To all ex-Catholic GSC'ers

[excathedra]

end of anything that might of been good

well that goes without saying

we are talking about the catholic church after all

mark, you sound like an ecclesiastical authority

[markomalley]

mark, you sound like an ecclesiastical authority

I'm not. Not hardly.

But I've had to look this stuff up over and over and over and over again.

and so had to get familiar with it.

(as far as the priest scandal stuff)

As to the general-purpose theology stuff, I am not an authority, either. But I find it very interesting and like studying it.

[Abigail]

The International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition (published by the World Health Organization) identifies pedophilia (F65.4) as, A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age

On the other hand, ephebophilia has been defined as a sexual preference in which an adult is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to pubescent adolescents.

(The WHO also defines adolescence as between 10 and 19 years)

Mark, I am curious as to why you chose the WHO instead of the DSM. I am not trying to pick on Catholocism, (which I am not even sure I can spell), cause I am sure there are pervs/pedophiles in every religions, including those which do not require a vow of chastity. I was curious, though, if it is because it is a world wide religion? Are the stats also from the WHO? Is there much of a discrepency between the WHO stats and stats from the US only?

The DSM IV defines a pedophile as follows:

somebody who “over a period of six months, [has] recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges or behaviors involving sexually activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger)”. It further states that the person has either acted on these urges or as a result of the urges has experienced marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. In other words, the pedophile may have acted upon the urges but did not necessarily do so.

There's lots of information that can be found HERE

including:

Sex researchers Ralph Underwager and Holida Wakefield in Special Problems with Sexual Abuse Cases wrote:

“Although the terms are often used interchangeably, a distinction must be made between ‘sex offender against a minor’ and ‘pedophile’. The former refers to a criminal sexual behavior and the latter to an anomalous sexual preference. Many pedophiles never act on their impulses. At the same time, not all sex offenders against a minor are pedophiles.”

So, all of this had me wondering if there were more offenses in the US, (statistically), than in other countries, because we have a higher age of consent and because in some countries it is perfectly acceptable for a 30 or 40 year old man to marry a 13 or 14 year old girl.

I know, I am further derailing your thread - but I figure it strayed far off the path almost out of the gate - so what the heck.

And ExC - you know I love you to pieces. But, Mark really has been very kind and understanding of your feelings. It isn't like with VPW and those who would deny the abuses. He does openly acknowledge what occured and express his abohornence of it. I can sort of understand that - there have been Rabbi's who were pervs and sex offenders too, yet I still consider myself Jewish.

p.s. now Sushi is going to tell me I should use words I can't spell - lol lol :D

Edited February 20, 2007 by Abigail

[markomalley]

The bottom line, Abigail, is that I've tried before to get access to DSM-IV before online and have not been able to find it. Only secondary sources, like Wikipedia. While I can get direct access to ICD-10 straight from the WHO.

But the second (and more important) reason is this:

I can think of no culture in history where sexual relations with a baby or a young child (pre-pubescent) has been tolerated.

However, in cultures, throughout the ages, where homosexual behavior has been tolerated/embraced, a subculture of active (adult)/ passive (adolescent) homosexual relations has been rather commonplace. This includes the ancient Persian, Greek, Roman cultures. In those cultures, it was common to see adult men with adolescent boys. Even to this day, in some middle eastern cultures, anal intercourse between adult men and adolescents is not seen as a sin (even though homosexuality between adults is seen as a grave sin in those same cultures)

Because of the nature of the offenses, that's what I thought of when I initially saw the data. You have to admit from seeing it, that there is a distinct cutoff and that, starting at age 10, the numbers of victims rises sharply.

The point is that if the problem is not seen as a 'homosexual problem,' but as a pedophilia problem, they will be seeking the solutions to the wrong problem.

[Abigail]

Thanks for responding. I'm still not convinced it is a homosexual problem - there could be many factors with respect to age, starting with accessibility. Parents tend to be more watchful of younger children. Around the age of 10, they tend to give them more freedom and less supervision.

10 year olds usually don't have the body parts of say, a 13 or 14 year old either.

But I don't necessarily think the problem is simply about chastity either - because the problem exists in religions that don't require chastity. Another reason I find the stats so interesting, I guess.

[cman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

[GarthP2000]

MarkO,

However, in cultures, throughout the ages, where homosexual behavior has been tolerated/embraced, a subculture of active (adult)/ passive (adolescent) homosexual relations has been rather commonplace. This includes the ancient Persian, Greek, Roman cultures. In those cultures, it was common to see adult men with adolescent boys. Even to this day, in some middle eastern cultures, anal intercourse between adult men and adolescents is not seen as a sin (even though homosexuality between adults is seen as a grave sin in those same cultures)

Because of the nature of the offenses, that's what I thought of when I initially saw the data. You have to admit from seeing it, that there is a distinct cutoff and that, starting at age 10, the numbers of victims rises sharply.

I was at dinner with my mother discussing our family history, and she mentioned that her mom (my maternal grandmother) got married at age 13. 13, fer crying out loud. And back during those days people were getting married (and I'm talking strictly the heterosexual variety) at 14-16. And that is including the more-than-the-occasional situations where one of the partners was significantly older.

So, you take this general knowledge about history, and compare it with what you just posted, and you'll see that the earlier starting age of beginning sexual activity isn't so specific to the homosexual 'aberration', as it were. But that in the official, society-approved, heterosexual world of marriage, the average marrying age has only moved ahead, relatively speaking.

Just some info to keep in mind. :)

[satori001]

Call them "pervs" or pedophiles. It doesn't matter. And how about Friar O'Malley? He seems to think ephebophilia (raping older children) is considerably healthier (if still unsound doctrinally) than pedophilia (raping younger children). He's entitled to his opinion, which does have a distinctly Catholic ring to it. He seems to be saying "Our perverted - but not mentally ill - priests could be a lot worse, so deal with it."

I am ALL for dealing with it. We agree on something, anyway.

Now cman, what is DOCTRINE, anyway?

From Wikipedia:

Doctrine, from Latin doctrina (compare doctor), means "a code of beliefs", "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system.

I don't see where it necessarily has to be written down. Nobody says humping kids is part of the official written doctrine of the RC church. Nobody even says it has the Vatican's official seal of approval, although I suspect (black helicoptor alert- conspiracy theory!) there are plenty of high-fives and butt-pats as the stories are traded around the inner circles. What confounds the civilized world is how they have protected the predators, how they have failed to defend the defenseless. I can accept that there are predators in every walk of life. I can't accept a so-called moral authority that enables those predators.

So what about the RC church's UNWRITTEN doctrine? It seems to me Catholic leaders cover for pedophiles AND ephebophiles AND pervs alike. They've shuffled them from parish to parish, like a wolf, from one flock to the next, to cull a lamb here, a lamb there - for DECADES we know about, maybe even centuries. Of course for centuries! We weren't born yesterday. This isn't some new "fad."

I don't know what you'd call it, but consistency like their's is "doctrine" in my book, if you can accept that it is a "code of beliefs," a "body of teachings," and especially "instructions." That's not too far a stretch, is it cman? Dealing with all this priestly pederasty had to require some considerable Bishopry. Probably Cardinalry, if not a little Popery too. It affects the church's prestige, its power, and its income. They aren't above any of it. And the Bishops overseeing the cover-ups are surely following "instructions" (a.k.a. "doctrine"). More like "orders." And from whence do these unwritten doctrines flow? From that place where Christ is crucified afresh every second of every hour of every day for a hundred generations since Peter's murder. Ah, tradition.

And "beliefs." Beliefs held in common may be considered "doctrine." It's obvious to me the church elders believed they had to cover up all that raping. Punishing the rapist, stopping him, was much lower on the list. Relocating him to the next county was good enough. Hasn't worked out so well, of late. That cat's out of the bag. Now they "believe" they're going bankrupt in some parts of the country. Their accountants believe they might have to melt down a few golden calves, er, whatever, to come up with the shekels to pay off the lawyers. Well damn, that's not fair, O'Malley. Your hard-earned money could be going to some shyster and a bunch of crybabies, instead of a nice new edifice.

Nevertheless the church must be defended, from everyone and everything but itself.

This has everything to do with "doctrine."

Edited February 20, 2007 by satori001

[Abigail]

Nevertheless the church must be defended, from everyone and everything but itself.

This has everything to do with "doctrine."

O brother. Mark has nowhere defended any sort of "doctrine" regarding sex with children. It does appear very much to me that he has put forth some effort to try to understand what went wrong and why it went wrong.

Mark, I'm sorry I ever came back to this topic. Perhaps another day.

[satori001]

Mark has nowhere defended any sort of "doctrine" regarding sex with children. It does appear very much to me that he has put forth some effort to try to understand what went wrong and why it went wrong.

I think he has put forth considerable effort to avoid understanding the root causes of what and why. Any practicing Catholic who thinks is obliged to do so.

Nobody says Mark endorses or defends sex with children Abigail. Being Catholic is optional. As long as one stands with the corrupt institution, along with millions of others, he implicitly enables it.

Edited February 20, 2007 by satori001

[VeganXTC]

What bothers me, is the Vatican feels the solution to stopping the sexual abuse of children by priests in the US is to get rid of all homosexual priests. Are all (or any for that matter) homosexual priests responsible for the crisis?

Nicholas Groth and Frank Oliveri did a study on 3000 sex offenders and found that men who were attracted to children were heterosexual, and even homophobic.

There are many reasons priests might have sexually abused boys under the age of 18, and none of them have to do with homosexuality. Boys are more available to priests than girls. Parents were more willing to let their sons spend more time alone with priests than they would have let their daughters. Priests might have been afraid they would get a girl pregnant. Maybe a priests was angry he was sent to be a priest at a young age, so he attacks boys of that age. Maybe a priest is more comfortable with inexperienced boys.

This gay bashing will not end sexual abuse, and it won't stop gay men from becoming priests. All it will do is have men keep silent about their sexual orientation.

[JumpinJive]

This gay bashing will not end sexual abuse, and it won't stop gay men from becoming priests. All it will do is have men keep silent about their sexual orientation.

This is one of the reasons we have such difficulty getting to the source of these issues. Any open discussion of the obvious problems associated with homosexual life is labeled 'gay bashing.' Vegan, if you think the sexual abuse of young boys by priests (or anyone else) couldn't possibly have anything to do with homosexuality, you're sadly and dangerously mistaken. That kind of attitude limits discussion and does more to support the abuse than prevent it.

-JJ

[coolchef]

i am a some time go to rcc guy

i like it when i go

i want to say this:

is,was there sexual abuse in the church?

of course,no doubt

but was there abuse on the other side too?

imo yes

how many 50 or so year old men have come foward and said

"oh, i just remembered! i was abused 40 years ago"

i think many of them are in it for the money