Posted on 03/08/2005 5:08:12 PM PST by dangus
The National Review Board of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops authorized in 2003 the publication of “The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States: A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.”
On Page 28, in chapter 2.3, the study included a graph showing the number of incidents of pedophilia (including ephibophilia) and the number of priests involved in such cases in each year, from 1950 through 2002. The results are strongly contradictory to many of the false notions perpetuated by critics of the Catholic Church of both the left and right. The numbers contained in this article are somewhat round because they have been read from a graph, rather than a table.
Many false notions have greatly damaged the reputation of present leaders of the Catholic Church during the so-called "pedophilia" crisis. While there is much blame to be found, these notions cloud the truth, preventing the best possible response. Without claiming to know what that response is, I will debunk some of the false notions:
Notion 1: The pedophilia crisis was a fruit of the alleged modernism of Vatican 2.
Truth: The crisis was in full bloom before Vatican 2. It is possible that several false expectations of the what the “spirit of Vatican 2” meant may have inspired a laxity of adherence to church laws may have abetted pedophiles, but the timing shows this could not have been a major cause. Vatican 2 went on from 1962 to 1965. By 1962, there were already about 390 incidents of abuse per year. In fact, the fastest growth in the number of incidents occurred between 1959 and 1960. Apparently the increase caught the attention of the Vatican: in 1961, the Pope issued guidelines recommending that homosexuals not be admitted into the priesthood because of the grave spiritual consequences of the burdens of celibacy on the sexually dysfunctional. (Please note that celibacy is much more than mere chastity.)
The number of abuse cases increased from 60 in 1952, to 360 in 1960, a 600% increase in eight years! Between 1960 and 1969, the number of cases increased slightly less than 100% in nine years. Between 1969 and 1980, the number of cases increased only about 10 percent. The vast majority of even these cases were perpetrated by priests who finished seminary long before Vatican 2 began.
[It is quite possible that the pedophilia crisis was much worse than we know in 1950. Any priest alive then would likely be dead by now, and their accusers may be reluctant to come forward to accuse someone when the perpetrator and most possible witnesses are dead.]
Notion 2: The Church failed to limit the pedophilia crisis until it was exposed by the media.
Truth: After 1980, the number of abuse cases dropped in nearly half in the next six short years. And in half again in the next five. And in half again in the next three. In fact, by 1994, the year the media was catching on to the story, the number of abuse cases had been cut by 90 percent. By 1987, there were fewer abuse cases than there had been in 1960. And by 1995, there were fewer abuse cases than there had been in any year in the 1950s.
Notion 3: The Pedophilia crisis was caused by the Catholic Church’s demands of chastity in the priesthood.
Truth: The amazing collapse of the number of annual pedophile cases demonstrates that the church can effectively maintain a celibate priesthood without resultant pedophilia. In 2002, there were still 30 reported incidents, and one may surmise that the number may drift up as new accusers step forward. Even one incident is not acceptable. However, that rate is far, far below rates of other non-celibate vocations that include substantial contact with children.
It is important to note that what is being called pedophilia in this context is not true pedophilia. While women in the general population are roughly three times more likely than men to have been sexually abused (citing Journal of the AMA, 278 (1997): 131-135), nearly four out of five cases of sexual abuse in this study were of boys. And most of the abuse was not of children, but of post-adolescent teenagers. Only 2% of victims were of children under age 5, nearly 80% were age 11 or older.
I am a conservative Catholic, but let me just say, respectively, your all missing the point. To be a Catholic priest in the Latin Church requires a celibate man to dedicate himself to chastity for life. Forbidding men who have homosexual attractions (that may or may not have acted upon them before given themselves to God) seems hypocritical. If a man has had relations with a woman (outside of marriage) before being ordained he wouldn’t be banned from ordination. Such an immoral sexual act is also very sinful. We have countless Saints in our Church’s history who have had rather scandalous lives; murderers, prostitutes, persecutors of the faith, you name it. To say that this sin is more terrible than taking a life or selling ones body for sex is ridiculous. If one experiences a conversion of the heart to our Lord than all bets are off the table. Gay men are everywhere, the clergy, the government, and more than likely the Communion of Saints. Those who prey upon our children abusing positions of the cloth no doubt commit heinous crimes, but such a crime is not the inclination of every homosexual. Why is it odd to think a gay man would find a “barely legal” boy to be attractive when we see commercials with Senator Dole drooling over a barely legal Brittany Spears, or grown men telling their son’s how hot a high school cheerleader is? We have seen recent cases of woman preying upon minors, fathers who abuse their own daughters, and so on. Shall we take one class of sinners and place the scapegoat of such scandals on a whole community? A great mistake this would be indeed. Our Dear Lord warned us about judgment, the majority should be cautious in their supposed piety!
"No all homosexuals are attracted to adolescents."
Well, actually, they are. Perhaps not exclusively...the danger involved might motivate themselves to graze in other pastures except on trips abroad...but no man who suffers from same-sex attraction disorder can be trusted with an adolescent boy.
"Forbidding men who have homosexual attractions (that may or may not have acted upon them before given themselves to God) seems hypocritical."
It's not. A man who suffers from same-sex attraction disorder is not competent to be a priest, nor is he suitable.
"but such a crime is not the inclination of every homosexual."
Actually, it is. Attraction to youth is one of the defining symptoms of SSAD.
"Shall we take one class of sinners and place the scapegoat of such scandals on a whole community?"
People who don't suffer from psychosexual disorders are capable of repenting and remaining chaste or celibate. Men who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder are not. It's not really their fault; they just can't.
There's no "scapegoating" going on. The simple fact is that mental disorders result in disordered thinking and disordered behavior, and such a man is not suitable for the priesthood until and unless he gets treatment and is cured of his disorder.
SSAD is curable, you know.
>> In my book, that's exactly the kind of thing a rogue does. <<
I absolutely agree. My point was not to state that they weren't rogue, but to note that by your own words, you've acknowledged that they were rogue.
>>>>Just last month I heard a homily at Boston's Holy Cross Cathedral that refered to the reporters that broke the scandal as agents of the devil.<<<<
>>Are you kidding me?<<
>>That's despicable. These priests ought to be doing penance for the harm their brothers have done instead of castigating the people who exposed the miscreants.<<
I'm impressed someone at the Boston Cathedral believes in the devil!
Seriously... The media did twist the story away from being homosexual infiltrators and lax or complicit administration into one about men straining under the "oppression" of living a life consecrated to God.
This is nonsense. Pure unadulterated nonsense. I would invite you to post your sources.
I agree, and I speak from experience, I have repented and I have remained chaste, I wonder where or what experience dsc gets this information from? If your all questioning the motives of men entering into the priesthood, dare I say, it's not your place. Do we question if a straight man enters the priesthood because woman don't find him attractive, or perhaps he has a psychosexual disorder attributed to a small penis complex, you see, the judgments can be never ending. Is this sin (as far as attraction to other men) curable? I honestly do not know. Is it genetic? I don't think so. People have fetishes for different things in the bedroom, certainly one isn't born with a "leather fetish". To say that a gay man cannot remain chaste is very wrong. Is it a struggle for any man to remain chaste, of course, but by the grace of God it happens every day, and I thank Him for his blessings. Look, I'm a young man of 27, and have much to learn, but dsc, your blanket statement is wrong and fuels the nasty liberal machine against honest conservatism. I came out a homosexual and; was never molested, had a great relationship with both my Father and my Mother, am not effeminate (even played football), and don't find children sexually desirable. The classic arguments don't hold much water with me. I do think it's a sin, just as all sex outside of marriage is, so I choose to remain chaste as my Church and God dictates, period. To further the cross by labeling all homosexuals as attracted to kids is unfair, dishonest, and perhaps attributed to a personal projection you are making.
"Canon 71: To defilers of boys communion is not to be given even at death."
Don't forget that this was a period of massive numbers of conversions from the decadent Roman pagan culture, in which homosexuality and pederasty was rampant.
This issue did not originate within the clergy at that time, it was infiltrating from the Romans. But it certainly was NOT "systemic."
Their solution wasn't to weaken the discipline of celibacy, however. On the contrary they strengthened it.
Obviously they had a far different agenda than our amchurch deacon.
LOL! You make a baseless charge unsupported by any factual data whatsoever, yet you demand someone else produce concrete facts to refute your baseless fiction?
That's priceless.
I just don't think that the sexual abuse crisis sprung, full bore, in 1965, due to Vatican II.
Neither do I. I think it began in very small circles after and, as a result of, the modernism condemned by the late 1800/early1900 Popes. From these localized tumors it metastasized in the 1950s in liberal enclaves such that it was a full blown crisis by the 1960s/1970s, when liberalism had come to overwhelm many diocese in the West.
As seamole noted, St. Peter Damien was upset about the problem 1,000 years ago, and as Dangus points out, Luther probably made veiled references to is.
However, as I have stated clearly earlier, this only proves that certain places in certain periods of time suffered from corruption of the clergy, to include pederasty.
But to continue to claim that pederasty has been a continuous, universal problem in the priesthood for the history of Roman catholicism is not only revisionist history and a false and diabolical claim, it is sinful to make that claim with no evidence whatsoever, and ranks right up there with the vicious historical revisionism by which modern liberals have maligned the saintly Pius XII as "Hitler's Pope."
plus coming from an ardent supporter of a married priesthood, it is obviously a scurrilous and partisan attempt to further a personal amchurch agenda.
To say that a gay man cannot remain chaste is very wrong. Is it a struggle for any man to remain chaste, of course, but by the grace of God it happens every day, and I thank Him for his blessings.
Of course it is, but dsc fancies himself a junior psychiatrist, though he never answers any questions about his training or background in that area. So, I'd just attribute his remarks to misinformation or prejudice.
The priesthood, and single life, are full of homosexuals who strive to remain chaste (as do most heterosexuals) and do their best to serve God.
Good luck and God bless you as you make your way.
Ignore the idiots who condemn you. God does not condemn you and neither should we.
Well, you can believe whatever you want. But the Latin Rite priesthood, according to several independent studies, is disproportionately homosexual, and likely to remain so for the forseeable future.
And you are free to fantasize that an all-male celibate profession does not attract homosexuals.
With all "due" respect, this is typical homosexual agenda rhetoric, and the good Catholic folks on this forum know better than to fall for it or tolerate it.
Some of your opinions could be copied and pasted from a homosexual apologists' website.
The Vatican is clear on this and you are openly dissenting from their stated position: It is NOT unjust discrimination to bar those with homosexual attractions from the priesthood.
From "Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders (S. C. Rel., 2 Feb., 1961)":
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.
5. Very special investigation is needed for those students who, although they have hitherto been free of formal sins against chastity, nevertheless suffer from morbid or abnormal sexuality, especially sexual hyperesthesia or an erotic bent of nature, to whom religious celibacy would be a continual act of heroism and a trying martyrdom. For chastity, in so far as it implies abstinence from sexual pleasure, not only becomes very difficult for many people but the very state of celibacy and the consequent loneliness and separation from one's family becomes so difficult for certain individuals gifted with excessive sensitivity and tenderness, that they are not fit subjects for the religious life.
From "Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons"
CARDINAL RATZINGER
June 1992
II. Applications
10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf "Letter," no. 3).
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, ....
12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including that of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behaviour but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action, the filling of quotas in hiring practices. This is all the more mistaken since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. no. 10) which therefore should not form the judicial basis for claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
14. The "sexual orientation" of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behaviour manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually-oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not want or see no reason for their sexual orientation to become public knowledge. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc. does not arise. Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behaviour or lifestyle to be "either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing" (ct no. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of Her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws" (cf no. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that "any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people ... are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination" (cf no. 9).
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with your fantasy that the Latin Rite priesthood has had a "systemic" problem with pederasty for its entire history.
Please keep on subject.
And you are free to fantasize that there is no way, during the 8 years of living with and guiding a seminary candidate, to identify and remove the vast majority of homosexuals from the ranks. It was done in the past and can and should be done again, now.
"I have repented and I have remained chaste"
You joined yesterday to post that? Perhaps we need the Viking Kitties over here.
You can fool all the people some of the time, but you won't be fooling me with that particular fiction.
By the way, paragraphs are our friends.
"To further the cross by labeling all homosexuals as attracted to kids is unfair"
You call me dishonest, yet you misrepresent my statements. I didn't say that attraction to prepubescents is a symptom of SSAD, nor that sufferers were neccessarily "molested."
I merely take note of what we've always known, as far back as history reaches on this subject: attraction to youth (not pre-pubescents) is a defining symptom of SSAD. I also assert that SSAD is precipitated by a molestation *or a seduction* in the pre-adult years.
You suffer from that malady? Well, then, you were either molested or seduced in your pre-adult years, and you are attracted to youth.
Denying those two basic facts of SSAD is key to the left's drive to force the endorsement of this disorder as just another (and better) form of health.
However, you have done a service: the illogical thinking in your post illustrates quite well why a man who suffers from SSAD is not suitable for the priesthood. A priest has to be a clear thinker, so that he can guide others, not someone who draws false moral equivalences between, say, a normal man disappointed in love and a man who suffers from a disorder that manifests as an unhealthy compulsion to sexually disport himself with other men's rectums.
"I'd just attribute his remarks to misinformation or prejudice."
Well, that is after all the liberal modus operandi, so that's what I'd expect you to do.
”If you think attraction to "youth" is restricted to SSAD (I don't know what this stands for) then you must live in a cave.”
I can only shake my head in perplexity when people refuse to understand the arguments arrayed against their positions. Nobody ever asserted or implied that it was “restricted to” men who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder.
By the way, I’m not going to waste too much more time correcting your distortions of my position.
”I'm 27 years old, sometimes people as young as say 19 are attractive to me”
Let me rephrase that so it will concord with the truth: ”I'm 27 years old, sometimes people as young as say 14 are attractive to me…” Deny it if you like. Or if you’re really a Christian, tell the truth.
“I don't find that unusual, if you think it is, then your the one trying to fool the people.”
Once again, you attack something I never said. I said that attraction to youth was a defining symptom of SSAD, not that it was unusual. If you had asked me, I would also have admitted that attraction to teenage girls who have the appearance of sexual maturity is not uncommon among heterosexual men. Given that fact, it is odd that anyone would imagine that attraction to teenage boys is nonexistent among men who suffer from SSAD.
”Problems in society of the sexual kind are not derived from homosexuality.”
Nobody said that SSAD was the cause of all sexual problems. It is certainly a serious social and political problem today, mostly because of the left’s drive to force universal endorsement of it as healthy and good.
“Sex outside of marriage is the origin of all the sexual issues and problems society faces.”
Our sinful nature is the origin of sexual issues, and that goes back to Original Sin. That said, your assertion boils down to, “The problem is the cause.” You ought to rethink that.
”Your defense of "normal men" disappointed with love is noted”
I didn’t “defend” them. Normal men (no danger quotes required when contrasting with men who suffer from SSAD) disappointed in (not with) love need no defense. I merely noted that your attempt to draw a false moral equivalence between such men on the one hand, and on the other hand men who suffer from a disorder that manifests as a compulsion to engage in loathsome perversions, is reflective of disordered thinking.
“as is your immense knowledge on sex involving the rectum.”
One cannot escape knowledge of the symptoms of SSAD in this day and age. Pervofascist activists work hard to ensure that we are all confronted with this unwanted knowledge on a regular basis.
“By the way, I didn't call you dishonest”
Your exact words to me were, “To further the cross by labeling all homosexuals as attracted to kids is unfair, dishonest, and perhaps attributed to a personal projection you are making.”
But that’s okay. I don’t blame you for your problems with the truth any more than I blame a schizophrenic for his delusions.
“perhaps ignorant was the theme I was trying to imply.”
That mudball is always flung at those who contradict the propaganda of the pervofascist activists.
If I were ignorant, I’d believe what you say.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.