The clergy abuse scandal: homosexuality or pedophilia?

[Michael_T]

Michael T.:

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.

I just realized that I accidentally left out the word “not” in the above sentence.

It should read:

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 not a factor in the sex abuse sacndals.

 

[Michael_T]

I would like to hear from the 11 people (so far) who have responded that homosexuality is not related in any way to the sex abuse scandals perpetrated by priests and religious within the Church.

Please share your reasons.

Evidentiary statistics supporting your positions would be helpful, but the most important thing is to understand the reason you think that homosexuality had nothing to do with the problem at all.

My concern is that people seem to be in denial here.

They seem to be denying homosexual activity exists when evidence to the contrary is staring them in the face.

Let’s try looking at it a different way:

• All priests and religious brothers are male.
• 80.9 % of the reported victims were male (mostly adolescent boys).
• Homosexuality is a sexual orientation where people are sexually attracted to members of the same gender.

*** Therefore, it is safe to say that roughly 80.9% of the incidents of sexual abuse against minors by priests and religious involved homosexuality (unless the offender was a nun, which is statistically rare, or the offender was a true pedophile with multiple victims of both genders all under the age of adolescence).**

I would ask those who persist in denying that homosexuality was a factor in the sex abuse scandals to show me where I am wrong in maintaining that homosexuality was a factor.

 

[benedictusoblat]

Too bad we don’t have an operational “Inquisition” that would ferret out these perverts and eliminate them from the ranks of the priesthood.

The “scandals” were mostly committed by queer priests with absolutely no love for Almighty God. We might as well look upon them as willing satanic agents out to indulge their own vice while killing as many souls as possible. These “men” are/were all adults. They all attended seminaries where they received at least some moral training - to wit, they know/knew what they were doing was/is wrong. That being the case, I believe every one of them should be sent away to a frozen monastery in Greenland to serve out their days in the most abject of circumstances, praying for God’s pardon. Refusing that, I would lock them up in some rotten prison with a tatoo to their foreheads and let the general population work their will upon them.

 

[geezerbob]

I saw on another thread today that the USCCB is going to spend a million dollars to get the answer to this question. In my opinion, it’s two things: 1) Homosexual priests and 2) Bishops who, for whatever reason, shuffled the offenders around and allowed the abuse to continue.

 

[Lisa_N]

geezerbob:

I saw on another thread today that the USCCB is going to spend a million dollars to get the answer to this question. In my opinion, it’s two things: 1) Homosexual priests and 2) Bishops who, for whatever reason, shuffled the offenders around and allowed the abuse to continue.

Yes but sometimes people don’t believe the most obvious answer is the correct one. Check out the thread on homosexual agenda where William Donahue responds to the LATimes and clearly states that given 81% of the victims were male and 100% of the perpetrators were male it was a HOMOSEXUAL problem, not a pedophile problem. Sheesh do people even do the math here?

Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

100% of the perpetrators were male it
Lisa N

its clearly a MALE problem. Very few lesbians or straight women (even thouhg more women than men are in church life) have ben found to practice this sin.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

its clearly a MALE problem. Very few lesbians or straight women (even thouhg more women than men are in church life) have ben found to practice this sin.

A male **homosexual **problem.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

its clearly a MALE problem. Very few lesbians or straight women (even thouhg more women than men are in church life) have ben found to practice this sin.

We are talking about clergy. It goes without saying that we are dealing with males. There are no lesbian priests.

 

[katherine2]

Brad:

We are talking about clergy. It goes without saying that we are dealing with males. There are no lesbian priests.

Sorry. I didn’t realize we were not owning up to any responsibility fro abuse by nuns or lay church employees.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

Sorry. I didn’t realize we were not owning up to any responsibility fro abuse by nuns or lay church employees.

Oh, so not talking about something means we ignore it’s existence? This thread also doesn’t talk about hungry elephants but they also exist.

 

[LSK]

I want to thank Michael T. for providing the information he has on this subject. I am one of those people who normally emphasize the vow of celibacy and chastity taken by priests, meaning that homosexuals can be priests because what matters is keeping the vows one takes, not ones sexual preference. However, from what Michael has provided it seems as though the chance for child abuse goes up if the priest is a homosexual.

I do remember reading an article during the height of the scandal (and I am so sorry I cannot reference it, but someone out there may have read it or something similar) that much of the problem with the men involved was not so much their sexual preferences as it was their lack of training in understanding themselves and some phrase like “sexual immaturity” which meant a lack of impulse control. In other words, and I am obviously paraphrasing, many of these men had gone into the seminary as teens themselves. Because of the type of envionment in which they were ‘raised’ into manhood, there was no chance for sexual maturity and an true understanding of controlling their impulses.

Does this ring a bell with anyone?

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

Sorry. I didn’t realize we were not owning up to any responsibility fro abuse by nuns or lay church employees.

A bit of a red herring K2. After all the thread refers to CLERGY,not lay people or religious. Further the abuses perpetrated by lay and religious did not result in megamillion dollar settlements or bankrupt dioceses did they?

Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

the abuses perpetrated by lay and religious did not result in megamillion dollar settlements or bankrupt dioceses did they?

Lisa N

rather circular logic. If women committed abuse in the same numbers as men, then yes, lay and religious abuse would have bankrupt dioceses. But women did not.

The point is that the statiscal difference between gay men and heterosexual men is less profound than the statiscal difference between men and women.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

rather circular logic. If women committed abuse in the same numbers as men, then yes, lay and religious abuse would have bankrupt dioceses. But women did not.

The point is that the statiscal difference between gay men and heterosexual men is less profound than the statiscal difference between men and women.

Huh? What is your point? Laypersons serving the church in some capacity and religious can also be males. They didn’t abuse youth to the extent that priests were involved.

Frankly why even mention them? Playing ‘what if’ hardly responds to the inquiry regarding homosexual vs pedophiles. Do you have an opinion on the thread question?

Lisa N

 

[Pecheur]

LSK:

I want to thank Michael T. for providing the information he has on this subject. I am one of those people who normally emphasize the vow of celibacy and chastity taken by priests, meaning that homosexuals can be priests because what matters is keeping the vows one takes, not ones sexual preference. However, from what Michael has provided it seems as though the chance for child abuse goes up if the priest is a homosexual.

I do remember reading an article during the height of the scandal (and I am so sorry I cannot reference it, but someone out there may have read it or something similar) that much of the problem with the men involved was not so much their sexual preferences as it was their lack of training in understanding themselves and some phrase like “sexual immaturity” which meant a lack of impulse control. In other words, and I am obviously paraphrasing, many of these men had gone into the seminary as teens themselves. Because of the type of envionment in which they were ‘raised’ into manhood, there was no chance for sexual maturity and an true understanding of controlling their impulses.

Does this ring a bell with anyone?

From my experience, the relevance is not homosexual vs. pedophiles, but it is rather, as mentioned above, obedience to the teachings of God and to maturity. When in the seminary those who practiced moral relativism, I would not trust. They think of themselves and have false teachings galore to follow. And they honestly believe these. Until the church goes back to the truth, ie quit covering up the truth, ***as many bishops still do, ***quit hiding these sick men, and teach the complete teachings of Jesus Christ, which includes what is and is not sin, only then will we become free.

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

Huh? What is your point? Laypersons serving the church in some capacity and religious can also be males. They didn’t abuse youth to the extent that priests were involved.

Frankly why even mention them? Playing ‘what if’ hardly responds to the inquiry regarding homosexual vs pedophiles. Do you have an opinion on the thread question?

Lisa N

You ask for a response to the inquiry regarding homosexual vs pedophiles. I do have an opinion. I am more concerned about sexual abuse of children by adults than I am of sexual activity between persons of the same sex.

You might deny it, but the church has been very clear in owning up to its responsibility to protect children in care of any person responsible to the church – priests, decaons, religious, laity.

Of the people the church has a responsbility to monitor, it has been men who have been the disproportionate abusers. There has been almost a total lack of reports of child abuse by women.

 

[new_man]

Strictly speaking most of it was homosexual preying on teen males rather than paedophilia as such. pray for our priests who bear the cross of public ridicule as the go about god’s work because of these shameful episodes.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

You ask for a response to the inquiry regarding homosexual vs pedophiles. I do have an opinion. I am more concerned about sexual abuse of children by adults than I am of sexual activity between persons of the same sex…

And WASN’T the abuse in Church between adults and minors? And wasn’t the abuse MOSTLY homosexual? So why do you continuously through out red herrings about laypersons or religious sisters when they were NOT the problem at all?

Just answer the question: Was the Church **CLERGY **abuse scandal a case of pedophelia or a case of homosexual predators?

katherine2:

You might deny it, but the church has been very clear in owning up to its responsibility to protect children in care of any person responsible to the church – priests, decaons, religious, laity. .

Hello, earth to K2…can you find a SINGLE INSTANCE where I denied that the church has owned up to its responsibility to protect children? No but it adds to the herring total I guess.

The vast majority of the scandal, the payouts, the coverups, the egregious and illegal behavior was between priests and young males. Thus that is where the emphasis and the focus should be don’t you think?

katherine2:

Of the people the church has a responsbility to monitor, it has been men who have been the disproportionate abusers. There has been almost a total lack of reports of child abuse by women.

So why did you bring up the issue in the first place?

Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

And WASN’T the abuse in Church between adults and minors?

That’s the defination of abuse. Sex between consenting, unmarried adults might be wrong, but it is not objectively abuse. This issue is the kids, not the gender of the actors. If you deny that you are part of the problem.

And wasn’t the abuse MOSTLY homosexual?

I’m happy to leave the issue at its about kids and protecting them. If you want to look at various characteristics of the abusers, the most disproportionate from the population as a whole is the were almost all male.

Just answer the question: Was the Church **CLERGY **abuse scandal a case of pedophelia or a case of homosexual predators?

I don’t accept your premise that the it wasn’t a scandal if the abuser wasn’t clergy.

Hello, earth to K2…can you find a SINGLE INSTANCE where I denied that the church has owned up to its responsibility to protect children?

The why do you call it a clergy scandal?

The vast majority of the scandal, the payouts, the coverups, the egregious and illegal behavior was between priests and young males.
Lisa N

Exaclty. Lesbians and straight women committed very few acts of abuse.

 

[Lisa_N]

K2 since you seem to enjoy twisting what people say I won’t bother to respond to your latest. Again will you answer the question posed on the thread or not?

Lisa N