The clergy abuse scandal: homosexuality or pedophilia?

[feather]

Michael T.:

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”.

Boy, do I not agree with that.

You need to give some show of your statistics because I sure am not going to believe your statistics without backup on your part because everything in front of my eyes says different.

Show some proof and I will back off.

 

[Trelow]

feather:

Boy, do I not agree with that.

You need to give some show of your statistics because I sure am not going to believe your statistics without backup on your part because everything in front of my eyes says different.

Show some proof and I will back off.

Scope my post, the references are at the link.

 

[Michael_T]

Statistics (Most Of Which Come From Secular Studies With No Religious Agenda):

PDF File of the relevant section of the John Jay College of Law study conducted with data reported by the U.S. bishops

Child Molestation by homosexuals and heterosexuals
Homiletic & Pastoral Review | May 2005 | Brian W. Clowes and David L. Sonnier

Conclusion:

Homosexuals, as homosexuals admit, make up roughly 1% of the population (see the footnotes to the brief filed by the homosexual lobby in the Texas sodomy case). So, in raw numbers, it is certainly true that more heterosexuals are abusing than homosexuals, if only because there are 99 times more heterosexuals in the world.

Comparing raw numbers of heterosexual abusers to raw numbers of homosexual abusers does not give us a good understanding of the problem. We have to compare on a per capita basis. That is, what percentage of heterosexuals versus homosexuals abuse, and what is the average number of victims abused?

On both counts, the homosexuals come out on top. In terms of pure percentage of respective populations, more homosexuals abuse, and each homosexual abuser attacks far more victims.

 

[Michael_T]

More Statistics:

• Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.
• A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles.”
• Another 2000 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that". . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories" for sexual activity;’ These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old.
• Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%.”
• A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that " . . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality."
• A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.
• In a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, sex researchers found that “The proportional prevalence of [male] offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent.”
• Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals I have acted as “chicken hawks” - that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.
• In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.
• A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger.

There are occasional scientific attempts to deny or obscure the fact that a disproportionately high percentage of active homosexuals also molest children. These studies are invariably afflicted with one or more fatal flaws.

A typical example, oft-quoted by gay rights activists, is the July 1994 Pediatrics article by Jenny, Roesler and Poyer that finds that "Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community."14

The fatal flaw of this study is that it studied sexually abused children with a mean age of just 6.1 years. Children of this young age are usually targets of true pedophiles, those persons with no sexual attraction to adults of either sex. By contrast, homosexual pedophiles are usually classified as “ephebophiles,” persons sexually attracted to pubescent or post-pubescent underage children.

 

[Michael_T]

Please read the three page news story linked below. (Click on the bottom of the article where it says “CONTINUED 1 | 2 | 3 Next” to continue the story.)

I ask that you then please explain whether the men, who were apparently Catholic priests, in this “ring” were/are homosexuals or not.

If you believe the men involved in the “ring” described in the article were/are not homosexuals, then please explain what you believe they should be called.

Probe points to prospective ring

 

[feather]

Trelow:

Scope my post, the references are at the link.

I was looking for statistics that I could look at and see without plowing through an article by somebody and having to pick things out and figure out what was what. You are the one making the statement and you need to read and pick out the statistics and post them, not long articles.

 

[Trelow]

feather:

I was looking for statistics that I could look at and see without plowing through an article by somebody and having to pick things out and figure out what was what. You are the one making the statement and you need to read and pick out the statistics and post them, not long articles.

Nah, you are the one who wants to know I’ll leave it up to you to find out, besides Michael has some stats for you.

 

[feather]

Okay, you guys are talking about men.

I was talking about people. Big difference.

 

[Michael_T]

feather:

Okay, you guys are talking about men.

I was talking about people. Big difference.

Feather,

What is the difference?

Surely you aren’t thinking that the number of female abusers is high enough to have much effect on the statistics we are discussing.

Although it has been more widely reported lately, it is still statistically rare for women to abuse minors.

So why wouldn’t you have thought we were talking about men?

I hope that your saying you were “talking about people” wasn’t just a way of avoiding admitting that you were wrong.

Thanks Feather.

Now I’m addressing others who denied the facts shown by these statistics:

What is it about human nature that people would rather balk, waste time, and argue instead of just admitting that they were completely wrong and thanking people for setting them back on the path of right thinking?

I suppose original sin has a lot to do with it.

It would be wonderful to read posts from people saying, “Gee, I was responding off the top of my head and influenced by secular culture in thinking the way I did, but now I see that these statistics done from multiple studies performed by secular surveyors with no religious agenda or desire to prove homosexuals are the worst sort of people prove my preconceived notions to be completely and utterly wrong. I will try to be more objective in the future.”

That would be refreshing.

 

[feather]

Michael

I am not sure how to phrase this to be understood.

In the context of what was being discussed, there would be little or no difference between men and people.

The only difference was that I was thinking beyond priests and that didn’t belong here.

 

[Lisa_N]

feather:

Michael

I am not sure how to phrase this to be understood.

In the context of what was being discussed, there would be little or no difference between men and people.

The only difference was that I was thinking beyond priests and that didn’t belong here.

Feather are you deliberately being obtuse or do you not understand the issue?

The clergy sex abuse is stereotyped as a pedophelia problem. However the Jay report as well as many books, articles and interviews, reveal that the priest were not generally pedophiles but were predatory homosexuals who focused on adolescent males. That is not true pedohpelia even though the victims were minors. They were not little children which is the focus of a true pedophile.

Similarly the sex abuse perpetrated on females was also not focused on tiny children but girls who were either entering or into adolescence.

The clergy involved were certainly engaged in deviant and illegal behavior but not pedophelia for the most part.

Do you understand the issue?

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

I don’t think any of us have fully grasped the negative repercussions of the homosexual infiltration into the church. The actual sexual abuse is one horrendous physical and visible manifestation of this infiltration. The scarred and tarred souls of many faithful through watered down and dissent-filled teaching to justify or make little of sexually deviant behavior is even more horrendous but less physical and visible.

If pornography, homosexuality, pedophila, adultery, and fornication are not condemned in the church, then where will they be condemned - and is it any wonder that sex crimes and sex disease are rampant?

 

[Lisa_N]

Brad:

I don’t think any of us have fully grasped the negative repercussions of the homosexual infiltration into the church. The actual sexual abuse is one horrendous physical and visible manifestation of this infiltration. The scarred and tarred souls of many faithful through watered down and dissent-filled teaching to justify or make little of sexually deviant behavior is even more horrendous but less physical and visible.

If pornography, homosexuality, pedophila, adultery, and fornication are not condemned in the church, then where will they be condemned - and is it any wonder that sex crimes and sex disease are rampant?

Precisely the point. And the idea that the Church is supposed to change her teachings, dialogue with homosexuals, accept them in their sin, after what homosexuals did to the Church just disgusts me. This is a problem of homosexuality that is not limited to the Church. The promiscuity, the preying upon youngsters, the attraction to youth are all a significant part of the homosexual world. Why would we want to welcome this sinful behavior, no questions asked?

We cannot water down a single teaching on this issue. Homosexuality is a product of very disordered thinking and should be approached with compassion and but not acceptance.

Lisa N

 

[Riley259]

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.

The comprehensive study indicated that about 85% of the victims were male and that an overwhelming majority were post-pubescent males. A tiny percentage of the abuse cases were true pedaphilia. The homosexual problem was directed at that huge majority of priests who abused post-pubescent males. This last statement further bolsters the need to bar incoming seminarians who are gay from the priesthood - it’s just too risky.

 

[BobCatholic]

feather:

Okay, you guys are talking about men.

I was talking about people. Big difference.

Ahem. Men are people too.

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

there is a relation and is called one disorder leads to another…

 

[feather]

Lisa N:

Feather are you deliberately being obtuse or do you not understand the issue?

The clergy sex abuse is stereotyped as a pedophelia problem. However the Jay report as well as many books, articles and interviews, reveal that the priest were not generally pedophiles but were predatory homosexuals who focused on adolescent males. That is not true pedohpelia even though the victims were minors. They were not little children which is the focus of a true pedophile.

Similarly the sex abuse perpetrated on females was also not focused on tiny children but girls who were either entering or into adolescence.

The clergy involved were certainly engaged in deviant and illegal behavior but not pedophelia for the most part.

Do you understand the issue?

Lisa N

Probably I didn’t understand. I am likely seeing different things like a priest would not necessarily have to be homosexual or whatever to seek gratification from children(I classify children as anybody up to age of maturity and beyond maturity if they have not matured). I personally think children, the vulnerable, are available. Maybe part of the time it is homosexuality or whatever but a lot of the time it is probably just availability. We humans very often do what we think we can get away with.

Just my thoughts

 

[feather]

Lisa N:

Feather are you deliberately being obtuse or do you not understand the issue?

The clergy sex abuse is stereotyped as a pedophelia problem. However the Jay report as well as many books, articles and interviews, reveal that the priest were not generally pedophiles but were predatory homosexuals who focused on adolescent males. That is not true pedohpelia even though the victims were minors. They were not little children which is the focus of a true pedophile.

Similarly the sex abuse perpetrated on females was also not focused on tiny children but girls who were either entering or into adolescence.

The clergy involved were certainly engaged in deviant and illegal behavior but not pedophelia for the most part.

Do you understand the issue?

Lisa N

Don’t really know Lisa

I just think that sometimes it is a matter of availability and what one can maybe think to get away with. There is not always just one reason. Sometimes we humans make the mistake of thinking the difference between right and wrong is if we get caught or not. Just a thought I had.

 

[Michael_T]

feather:

I just think that sometimes it is a matter of availability and what one can maybe think to get away with. There is not always just one reason. Sometimes we humans make the mistake of thinking the difference between right and wrong is if we get caught or not. Just a thought I had.

Feather,

While your thoughts are interesting, they ignore the point. It seems that you are dancing around the issue and bringing up red herrings in order to avoid admitting that there is compelling statistical evidence that a greater percentage of homosexuals abuse minors as opposed to the percentage of heterosexuals, and homosexual abusers statistically have more victims.

These facts, illustrated by statistics you asked for, indicate that there is a strong link between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors. The fact that 80.9% of the victims in the priest abuse scandal were boys (mostly adolescent boys) is also a strong indication that homosexuality is a factor, since all of the abusers were priests (and therefore male).

Think hard about the thoughts you shared in the quote above? Do they exclude the possibility that homosexuality is a factor? I would answer that they do not in the slightest degree. The things you mention may be factors as well, but you still refuse to consider homosexuality as a possible factor in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to your position that the homosexual orientation of the abusers was a factor in the sex abuse sacndals.

It is my contention that if the men who abused 80.9% of the victims in the priests abuse scandals had not been homosexual in the first place, they would have never abused those boys and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The numbers of abused minors would be significantly lower, and countless young people and their families, not to mention Catholics in general, would have been spared a good deal of anguish.

I have to ask, Feather. What compels you to bob and weave and dance around the elephant in the room when it comes to this issue? Why are you so insistent that anything but homosexuality is a factor in this scandal?

Nobody here has said it is the only factor. In fact, I have listed many other factors in my posts here. All that has been asked is if homosexuality has a relation to the scandals, and you have consistently denied it. You asked for evidence, we posted articles. You complained that you didn’t want to take the effort to read the articles. We separated the statistics out for you. That was still not enough.

The statistics demonstrate a strong relationship between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors; especially the John Jay Report (since this post is mainly concerned with the priest abuse scandals) yet you cling to the fantasy that homosexuality is in no way a factor in the sex abuse scandals within the Church.

Could you please share some evidence to support your cognitive dissonance? You indicated in one post that the numbers we were typing differed from what you have available. Could you share what is informing your position with us?

Surely your denial can’t simply be rooted in preconceived ideas firmly rooted in ignorance, the influence of pro-homosexual propaganda within secular culture, personal bias, and/or the refusal to consider facts that are presented to you.

I would hope that as strong position as yours would have more behind it than all or any of that.

 

[Lisa_N]

feather:

Don’t really know Lisa

I just think that sometimes it is a matter of availability and what one can maybe think to get away with. There is not always just one reason. Sometimes we humans make the mistake of thinking the difference between right and wrong is if we get caught or not. Just a thought I had.

Feather, as Michael T so articulately stated, you are ignoring the evidence for ‘feelings’ which to most of us are not particularly compelling. While admittedly priests had more close access to boys than girls, do you honestly think that a heterosexual male would molest BOYS? If you’ve had any experience with heterosexual males, the idea of homosexuality is beyond repugnant, not to mention any moral considerations regarding preying upon innocent and vulnerable young people. Is there any other evidence you need that there are some very sick tendencies that accompany homosexuality? Do you think no heterosexual priest has been aroused by a pretty young girl? But the reality is that molestation of girls is not only rare, but did not have the spike you will note in incidence if you take the time to look at the Jay report. These priests were sick and evil. And most were homosexual.

And before the usual suspects get their undies in a wad, no, I do not infer most or even many priests preyed upon children. But it should not go unnoticed that the predatory behavior was by a large measure homosexual.

Lisa N