Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did John Paul II Solve the Pedophilia Crisis Before We Even Knew About It?
Analysis of USCCB National Review Board report ^ | 3/8/05 | Dangus

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.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Culture; Religion & Science
KEYWORDS: bytheirfruits; dangus; pedophilia; protecttheguilty; sincethestart; thercc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-119 next last
To: sinkspur

Welcome back from the .......*cough*........."vacation"......:-)


51 posted on 03/09/2005 6:01:28 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Good morning, sinkspur. I mostly agree with what you're saying. There've always been a pretty high number of priests who were light in the loafers - I even remember some more masculine priests making fun of them when I was in high school.

However, I'd like to point two things out. First, there may not be more gays in the priesthood today than 50 years ago, but certainly the percentage of gays in the priesthood is near the all time high - mostly because the numbers of healthy, heterosexual males anwering the call has gone down so drastically. Also, there does seem to be an effort to recruit homosexuals into the seminary. It can be seen on many vocations websites of the more liberal dioceses - specific mention is made that it is ok to be homosexual and a priest. If recruitment of gays is up, so then logically would be their numbers. It wouldn't surprise me if the percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood were now over 50%. I do think, in Philadelphia, anyway, that we've started to get virile men back into the seminary. I don't know if this is indicative of a national trend, or just Bevilacqua's no gay policy.

If the percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood is up, in my mind it follows that the percentage of priests preying on children would also be up. But then I accept the notion that if you're sexually disordered in one area that disorder will eventually spread to other areas, i.e. children.

52 posted on 03/09/2005 6:14:04 AM PST by old and tired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: old and tired

"But then I accept the notion that if you're sexually disordered in one area that disorder will eventually spread to other areas, i.e. children."

Attraction to teen-agers is a classic symptom of same-sex attraction disorder, and always has been.

You are correct, though, that a disorder like that cannot be compartmentalized. It casts a shadow on everything the sufferer does and is, even if he claims to be celibate (not that a man who suffers from SSAD is capable of maintaining celibacy).


53 posted on 03/09/2005 6:22:16 AM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

"The helping professions have always attracted homosexuals. Thus it has been, and thus it will always be."

Thats a scary thought.


54 posted on 03/09/2005 6:24:44 AM PST by CouncilofTrent (Quo Primum...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Why the title? Is there something in the USCCB / John Jay report about something John Paul II did? Or is this 'it happened after he became Pope, so he must have ...' thinking? (a la 'it happened after VII, so VII ...')


55 posted on 03/09/2005 6:29:19 AM PST by Mike Fieschko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

I think the drop in abuse cases is most likely caused by the aging of the clergy.


56 posted on 03/09/2005 7:34:20 AM PST by Bellarmine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

>> I know, from personal experience in two dioceses that abuse victims approached bishops in the 70s and 80s and were bought off or told that, if they went public with their accusations, they would end up in court for defamation. <<

How does that refute anything? Even long after V2, they still are too afraid to come forward? That would mean V2 didn't work in that respect.

>> The results yielded that 30-40% of seminarians admitted to being homosexual.<<

The fact that many are homosexual is not evidence that the field is *inherently* homosexual, only that it presently is.


57 posted on 03/09/2005 3:29:53 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mike Fieschko

The title was a question. Something very drastic happened shortly after the Pope was installed. I have no idea what it was, or whether the Pope had anything to do with it. Just noting that during his papacy the crisis was 95% solved before the media picked up on it.


58 posted on 03/09/2005 3:31:47 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: dangus
The fact that many are homosexual is not evidence that the field is *inherently* homosexual, only that it presently is.

I never said the priesthood is "inherently" homosexual. As a celibate male-only profession, however, it does attract a disproportionate number of homosexuals.

59 posted on 03/09/2005 5:16:21 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

>> I never said the priesthood is "inherently" homosexual. As a celibate male-only profession, however, it does attract a disproportionate number of homosexuals. <<

If by "as" you did not mean to imply causation, you are usig weasel words. If you did mean to imply causation, you are saying it is inherently.


60 posted on 03/09/2005 6:17:28 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: dangus
dangus, this is not worth quibbling over.

There are, and always have been, disproportionate numbers of homosexuals in the priesthood. It's an all-male, celibate vocation.

61 posted on 03/09/2005 6:20:23 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Thorin

I do concur that the post-concillar notion of Freudian psychology in the seminaries probably worsened the situation. Freudian pshychology is based on the false notion that exploring dysfunctional behavior extinguished it. In reality, the person rather learns to justify it. Freud didn't realize that dysfucntional behavior was never extinguished because, at heart, Freud didn't really believe any behavior was dysfunctional. Church people who used his techniques should have or did realize that.


62 posted on 03/09/2005 6:22:52 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: St. Johann Tetzel

>> Of the latter type, you have no proof of their "systemic" existence within the ranks of the priesthood prior to the 1950s, except in small numbers, miniscule numbers compared to post 1950. <<

It IS well established that the pedastery crisis WAS largely full blown before Vatican 2, which was the great change and so which is the relevant time frame. As for priests in office before the 1950s, we have no way of knowing whether they took their secret pervesions to the grave with them.

Martin Luther is a terrible historical source; he almost certainly lied about even going to Rome. He does, however, seem to have been set off by the pedastery of his day. (How widespread this was is hard to know.) That he did not explicitly state what was going on, but made only veiled references which only now seem plain lends him credibility.


63 posted on 03/09/2005 6:28:12 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

>> If you were a very Catholic young man who was attracted to males (and not to females, at all), how would you handle that?

Remember, you are a very Catholic young man in the 1920s (or 1930s, or 1940s, or, for that matter, the 1840s) whose mama expects him to marry and have children. The only thing that would please mama more would be for her fine young very Catholic son to enter the seminary. <<

While I don't believe the priesthood is necessarily an inherently gay profession, I do concur with this.


64 posted on 03/09/2005 6:32:38 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

>> If you were a very Catholic young man who was attracted to males (and not to females, at all), how would you handle that?

Remember, you are a very Catholic young man in the 1920s (or 1930s, or 1940s, or, for that matter, the 1840s) whose mama expects him to marry and have children. The only thing that would please mama more would be for her fine young very Catholic son to enter the seminary. <<

While I don't believe the priesthood is necessarily an inherently gay profession, I do concur with this.


65 posted on 03/09/2005 6:32:45 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Bellarmine

A 95% reduction, suddenly occurring in a few short years is simply because of the aging of the priest population? If the frquency of abuse rounded off then slowly drifted down, perhaps even gradually picking up speed, that would make sense. But rising to a peak, then immediately collapsing 95%? It just can't be.


66 posted on 03/09/2005 6:37:58 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Perhaps, but, like a wife who turns the other way while a child is abused by the husband, this has been a systemic problem in the Catholic Church, and other Churches as well, but the victims simply never reported anything to anybody (as children never reported abuse by a parent prior to the 1970s).

Who would believe a kid over a priest?

You gotta read this (below), it's simply mindboggling. Believe it or not, it was the same thing with Fr. Paul Shanley.... the cops approached area parents who admitted their boys had been abused but they liked the priest and only wanted to see him moved, not prosecuted! --- that was in the late 60s.

After several parish assignments in the Fall River diocese, Paquette was accused of abuse by more than a dozen minors. However, Clovis A. "Toby" Gauthier, the New Bedford police officer who investigated the accusations in the 1960s, was never able to persuade their parents to press charges.

When Gauthier gathered 12 families from St. Kilian's Parish to discuss the abuse, the parents were more interested in protecting Paquette than their children, Gauthier said recently.

"One husband and wife said that they were involved in the church, and if they made the accusations, they might as well pack their bags and move out of town," Gauthier said.

He said Paquette was well respected and earned a reputation for being a strong fund-raiser.

"I told them if they didn't bring charges, this would not be the end of it. And it wasn't," said Gauthier, who subsequently learned Paquette was accused of sexual abuse elsewhere.

Gauthier, realizing his "nice-guy approach" wasn't working, tried to get tough with the parents, telling them details of the abuse Paquette was allegedly inflicting on their children. "One mother responded, 'Do you know how lonely the life of a priest is?' I couldn't believe it. I said, 'Are you kidding me!'" recalled Gauthier, who is retired.

For the full ugly story: "Past still haunts accused priest "

When you come right down to it, the clergy reflects the people like a mirror.

67 posted on 03/09/2005 7:21:39 PM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: old and tired; dsc
But then I accept the notion that if you're sexually disordered in one area that disorder will eventually spread to other areas, i.e. children.

Me too. The old "sin makes you stupid" thing. So stupid in fact, you can't even recognize the sin and it builds on itself over unrepented time.

68 posted on 03/09/2005 7:24:52 PM PST by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: dangus; sinkspur; wideawake
Not a bad report, but marred by some pitiful white washing. They claim they were doing something about the crisis in the 1980's.

Oh yeah? Then why were rogue bishops like Law & Mahony transfering pederast priests well into the 1990's instead of defrocking them?

69 posted on 03/09/2005 7:55:43 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaded
No all homosexuals are attracted to adolescents. Thus the term epheobophelia does add aome precision. To be most precise, we should say "homosexual epheobophelia."

I do believe it is important to stress that this is not, mainly, a pedophelia problem, but a homosexual epheobophelia problem. Though pedophelia was in fact a part of it. The most high profile cases, Shanely and Gheghan, were in fact true pedophiles, preying on pre-pubescent children, and preying on both boys and girls.

70 posted on 03/09/2005 8:00:30 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

Well, you call them rogue. My guess is that they feared that if they actively went after the bad guys, they'd be implicated, too. I dunno. I tried to avoid speculating. I'm only noticing that the problem was 95% solved by the time Crossan's book exposed how bad things were, and that they weren't caused by Vatican 2. Beyond that, such speculation in unwise.


71 posted on 03/09/2005 8:29:44 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: dangus
It seems to me it went with the ebb and flow of the sexual revolution. Things started heating up in the late 1950's, came to a head in the 1970's, and then went down in the 1980's. I don't see any tangible Church policies that could account for the reduction. Do you?
72 posted on 03/09/2005 8:48:58 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
They claim they were doing something about the crisis in the 1980's.

The Church did NOTHING about the sexual abuse crisis until 2002, when lawsuits and publicity forced the issue.

If not for that, the Church would still be harboring predators.

73 posted on 03/09/2005 8:59:24 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; curiosity
The Church did NOTHING about the sexual abuse crisis until 2002, when lawsuits and publicity forced the issue.

And they have done precious little since.

74 posted on 03/09/2005 9:02:43 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
And they have done precious little since.

Except drain diocesan bank accounts, close parishes, and sell the property to pay off judgments.

75 posted on 03/09/2005 9:09:40 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Well, nothing may be a bit strong. After all, Geoghan and Shanley were defrocked, eventually.

But yeah, the US Bishops did not do very much until 2002.

What really makes me angry is that very few Bishops have been held accountable for their complicity, and none ever took responsibility for his deeds. I remember after the scandal broke here in Boston, the most Law ever admitted was that he did things that "in retrospect, are wrong." He filled his letter to the parishes with excuses and suggestions that his actions were correct given the information he had at the time. It took over a year for this pitiful excuse for the shepherd to tender his resignation.

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. As far as I'm concerned, they did the Church a great service.

It's time we get a pope who's not afraid to crack some heads and hold Bishops accountable. As one writer put it, we've been overdosing on the medicine of mercy for too long.

76 posted on 03/09/2005 9:17:19 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: dangus
My guess is that they feared that if they actively went after the bad guys, they'd be implicated, too.

In my book, that's exactly the kind of thing a rogue does.

77 posted on 03/09/2005 9:21:14 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
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.

78 posted on 03/09/2005 9:24:00 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; dangus
If the bishops ignored three warnings, whadda are you gonna do?

Throw them in jail, or at least remove them from office. Yet John Paul II "the great" fails to even do the latter.

79 posted on 03/09/2005 9:32:31 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Well, he made the reference indirectly. As part of a long list agents the devil is trying to use to harm the Church. I think he called them, "the folks who brought down Cardinal Law." Or something to that effect. But he made the reference nonetheless.

The sad thing is this priest is otherwise quite orthodox.

80 posted on 03/09/2005 9:36:47 PM PST by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

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!


81 posted on 03/09/2005 9:58:58 PM PST by patrick317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

"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.


82 posted on 03/10/2005 12:39:35 AM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: patrick317

"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.


83 posted on 03/10/2005 12:46:47 AM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

>> 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.


84 posted on 03/10/2005 7:37:18 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; curiosity
>>>>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?<<0 >>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!
85 posted on 03/10/2005 7:39:00 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; curiosity

>>>>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.


86 posted on 03/10/2005 7:41:32 AM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: dsc
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.

This is nonsense. Pure unadulterated nonsense. I would invite you to post your sources.

87 posted on 03/10/2005 8:25:17 AM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

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.


88 posted on 03/10/2005 10:50:48 AM PST by patrick317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
If it wasn't, why would the Fathers of the Council of Elvira (300 A.D.) have felt the need to address it?:

"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.

89 posted on 03/10/2005 11:19:17 AM PST by St. Johann Tetzel (Rule One! No Poofters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; seamole; Tantumergo; dangus
None. But, if you have concrete facts to refute it, I'm all ears.

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.

90 posted on 03/10/2005 11:45:12 AM PST by St. Johann Tetzel (Rule One! No Poofters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: patrick317; dsc
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.

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.

91 posted on 03/10/2005 12:26:45 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: St. Johann Tetzel
plus coming from an ardent supporter of a married priesthood, it is obviously a scurrilous and partisan attempt to further a personal amchurch agenda.

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.

92 posted on 03/10/2005 12:31:15 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: patrick317
and perhaps attributed to a personal projection you are making.

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).

93 posted on 03/10/2005 12:31:50 PM PST by St. Johann Tetzel (Rule One! No Poofters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
But the Latin Rite priesthood, according to several independent studies, is disproportionately homosexual, and likely to remain so for the forseeable future.

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.

94 posted on 03/10/2005 12:34:02 PM PST by St. Johann Tetzel (Rule One! No Poofters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
And you are free to fantasize that an all-male celibate profession does not attract homosexuals.

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.

95 posted on 03/10/2005 12:36:26 PM PST by St. Johann Tetzel (Rule One! No Poofters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: St. Johann Tetzel
"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"

I have no agenda here but to seek the truth, dear friend, you are mistaken.

"Some of your opinions could be copied and pasted from a homosexual apologists' website."

I don't know what this means or what you are implying, but "homosexual apologists", that's a first for me on that phrase. I didn't cut and paste I just reported to the room my experience in life, your rather offensive in your thread, If the Vatican doesn't want homosexual men in the priesthood then I will agree with their position, but the position is very vague right now, to say otherwise is delusional. If this was the policy I imagine gay priests "found out" would have been defrocked, oh that's right they weren't, perhaps there is a greater wisdom in the Vatican on this matter than even your well read brain can comprehend.

As far as your tangent into laws on discrimination of gays in the workplace in the United States, I don't support such laws, I sense a false dichotomy, but (respectfully) you have your position and that's fine, but dissent from the Church, I have not!
All people have their imperfections, yes homosexuality is one such imperfection, I guess the only way to insure a perfect priesthood is to remove all human beings from the position, become protestants and call it a day! P.S., thanks Sinkspur, you won't be forgotten on "the last day"!
96 posted on 03/10/2005 12:56:55 PM PST by patrick317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: patrick317

"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.


97 posted on 03/10/2005 2:57:00 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

"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.


98 posted on 03/10/2005 2:59:34 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: dsc
You seem like a frustrated mean spirited man, but I'll leave the judging to others.

"By the way, paragraphs are our friends."
Then why do you seem to not understand that every sentence needs not its own paragraph.

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'm 27 years old, sometimes people as young as say 19 are attractive to me, I don't find that unusual, if you think it is, then your the one trying to fool the people.

Problems in society of the sexual kind are not derived from homosexuality. Homosexuality is one of the problems which has resulted from the main problem, that is, acceptance of sex outside of marriage. Sex outside of marriage is the origin of all the sexual issues and problems society faces.

Your defense of "normal men" disappointed with love is noted, as is your immense knowledge on sex involving the rectum. By the way, I didn't call you dishonest, perhaps ignorant was the theme I was trying to imply.
99 posted on 03/10/2005 3:21:32 PM PST by patrick317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: patrick317

”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.


100 posted on 03/10/2005 5:55:10 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-119 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson