Skip to comments.Study: Homosexuality, celibacy didn't cause abuse
Posted on 05/18/2011 7:49:52 AM PDT by Grunthor
WASHINGTON Researchers commissioned by the nation's Roman Catholic bishops to analyze the pattern of clergy sex abuse have concluded that homosexuality, celibacy and an all-male priesthood did not cause the scandal.
The study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York instead said that the problem was largely the result of poor seminary training and insufficient emotional support for men ordained in the 1940s and 1950s, who were not able to withstand the social upheaval they confronted as pastors in the 1960s. Crime and other deviant behavior increased overall in the United States during this period, when the rate of abuse by priests was climbing.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Well OF COURSE homosexuals are not perverts!! EVERYBODY knows that. And NAMBLA is really only a BOYS club...you know, like the Boy Scouts!! Anything to provide cover for faggots.
And clouds dont cause rain. And up is the same as down.
Men going after young boys are homosexual pedophiles.
They can ask us to not believe our eyes, but the truth is the truth.
They diddled little boys but they aren’t queers? Raping little kids is a result of poor training? This is asinine on its face.
Well, when you look at who paid for the study, those kinds of conclusions are not all that surprising.
this is from NY.
seems this is saying sex is not really sex.
First of all, "poor training" and "insufficient emotional support" are not going to push a normal individual to feel up an altar boy. However, poor screening of seminary candidates for deviant behavior (ie homosexuality) will result in people who are predisposed to commit such horrible acts.
Second, the "social upheaval" of the 1960s really didn't kick into gear until the last part of the decade and into the early 70s. Most of the abuse cases came from the mid-60s.
Studies that gloss over the problem with explanations of "feelings" and "society made me do it" do not help the Church.
’ Raping little kids is a result of poor training?’
Really! How would this be diff from rape, murder etc? Are those crimes just a matter of poor training and lack of support??? Its clearly a white wash by someone in the catholic church who has $ to spend. This is what happens when sin goes unchecked in the clergy. It appears the hierarchy in the catholic church is little diff from that in DC...corrupt bunch of liars and perverts.
...something that smells a LOT like...
...the problem was largely the result of poor seminary training and insufficient emotional support for men ordained in the 1940s and 1950s...
What? "Poor" seminary training? What happened, did one of their texts on 'Morality and Ethics in Religion' have a typo?
"Oh, you know what? It turns out, that all this time the word 'NOT' was supposed to be in front of the word 'acceptable' in the sentence: 'It is absolutely acceptable to use your position of moral and spiritual authority to prey on children, destroy their innocence and use them to satisfy your own perverted sexual desires#39;, contained in this text book. Boy is THAT embarrassing. I sure hope no one misunderstood the real meaning of that sentence..."
Seriously, though, I didn't need seminary training, good, poor or otherwise, in order to know, positively KNOW that it is supremely EVIL to do such horrible things to ANYONE, especially children. "Poor" seminary training and/or 'inefficient emotional support' can not even BEGIN to explain what these men did.
My personal thoughts on the matter? In the 40’s and 50’s there were many homos’ just like there are now only it was considered a bad thing by society.
Many of these men had to ask themselves, “Where can I hide what I am?” I can see some wanting to join an institution widely known for it’s vow of celibacy, thereby taking sex completely out of their lives BUT; homos’ are defined by who and what the screw. It’s in their nature to have deviant sex. When you try to stop someone or something from being it’s natural self, those urges are going to still come out and in even more destructive ways.
Add to that the institution not having a clue at first how to deal with the accusations, so they hush up the families and move the offenders around to different churches. Problem is, that is only going to work for so long because the urges on the part of the homo are still there, and his access to young, impressionable boys is still there.
In short, in my opinion (I am open to the idea that I am WAY offbase) the institution cared FAR more For it’s reputation than it did for some snot-nosed brats that clearly needed to place their church above their physical, mental and emotional health.
I DO NOT believe that is the case any longer. I believe that the church really does want to weed out the pedophiles and that they have tried very hard to address the problem of homos/pedos’ (same diff) in the seminaries, and I thank it for that. I further strongly believe that the church has stopped trying to hide/move pedos’/homos’ in order to protect their (the churchs) reputation. I mean, what would be the point now anyways, right?
Thanks for posting. Do you (or does anyone reading this) have a direct link to the article? The links in the OP only go to yahoo.com.
Sorry about that, I don’t but I will hunt it dow for you since I should have posted it with the article.
Your link doesn’t work.
You make far more sense than this study.
Your explanation also gains credibility because you didn’t take the opportunity to throw in a jab at Vatican II.
No, you are not off base at all.
heh heh,,,I don’t even understand Vatican II...I am not Catholic.
I would think that the number one problem for the caring, sensitive, unavailable, all male Priesthood would be that women would be throwing themselves at them, some consciously, and many more unconsciously, I doubt that the 12 year old boys were throwing themselves at them.