Sheesh, coolchef, I can't imagine what your post said before the moderator censored it, because it's still obnoxious.
Yes, there probably are a few people who try to cash in on the scandals of the RC church. A handful maybe. But for the ones who genuinely were sexually abused, as many have been, how can you so callously proclaim they should just "get over it"?
If you haven't been in their shoes, how do you know how long the shame and confusion and hurt and anger might linger after a man who's SUPPOSED to be trusted and trustworthy does such a reprehensible act to a CHILD? And not all the victims who come forward suddenly remember what happened 40 years later. Many of them are just too ashamed to speak up for 20 or 30 or 40 years.
And back to the point about the children's ages. I don't care if the victims were 5 or 12. Child molestation is a crime that should be punished, not swept under the carpet. And 12 would probably be FAR WORSE than 5, given the sexual uncertainty and baggage boys have at that age to begin with.
What these kids suffer at the hands of priests is emotionally traumatic (and yes, priests aren't the only ones who do it, but instead of getting the "sexual predator" label to warn people to beware, they get transferred to another parish where they can do it again).
Let's imagine a different scenario. Let's say some guy knocks your wife down in the parking lot of the local supermarket and rapes her. What deadline would you give her to "get over it"? A month? A year? If she wasn't all better emotionally by your deadline, would you classify her as just another whining victim? If 20 years from now she still was afraid to go shopping alone would you dump her because, after all, she should have just renewed her mind and stopped feeling like a victim?
You're right. Your post really ticks me off. I think the smug among us need to stop and think about growing some empathy.
Nobody ever bothered me when I was a kid...being an awkward bucktoothed kid with acne has its advantages, I suppose.
However, I really think the boy was violated in that he was deprived of innocence and personal dignity at an early age.
Maybe it's something some could get over, but I believe everyone, as an individual, is different and such an extreme violation of trust and the ethical norm would be very damaging for a lifetime for some.
Since society frowns on putting a .30 cal slug between the priests eyes, which would ensure his celibacy, I think whatever consequence the priest suffers is justified.
Another thing. Active Gays, for the most part, were not the contingent of priests that were commiting the crimes against children.
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.
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.
"the only time one of my brothers had to deal with homosexual tendencies is after Father Butler gave him blowjobs when he was a young altar boy and the poor kid had to deal with (though his entire life up until now) the fact that it felt good"
ExC said something here that is rarely ever discussed when the subject of rape and molestation comes up. Not only is it a betrayal of your trust for someone else - it is far far worse. It is a betrayal of your own body against you. Your body is designed (and this may be even more true for males than females) to respond to certain stimulation. Imagine how horrifying it would be to have your body respond physically to sexual contact that your heart and mind rejects and even abhorrs! CoolChef - did you say no? Did you want him to stop? Or were you just drunk and allowing an "experiment" to take place, that you were just too inhibited to allow sober?
I was repeatedly raped/molested by someone. That someone would NOT stop until my body responded. I learned how to take myself to a different place mentally - to um how should you say - reach that reponse as quickly as possible in order to make the entire act end as quickly as possible.
Again, it is important to remember that rape and molestation isn't just about sexual gratification - it is about power. How much more powerful can one be when they can force your body to respond against your will. These people should NEVER be placed in a position of power or authority over ANYONE!!!
Perhaps some of these male predators who prey on young boys aren't homosexual, they just realize the male body is designed to respond more easily than the female one. Either way, homosexual or heterosexual, it is about power, not lust.
Know what interesting tidbits of information I found in MarkOMalley's authority source, and his usage of it to show that homosexuality is indeed linked to priests molesting children?
First off, there were only 2 usages of the word 'homosexual' found in that entire source, and here they are:
While some offenders evidence a clear preference for particular types of victims with regard to age and gender, many do not. Individuals who molest children may be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual with regard to victim selection. Child sexual abusers who prefer female victims are more likely to be diagnosed as pedophiles than those who prefer male children while child sexual abusers who prefer male victims tend to target boys who are slightly older.
and
In the 1950s, psychological methods of treatment for sexual offenders began to change.2 Many
researchers at this time believed that deviant sexual practices resulted from deviant sexual
arousal, and therapeutic practices were developed to modify deviant fantasies. They took
various forms, such as operant conditioning,3 aversion therapy,4 orgasmic reconditioning,5 and
shaping.6 The focus was not only on modifying serious sexual fantasies, such as those about
children, but also on eliminating homosexual desires.
Now, based on reading and comprehending those two statements, can anybody tell me how they effectively communicate that homosexuality and pedophelia are invariably linked and causely related? Me neither. If anything, they (from statement 1) help to dismantle the relationship, and (from statement 2) show some of the outdated means of dealing with homosexual desires.
Yet, we are to believe, from the single reference to some 86% number bandied about, that that is the conclusive proof of the relationship between homosexuality and child molesting done by the priests.
Here's acouple of other jewels I found in that source:
Empirical studies on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church are limited.
It was clear from the outset that the study team would not itself have access to the confidential Church files, nor did we have sufficient time to conduct a study that would reach all 50 states including every diocese and religious community within the United States, and cover a 52-year timeframe.
A number of studies have compared male and female victims, although most of the male victim samples have been too small to allow for broad generalizations.
John Jay's research deals with, mainly if not exclusively, with the child molesting travesty in the Catholic Church (and that's as far as it really goes), and he does state outright that this study was/is limited by scope, even when it came to just the child molesting problem. To take it then and extrapolate that into this topic here? Even with the 86% so called percentage? ... I think the term 'sloppy' fits the bill.
"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....
Read what I typed again -- s l o w l y if you have to. Notice my point of criticism. Notice that it wasn't John Jay and his work. Notice that it was your usage of John Jay's work.
^-- Now, read this last paragraph again --^ ... A lot clearer for you now, isn't it?
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.
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.
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). Try googling the two terms and you'll come across quite a number. And from plenty of independent medical authorities to boot.
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? But, if anything as touching this, its uncertain and inconclusive.
(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)
and yet you state here:
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.
Make up your mind, would you? What are you really driving at here? And no, I don't believe I derailed this thread, just nailing one of your biased mis-interpretations of some authority in relation to this thread.
Back to an earlier point. Why is it that extra concern is given to the homosexual priests and young teen boys just passing puberty, and yet not the same concern for heterosexual priests and young teen girls passing puberty? Does your authority that (supposedly) backs you up deal with that?
Frankly, I think that the relationship between homosexuality and pederasty is just a smoke screen; the real 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.
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.
Read what I typed again -- s l o w l y if you have to. Notice my point of criticism. Notice that it wasn't John Jay and his work. Notice that it was your usage of John Jay's work.
^-- Now, read this last paragraph again --^ ... A lot clearer for you now, isn't it?
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.
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). Try googling the two terms and you'll come across quite a number. And from plenty of independent medical authorities to boot.
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? But, if anything as touching this, its uncertain and inconclusive.
and yet you state here:
Make up your mind, would you? What are you really driving at here? And no, I don't believe I derailed this thread, just nailing one of your biased mis-interpretations of some authority in relation to this thread.
Back to an earlier point. Why is it that extra concern is given to the homosexual priests and young teen boys just passing puberty, and yet not the same concern for heterosexual priests and young teen girls passing puberty? Does your authority that (supposedly) backs you up deal with that?
Frankly, I think that the relationship between homosexuality and pederasty is just a smoke screen; the real 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.
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.
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.
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).
it's different when you've been there and seen the damage
as far as "picking on" people or the catholic church or whatever..... i can't even bring myself to comment on that
hey chef i see you praying for a boy in prayer forum
i am so very hurt by your posts on here
these little boys my brothers
my one little brother in therapy for years at his own expense. would not meet with the catholic council because he just could not handle it
the other one testified and never got a dime. they asked him to come back to jersey for another shot at monetary something or other and he said no, i just feel good that i got it off my chest after all these years
i am so angry at you, i don't know what to say
both these boys deserved at the minimum an apology from the @(%*ingcatholicchurch and monetary damages or whatever you call that $*@!
i better get off this subject before i get mean
you know why people pick on the frucking catholic priests etc. - because some of them specialize in ruining people's childhoods and lives
so shut up unless you know what you're talking about
i live every single day of my life with devoted catholics who love the church and the priests and the monsignor (who is really at fault) oh never mind
it's different when you've been there and seen the damage
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).
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):
Something I've noted too, and that its usually that I've 'taken something out of context' when my position clashes with someone elses, and I'm quite blunt about it, but if we agree, *voila* all context is in harmony again. ... Hhmmmm. <_<
Allow me to show you why they are NOT out of context, particulrly in how YOU use Jay's work, for your own purposes (and you'll see a little more of my modus operendi):
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.
But it was YOU who tried to have that used in the specific topic relating homosexuality and priests with pre-teen boys reaching puberty. And in any event, the author still states that the empirical studies on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church are limited, which still provides limited resource as to the topic. And you've gone beyond that to link homosexuality itself and the priests dealing inappropriately with pre-teen boys reaching puberty. An attempt to get more mileage out of it than is actually there. And the other 'jewels' are based on the same principle.
Also, your endeavor to make a distinction between the real world and the more narrow context of priests fails. In that the statistics, facts, et al remain the same across the cross-section of society. A fact which gives me more pause to question where he got his 86% figures from. Because many examples of this same kind of comparison outside of the Catholic Church and its priesthood shows a more equal balance between sexes that are targets of child molestors, be they pre-puberty kids, or post-puberty. (And to those sickos, it rarely makes a difference, even taking into account the emerging sexual awareness of those reaching puberty.) Oh, and speaking of forgetting to mention things, you forget to mention that sexual awareness reaches different kids at different ages, thus at least putting into question the age demarcation. Also, have you thought about that, even with your 86% figures being correct, that doesn't put homosexuality as being causal to the problem? Because it doesn't. That's like saying that because AIDS hit homosexuals the hardest first, that makes it a gay disease. Notice the missing factors in that overly simplistic usage of percentages as well.
Please explain these descrepencies.
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.
Tell me something. Did you also try to sell them on the relation to homosexuality angle? Using the 86% figure and all that? That would be despicable too!
Frankly Mark, what we are dealing with here is basically technical semantics re: puberty, and whether it is pedophilia, or whether it is ephebophilia (or pederasty). And I think that has a lot less to do with the homosexual priest question than many people might like to think. Add to all this the increasing scientific findings that homosexuality is more natural to certain people, and less regarded as a 'sinful lifestyle'.
Then again, maybe I should go easy on the Catholic Church on realizing these new scientific findings. I mean, it *did* take them over 400 years to _finally_ make the Official Decision that Galileo was right after all.
:D
Oh Mark,
Remember what I said about real life examples here testify to this? Ie., your lines of demarcation, while looking good on ecclesiastical paper, ain't so solid in reality.
With the past 5-6 posts here, I can now say "I rest my case!"
Something I've noted too, and that its usually that I've 'taken something out of context' when my position clashes with someone elses, and I'm quite blunt about it, but if we agree, *voila* all context is in harmony again. ... Hhmmmm. <_<
Allow me to show you why they are NOT out of context, particulrly in how YOU use Jay's work, for your own purposes (and you'll see a little more of my modus operendi):
But it was YOU who tried to have that used in the specific topic relating homosexuality and priests with pre-teen boys reaching puberty.
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)
And in any event, the author still states that the empirical studies on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church are limited, which still provides limited resource as to the topic. And you've gone beyond that to link homosexuality itself and the priests dealing inappropriately with pre-teen boys reaching puberty.
See above, Garth, and read the original quote.
An attempt to get more mileage out of it than is actually there. And the other 'jewels' are based on the same principle.
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.
Also, your endeavor to make a distinction between the real world and the more narrow context of priests fails.
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.
In that the statistics, facts, et al remain the same across the cross-section of society.
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...
A fact which gives me more pause to question where he got his 86% figures from. Because many examples of this same kind of comparison outside of the Catholic Church and its priesthood shows a more equal balance between sexes that are targets of child molestors, be they pre-puberty kids, or post-puberty. (And to those sickos, it rarely makes a difference, even taking into account the emerging sexual awareness of those reaching puberty.)
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?
Oh, and speaking of forgetting to mention things, you forget to mention that sexual awareness reaches different kids at different ages, thus at least putting into question the age demarcation. Also, have you thought about that, even with your 86% figures being correct, that doesn't put homosexuality as being causal to the problem? Because it doesn't. That's like saying that because AIDS hit homosexuals the hardest first, that makes it a gay disease. Notice the missing factors in that overly simplistic usage of percentages as well.
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.
Please explain these descrepencies.
I have.
Tell me something. Did you also try to sell them on the relation to homosexuality angle? Using the 86% figure and all that? That would be despicable too!
Wish I would have, my boy, wish I would have.
Frankly Mark, what we are dealing with here is basically technical semantics re: puberty, and whether it is pedophilia, or whether it is ephebophilia (or pederasty). And I think that has a lot less to do with the homosexual priest question than many people might like to think. Add to all this the increasing scientific findings that homosexuality is more natural to certain people, and less regarded as a 'sinful lifestyle'.
You can call it semantics if you'd like. Whatever makes you happy.
Then again, maybe I should go easy on the Catholic Church on realizing these new scientific findings. I mean, it *did* take them over 400 years to _finally_ make the Official Decision that Galileo was right after all.
:D
Huh???
Oh Mark,
Remember what I said about real life examples here testify to this? Ie., your lines of demarcation, while looking good on ecclesiastical paper, ain't so solid in reality.
With the past 5-6 posts here, I can now say "I rest my case!"
Works for me. I'm glad you finally admit that you've lost the argument and have given up!!!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
5
9
14
Popular Days
Nov 27
19
Nov 23
14
Nov 25
9
Nov 24
7
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 11 posts
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net 5 posts
GarthP2000 9 posts
markomalley 14 posts
Popular Days
Nov 27 2005
19 posts
Nov 23 2005
14 posts
Nov 25 2005
9 posts
Nov 24 2005
7 posts
Linda Z
Sheesh, coolchef, I can't imagine what your post said before the moderator censored it, because it's still obnoxious.
Yes, there probably are a few people who try to cash in on the scandals of the RC church. A handful maybe. But for the ones who genuinely were sexually abused, as many have been, how can you so callously proclaim they should just "get over it"?
If you haven't been in their shoes, how do you know how long the shame and confusion and hurt and anger might linger after a man who's SUPPOSED to be trusted and trustworthy does such a reprehensible act to a CHILD? And not all the victims who come forward suddenly remember what happened 40 years later. Many of them are just too ashamed to speak up for 20 or 30 or 40 years.
And back to the point about the children's ages. I don't care if the victims were 5 or 12. Child molestation is a crime that should be punished, not swept under the carpet. And 12 would probably be FAR WORSE than 5, given the sexual uncertainty and baggage boys have at that age to begin with.
What these kids suffer at the hands of priests is emotionally traumatic (and yes, priests aren't the only ones who do it, but instead of getting the "sexual predator" label to warn people to beware, they get transferred to another parish where they can do it again).
Let's imagine a different scenario. Let's say some guy knocks your wife down in the parking lot of the local supermarket and rapes her. What deadline would you give her to "get over it"? A month? A year? If she wasn't all better emotionally by your deadline, would you classify her as just another whining victim? If 20 years from now she still was afraid to go shopping alone would you dump her because, after all, she should have just renewed her mind and stopped feeling like a victim?
You're right. Your post really ticks me off. I think the smug among us need to stop and think about growing some empathy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Nobody ever bothered me when I was a kid...being an awkward bucktoothed kid with acne has its advantages, I suppose.
However, I really think the boy was violated in that he was deprived of innocence and personal dignity at an early age.
Maybe it's something some could get over, but I believe everyone, as an individual, is different and such an extreme violation of trust and the ethical norm would be very damaging for a lifetime for some.
Since society frowns on putting a .30 cal slug between the priests eyes, which would ensure his celibacy, I think whatever consequence the priest suffers is justified.
I can't agree with coolchef on this'un.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pawtucket
Another thing. Active Gays, for the most part, were not the contingent of priests that were commiting the crimes against children.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
You know that somebody is in trouble when Paw weighs in on a topic.
:o :o :o
;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
garth
you are so right in saying if it was my kid i would think differently
from my jail cell cause i would shoot the bastard
catholic jewish methodist or what ever
but i guess the point is that every denomination has had the problem
why pick on the catholics?
oh yeah i forgot why
imo money
i do not mean this disrespectively
lindaz
again not to be disrespective
imo we all need to get over "bad things " that happened in our lives
like the way?
i know it is not easy to get over "bad things" but we goota do it to live a good life
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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.
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:
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
ok ,i'm gonna tell a story{true} i am 57 yo
over 40 years ago a guy tok advantage of me by feeding me a few beers
then, do i have to say it , yep gave me a blow job!
true story
when i woke up the next morning i thought to myself
i shouldn't have let him
it was wrong
it never happened again ,and as i said i am 57
but that experience sure did not tramatize me for my whole life
i got over it
and
the guy who did it was {he is dead now} was my present wife's uncle!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Well, coolchef, you weren't a 12-year-old kid struggling with the usual angst of puberty at the time. Big difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Morgan
"the only time one of my brothers had to deal with homosexual tendencies is after Father Butler gave him blowjobs when he was a young altar boy and the poor kid had to deal with (though his entire life up until now) the fact that it felt good"
ExC said something here that is rarely ever discussed when the subject of rape and molestation comes up. Not only is it a betrayal of your trust for someone else - it is far far worse. It is a betrayal of your own body against you. Your body is designed (and this may be even more true for males than females) to respond to certain stimulation. Imagine how horrifying it would be to have your body respond physically to sexual contact that your heart and mind rejects and even abhorrs! CoolChef - did you say no? Did you want him to stop? Or were you just drunk and allowing an "experiment" to take place, that you were just too inhibited to allow sober?
I was repeatedly raped/molested by someone. That someone would NOT stop until my body responded. I learned how to take myself to a different place mentally - to um how should you say - reach that reponse as quickly as possible in order to make the entire act end as quickly as possible.
Again, it is important to remember that rape and molestation isn't just about sexual gratification - it is about power. How much more powerful can one be when they can force your body to respond against your will. These people should NEVER be placed in a position of power or authority over ANYONE!!!
Perhaps some of these male predators who prey on young boys aren't homosexual, they just realize the male body is designed to respond more easily than the female one. Either way, homosexual or heterosexual, it is about power, not lust.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Know what interesting tidbits of information I found in MarkOMalley's authority source, and his usage of it to show that homosexuality is indeed linked to priests molesting children?
First off, there were only 2 usages of the word 'homosexual' found in that entire source, and here they are:
andNow, based on reading and comprehending those two statements, can anybody tell me how they effectively communicate that homosexuality and pedophelia are invariably linked and causely related? Me neither. If anything, they (from statement 1) help to dismantle the relationship, and (from statement 2) show some of the outdated means of dealing with homosexual desires.
Yet, we are to believe, from the single reference to some 86% number bandied about, that that is the conclusive proof of the relationship between homosexuality and child molesting done by the priests.
Here's acouple of other jewels I found in that source:
John Jay's research deals with, mainly if not exclusively, with the child molesting travesty in the Catholic Church (and that's as far as it really goes), and he does state outright that this study was/is limited by scope, even when it came to just the child molesting problem. To take it then and extrapolate that into this topic here? Even with the 86% so called percentage? ... I think the term 'sloppy' fits the bill.
Oh, and I'm posting this with a straight face.
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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:
(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:
(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???)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Personally -- I think that if the pope were to speak:
EXCATHEDRA
that marriage was permissable for priests, a lot of this would be a moot point.
Why doesn't the Vatican get *with the program*???
Eh???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mark,
Read what I typed again -- s l o w l y if you have to. Notice my point of criticism. Notice that it wasn't John Jay and his work. Notice that it was your usage of John Jay's work.
^-- Now, read this last paragraph again --^ ... A lot clearer for you now, isn't it?
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.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). Try googling the two terms and you'll come across quite a number. And from plenty of independent medical authorities to boot.
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? But, if anything as touching this, its uncertain and inconclusive.
and yet you state here:
Make up your mind, would you? What are you really driving at here? And no, I don't believe I derailed this thread, just nailing one of your biased mis-interpretations of some authority in relation to this thread.
Back to an earlier point. Why is it that extra concern is given to the homosexual priests and young teen boys just passing puberty, and yet not the same concern for heterosexual priests and young teen girls passing puberty? Does your authority that (supposedly) backs you up deal with that?
Frankly, I think that the relationship between homosexuality and pederasty is just a smoke screen; the real 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.
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Who is--er, was--John Jay?
See
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0826053.html?
How did he do a recent study on the sexual abuse of children by Romanist clergy?
He didn't.
The subject study was associated with this institution:
http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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:
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.
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:
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
You can call him John, ... or you can call him Jay, ... or you can call him Ray, ....
...... but whatever you do, DON'T CALL HIM SUE!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
it's different when you've been there and seen the damage
as far as "picking on" people or the catholic church or whatever..... i can't even bring myself to comment on that
hey chef i see you praying for a boy in prayer forum
i am so very hurt by your posts on here
these little boys my brothers
my one little brother in therapy for years at his own expense. would not meet with the catholic council because he just could not handle it
the other one testified and never got a dime. they asked him to come back to jersey for another shot at monetary something or other and he said no, i just feel good that i got it off my chest after all these years
i am so angry at you, i don't know what to say
both these boys deserved at the minimum an apology from the @(%*ingcatholicchurch and monetary damages or whatever you call that $*@!
i better get off this subject before i get mean
you know why people pick on the frucking catholic priests etc. - because some of them specialize in ruining people's childhoods and lives
so shut up unless you know what you're talking about
i live every single day of my life with devoted catholics who love the church and the priests and the monsignor (who is really at fault) oh never mind
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh you have "appreciation" for the situation eh
may your doctrine keep your warm at night and for all eternity
puh (or however you spell spit)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Mark,
Something I've noted too, and that its usually that I've 'taken something out of context' when my position clashes with someone elses, and I'm quite blunt about it, but if we agree, *voila* all context is in harmony again. ... Hhmmmm. <_<Allow me to show you why they are NOT out of context, particulrly in how YOU use Jay's work, for your own purposes (and you'll see a little more of my modus operendi):
But it was YOU who tried to have that used in the specific topic relating homosexuality and priests with pre-teen boys reaching puberty. And in any event, the author still states that the empirical studies on child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church are limited, which still provides limited resource as to the topic. And you've gone beyond that to link homosexuality itself and the priests dealing inappropriately with pre-teen boys reaching puberty. An attempt to get more mileage out of it than is actually there. And the other 'jewels' are based on the same principle.
Also, your endeavor to make a distinction between the real world and the more narrow context of priests fails. In that the statistics, facts, et al remain the same across the cross-section of society. A fact which gives me more pause to question where he got his 86% figures from. Because many examples of this same kind of comparison outside of the Catholic Church and its priesthood shows a more equal balance between sexes that are targets of child molestors, be they pre-puberty kids, or post-puberty. (And to those sickos, it rarely makes a difference, even taking into account the emerging sexual awareness of those reaching puberty.) Oh, and speaking of forgetting to mention things, you forget to mention that sexual awareness reaches different kids at different ages, thus at least putting into question the age demarcation. Also, have you thought about that, even with your 86% figures being correct, that doesn't put homosexuality as being causal to the problem? Because it doesn't. That's like saying that because AIDS hit homosexuals the hardest first, that makes it a gay disease. Notice the missing factors in that overly simplistic usage of percentages as well.
Please explain these descrepencies.
Tell me something. Did you also try to sell them on the relation to homosexuality angle? Using the 86% figure and all that? That would be despicable too!
Frankly Mark, what we are dealing with here is basically technical semantics re: puberty, and whether it is pedophilia, or whether it is ephebophilia (or pederasty). And I think that has a lot less to do with the homosexual priest question than many people might like to think. Add to all this the increasing scientific findings that homosexuality is more natural to certain people, and less regarded as a 'sinful lifestyle'.
Then again, maybe I should go easy on the Catholic Church on realizing these new scientific findings. I mean, it *did* take them over 400 years to _finally_ make the Official Decision that Galileo was right after all.
:D
Oh Mark,
Remember what I said about real life examples here testify to this? Ie., your lines of demarcation, while looking good on ecclesiastical paper, ain't so solid in reality.
With the past 5-6 posts here, I can now say "I rest my case!"
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
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!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.