markomalley

Need I say more???

Ahem... Sorry for the bad news...

Sir Lingo, prop·a·gan·da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prp-gnd) n. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. In other words, she has seen material that both advocates and opposes meat eating. If one assumes that the anti-meat eating lobby is the left, the pro-meat eating lobby must be the right. But, specifically, I was referring to magazines like Sports Afield, Outdoor Life, Field and Stream, etc. Yes, I know they don't specifically refer to eating animal protein, but they do make reference to the harvesting and processing of that form of protein.

Belle, If you know how to knit, crochet, or do needlepoint, there are a lot of things you can do that are very personalized and can be greatly appreciated -- if nothing else, for the amount of love you put in the thing. The $50-$60 you have can be used to buy materials... For example, a crochet/knit stadium blanket in the colors of his favorite team (you might even be able to work in the team emblem into the pattern--I've seen that done before). Scarves are always good up north. Needlepoint: not only can you do the usual 'crafty', 'countrified' junk that you see up on walls, you can take that talent and buy a rather inexpensive dress shirt or tie ($20-$40 at a outlet mall) and embroider his initials on the shirt pocket, sleeves, or, again, on the tie. That changes an inexpensive shirt into a custom job that would cost him $100 if he bought it himself and had the work done through an expensive men's store. Or for a different spin, getting a nice set of sheets and embroidering a crest on them is a really classy thing that, if you have the right kind of store, shouldn't cost more than $50. You might not have the time to knock out a knit project, but doing some custom embroidery shouldn't take all that long and is something that he might not have on his own. Speaking of customizations, if you don't have the talent yourself, the "Things Remembered" kiosks usually have lots of items that you could have customized. Tie clips, money clips, business card holders, etc., are usually nice "man" gifts. The other nice thing is if you hand-make a card (don't know how crafty you are) to accompany the gift. My wife did that for a few years: stamped embossing, hand-made paper, and so on. They really turned out nice and were as valuable to the recipients as the gifts they accompanied. But I'd suggest thinking outside the box: take something very ordinary and customize it to make it extraordinary.

(severely snipped extract above) Howard, if Chris Geer ever did anything good, this was it. Whether or not POP was true or not, "he tore the lid off the sucka." I, being a lowly leaf, didn't hear about POP for a long time after the fact, but when I did, that, along with being shown/ told about the "loyalty letter," were the two key events that sealed my decision to depart. For that reason alone, I am very glad for Chris Geer's being around when he was. For all those who criticize him, consider this: had it not been for POP and the fallout during the late '80s, where would TWI be today? Instead of having a mere 3-4 thousand members (at best), they might still have 30-40 thousand. The massive DFAC surge that happened and the spate of M&As that characterized the '90s might not have happened. LCM's paranoia might never have been sparked to its full extent (So now you're really PO'd at Chris, right?) However, the MOG worship would have still been there; the sexual abuse would still be there; the conspiracy theories would still be there; the (in some people's opinion) faulty doctrine would have still been there, and so on and so forth. How many of you who only left as a result of being M&A'd would go back (we've had this poll question before)? How many of you only found out the truth about TWI only after you'd be involuntarily kicked out? Speaking for myself, if not for being exposed to POP, the leadership chaos, and then seeing the loyalty letter, I'd likely not have left... When the poll's been taken here before, there are VERY few people who answer that they regret no longer being involved with TWI. Well, it's likely that the M&A purge of the 90s would not have happened had it not been for the POP reading in the 80s. So before condemning Geer, it might be good to consider that. I appreciate you so eloquently bringing up your points, Howard. Point very well taken.

I believe that kids should have an exposure to a bunch of different ideas, including whacked out ones like PETA. But those ideas need to have a fair exposure from all sides, not just getting bombarded from one side. My daughter has seen the propaganda from the left. She has also seen the propaganda from the right. And, where I've been able, she's seen the facts. When it comes to the 'animal rights' crowd, I've gone out and shown her damage to trees from deer that have overpopulated our area and I've even been able to show her where the deer have gotten sick from malnourishment. Consequently, although she's expressed no interest in hunting, she understands it's necessary. From seeing both sides, my daughter is more pro-life than I am. However, we don't agree on the Iraq war (she thinks it was good to get rid of Saddam but thinks that we should leave...I'm working on her on that issue). The advantage here is that she is able, at the tender age of 12, to recognize BS when she sees it out of one of her teachers (fortunately, she has the common sense to keep her mouth shut in that class, as well). For example, her science teacher is a tree-hugger and does not allow the kids to do dissections for biology. Although the teacher has persuaded a couple of kids in her class to agree with her, my daughter is the one who came up with the "tree hugger" name for this teacher! Likewise, when she watches television, she is able to spot flakiness in the programs from 30 yards and decries some of the crap before I even have a chance to point it out. The point is that if kids are exposed to a variety of points of view and are taught the discipline to examine those points of view, they will be able to develop their own minds and will be able to think for themselves, rather than be subject to pedagogical brainwashing throughout their school careers. With all the extraneous influences on kids today, they need to be armed, more than ever, with the ability to critically think: the ability to examine an issue, get the facts, analyze those facts, and draw their own conclusions on an issue. If they are trained up to do that, there is no need to fear idiotic comic books put out by groups like PETA, NARAL, the KKK, or other extremists. But don't count on the schools to do that; really important education like that has to come from the home.

Oh, and by the way, let me illustrate some examples: "Gee, Mark, I think the numbers were cooked in your study. This study (hyperlink) shows that only 41% of the victims were male." or even: "Mark, your numbers are full of cr@p. If they are so accurate, how come (this site), (this site), (this site), and (this site) only report incidents of females being abused by priests? - Things that make you go hmmmmm" Or "Mark, the study you constantly reference has been totally debunked. (Reference), (reference), (reference) have completely invalidated it due to faulty methodology." See, Garth, that kind of thing works better for me than just making unsupported allegations. And, believe it or not, I'll listen to that kind of reasoning. And so will a bunch of other people.

Garth, Sorry to tell you, but JPII apologized for the Church's treatment of Galileo. JPII never changed the Church's position on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. The text of this 'apology' can be found here. Basically, the problem was that Galileo was asserting that Copernicism was true, when it had not yet been proven and further stating that some of the Bible must be incorrect because of this. (Curious that Copernic was never condemned by the Church, even though he was the actual postulator of the heliocentric system) You really ought to read the Wikipedia article on Galileo... Now, I've heard of JPII's 'apology' about Galileo, but I never heard him reverse the Church's position on heliocentrism. That was the reason for my 'huh.' Had this usage been in the 2005 document, you might have a point about it being a strawman. But it wasn't. It was in the 1961 document. Issued literally 40 years before the abuse crisis. I hate to tell you, but the Church isn't using that argument (more particularly the US Bishops). They are (as a body) backpedalling and being overly politically correct in my view. They are trying to take YOUR position on the matter. They are the ones who blew off the direction they were given and They are the ones who are at fault here. My position is not the position of the US Council of Catholic Bishops. No, I am specifically saying that the US Council of Catholic Bishops mishandled their responsibilities and that is the cause of the problem. Had they enforced the policies they had in place since (at least) 1961 (if not before...I haven't gone to my local Canon Law library to research earlier rulings), the majority of these incidents would not have happened. Not that a few homosexual priests snuck in under the Pope's nose, but that the US Council of Catholic Bishops completely disregarded the rule...and that this is the problem. Now that the horse is out of the barn, they're trying to react and, with only a few exceptions, are unwilling to come out and actually state the real problem. Since you are accusing them of cooking numbers, do you have evidence to the contrary? No? I didn't think so. Do you have ANY documentation to the contrary? Do you? Take a look at any of the abuse sites out there, before putting your foot deeper in your mouth here. You will find that the anecdotal information presented in them corroborates the empirical study discussed earlier. Yup, sure do. I think your own biases are beating you thoroughly. I have always maintained this. But, one issue is this (brought up in the post you're responding to): But, for some reason, the vast, vast, vast majority of the cases where this immaturity/ these disorders are manifested involve homosexual acts with pubescent/ post-pubescent boys. Not girls. Why is it that the majority of the cases are M-M contact rather than M-F contact (within the set of data under discussion: the Catholic priesthood)? Could it be that the majority of the individuals with "lack of emotional maturity and underlying personality disorders" also happen to be homosexual? Is there a causal relationship here? In other words, is the fact that they are homosexual cause the "lack of emotional maturity and underlying personality disorders" or is the fact that they have a "lack of emotional maturity and underlying personality disorders" result in them being homosexual? Or is their homosexuality simply coincident with the "lack of emotional maturity and underlying personality disorders?" And if it is simply coincident, why is the co-incidence not also extant in heterosexual priests (resulting in a higher incidence of M-F abuse cases)? Rather than simply being critical of what I'm saying or combative, why don't you seriously try to answer those questions? Because if you have a credible answer, rather than just an unsupported assertion, I am happy to listen and may change my mind about the situation. But platitudes, in of themselves, or assertions, unsupported, simply are not going to cause me to change my mind just to be politically correct. Garth, I have repeatedly cited the facts that I know that are available. I have not simply gone out and said "those $#@#$ f@gs are the problem." I have been responded to with inaccuracies, fallacious, non-sequitor arguments, strawmen, mockery, and so on. Those techniques are the techniques of somebody who does not have the facts on his side. A person with the facts on his side would cite his facts and let them speak. So once again, if you have facts to the contrary...if you have alternate logical, supported reason to the contrary, please so state. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing else to argue about. Hitting a blind man gets boring after a while. Have a great day!

Actually, the study does break down temporal data, such as the incidence of the boy's school you mention. As to the incidence of the out of control priest who was just so h0rny he had to find "any port in the storm," well, sorry, I don't believe it gets into that detail. But if you would be so kind as to show me some empirical data to illustrate the incidence of this happening, I'll be happy to review it. Your prison scenario, I guess, could be equated to a remote monastary, but I don't believe that this type of incident was even included...as that would not be considered the abuse of minors. You mention that this study doesn't support my argument: My argument, at the beginning, was taking an issue with a point made in the initial post (and in the title) of the thread... The initial post of the thread stated: The Vatican said sexually active homosexuals or those who support "gay culture" are unwelcome in the priesthood unless they have overcome their homosexual tendencies for at least three years. I mentioned in my initial response that the media got it wrong in how they were reporting the story (about this document). I then quoted a leaked copy of the document so that the exact wording of the document's text could be evaluated. I finally pointed out that this was not actually a new statement, and provided a passasge of a document from 1961 that supported my point (that this was not a new rule, but a restatement). I initially expressed neither approval or disapproval for the point -- I was just making sure the facts were out there -- at least in my initial post. Because of the fact that this document used the words homosexual and pederasty in the same sentence, and an honest misreading of it (substituting pedophilia for pederasty), you took it that the Church was equating pedophilia with homosexuality (or so I surmise)...and several pages later, here we are. That was my initial point. That was my initial argument. Period. Garth, I am not equating homosexuality and pedophilia. I maintain that the majority of the sexual abuse cases reported in the study, most of the sexual abuse cases involving Catholic clergy that I've heard of or read in the media (but not all, in either case), and the ones that I am familiar with, involve male-to-male contact of a sexual nature. If you have some empirical data that can prove me wrong, again, please bring it forth. Garth, I am not equating homosexuality and pedophilia. But one way or the other, it is a major derailment of this thread. BTW, for the record, my position on the matter is: Priest who takes advantage of pre-pubescent boys = evil priest Priest who takes advantage of post-pubescent boys = evil priest Priest who takes advantage of pre-pubsecent girls = evil priest Priest who takes advantage of post-pubescent girls = evil priest Priest who takes advantage of men = evil priest Priest who takes advantage of women = evil priest Priest who has consensual sexual relations with either sex not his wife = bad priest (he took a vow and broke the vow) Priest who maintains chastity according to his station in life* = if other factors met, good priest *chastity according to station in life means if he's married, he has sex only with his wife...if he's single, he keeps it zipped. Please show me some empirical data that speak about Catholic priests (vice the population as a whole). I seriously would be happy to look it over. But in the meantime, the current document that is the subject of this thread said what it said (quoted in my first post on this thread). It is not a new policy...it merely restates already existing policy (as quoted in my first post on this thread). That is the bottom line.

No, I originally quoted a Vatican decree that listed pederasty, not pedophilia. There is a difference, you know. Oh, you didn't? Look it up. Pederasty is directly related to homosexuality: ped·er·ast ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pd-rst) n. A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy. (from dictionary.com) See above, Garth, and read the original quote. Sorry, big guy. You really should understand what words mean before arguing on their content. But I understand pedophilia ~ pederasty. They both begin with 'ped' -- so I can understand the confusion. Again, you really need to understand a subject before talking about it. There is a distinct difference between a general population and a segment based on race, age, culture, occupation, etc. Results will always be different. Not if the sample selected is not representative of the population, at large. A person who follows politics as closely as you should know that...that is one of the first checks on the validity of a poll...the demographics of the sample versus the demographics of the population, at large. Same principle applies with sociological statistics, as well... Garth, they explained exactly where they got the information from. The only possible case where the 86% would not be a realistic number is if all the dioceses reported all the data on the homosexual priests and minimal on the heterosexual ones. And think about it: we're talking about the scandal-phobic Catholic church here (the church that was so afraid of scandal that it worked itself into this mess to begin with)? What would be the worse scandal to a bunch of neanderthal Catholics? You are absolutely right that puberty and/or sexual awareness reaches different kids at different ages. OK, so move the bar to 12. It still is the majority (I'll have to look, but I believe it's still like 70-75%). Garth, I don't list homosexuality as the only cause of the problem. I list homosexuality in the priesthood as a significant factor, but not the only one. I personally know several homosexual priests who (to my knowledge) are just as disgusted by this 'crisis' as the heterosexual ones are. Fact is that if a priest is capable of being celibate, it really and truly doesn't matter who he is attracted toward. If he's not capable of being celibate, then, according to the rules of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, he has no business being a priest. The real deep cause behind this is a lack of emotional maturity and underlying personality disorders that are made manifest through the stressors of being a priest and living that life (and, btw, those stressors are not hardly only extant in the Catholic Church...there are abusers in all denominations and in all occupations involving trust and authority over children). But, for some reason, the vast, vast, vast majority of the cases where this immaturity/ these disorders are manifested involve homosexual acts with pubescent/ post-pubescent boys. Not girls. This is a rather unique phenomenon, as, the majority of the cases I've read about (and the data is anecdotal...I don't have other empirical studies to draw upon) have involved heterosexual instances (man-girl, woman-boy). Your example of AIDS is fallacious, even though it is non-sequitor to this discussion. In the 70s and 80s, there were two risk groups for AIDS: homosexual men (note: not homosexual women) and IV drug users. Even to this day (or as of about a year ago), the majority of infected patients were homosexual men (or, to be more scientifically correct, the infection was spread from male-male sex). And, if you trace the source of the infection back, in the case of heterosexual (male-female) transmission, there is almost always a link back to some male-male sex. Likewise, in the case of blood transfusions, the party who donated the blood had to be infected in order for the blood to be infected...the same with AIDS transmitted to a fetus. But that discussion is about the priesthood, not about AIDS. I have. Wish I would have, my boy, wish I would have. You can call it semantics if you'd like. Whatever makes you happy. Huh??? Works for me. I'm glad you finally admit that you've lost the argument and have given up!!!

Thanks, that's awfully sweet of you. BTW, the "ignore" button is located on a user's profile. Feel free... Or alternatively suggest to the mods that I be banned (a la Rocky). Either way.

Remember when I said I had to deal with both pedophiles and ephebophiles when I did time as a first sergeant in the AF? Aviano, Italy, 1998: An E-6 in my unit was busted for scr3wing both of his young children repeatedly. 2 and 4 years old. Not only did I have to deal with him (without killing the b@stard), I had to maintain control on the unit members that guarded him for about one week 24/7, while he was awaiting transportation to the jail up in Germany (Mannheim)...making sure they didn't have an "accident" when he was in their custody. But I also had to deal with the family...the wife and the two little kids...getting them psychological help, being there for them while helping them get their things packed up for shipment back to the states, etc. I understand it's not the same as for your two kid brothers, and I understand it was only their father, not their priest, but I think I have a little appreciation for the situation. (And, for Garth, I've also had to deal with 30 year old troops scr3wing the commander's 12 going on 20 year old daughter, also from the same unit. And, believe me, there is a big, big difference).

The John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York. The US Council of Catholic Bishops put out a request for proposal back in 2001 to law schools across the country to have an independent review of the problem. The John Jay College was the school competitively selected. They were commissioned to do 3 studies: 1) A review of existing information on the subject 2) An empirical study of the "nature and scope" of the problem in the Catholic Church (this is the report we're arguing about here) 3) A study of the "causes and context" of the problem. This will be the study that affixes blame and draws conclusions. This study was supposed to be started in the fall of 2004 but has not yet been published (and, yes, it will be made available when presented).

reason for the Catholic Church's opposition against homosexuality, even with the countering increasing scientific findings re: homosexuality, is because of their allegience to their particular brand of orthodox doctrine. That's the real issue here, isn't it? There is a huge difference IMO between ephebephilia and pedophilia. However, to the point of your last response: 1) your first quote was from a general description of adult sexual abusers and was not, in particular, speaking about the abusers in this case. The title of the section in question is this: "3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE BY ADULT MEN" 2) Your second quote was summarizing treatment provided sexual offenders. It was in the section entitled: "5.4 SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT." Again, it was not speaking specifically about abuse by Catholic clerics. 3) However, when the study says the following: Unlike in the general population, more males than females were allegedly. In fact, there was a significant difference between genders, with four out of five alleged victims being male. The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children. I don't believe that it needs to say "homosexual" -- I believe that conclusion should be self-evident. It isn't talking about heterosexual abuse. As to the remainder of the "jewels" you "identified" in the study, it's great taking something out of context in order to make your point (your normal modus operendi, I've noted): For example, your quote, Empirical studies on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church are limited. didn't provide enough information to judge what was said... You don't bother to mention the topic sentence of the section, "INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE BY ADULT MEN," which says: "For many years, scholars and practitioners have attempted to describe and categorize adult men who engage in sexually abusive behavior with children under the age of 18." The remainder of that section describes previously accomplished studies on the general population. Taking it out of context is a lot juicier, though, isn't it? The other "jewels" you cited are likewise taken out of context. Me, and many others, including plenty of parents and children who did experience the abuse. See, despite whatever clinical deliniation that is made between pedophelia and ephebophilia (or pederasty) there might technically be (as tho' there really is some sharp line of division between the two), real life delineation becomes a helluva lot more blurred. The real life examples here testify to this. Garth, I think that it is admirable that you would want to protect your children. I feel the same way. But to put it in plain talk, there is a difference between somebody who goes after jailbait (ephebophilia) and a pedophile. When I was performing duty as a first sergeant in the AF, I had to deal with both. Typically, from that angle (the angle of enforcing military law), you bust somebody for jailbait once, and he's cured of it. A pedophile has a terminal disease. There are those, in fact, who believe that pedophilia is its own sexual preference. Further, depending upon the country, what we'd call ephebophilia is simply consensual sex. In Chile and the Netherlands, the age of consent is 12. In many countries, the age of consent is 13 or 14 (including S Korea, Romania, Croatia, and several others -- including Puerto Rico). In our country, it's typically between 16 and 18. So at what point does it cease being pedophilia and start being consensual sex -- albeit with somebody not legally allowed to give consent (depending on geography)? The clinical answer -- puberty. If, hypothetically, I had sex with a 14 year old in Maryland, would I be a pedophile? How about if we were in Puerto Rico? (In one place it's illegal, in another, it's legal) I realize in either, it would be despicable. But despicable is not the question, pedophilia is the question. "And yes there are lots of studies done that back me up in disconnecting the relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia (even ephebophilia for that matter, as in no more than in a heterosexual context would be)." No argument, when speaking about the general population of the country. However, we're not talking about the general population here, are we? "But John Jay's study hardly touches on any connection between homosexuality and ephebophilia, even with the numbers you give. Your connection of ephebophilia and homosexuality is just your interpretation of the numbers. If that is so much of an accurate and important conclusion, don't you think your expert would have made more of an affirmative mention in his article than he has? " When the numbers are as skewed as they are, I think any other conclusion is very difficult to support. In other words, why bother to state the patently obvious. To repeat myself, when the study says the following, it shouldn't be necessary to state the obvious: Unlike in the general population, more males than females were allegedly. In fact, there was a significant difference between genders, with four out of five alleged victims being male. The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children. Oh, and you said, "... the point is that there are many experts in the psychological field that do not consider ephebophilia to be a pathos as they do with pedophilia". Tell that to the victims and their relatives, whatever their ages would have been. You need to keep in mind that there is more than physical age that we're dealing with here. Yup, I sure did say that. And I maintain that. I see little difference between messing with a 14 year old and Der Weg's MOGFOT "ministering" to an innocent girl of 18 or 19...or older. It is sexual domination, it is disgusting, it is severe abuse of a position where the person is seen as holy in the eyes of the victim, and I certainly hope that there is a special place in hell for the perpetrator. But it's not pedophilia.

Garth: "The topic here" is a policy statement to be officially released by the Vatican regarding homosexual priests. The subject of pederasty came up when I quoted an earlier statement, made in 1961 that said: Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers. (btw, you'll note that the subject stated homosexuality OR pederasty was mentioned. This implies that one could be a homosexual without being a pederast and visa versa) The point of quoting this was to show that a policy against ordaining homosexuals was not a new policy, but the 'old' policy hadn't been enforced...this new policy is a re-stating of the old. And, of course, you going off on a tangent...and taking the thread with you. Now, Garth, since you are so critical of the John Jay study, do you have a more authoritative study to cite regarding clergy sex abuse (either in the Catholic Church or in any Protestant denomination or wherever)? As somebody who has had to digest quantitative studies as part of my work, the fact that the limitations of the study are listed UP FRONT add to its credibility. If you think about it, I think even you would agree. (Nah, you wouldn't, because you'd have to admit that you might be wrong. That is not genetically possible, I understand) But, as I have said on gsc for years when this subject has come up, if you have some better empirical data to cite, I am seriously more than willing to look at it. But until you can show those data, the John Jay study is the only source out there on the clergy sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. And that study shows that 81% of the victims were males and 86% of them were over the age of 10. This shows that the phenomena, in bulk, is ephebophilia rather than pedophilia (in a clinical sense)...that is a HUGE difference that, apparently, you are unwilling to admit. As stated in Wikipedia, many scientists describe ephebophilia as: ... consistent preference for adolescents is merely a natural and normal attraction to individuals at or near the peak of their sexual capability, and reflects a biologically "normal" reproductive strategy (in contrast to a preference for pre-pubescents, which does not and is therefore pathological). Sociobiological research shows that primate males tend to prefer young females of reproductive age. For example, a study on human male preferences showed that males from the age of 7 years and up tended to prefer the faces of 17-year-old girls over those of other ages. (See Sexual attraction of men.) Attraction to adolescents is not commonly regarded by psychologists as inherently pathological, only when it interferes with other relationships, becomes an obsession adversely affecting other areas of life, or causes distress to the subject. An exclusive attraction to adolescents can lead to difficulties when the younger person in such a relationship reaches adulthood. Sexual desire that includes adolescents along with older individuals is common among adults with either a heterosexual or a homosexual orientation; this is not labeled "ephebophilia" because the attraction to adolescents is not exclusive of adults. In some cultures, for adults to include adolescents among their sexual interests is considered normal, such as those in which adolescent girls have routinely been married to adult men. Nonetheless, an open attraction to adolescents may be ridiculed or disparaged as inappropriate or unhealthy, compared to forming a relationship with "someone your own age"; an attraction to adolescents is something one is expected to "grow out of." In Japanese society, the attraction of men towards teenage girls (high-school students) is a visible cultural phenomenon. The manifestations of such attraction, such as lolicon art, school uniform fetishes, and sexual relations with teenage girls (e.g. enjo kōsai) are tolerated more than in the West. (This view is not universally held; however, the point is that there are many experts in the psychological field that do not consider ephebophilia to be a pathos as they do with pedophilia) Rather than just being critical, prove that this study has inaccurate data. Prove to me that the majority of abuse was with young children, rather than adolescents. Prove to me that the majority of abuse was with females vice males. Rather than just scoffing, prove your point. If you can show me any empircal study other than John Jay, I'd be happy to review it; but until then, John Jay is what we have to work with. And that challenge goes to ANYBODY. Show me an empircal study done with any degree of academic rigor OTHER than the John Jay study.... (what, I don't hear any takers???)

The tragey of all this is that it is so un-Christian... What ever happened to Advent?

Cynic, you summarized my statements as follows: but that regeneration is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation. In the post you were summarizing, I said the following: Having said this, the Church has always held that God can save an individual who is not baptized, but who is properly disposed but who hasn't yet received the sacrament (The classic example is that of a catechumen). So the direct answer is no, but...regeneration is not the same as salvation. I bolded the word "can" to emphasize it, because it was apparently missed when you read it before. You must of mis-read the word "can" as "will." There is a difference between the two. "Can" implies that the object is possible. "Will" implies a condition of certainty. I made this much greater detail in an earlier post on this thread: Raf, you are missing the point I am getting at. I truly believe that baptism is an essential sacrament. That much hasn't changed. However, I also believe that God is truly merciful and that his mercy passes what I am capable of understanding. As a Catholic, we are often confronted with the question, what about somebody who lives a good life, intuitively understands that there is a creator, and endeavors to live his life in true reverence to that creator and in love to his fellow man. But this person has never heard the name of Jesus Christ. So is this person condemned to eternal damnation? The pat answer is that we believe that God is a God of mercy and that the judgement on this person will be less severe than that of a person who, knowing God, decides to reject Him. And, in fact, God's mercy may be such that this theoretical person who has never heard the name of Christ but who lived a "Christian"-like life may end up in heaven. Note the words: may and could. Not will and shall. There is a difference. That's why I worded my response as follows: ...Having said that, a person could be improperly taught...and that fact would change everything. That fact would, in fact, change everything. Then the person may be dealt with as one who is ignorant, like the person who hasn't ever heard the name of Christ but who lived a good and proper life. But what situation is that person in? A big maybe. If. Could. Hopefully. Is that the same as saying it's not necessary? Not hardly. The difference is that I am not willing to provide the condemnation to anybody. You won't find ME making a judgement that a person is going to hell. God is merciful. And its not my place to decline that mercy to anybody. But knowing and trusting in God's mercy is different than remaining in intentional ignorance in order to FORCE God's mercy. There is a difference. Hopefully that clarifies matters a bit for you.

No Cynic, I suggest you read my words again.

Well, Cynic, this is quite the tall order for this early on Black Friday, but I will give it a shot: For my explanation to make sense, one must put off TWI definitions of words and fundamentalist definitions of words. Where I recall that there is a disconnect, I will try to provide a definition. But dialectics will screw up the meaning of what I am saying!!!! Unfortunately, a byproduct of the Protestant heresies is a change in the dialectics within many protestant circles that results in fundamental changes in the meaning behind the words. With the above caveat, here goes: First of all, baptism is a sacrament. A sacrament is a practice instituted by Christ for the salvation and strengthening of His Church, the body of believers, to save, nourish and strengthen her. They are specific methods through which the Holy Spirit (the paraclete) acts for believers.The ultimate minister of the sacraments is Christ. He delegated this ministerial function to the apostles and, through apostolic succession, this responsibility has been delegated to the Church. There are ordinary ministers of a sacrament and, in some cases, there are extraordinary ministers. With the exception of the sacrament of matrimony, the ordinary ministers are ordained clergy. Matrimony is unique, because, in this sacrament, the Christian spouses are the ministers, pledging an everlasting covenant with each other. Sacraments are said to be "ex opere operato," or, by the very fact of the action being performed. What does that mean, in a practical sense? It means that the validity of the sacrament being performed is not contingent upon the holiness of the lawful minister. A couple of practical examples: let us assume a validly ordained priest is having an affair with the parish secretary and that this priest is unrepentant. The priest is obviously in a state of grave sin; however, because of the principle of "ex opere operato," that does not affect the validity of the baptisms he has performed, it does not affect the Masses he has celebrated, etc. If one of the spouses in a marriage committed murder the night before, it does not neccesarily affect the validity of the covenantal marriage vows taken (obviously, if the spouse in question may not of been of mental capacity to take those vows and, thus, the vows may be invalid for that reason, but that is a different issue). Each of the seven sacraments, baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, reconcilliation, unction (annointing of the sick), marriage, and Holy Orders, were instituted by Christ and each confers grace in of itself. Why bring all of this up? Because a lot of people do not understand what a sacrament is and what a sacrament is not. Second point: what is regeneration? Simply stated, regeneration is our justification before God and our redemption by the power of Christ's sacrifice. When an individual is regenerated, all sins, both original and personal, are washed away. The new birth is the consequence of regeneration. In the new birth, an individual is made a member of Christ's Body. One receives an "indelible mark" ('sealed with the Holy Spirit,' 'born again of incorruptible seed') when one receives the new birth. Please note this caveat: regeneration does not remove fleshy tendancies from an individual. A person does not become a brainwashed, mind-numbed automaton at the point of regeneration. God's grace strengthens an individual and heals an individual who has strayed, but that individual always has the free will to act within the will of God or against the will of God. With those two definitions, baptism is, in fact, the sacrament of regeneration. I have seen no indication in scripture or in early historical Christian documents where regeneration and baptism are not associated. (I have seen where baptism is mentioned without immediate mention of regeneration, I have seen where regeneration is mentioned without immediate mention of baptism, but I have not seen a reference where it explicitly states that regeneration occurs apart from baptism -- and since orthodox Christian practice has been to baptize for circa 2,000 years, I would think that the burden of proof of difference is on the one who says that orthodox doctrine is incorrect) The ordinary minister of baptism is any ordained clergy; however, anybody with the correct intent can perform a valid baptism. Baptism must be accomplished with the trinitarian formula illustrated in Matthew 28:19. The person being baptized must indicate a willingness to be baptized; in the event of a person unable to do so (e.g., through mental incapacity or through lack of maturity), the parents/ guardians may provide consent (cf Acts 16:15, 16:34, 1 Cor 1:16 -- indicates that whole households/ families were baptized when the parents believed). So, with the above, in specific answer to the questions: 1. Is it the normative case that regeneration is administered by the sacrament of (water) baptism? Yes. 2. Is it possible for one to be regenerated without the sacrament of baptism? As I stated above, I see no indication where regeneration is possible outside of baptism. Having said this, the Church has always held that God can save an individual who is not baptized, but who is properly disposed but who hasn't yet received the sacrament (The classic example is that of a catechumen). So the direct answer is no, but...regeneration is not the same as salvation. 3. Does the sacrament of baptism invariably confer regeneration? (i.e. are all baptized persons infallibly regenerated?) Yes, but... 1) It's not voodoo. The person being baptized must wish to be baptized (with the caveat that a parent/guardian can express consent for children/incapacitated under his charge). So in other words, you can't walk up to a person passed out with liquor, poor water on his head three times and say "I baptize you in the name of..." (Well, you could, but he'd just have a wet head) 2) It doesn't strip a person of free will. In other words, a person could be baptized and still make the decision to lead a sinful life and, if he doesn't repent of that sinful life, will come to a bad end (cf 2 Pet 2:21, Gal 5:19-21, I Jn 1:8, I Jn 1:10, etc.). God is abundant in mercy, but He won't force a person to act in a certain way. And actions still have consequences, as indicated throughout the NT. But he provides us a way out (cf I Jn 1:9, 2:1-3). Sorry for the length of the answer, but I wanted to make sure to provide a comprehensive answer. And, by the way, that is "Papist scum" to you. Oh, and I'll be happy to take another brewski!

Say what? I don't even understand how a person can make that statement with anything approaching a straight face. 86% of the victims were over the age of 10 and 81% of the victims were male, while 100% of the priests who perpetrated the abuse were male. Therefore, the vast bulk of the abuse was homosexual in nature. I don't know where you got your information, but the John Jay study is the only authoritative study I've seen on the subject. If you haven't read it, you should. As to 'active,' an 'inactive' (read celibate) homosexual priest wouldn't be trying to seduce young, adolescent boys. But the document that was the source of this thread doesn't talk about 'active' homosexuals vice 'inactive' homosexuals. It talks about homosexuals. In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture. The above persons find themselves, in fact, in a situation that gravely obstructs a right way of relating with men and women. The negative consequences that may derive from the Ordination of persons with profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies are by no means to by ignored. If, however, one is dealing with homosexual tendencies that may be simply the expression of a transitory problem, such as for example an adolescence not yet complete, such tendencies must be overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate. See the Vatican document on homosexuals and seminaries-- full text. If you read the document itself, you'll note that it was not reported with complete accuracy.Note that the actual document doesn't talk about active or inactive. The only caveat provided is for an individual was trying to figure out his sexuality (transitory problem). But it clearly does not provide this caveat for anybody who considers himself as a homosexual, whether or not that person has been celibate or not. This is not to say that all homosexuals want to seduce young boys or to say that all homosexuals who have decided to be celibate and be ordained as priests are abusers; however, it simply goes against the facts of the situation to imply that the majority of the perps were not homosexual or that the majority of the incidents were homosexual in nature. You may not agree with the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality (i.e., that homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition and that homosexual acts are gravely sinful. Individuals with homosexual tendencies are called to be celibate, but are to be treated in all cases with respect), but it is what it is. If a non-Catholic disagrees with it, well, it's probably good that the person is a non-Catholic, so that person can blow it off and not worry about it. For those who are Catholic, it is good to remember this caveat in the document in question: Concerning profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, that one discovers in a certain number of men and women, these are also objectively disordered and often constitute a trial, even for these men and women. These people must be received with respect and delicacy; one will avoid every mark of unjust discrimination with respect to them. These are called to realize the will of God in their lives and to unite to the Sacrifice of the Lord the difficulties that they may encounter. If the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is objectively disordered, then it is perfectly obvious that, particularly in light of the abuse issues, those individuals who suffer from that objective disorder should not be ordained.

Raf, thanks...but I am working on an answer to this off-line...and, unfortunately, for a competant (doctrinal forum-style) answer, it can't be a one-liner, so it is taking me a little bit.

Congrats and thanks for all you do for all of us!

Excathedra, I didn't write that last post or that comment for your benefit. If you'll re-read it, you'll note it was addressed to Belle. I realize that, if you had your way, the next time you'd be in a Catholic church would be feet first in a coffin (and then only if your still Catholic relatives get control of your dead body and disregard your will). I'm very sorry for your brothers. I am glad that the person who did that to your brothers has been laicized, but I'm sorry that it took as long as it did. And I realize that there is nothing that would make you happier than if literally every Catholic deacon, priest, and bishop were taken out behind their churches and shot and if literally every Catholic place of worship was levelled and the ground salted so nothing would grow on them for eternity. I also realize that this position is one taken by a rather high percentage of posters on gsc. So, please, if you ever read anything positive I say about Catholicism or anything positive I say about the Catholic Church (or even anything negative I say about the Catholic Church), please don't assume for a second that I am trying to recruit you or anybody else on gsc. I full well know that nobody on gsc would EVER consider converting or returning to the Catholic Church -- and I don't believe wasting my time. My SOLE purpose in this is to provide some sort of a counterbalance. Period. End of Story. BTW, I am familiar with the site bishop-accountability.org; it's got some good details in it. You may wish to check out this site: http://bbs.survivorsfirst.org/main/index.php -- a forum for survivors of abuse. Not that high a volume, but good information nonetheless. Oh, and, Happy Thanksgiving to you. I hope you have a wonderful day with your family!!!

David, Olmsted is a relatively new bishop. I put a rather long post on the other thread (homosexual priests) that explains my general perspective on the issue. I hope that his actions are a sample of the way it will be handled in the future. Had other cases been dealt with this way, the Church wouldn't have had the kind of catastrophe on her hands that she has for the past few years.

Belle, you hit the nail on the head. One note, though, as I mentioned in another thread, the Vatican is doing an official "visitation" on all seminaries in the US. Part of the review is to ensure that they are teaching the seminarians orthodox doctrine, another part is to check on compliance with this document (and its 1961 predecessor). Already one seminary rector has resigned in the wake of this visitation. In my book, that is a very positive sign. Another note is that the number of priests being laicized or otherwise interdicted has gone up since 2002, when the policies were changed. See this pagefor a list of 234 that have died, been laicized, suspended, or otherwise interdicted. But those are incremental things: trying to prevent the problem with future generations of clerics and trying to actually get rid of the ones who are caught is good...but is slow. That's where the "will the bishops enforce this?" comes into place. The problem is a problem of ephebophilia/ pederasty in the priesthood. If you look at the statistics compiled in 2003 on the subject, you will find that 81% of the victims were male and 86% of the victims were 10 or over at the first instance of their abuse (41% -- almost half -- were between the ages of 12 and 14). So the re-emphasis of a long-standing policy through this new document will help matters...if it is enforced. Here's the problem with enforcement: as I said recently in another thread, for several decades after the close of WWII, there was a radicalization within the Catholic Church...a definite wish to move it far to the left. Remember how far left the social norms of the country went during the 60s and the 70s? There were elements within the Church that were affected by those changes, as well. The Papal Nuncio during a particularly critical time (1973-1980) was a person by the name of Archbishop Jean Jadot (the Nuncio is the Pope's "ambassador" to a particular country). I know this may seem a little bit "inside baseball," but it is pretty important. The Papal Nuncio for a country has the responsibility to recommend candidates for elevation to bishop. Jadot had a definite agenda in mind...the "liberization" of the church so that it would be more inclusive and more socially responsive. He took this agenda and used it as a guide when recommending priests for ordination to bishop. You might recognize a few of the names that he was responsible for: Bernard Law, Roger Mahoney, Roberto Sanchez, Theodore McCarrick, Patrick Flores, Rembert Weakland, and Walter Sullivan. I know you're familiar with Law and with Mahoney, but if you Google'd any of these, you'd be able to see the problems in any of the dioceses they've been responsible for. The good news about this is that they all are either at or very near retirement age. They must submit their resignations at age 75. I pray that their replacements are improvements and that they will deal swiftly and decisively with those who have substantiated claims against them. I don't pretend to defend the pederasts. I don't pretend to defend those who allowed them to get through the seminary, nor do I defend those who repeatedly put them in the position to prey on young boys (and, occasionally, young girls). Nor do I pretend to defend those who, in the aftermath, refused to deal with the problem they were handed (even if the incidence during their tenure dramatically dropped). Had they honestly dealt with those who were hurt, even if the hurt was long, long ago, rather than keeping it quiet, the problem could have been dealt with internally, rather than it falling into the hands of the media and the lawyers. But, as I tried to point out a little earlier, the people accused, if you examine the statistics, it becomes abundantly clear that the problem was, rather than what would clinically be called pedophilia (young children), it was ephebophilia (older children/ adolescants). There is a difference. And a big part of this difference is that the majority of the ephebophiles were homosexual. Like it or not, politically correct or not, 81% of the victims were boys, and 86% of the victims were 10 or over, and most of those were over 12. The majority of really senior bishops in this country and the vast majority of the really "liberal" bishops were recommended by Archbishop Jacot, the Papal Nuncio from '73 through '80. And there is a political agenda with these bishops to 'liberalize' the Church. Fortunately, they didn't get their choice in for Pope in 1978 and they, again, didn't get their choice in for Pope in 2005. So they will have somewhat of a check on them until afer they're gone. So, yes, I have a little hope in this matter. But I'm sure the really big question that bothers a lot of people here is this: how can a relatively smart, fairly nice guy like Mark be so friggin blind as to be a Catholic? Especially with this horrible scandal! Isn't he just replacing cult-like adoration for TWI with cult-like adoration for the harlot of Babylon? (The only person who's actually had the guts to ask me that, to date, has been Sudo) To be honest, the reason why is this: purely doctrine. When I shook off the heterodoxy taught by TWI and started to look at 'mainstream' Christianity, I had to re-evaluate what I believed on two main doctrines: the trinity and 'are the dead alive now.' Once I was able to clear away objections to those doctrines, I started looking at it all. And I could not find a reason NOT to do Catholicism. With each and every Protestant denomination's theology, I could. And I'll let you in on a little secret: if I didn't see concrete proof that the problem was correcting itself and that the pendulum was swinging back in the correct direction, I would consider converting to some branch of Eastern Orthodoxy. Why? Because, with the exception of the 'filoque,' the doctrine is fundamentally the same. Sorry the response took so long, but I wanted to give you a good answer. Sorry if it's upsetting to anyone.