of this thread involves the 80%. Perhaps an additional thread could address the other group?
 
Lea101 said:
Edit: must they live together? The priests in my parish live alone.
Click to expand...
Most of the priests in the parishes in the archdiocese I live in live alone, too. They have a female housekeeper who comes in once or twice a week.
 
Last edited:
Gingersnaps4 said:
I also agree that gay men are not more likely to be abusive than straight ones, in general society. This could be an unpopular viewpoint but I feel like this scandal is caused by infiltrators, for the most part.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone want to infiltrate the Catholic church? It’s not harming anyone.
 
The Episcopal Church was pretty much deliberately infiltrated and changed from within even though it wasn’t doing any harm. A lot of people in the world think that the Church IS doing harm by teaching God’s word in today’s society and they DO want to change it and discredit it. Although I don’t necessarily think it was a deliberate infiltration of this nature. As a previous poster said, it could have been simply predators choosing positions of power within the church to satisfy their desires.
 
ConstantLearner said:
Why would anyone want to infiltrate the Catholic church? It’s not harming anyone.
Click to expand...
Infiltrators is also much more plausible than men who answered a holy call deciding to act in this way while simultaneously “serving the Lord” and rationalizing it to themselves. The pure audacity of it is staggering and I am very frightened for their souls.
 
MarlboroMan said:
Pederasty is basically a requirement for gay culture.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that totally, and I have worked, as a volunteer, with hundreds of gay men.

Paedophilia is a “sexual orientation” like being straight or gay, according to a criminal psychologist.

www.independent.co.uk

Paedophilia is a 'sexual orientation' like being straight or gay, expert claims

A paedophile has the 'same ingrained attraction that a heterosexual female may feel towards a male', psychologist says
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

I’m not saying he’s right, but I know gay men are no more likely to abuse than straight men.
 
Again, it’s an abuse problem, not a homosexual problem, and the fact that 80% of the victims were male is not indicative of homosexuality. The experts are clear about this.

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

1. Boys can be sexually abused by both straight and gay men and women. Sexual abuse is the result of abusive behavior that takes advantage of a child’s vulnerability and is in no way related to the sexual orientation of the abusive person.


These scandals have happened before, and if anti-homosexuals keep scapegoating homosexuals instead of realizing this is an abuse problem, it’s going to happen again, on an even bigger scale.
 
Last edited:

4. The myth that most men who sexually abuse boys are gay.​

Studies about this question suggest that men who have sexually abused a boy most often identify as heterosexual and often are involved in adult heterosexual relationships at the time of abusive interaction. There is no indication that a gay man is more likely to engage in sexually abusive behavior than a straight man and some studies even suggest it is less likely. But sexual abuse is not a sexual “relationship,” – it’s an assault. The sexual orientation of the abusive person is not really relevant to the abusive interaction. A man who sexually abuses or exploits boys is not engaging in a homosexual interaction – any more than men who sexually abuse or exploit girls are engaging in heterosexual behavior. He is a deeply confused individual who, for various reasons, desires to sexually use or abuse a child, and has acted on that desire.


So much for the myth of peestry being a “requirement” of gay men, or that the current scandal is a “homosexual problem.”

It’s a problem of abuse, which is not related to sexual orientation.
 
Most of the victims were post-pubescent “twink” men, so not children, so not pedophilia. Gay culture is and always has been obsessed with raping young men.
 
I didn’t come to that conclusion, so don’t post to me.

Experts said what I posted; I just agreed with them. I will take the word of educated experts over yours any day, no offense. If you were discussing cigarettes, it might be different.
 
Last edited:
MarlboroMan said:
Most of the victims were post-pubescent “twink” men, so not children, so not pedophilia. Gay culture is and always has been obsessed with raping young men.
Click to expand...
Experts disagree with you.

"…[M]ost men who molest little boys are not gay. Only 21 percent of the child molesters we studied who assault little boys were exclusively homosexual. Nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys were heterosexual or bisexual and most of these men were married and had children of their own."

http://www.gundersenhealth.org/ncpt.../sexual-offenders-101/sexuality-of-offenders/

And, regarding post-pubescent males who were raped:

Henry Leak, the chairman of the Survivors organization, stated that rape of males, as with females, has more to do with power than sexuality, and does not only happen inside the homosexual community. Sexual orientation is a complex issue, and the majority of male perpetrators who seek out boys are not homosexual.

Most of the male perpetrators who seek out post-pubescent boys are married heterosexuals.
 
Last edited:
Of course it’s vitally important about WHO is abusing them! The problem can’t be solved without knowing that!
 
There’s really no reason a minor has to be totally alone with a priest. If I were male, and a Catholic priest, I would not want ANY child alone with me. Parents could wait within eyeshot, but not earshot during confession, and at all other occasions, another adult would have to be present. It would probably be good to go back to the old fashioned confessionals.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top