[patent]

Where the author stumbles is in his attempt (rightly or wrongly) to minimize the situation by haggling over semantics and the difference between boys under 12 and boys between 12-17. Trying to split hairs between pedophilia and garden variety boy-buggering to lessen the offense is not helpful.

I can't speak for the author, but I often distinguish between true pedophilia and pederasty. They are very different in origins, treatment, etc. A true pedophile is very, very rare. That said, they have always been a problem. They were with us before this present crisis, and will be with us after it. All denominations have had this problem since its been recorded. The thing about it is, they are truly hard to screen for. I don't know of anyone who claims its easy to screen them out before they abuse a kid and get caught. They don't exactly admit their vice publicly. Also, as evil as it is, and as much as these men need to be expunged, they aren't truly the reason we have so many abusers today. They are a small percentage, though they are the most horrible and newsworthy.

Most of the abusers are pederasts. There is a close relationship between gays and a gay subculture and pederasty. When you allow gay culture to thrive in seminaries, as some Bishops have, you are going to wind up with large numbers of pederasts in your diocese. This is the case in Boston, which had a horrible gay subcultue in its seminary for years, and now is the focal point of the present crisis. Pedophiles like Goeghan would have been there anyway, but if the Bishop hadn't tolerated homosexuality in his seminary, we wouldn't be hearing numbers like 80+ priests being accused of these crimes.

This is why I distinguish between pedophilia and pederasty. Pederasty is easier to screen for. Cut the gay men out of the seminary, get rid of them, and never, ever, allow a gay subculture to florish. If the Bishops truly want to confront this issue, they can at least do this.

patent

[wimpycat]

I completely agree with you that there's a difference between pederasty and pedophilia, for the purposes of legality and psychological motivation, but seen in light of the great sin and breach of trust between priest and parishioner, (the shepherd and the sheep entrusted to him by God) I'm not making any distinction whatsoever.

[saradippity]

Great response to Wimpy Cat,who wrote an excellent comment about the article,which was also good.

Your explanation of the critical need to separate pedophiles and pederasts due to the differences in "root cause" is information that should be disseminated widely and understood. Soon the bishops will set up procedures for selection of candidates as well as systems addressing the treatment and disposition of abusers. Without careful attention to the differences, the procedures and systems will fail. There are those within and without that would not be displeased with a bad outcome.

[maryz]

Pedophiles like Goeghan would have been there anyway, but if the Bishop hadn't tolerated homosexuality in his seminary, we wouldn't be hearing numbers like 80+ priests being accused of these crimes.

This is very true, but there is more to the Geoghan. Well, actually I did read that the seminary tried to get rid of Geoghan for "immaturity," but a monsignor uncle pulled strings and got him reinstated. He also left for a while because of a "nervous breakdown."

And it seems there was never a time when there was only a single allegation against him -- he was right out of the box with a charge of molesting seven children from the same family (siblings and cousins). I forget the year, but it was before 1984, when Law came to Boston. Geoghan remained in parish work (piling up complaints) until, I believe, 1993.

Even if pedophilia is hard to predict ahead of time, one would think there had been plenty of "red flags" in Geoghan's case.