The clergy abuse scandal: homosexuality or pedophilia?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael_T
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is all about homosexuality. Few, if any, of the victims were prepubescent males. They were mostly post pubescent teen males. That is not pedophilia.
 
There wasn’t much pedophilia. It was mostly homosexual predators preying on young boys–the sort of thing that NAMBLA favors. If I am not mistaken, one most serious offenders, Rev. Paul Shanley, was involved in NAMBLA at its founding.
 
It is all about homosexuality. Few, if any, of the victims were prepubescent males. They were mostly post pubescent teen males. That is not pedophilia.
Click to expand...
Ditto.
 
Related article

**

From The Republican

Probe points to prospective ring

Monday, May 02, 2005 By BILL ZAJAC
wzajac@repub.com
The investigator hired to probe the 1972 unsolved murder of 13-year-old altar boy Daniel Croteau says he now suspects that a ring of about 10 pedophiles, many of them priests, operated a sexual abuse ring that preyed upon children at the time Croteau was killed.

“These priests formed their own Internet before any Internet existed,” said private detective and former state trooper R.C. Stevens recently. “It allowed them to exchange information and strategies, share children, and rid themselves of them.”

He has been investigating the murder for The Republican since last summer. His interviews of alleged victims, including those who have already publicly accused some priests, point to a conspiracy among some of the predators to pass around children.

Stevens said that Croteau may have had contact with multiple members of the ring. The only identified suspect in Croteau’s death was defrocked priest Richard R. Lavigne of Chicopee.

Lavigne, who served 10 years probation after admitting to molesting two boys, has been accused by more than 30 others, including one who said the then-priest introduced him to another priest in Vermont who also molested him.

Last August, 45 alleged victims of 18 priests settled sexual abuse lawsuits with the Springfield Roman Catholic Diocese for about $7.5 million.

Stevens believes that Lavigne was a member of the ring of pedophiles, but he would not name other individuals. Lavigne has denied involvement in the Croteau slaying and other sexual abuse cases.

Stevens said several predators passed around boys.

“As one victim would age out and not be acceptable to an age-specific pedophile, he would pass along the victim to another pedophile who had older age-specific tastes,” Stevens said.

He said that progress has been steady but slow. He has been helped by the state and Chicopee police, both of whom conducted the initial murder investigation.

Continue reading at
http://www.masslive.com/hampfrank/republican/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1115020017210570.xml&coll=1&thispage=1
**
 
Please pray for our priests. When on pilgrimage in 1998, I was made aware, by our spiritual advisor, there are 13 levels in hell. The 13th level is reserved for Satan worshipers, the 12th for fallen priests, because they cause many souls to turn from God.Lord have mercy on us.
 
…the largest percentage is tied to homosexuality… most are gay men praying on young boys… so you can include pedophilia in that number too…

very few “just men stepping outside” their vow of celibacy and doing the married thing with the opposite gender of a young age…

…most everything i have read is male on male…

…its a sad story, and will take generations if not years to every win back the esteem that the clergy held in the past… doubtful they ever will “truly” retreive their rep!

Peace!👍
 
As long as the Lavender Mafia is still reigning there is a very good chance that these horrendous acts will be repeated. I would venture to say that these crimes are still being committed in the United States and elsewhere. There are probably priests out there who prey on young boys but the boys are probably teenage male prostitutes. The gay clergy members are being extra careful not to be caught with altar boys.
 
40.png
GloriaPatri4:
The gay clergy members are being extra careful not to be caught with altar boys.
Click to expand...
If it was mainly altar boys who were victimized by pederast priests, then maybe having altar girls has helped stem the tide, since homosexual priests wouldn’t be interested in altar girls.

The whole scandal is very sad. It is sad that people assume priests are gay now. It is sad that there have been so many victims (although, to be fair, there are many more victims of sexual abuse in the public school system by public school officials than by priests).

I do believe that homosexuality played a major role in the Church scandals, because 80.9% of all the victims were male (and of course all the priests were male).

That is not meant to diminish the 19.1% of victims who were girls. They were also abused, and they are also victims. They may be in the minority here (whereas I imagine girls are in the majority among those abused in public schools, which is further evidence that most of these priests were gay and if there hadn’t been so many gay priests, there wouldn’t be nearly as many victims) but they are still victims in need of prayer and support.

The magnitude of the scandals, as well as the evil of covering up criminal acts because the perpetrators were priests is astounding.

It makes me sad to think about it, and it makes me wish there were some way to make sure this problem never happens again. I am also alarmed by groups like Voice of the Faithful, whose answer to the problem is to let the laity vote on who should be bishops, etc. They are also open to reforming Church doctrine. I don’t think that sounds like the “voice of the faithful”. It sounds like the battle cry of opportunistic mutineers. Given the climate of our culture, and knowing how woefully ignorant the average Catholic is about the teachings of the Church, I think giving them a vote on who should be bishop at this time in history would be quite dangerous.

I think the best way to put an end to the scandal is to start criminally prosecuting abusers. Sadly, another good way is through prevention by having windows in confessionals, never allowing priests to be alone with minors, and of course, screening out homosexuals as candidates for ordination.

What bothers me is that I have the sense that a lot of bishops are just throwing money at the victims and thinking that solves the problem while refusing to address the root causes: laxity, indulgence in alcohol, drugs, and immoral entertainment, poor priestly formation, poor prayer lives, people entering the seminary for the wrong reasons, and homosexuality, and our sex-obsessed culture.
 
There is much research in the secular world that shows that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals are, nor are they any more likely to force themselves on unwilling adults. If there is any research to show that this is any different among priests, feel free to enlighten me. I have also not seen any research that would indicate that homosexual priests are any more likely to violate their vow of celibacy than heterosexual priests.

The definition of “pedaphile” is a person who is attracted to children only, and has no interest in adults of either sex. Some pedaphiles (men or women) are attracted mostly to boys, some to girls, and some to both. But if someone is a true “pedaphile”, calling them either a homosexual or a heterosexual is a misnomer, because they have no normal sexual interest in adults of either gender.

If a priest is true to his vow of celibacy, what difference would it make if his true leanings would be heterosexual or homosexual? If he is not, than that’s a problem. If any man who dares call himself a priest would force himself sexually on any child or adult, of either gender, then that is indeed a problem.
 
40.png
Bootoo:
There is much research in the secular world that shows that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals are, nor are they any more likely to force themselves on unwilling adults. If there is any research to show that this is any different among priests, feel free to enlighten me. I have also not seen any research that would indicate that homosexual priests are any more likely to violate their vow of celibacy than heterosexual priests.

The definition of “pedaphile” is a person who is attracted to children only, and has no interest in adults of either sex. Some pedaphiles (men or women) are attracted mostly to boys, some to girls, and some to both. But if someone is a true “pedaphile”, calling them either a homosexual or a heterosexual is a misnomer, because they have no normal sexual interest in adults of either gender.

If a priest is true to his vow of celibacy, what difference would it make if his true leanings would be heterosexual or homosexual? If he is not, than that’s a problem. If any man who dares call himself a priest would force himself sexually on any child or adult, of either gender, then that is indeed a problem.
Click to expand...
**Dear Bootoo,

Have you not heard about the John Jay Report?**
 
Michael T I think you’ve made some very good points. They do seem to be throwing money at victims and trying through “zero tolerance” to perhaps scare potential predators and prevent incidents in the future. The problem is that they haven’t responded to the real causes as you noted.

With respect to girls though, the predator priests did not simply prey on altar boys. They were also able to single out boys through school or CCC or simply by showing a special interest in a child. The parents were often flattered that Father seemed to like to spend time with little Jimmy. We simply did not know what was going on.

BooToo you need to check out some sources including the Jay report. One very important statistic is the way these cases spiked dramatically in the 60s and 70s. The abuse of girls was very static but the predation on boys really shot up in the wild 60s and may have been a combination of lax practices in seminaries, heterosexual priests leaving, etc.

As to the percentage, BooToo again check your sources. Homosexuals prey on children in a far higher percentage than their representation in the population. Assume 3% homosexuals and you’d expect 3% of pedophiles would be homosexuals. Instead the percentage of pedophiles is over 30% homosexual.

Lisa N
 
40.png
Bootoo:
There is much research in the secular world that shows that homosexuals are no more likely to molest children than heterosexuals are, nor are they any more likely to force themselves on unwilling adults.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ.

narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html
Gay advocates correctly state that most child molesters are heterosexual males. However, this is a misleading statement, since** most males are heterosexual**.

In proportion to their numbers (about 1 out of 36 men), homosexual males may be more likely to engage in sex with minors: in fact, some research suggests a **possible 3-to-one ratio **(8). However, research in this area is not conclusive because the sexual orientation of male-on-male abusers was not always clear (some abusers are bisexuals).

** These statistics do not, of course, take into account the cases of homosexual child abuse which are unreported**. NARTH’s Executive Director Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, for example, says that about one-third of his 400 adult homosexual clients said they had experienced some form of homosexual abuse before the age of consent, but only two of those cases had been reported to legal authorities.

While** no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual**, some studies indicate that **approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual **(9). Further, since **male-on-male pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles **(10), it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males (11).

http://www.narth.com/docs/pedophNEW.html

www.narth.com
 
I think that heterosexual and homosexuals both probably have about the same percentage that abuse children. Parents abuse children sexually, family members abuse children sexuallay, doctors do it, lawyers do it, anybody with children alone do it to a certain percent.

I think that if sexual abuse in the home were addressed and stopped, a lot of other sexual abuse would stop because once a child has been abused, that child is open to abuse by anybody…it is what they have been taught to accept and abusers can sense it in a child.
 
40.png
feather:
I think that heterosexual and homosexuals both probably have about the same percentage that abuse children. Parents abuse children sexually, family members abuse children sexuallay, doctors do it, lawyers do it, anybody with children alone do it to a certain percent.

I think that if sexual abuse in the home were addressed and stopped, a lot of other sexual abuse would stop because once a child has been abused, that child is open to abuse by anybody…it is what they have been taught to accept and abusers can sense it in a child.
Click to expand...
Great idea, no 'splain how this gets done? Most of the sexual abuse in homes goes on in private, often with the child threatened if he/she divulges the secret. There is simply no way of preventing this. Pedophiles can have children too, unfortunately.

I guess one possible way is to continue to promote intact families. It’s often a step father who abuses and children without a father in the home (bio dad not the latest honeybunch) are at much more risk.

But the problem is this goes on in private and in the home it’s LESS likely to be found out.

Lisa N
 
Not just homosexuality and pedophilia, but also ephebophilia - the sexual attraction to post pubescent males.
 
The percentages of victims who were male (80.9%) and female (19.1%) do not apply here. Rather, one must compare percentage of abusers who abused males to the percentage of absusers who abused females.

Since, as Trelow cites above, “male-on-male pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles,” and especially since priests have historically had much greater access to boys rather than girls, one would expect the percentage of male victims to be much larger than the percentage of female victims.

In addition, I, like many who have posted before me, feel compelled to note that this analysis is not meant to condone or explain the abuse, but merely to objectively evaluate the statistics. The entire situation is obviously quite tragic for all of the victims, their families and the Church at large.
 
40.png
feather:
I think that heterosexual and homosexuals both probably have about the same percentage that abuse children. Parents abuse children ually, family members abuse children uallay, doctors do it, lawyers do it, anybody with children alone do it to a certain percent.

I think that if ual abuse in the home were addressed and stopped, a lot of other ual abuse would stop because once a child has been abused, that child is open to abuse by anybody…it is what they have been taught to accept and abusers can sense it in a child.
Click to expand...
Okay,

I have to admit that I’m getting slightly frustrated with people saying they “think” this or that, which really means they “feel” this or that because they are of a certian opinion, influenced by whatever influences them, while they ignore the facts of reality.

Fact: Homosexuals statistically abuse minors between the ages of 17 and under at a higher percentage rate than heterosexuals.

Fact: Homosexual abusers statistically have more victims than heterosexual abusers.

It isn’t that difficult of a concept to grasp:

Only 1% of the population is homosexual. However a greater percentage of that 1% abuses minors than the comparable statistic in heterosexuals.

99% of the world is heterosexual, but the percentage of that 99% that abuses minors is smaller than the percentage of homosexuals that abuse minors.

But people keep saying they “think” the statistics for both are about the same!

I think these people are ignoring the actual statistics and believing whatever they choose to “think”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top