Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican

[Kolbe300]

Homosexuality is a sexual perversion. Pedaphilia is a sexual perversion. So, the two are equivalent in this regard.

Oops, looks like heterosexuality got left out again. I’m sure any post-pubescent female victim of molestation or rape could testify to just how perverted heterosexuality can be. Thankfully, and just like homosexuals and pedophiles, not all heterosexuals abuse children.

Sometimes the truth is painful to hear.

Especially the whole truth.

Peace,
Kolbe

 

[Ockham]

Perversion may be a little strong (although accurate). Homosexuality is certainly unnatural as left to their own devices, they can’t sustain themselves. Their sex act serves no purpose but their own desires. Just because something can be done (sodomy) doesn’t mean it should be.

Moral relativism is the philosophy of the modern liberal so it’s no wonder our institution has decayed under it along with most others in our society. The way to correct it and rebuild our Church is to return to an adherence of absolute truth in Christ, learning to say ‘no’ again to the whims and fads of modernism and remaining vigilant in our commitment to Christ.

Jesus said the gate will be narrow. Not everything our human minds construct is necessarily moral or proper. The Church is supposed to give us what we need for salvation, not just what we want to hear. In other words - tough love. The decay in our seminaries reflects the current attitiude of “Me Church” where our individual demands outrank the greater good. The results speak for themselves.

 

[recidite_plbs]

Addressing some points raised in no particular order:

1. The common misconception is to confuse paedophilia with ephobophilia. The former is the sexual attraction and desire for (sexually) immauture children, the latter an attraction and desire for adolscents entering/going through puberty. Because children enter puberty at different ages depending on their physical make-up it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line on where one form of “philia” ends and the other begins. It is what makes the abuse of minors difficult (in psychological terms) difficult to classify. What both have in common is that typically the attraction is to the state of innocence/physical development of the minor and not neccessarily the gender. It would be wrong therefore, as others have stated, to describe this as a homo or hetero sexual problem. It is often neither, but clearly those so inclined often have their preferences.

If the RCC is to adequately address the problem it needs to understand both afflictions. in other words it is no use rooting out potential paedophiles of a homosexual nature as a lot of the abuse was actually ephibophilia, so the abuse would likely continue.

Also, the patterns of abuse differed from country to country. In the US it was mostly homo-erotic paedohibophilia while in Ireland it was more commonly heterosexual ephibophilia.

I would reccommend a book called Lead us Not Into Temptation by Jason Berry ( amazon.co.uk/Lead-Us-Not-into-Temptation/dp/0252068122 ) as an excellent resource into understanding the problem.

1. Homosexuality is/was a major problem in the seminaries irrespective of whether it was linked to child abuse. One priest I know who attended the Beda College in Rome (a college for mature candidates to UK diocese) told me that it was quite open and tolerated when he was a student there in the mid-90’s and that it would be more harmful to speak out against it than to keep quiet. The prevailing opinion was that celibacy was seen as refraining from sexual activity with women, and that between men it was not a breach of celibacy even though it was still sexual and still active. In other words, homsexual acts were not viewed as seriously as heterosexual transgressions (which happened very rarely as I am informed). I understand many US seminaries suffered in the same way.

People more informed than I may argue whether there is a causal link to ongoing abuse. or not.

1. Part of the problem has to be the way in which candidates are selected. I have heard that many candidates have been rejected by Vocations Directors who are themselves sympathetic to changing the church’s position on homosexuality. One Diocese, as I have read reported, has a nun as the VD who would routinely reject candidates who did not express the opinion that women’s ordination should be allowed, homsexual “marriage” should be condoned by the church, and other views that challenge the status quo. Candidates would then be forced to express views they didn’t hold so as not to be rejected, or more commonly, the diocese would attract candidates that others would reject because of their sexual inclinations (note I say inclinations rather than orientation, because an orientation in that sense can be overcome in favour of celibacy, and I know many good and pious priests who would characterise themselves as homsexually oriented but absolutely celibate and indeed happy).
2. Part of the problem is the way in which the RCC would loose sight of the priorites of protection of victims and the prosecution of offenders for the sake of avoiding “scandal”. This mentality is slowly changing from what I can see, but it will be a couple of generations of evolutionary change before bishops, Vicar Generals, and Chancellors of diocese realign their priorities away from the “lift and shift” practices of moving known priest-abusers around rather than turn them over to the police with any evidence they have. I understand the part of the RCCs views that the priest-abusers are people as deserving mercy as the next, but it lost sight of the fact that before mercy must come justice. Equally by trying to bury the problem so as to avoid people finding out and criticising the church, all they did was cap an explosive mix that went off with far greater force than if they had dealt with the problem appropriately in the first place.

 

[buffalo]

Addressing some points raised in no particular order:

1. The common misconception is to confuse paedophilia with ephobophilia. The former is the sexual attraction and desire for (sexually) immauture children, the latter an attraction and desire for adolscents entering/going through puberty. Because children enter puberty at different ages depending on their physical make-up it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line on where one form of “philia” ends and the other begins. It is what makes the abuse of minors difficult (in psychological terms) difficult to classify. What both have in common is that typically the attraction is to the state of innocence/physical development of the minor and not neccessarily the gender. It would be wrong therefore, as others have stated, to describe this as a homo or hetero sexual problem. It is often neither, but clearly those so inclined often have their preferences.

If the RCC is to adequately address the problem it needs to understand both afflictions. in other words it is no use rooting out potential paedophiles of a homosexual nature as a lot of the abuse was actually ephibophilia, so the abuse would likely continue.

Also, the patterns of abuse differed from country to country. In the US it was mostly homo-erotic paedohibophilia while in Ireland it was more commonly heterosexual ephibophilia.

I would reccommend a book called Lead us Not Into Temptation by Jason Berry ( amazon.co.uk/Lead-Us-Not-into-Temptation/dp/0252068122 ) as an excellent resource into understanding the problem.

1. Homosexuality is/was a major problem in the seminaries irrespective of whether it was linked to child abuse. One priest I know who attended the Beda College in Rome (a college for mature candidates to UK diocese) told me that it was quite open and tolerated when he was a student there in the mid-90’s and that it would be more harmful to speak out against it than to keep quiet. The prevailing opinion was that celibacy was seen as refraining from sexual activity with women, and that between men it was not a breach of celibacy even though it was still sexual and still active. In other words, homsexual acts were not viewed as seriously as heterosexual transgressions (which happened very rarely as I am informed). I understand many US seminaries suffered in the same way.

People more informed than I may argue whether there is a causal link to ongoing abuse. or not.

1. Part of the problem has to be the way in which candidates are selected. I have heard that many candidates have been rejected by Vocations Directors who are themselves sympathetic to changing the church’s position on homosexuality. One Diocese, as I have read reported, has a nun as the VD who would routinely reject candidates who did not express the opinion that women’s ordination should be allowed, homsexual “marriage” should be condoned by the church, and other views that challenge the status quo. Candidates would then be forced to express views they didn’t hold so as not to be rejected, or more commonly, the diocese would attract candidates that others would reject because of their sexual inclinations (note I say inclinations rather than orientation, because an orientation in that sense can be overcome in favour of celibacy, and I know many good and pious priests who would characterise themselves as homsexually oriented but absolutely celibate and indeed happy).
2. Part of the problem is the way in which the RCC would loose sight of the priorites of protection of victims and the prosecution of offenders for the sake of avoiding “scandal”. This mentality is slowly changing from what I can see, but it will be a couple of generations of evolutionary change before bishops, Vicar Generals, and Chancellors of diocese realign their priorities away from the “lift and shift” practices of moving known priest-abusers around rather than turn them over to the police with any evidence they have. I understand the part of the RCCs views that the priest-abusers are people as deserving mercy as the next, but it lost sight of the fact that before mercy must come justice. Equally by trying to bury the problem so as to avoid people finding out and criticising the church, all they did was cap an explosive mix that went off with far greater force than if they had dealt with the problem appropriately in the first place.

Are you claiming that they were justifying acts with males as not being a violation of their celibacy? Pretty twisted thinking.

 

[Ockham]

A very interesting and well thought out post.

One thing I’m taking from it as a member of the laity is that obedience to the clergy is one thing, but blind obedience can lead to Hell. We need to be vigilant that the clergy are staying true to the universal Church and not leading us into temptation.

 

[Kolbe300]

Addressing some points raised in no particular order:

1. The common misconception is to confuse paedophilia with ephobophilia. The former is the sexual attraction and desire for (sexually) immauture children, the latter an attraction and desire for adolscents entering/going through puberty. Because children enter puberty at different ages depending on their physical make-up it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line on where one form of “philia” ends and the other begins. It is what makes the abuse of minors difficult (in psychological terms) difficult to classify. What both have in common is that typically the attraction is to the state of innocence/physical development of the minor and not neccessarily the gender. It would be wrong therefore, as others have stated, to describe this as a homo or hetero sexual problem. It is often neither, but clearly those so inclined often have their preferences.

If the RCC is to adequately address the problem it needs to understand both afflictions. in other words it is no use rooting out potential paedophiles of a homosexual nature as a lot of the abuse was actually ephibophilia, so the abuse would likely continue.

Also, the patterns of abuse differed from country to country. In the US it was mostly homo-erotic paedohibophilia while in Ireland it was more commonly heterosexual ephibophilia.

I would reccommend a book called Lead us Not Into Temptation by Jason Berry ( amazon.co.uk/Lead-Us-Not-into-Temptation/dp/0252068122 ) as an excellent resource into understanding the problem.

1. Homosexuality is/was a major problem in the seminaries irrespective of whether it was linked to child abuse. One priest I know who attended the Beda College in Rome (a college for mature candidates to UK diocese) told me that it was quite open and tolerated when he was a student there in the mid-90’s and that it would be more harmful to speak out against it than to keep quiet. The prevailing opinion was that celibacy was seen as refraining from sexual activity with women, and that between men it was not a breach of celibacy even though it was still sexual and still active. In other words, homsexual acts were not viewed as seriously as heterosexual transgressions (which happened very rarely as I am informed). I understand many US seminaries suffered in the same way.

People more informed than I may argue whether there is a causal link to ongoing abuse. or not.

1. Part of the problem has to be the way in which candidates are selected. I have heard that many candidates have been rejected by Vocations Directors who are themselves sympathetic to changing the church’s position on homosexuality. One Diocese, as I have read reported, has a nun as the VD who would routinely reject candidates who did not express the opinion that women’s ordination should be allowed, homsexual “marriage” should be condoned by the church, and other views that challenge the status quo. Candidates would then be forced to express views they didn’t hold so as not to be rejected, or more commonly, the diocese would attract candidates that others would reject because of their sexual inclinations (note I say inclinations rather than orientation, because an orientation in that sense can be overcome in favour of celibacy, and I know many good and pious priests who would characterise themselves as homsexually oriented but absolutely celibate and indeed happy).
2. Part of the problem is the way in which the RCC would loose sight of the priorites of protection of victims and the prosecution of offenders for the sake of avoiding “scandal”. This mentality is slowly changing from what I can see, but it will be a couple of generations of evolutionary change before bishops, Vicar Generals, and Chancellors of diocese realign their priorities away from the “lift and shift” practices of moving known priest-abusers around rather than turn them over to the police with any evidence they have. I understand the part of the RCCs views that the priest-abusers are people as deserving mercy as the next, but it lost sight of the fact that before mercy must come justice. Equally by trying to bury the problem so as to avoid people finding out and criticising the church, all they did was cap an explosive mix that went off with far greater force than if they had dealt with the problem appropriately in the first place.

Great post. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

One thing I’m taking from it as a member of the laity is that obedience to the clergy is one thing, but blind obedience can lead to Hell. We need to be vigilant that the clergy are staying true to the universal Church and not leading us into temptation.

That is so true.

Peace,
Kolbe

 

[joe_clark]

By Hilary WhiteGENEVA, September 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in the US and abroad was a matter of homosexuals preying on adolescent boys, not one of pedophilia, said the Vatican’s representative at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland. It is "more…

Full article…

This is in direct conflict with the District Attorney’s Grand Jury report in Philadelphia, Pa.?

See: Grand Jury Report 0300-239 423 page PDF

Link: philadelphiadistrictattorney.com/images/Grand_Jury_Report.pdf

 

[unafraid]

Why is it so difficult for some Catholics to ascribe evil to the Satanic origin it deserves? Why all the Freudian angst as to the “root causes” of the pedophilia which has forever changed our Church? I recall an episode on EWTN when an outraged caller to Father Benedict Groeschel’s show sought comfort from the priest/psychiatrist for having been insulted by the Midieval way in which Father John Corapi attributed all evil to one source…Satan. Calmly…Father Groeschel stated that what Father Corapi said was absolutely true, and that our Lord described Satan in one of the Gospels as being, “the father of all lies…and a murderer from the beginning”. Take a hard look at the Geoghan case, from its lies and deceptions, straight through to his brutal, bestial strangulation…his murder, if you will. There is clearly something otherworldly and dark about the whole sordid thing. An apostate of Hell would have had a tough time duplicating the amount of harm that man inflicted on the Roman Catholic Church. There are no accidents in an ordered Universe. Evil exists because Satan has a role in the Divine plan. Look no further that your own Gospels to find the answers you seek.

 

[rep140]

Addressing some points raised in no particular order:

1. The common misconception is to confuse paedophilia with ephobophilia. The former is the sexual attraction and desire for (sexually) immauture children, the latter an attraction and desire for adolscents entering/going through puberty. Because children enter puberty at different ages depending on their physical make-up it is impossible to draw a hard and fast line on where one form of “philia” ends and the other begins. It is what makes the abuse of minors difficult (in psychological terms) difficult to classify. What both have in common is that typically the attraction is to the state of innocence/physical development of the minor and not neccessarily the gender. It would be wrong therefore, as others have stated, to describe this as a homo or hetero sexual problem. It is often neither, but clearly those so inclined often have their preferences.

If the RCC is to adequately address the problem it needs to understand both afflictions. in other words it is no use rooting out potential paedophiles of a homosexual nature as a lot of the abuse was actually ephibophilia, so the abuse would likely continue.

Also, the patterns of abuse differed from country to country. In the US it was mostly homo-erotic paedohibophilia while in Ireland it was more commonly heterosexual ephibophilia.

I would reccommend a book called Lead us Not Into Temptation by Jason Berry ( amazon.co.uk/Lead-Us-Not-into-Temptation/dp/0252068122 ) as an excellent resource into understanding the problem.

1. Homosexuality is/was a major problem in the seminaries irrespective of whether it was linked to child abuse. One priest I know who attended the Beda College in Rome (a college for mature candidates to UK diocese) told me that it was quite open and tolerated when he was a student there in the mid-90’s and that it would be more harmful to speak out against it than to keep quiet. The prevailing opinion was that celibacy was seen as refraining from sexual activity with women, and that between men it was not a breach of celibacy even though it was still sexual and still active. In other words, homsexual acts were not viewed as seriously as heterosexual transgressions (which happened very rarely as I am informed). I understand many US seminaries suffered in the same way.

People more informed than I may argue whether there is a causal link to ongoing abuse. or not.

1. Part of the problem has to be the way in which candidates are selected. I have heard that many candidates have been rejected by Vocations Directors who are themselves sympathetic to changing the church’s position on homosexuality. One Diocese, as I have read reported, has a nun as the VD who would routinely reject candidates who did not express the opinion that women’s ordination should be allowed, homsexual “marriage” should be condoned by the church, and other views that challenge the status quo. Candidates would then be forced to express views they didn’t hold so as not to be rejected, or more commonly, the diocese would attract candidates that others would reject because of their sexual inclinations (note I say inclinations rather than orientation, because an orientation in that sense can be overcome in favour of celibacy, and I know many good and pious priests who would characterise themselves as homsexually oriented but absolutely celibate and indeed happy).
2. Part of the problem is the way in which the RCC would loose sight of the priorites of protection of victims and the prosecution of offenders for the sake of avoiding “scandal”. This mentality is slowly changing from what I can see, but it will be a couple of generations of evolutionary change before bishops, Vicar Generals, and Chancellors of diocese realign their priorities away from the “lift and shift” practices of moving known priest-abusers around rather than turn them over to the police with any evidence they have. I understand the part of the RCCs views that the priest-abusers are people as deserving mercy as the next, but it lost sight of the fact that before mercy must come justice. Equally by trying to bury the problem so as to avoid people finding out and criticising the church, all they did was cap an explosive mix that went off with far greater force than if they had dealt with the problem appropriately in the first place.

 

[unafraid]

rep140:
Respectfully, this sort of pedantic response is as dry as it is redundant. Please, can we have less Freud and more Holy Spirit. The Church in modernity owes much of Her difficulties to those voices within her body whose eloquence, relativism and humanism would be better suited to the halls of secular academia. Penance before Thorazine…prayer before psychoanalysis…and a recognition that not all things, especially matters of the spirit, can be easily rationalized…I humbly submit that sin is evil acted upon, and that only prayer and faith can shield all of us from this mysterious truth.

 

[Ockham]

Respectfully, this sort of pedantic response is as dry as it is redundant. Please, can we have less Freud and more Holy Spirit. The Church in modernity owes much of Her difficulties to those voices within her body whose eloquence, relativism and humanism would be better suited to the halls of secular academia. Penance before Thorazine…prayer before psychoanalysis…and a recognition that not all things, especially matters of the spirit, can be easily rationalized…I humbly submit that sin is evil acted upon, and that only prayer and faith can shield all of us from this mysterious truth.

AMEN!

 

[rlg94086]

This is in direct conflict with the District Attorney’s Grand Jury report in Philadelphia, Pa.?

See: Grand Jury Report 0300-239 423 page PDF

Link: philadelphiadistrictattorney.com/images/Grand_Jury_Report.pdf

Hi Joe,

I don’t see how you come to that conclusion.

1. It is only Pennsylvania
2. I read the overview, but it doesn’t give any summary with numbers/percentages - only examples. It then details several cases. I didn’t go through each case and total up the pre-pubescent and adolescent incidences. Did you? In order to claim it conflicts, you should give something a little clearer than just posting a 423-page pdf.

 

[recidite_plbs]

Respectfully, this sort of pedantic response is as dry as it is redundant. Please, can we have less Freud and more Holy Spirit.

Respectfully, no.

Parishoner’s children were left in the hands of the “Holy Spirit” before, many of them now have lives damaged beyond repair. I have 2 young daughters, and when they are old enough to be introduced to the church there is absolutely no way I’m just going to abrogate my responsibility as a father and leave it to the pure chance that the RCC remains ignorant of (what you call) Freud in the hope that the Holy Spirit may just stop a predator from preying on them.

The Church in modernity owes much of Her difficulties to those voices within her body whose eloquence, relativism and humanism would be better suited to the halls of secular academia.

It probably escaped your notice then that the very origins of modern science and learning came from the academic institutions founded by the Church. The points I raised (name removed by moderator)lore a process: understand the problem, understand the psychosis, address the actual problem n ot the perceived one, stop it from ever happening again. What has happened in the RCC is largely a knee-jerk reaction to be seen to do something, and if the mentality of those bishops still wedded to the “avoid scandal at all costs” persepctive is allowed to continue the whole thing can be quietly brushed under the carpet until it happens again.

The church owes much of her difficulties because priests were allowed to continue abusing, bishops moved abusive priests rather than inform the authorities, they ignored the problem rather than inform themselves of the causes, effects, and consequences, they failed to act appropriately when warned, they abused their authority by trying to prevent society from finding out it had a problem, then they tried covering their tracks. Have you ever heard the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right”?

Penance before Thorazine…prayer before psychoanalysis…and a recognition that not all things, especially matters of the spirit, can be easily rationalized…I humbly submit that sin is evil acted upon, and that

Sexual dysfunction of this sort is a criminal offence. If the threat of being banged up in one of Her Majesty’s finest establishments of incarceration isn’t enough to make people stop in their tracks when it comes to abusing children, a few prayers and fasting certainly won’t. You may believe that a prayerful and penitent life can transform someone, I don’t. I accept it may help someone find discipline to overcome their urges, but the urges will always be present to be acted upon. That means everyone involved in the administration of the RCC (including the laity) needs to have a clear understanding of the issues and the psychology to ensure that both predatory men and women are never allowed to abuse undiscovered, prevented from entering positions of responsibility that can be used to allow access to vulnerable children wherever possible, and that adequate policies and procedures are in place to prevent abuse from happening, and that the bishops are held accountable and under scrutiny to both ensure that the policies aren’t shelved and ignored and are reviewed and policed robustly. Anything less is an utter abrogation of responsibility.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t just suddenly step in and make right human wrongs through lots of prayer. The Holy Spirit requires, no, demands, that the conscience and intellect is fully informed and acted upon. If you are so inclined to believe, the Holy Spirit may guide the intellect and the conscience, but it requires the individual to act (and you may guess from my qualification of that statement, I remain far from convinced about the efficacy of the Holy Spirit at all).

 

[Kolbe300]

Respectfully, no.

Parishoner’s children were left in the hands of the “Holy Spirit” before, many of them now have lives damaged beyond repair. I have 2 young daughters, and when they are old enough to be introduced to the church there is absolutely no way I’m just going to abrogate my responsibility as a father and leave it to the pure chance that the RCC remains ignorant of (what you call) Freud in the hope that the Holy Spirit may just stop a predator from preying on them.

It probably escaped your notice then that the very origins of modern science and learning came from the academic institutions founded by the Church. The points I raised (name removed by moderator)lore a process: understand the problem, understand the psychosis, address the actual problem n ot the perceived one, stop it from ever happening again. What has happened in the RCC is largely a knee-jerk reaction to be seen to do something, and if the mentality of those bishops still wedded to the “avoid scandal at all costs” persepctive is allowed to continue the whole thing can be quietly brushed under the carpet until it happens again.

The church owes much of her difficulties because priests were allowed to continue abusing, bishops moved abusive priests rather than inform the authorities, they ignored the problem rather than inform themselves of the causes, effects, and consequences, they failed to act appropriately when warned, they abused their authority by trying to prevent society from finding out it had a problem, then they tried covering their tracks. Have you ever heard the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right”?

Sexual dysfunction of this sort is a criminal offence. If the threat of being banged up in one of Her Majesty’s finest establishments of incarceration isn’t enough to make people stop in their tracks when it comes to abusing children, a few prayers and fasting certainly won’t. You may believe that a prayerful and penitent life can transform someone, I don’t. I accept it may help someone find discipline to overcome their urges, but the urges will always be present to be acted upon. That means everyone involved in the administration of the RCC (including the laity) needs to have a clear understanding of the issues and the psychology to ensure that both predatory men and women are never allowed to abuse undiscovered, prevented from entering positions of responsibility that can be used to allow access to vulnerable children wherever possible, and that adequate policies and procedures are in place to prevent abuse from happening, and that the bishops are held accountable and under scrutiny to both ensure that the policies aren’t shelved and ignored and are reviewed and policed robustly. Anything less is an utter abrogation of responsibility.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t just suddenly step in and make right human wrongs through lots of prayer. The Holy Spirit requires, no, demands, that the conscience and intellect is fully informed and acted upon. If you are so inclined to believe, the Holy Spirit may guide the intellect and the conscience, but it requires the individual to act (and you may guess from my qualification of that statement, I remain far from convinced about the efficacy of the Holy Spirit at all).

This is an outstanding post. Thank you.

Peace,
Kolbe

 

[JimG]

That means everyone involved in the administration of the RCC (including the laity) needs to have a clear understanding of the issues and the psychology to ensure that both predatory men and women are never allowed to abuse undiscovered, prevented from entering positions of responsibility that can be used to allow access to vulnerable children wherever possible, and that adequate policies and procedures are in place to prevent abuse from happening, and that the bishops are held accountable and under scrutiny to both ensure that the policies aren’t shelved and ignored and are reviewed and policed robustly. Anything less is an utter abrogation of responsibility.

While I agree with this, it should also be noted that in the past, bishops’ reliance upon psychologists became part of the problem; many of the psychologists used by the diocese sent the offenders through various programs and pronounced them ‘cured’ and ready for duty.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Let’s keep the discussion civil or infractions will be handed out.

 

[joe_clark]

Hi Joe,

I don’t see how you come to that conclusion.

philadelphiadistrictattor…ury_Report.pdf

1. It is only Pennsylvania
2. I read the overview, but it doesn’t give any summary with numbers/percentages - only examples. It then details several cases. I didn’t go through each case and total up the pre-pubescent and adolescent incidences. Did you? In order to claim it conflicts, you should give something a little clearer than just posting a 423-page pdf.

I don’t see anything about whether harm to a child was committed by a homosexual and or a pedophile. Who cares what you call an adult in charge who violates the child, the law and the confidence in the church? As I stated this is a grand jury report from Philadelphia. There are many around the country if you look. I am also not interested in keeping score. No offense , but I sense the art of evasion and deflection when it comes to what label we should give the perpetrator. Anyone adult who sexually abuses a child is a pedophile. I don’t think anyone needs any more information than that.

I am from the Philadelphia area I have moved 5 times in my life. Sadly, I found that in the report, sexual abuse was reported in every church I have attended. The same clergy that were identified by name, that were found involved in sexual abuse of a children, when found out, were just moved from parish to parish without the other knowing. It is clear that they prayed and they hoped and they transferred the abusers. The transferring continued until they ran out of locations and patience. The people in charge were knowing and were wrong to do this. Cleaning your own house is much more difficult. Sin is also evil not acted upon.

 

[Ockham]

At this point in the discussion it may be helpful to remember the highest incident rate of pedophila is in the home, followed by the public school system. I have also seen studies stating the Protestant denominations have a higher rate than the Catholic Church.

 

[JimG]

At this point in the discussion it may be helpful to remember the highest incident rate of pedophila is in the home, followed by the public school system. I have also seen studies stating the Protestant denominations have a higher rate than the Catholic Church.

Yes, and there have been increasingly frequent instances in the public school system of women who molest young boys.

But with respect to the thread topic, the point has been that in the priest abuse sex scandal, 80% of the molestation consisted of homosexual predation upon adolescent boys.

 

[miguel]

While I agree with this, it should also be noted that in the past, bishops’ reliance upon psychologists became part of the problem; many of the psychologists used by the diocese sent the offenders through various programs and pronounced them ‘cured’ and ready for duty.

This is exactly right. Putting too much trust in these experts was foolhardy. When convicted molesters are released back into society, are they welcomed back with open arms or regarded with suspicion? Often their release is accompanied by similar assurances from psychologists. And often they molest again. What does that say about psychologists’ ability to predict the future?