301 Predator Priests...

[carpedm9587]

Of course...

So if we are suggesting excluding all homosexuals because of pedophilia, why are we not also excluding all heterosexuals? After all, excluding all homosexuals would deal with only 80% of the problem. And has anyone checked to see what percentage of the sexual molestations were by white people vs. minorities? Perhaps it would be better to bar all white people, if they are the predominant offenders?

Or, alternatively, we could just say "we should be excluding all pedophiles, whatever their sexual orientation, skin color, or any other attribute."

[carpedm9587]

Sure - but those cases are distinctly in the minority.

That you think such a large discrepancy might be due to reporting speaks volumes, and evinces a desire to avoid facing an uncomfortable evident fact. The Catholic Church has a homosexual problem.

The bigotry reflected by the phrase "homosexual problem" is amazing to me. There is no "homosexual problem." There is no "black problem." There was no "Japanese problem" during WWII. The Nazi's did not have a "Jewish problem." There IS an entire group of people being disparaged because some of there members, even a disproportionate number (percentage-wise) are acting unacceptably. It is never just to denigrate an entire group because of the actions of a few.

Source: Nate Jackson

The sexual abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church in recent days marked the culmination of seven decades of horrendous wrongdoing by hundreds of priests. But the media would rather ignore one particularly inconvenient truth: The vast majority of the crime was perpetrated by homosexuals.

Monsignor Charles Pope, a Catholic priest writing of previous abuse scandals in the National Catholic Register, makes the case:

It is evident that the vast majority of the cases involving both the sexual abuse of minors and of adults involve male victims. The 2004 John Jay Report (The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States), which was commissioned by the U.S. bishops themselves, found that 81 percent of the victims were male and 78 percent of all victims were post-pubescent. … So, the large majority of cases involved attraction by homosexuals to young men who, though legally minors, were physically and sexually mature males, not little children. This is not pedophilia. It is homosexual attraction.

In the Catholic Herald, Madison, Wisconsin, Bishop Robert C. Morlino likewise writes of the current situation, “It is time to admit that there is a homosexual subculture within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is wreaking great devastation in the vineyard of the Lord.” He continues, “In the specific situations at hand, we are talking about deviant sexual — almost exclusively homosexual — acts by clerics.”

And Cardinal Raymond Burke, a member of the highest court at the Vatican, the Apostolic Signatura, said, “It was clear after the studies following the 2002 sexual abuse crisis that most of the acts of abuse were in fact homosexual acts committed with adolescent young men. There was a studied attempt to either overlook or to deny this.” He added, “Now it seems clear in light of these recent terrible scandals that indeed there is a homosexual culture, not only among the clergy but even within the hierarchy, which needs to be purified at the root.”

© Copyright Original Source

And these are all examples of amazingly homophobic rants. The problem is pedophilia. Equating pedophilia with homosexuality is simply inaccurate, and either badly uninformed or the act of a bigot. The pedophile wants to sexual engage with children. Gender is not typically a major driver. In the church, you have an all male clergy (which is one part of skewing the numbers) and far more opportunity to engage with young boys than girls (alter boys, etc.).

[Sparko]

The bigotry reflected by the phrase "homosexual problem" is amazing to me. There is no "homosexual problem." There is no "black problem." There was no "Japanese problem" during WWII. The Nazi's did not have a "Jewish problem." There IS an entire group of people being disparaged because some of there members, even a disproportionate number (percentage-wise) are acting unacceptably. It is never just to denigrate an entire group because of the actions of a few.



And these are all examples of amazingly homophobic rants. The problem is pedophilia. Equating pedophilia with homosexuality is simply inaccurate, and either badly uninformed or the act of a bigot. The pedophile wants to sexual engage with children. Gender is not typically a major driver. In the church, you have an all male clergy (which is one part of skewing the numbers) and far more opportunity to engage with young boys than girls (alter boys, etc.).

Why do you believe it is bigoted to characterize something as a "homosexual problem" or "black problem" or "Japanese problem..." but seem to have no problem (no pun intended) characterizing something as a "Pedophilia problem?"

[carpedm9587]

Why do you believe it is bigoted to characterize something as a "homosexual problem" or "black problem" or "Japanese problem..." but seem to have no problem (no pun intended) characterizing something as a "Pedophilia problem?"

Because pedophilia is a disease, and it is one of many diseases that explicitly leads to harm to others - specifically children. It is indeed a "problem" when pedophiles prey on children. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. Being black, being Japanese, being Muslim or Christian, being homosexual, are not diseases that result in harm to others.

[Sparko]

Because pedophilia is a disease, and it is one of many diseases that explicitly leads to harm to others - specifically children. It is indeed a "problem" when pedophiles prey on children. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. Being black, being Japanese, being Muslim or Christian, being homosexual, are not diseases that result in harm to others.

Being a pedophile is a sexual orientation. It just happens to be one that you think is wrong. I think homosexuality is a disease. Or at least a mental disorder. And the Japanese were a problem in WW2, just like the Germans were a problem. They were actively trying to take over the world and killing millions of people. I would call that a problem.

[carpedm9587]

Being a pedophile is a sexual orientation.

While that is widely discussed in the literature, pedophilia is not defined as a sexual orientation by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). It is classified it as a disorder. This can be found in the fifth (and most current revision) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5)

It just happens to be one that you think is wrong.

Actually - a person has not done anything explicitly wrong just because they have a disorder. However, if anyone molests a child, that act is wrong. So, a pedophile who never acts on their disordered inclination is not an immoral person.

I think homosexuality is a disease. Or at least a mental disorder.

Of course you do - because it fits your anti-homosexual narrative. But, again, the psychiatric community disagrees with you. Homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the DSM in 1973.

And the Japanese were a problem in WW2, just like the Germans were a problem. They were actively trying to take over the world and killing millions of people. I would call that a problem.

Actually - the nation of Japan was doing that under the leadership of the government of Japan. Same for Germany. But the U.S. used that as an excuse to round up all Japanese nationals and put them in internment camps. Are you suggesting this was a defensible and just action?

[Sparko]

While that is widely discussed in the literature, pedophilia is not defined as a sexual orientation by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). It is classified it as a disorder. This can be found in the fifth (and most current revision) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5)



Actually - a person has not done anything explicitly wrong just because they have a disorder. However, if anyone molests a child, that act is wrong. So, a pedophile who never acts on their disordered inclination is not an immoral person.



Of course you do - because it fits your anti-homosexual narrative. But, again, the psychiatric community disagrees with you. Homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the DSM in 1973.

so before that they considered it a disorder. Makes it relative, right? They just changed their mind? They might do the same for Pedophilia one day. And it IS a sexual orientation.

Actually - the nation of Japan was doing that under the leadership of the government of Japan. Same for Germany. But the U.S. used that as an excuse to round up all Japanese nationals and put them in internment camps. Are you suggesting this was a defensible and just action?

There you go with the nitpicking. When someone says "the Japanese" or "the Germans" they are talking about the nation as a whole. Not each individual and their role in it. So "the Japanese Problem" is a valid way to talk about the NATION of Japan attacking America, or "The Germans" as the NATION that invaded France and Poland and tried to take over the world and killed "The Jews"

[Terraceth]

There are gay people who are pedophiles - and there are straight people who are pedophiles. Although pedophilia keeps getting equated to homosexuality, they are distinct things. Many of the incidences in Pennsylvania involved priests with young girls. So if you're going to make an argument to purge all homosexuals, should you not also make the case to purge all heterosexuals, to remain consistent?

Well, I believe priests spend a lot more time with boys than with girls, so there's greater "opportunity" to abuse them.

And yes, I saw that you said, "vast majority." I think the catholic church needs to re-examine it's position on celibacy, and it's psychological screening practices. Any institution that allows a disproportionate number of pedophiles into its ranks has some serious self-examination to do.

They have adjusted their psychological screening practices, actually.

But as for the celibacy, I've never been persuaded that it's that big a factor, for two reasons.

First, if celibacy was actually the problem, i.e. the priest really wanted to have sex but wasn't supposed to, there seems to be a much easier way to "solve" it than molesting children, which is to just go and find a prostitute. It also carries the benefit that if you get caught, you'll get a lighter punishment.

Second, and more importantly, we can see groups that do not have celibacy requirements that can have this as an issue. For example, consider Protestant churches. The insurance data I posted indicates that their rate may not be that different from the Catholic Church's, but because they're not one entity like the Catholic Church, they don't get grouped together in the same way. Not to mention that it's harder to get real data on it because not only are a huge number of the churches independent (and not affiliated with any denomination), even those that are part of a particular denomination are frequently very autonomous and thus do not report this information to any other authority.

And it's not a religious thing, either. As rogue06 pointed out, teachers and coaches have a high rate of abuse, perhaps higher than that of the Catholic Church's, but there is no celibacy requirement for those positions.

[NorrinRadd]

...
There are numerous pseudepigraphical works in the NT including several “Pauline” Epistles. And the authorship of the Gospels is not known. ...

This of course depends on which scholars you believe, and on how you define "pseudepigraphical."

[carpedm9587]

so before that they considered it a disorder.

Yes

Makes it relative, right? They just changed their mind?

Science is not an immutable field, Sparko. There are MANY things that were considered "psychological disorders," until we learned more. If you don't realize that, why don't you do a study on women's health through history. Many things we now realize are normal parts of human physiology were once classified as "disorders."

They might do the same for Pedophilia one day. And it IS a sexual orientation.

Doubtful - but I don't try to read crystal balls. I deal with the facts before me. The fact is that your position is inconsistent with clinical psychiatry and psychology, which does NOT categorize homosexuality as a disorder, and DOES categorize pedophilia as one - not a sexual orientation. You can cling to your views if you wish, but you have no credible basis for doing so scientifically. All you have is your existing, religiously-prompted bias.

There you go with the nitpicking. When someone says "the Japanese" or "the Germans" they are talking about the nation as a whole. Not each individual and their role in it. So "the Japanese Problem" is a valid way to talk about the NATION of Japan attacking America, or "The Germans" as the NATION that invaded France and Poland and tried to take over the world and killed "The Jews"

The nation of Japan and the nation of Germany were (and are) led by governments - and we were at war with that government and those who adhered to its policies. That does not mean we were at war with all Japanese and all German people everywhere. Likewise, some leadership elements and some adherents in Islam are "at war" with non-Islamic peoples - that does not mean were are at war with all of Islam. The U.S. had a problem with the government and armies of Japan and Germany. To extend that to American citizens who happened to be of Japanese or German descent was indefensible. It was one of our saddest hours as a nation. We are repeating it today with Islam, though not to so severe a degree. And we are beginning to repeat it with immigrants in general, as more and more people who "look foreign" are being accosted and attack (verbally and otherwise) despite being American citizens - all in the name of hating those who are "other."

[carpedm9587]

Well, I believe priests spend a lot more time with boys than with girls, so there's greater "opportunity" to abuse them.

They have adjusted their psychological screening practices, actually.

But as for the celibacy, I've never been persuaded that it's that big a factor, for two reasons.

First, if celibacy was actually the problem, i.e. the priest really wanted to have sex but wasn't supposed to, there seems to be a much easier way to "solve" it than molesting children, which is to just go and find a prostitute. It also carries the benefit that if you get caught, you'll get a lighter punishment.

Second, and more importantly, we can see groups that do not have celibacy requirements that can have this as an issue. For example, consider Protestant churches. The insurance data I posted indicates that their rate may not be that different from the Catholic Church's, but because they're not one entity like the Catholic Church, they don't get grouped together in the same way. Not to mention that it's harder to get real data on it because not only are a huge number of the churches independent (and not affiliated with any denomination), even those that are part of a particular denomination are frequently very autonomous and thus do not report this information to any other authority.

And it's not a religious thing, either. As rogue06 pointed out, teachers and coaches have a high rate of abuse, perhaps higher than that of the Catholic Church's, but there is no celibacy requirement for those positions.

It strikes me that there is a far simpler possible explanation: pedophiles will tend to be drawn to professions that keep them in contact with children: coaches, teachers, priests, ministers, daycare workers, etc. I wonder if there has ever been a study to outline the rate of incidence of pedophilia by profession?

[One Bad Pig]

The bigotry reflected by the phrase "homosexual problem" is amazing to me. There is no "homosexual problem." There is no "black problem." There was no "Japanese problem" during WWII. The Nazi's did not have a "Jewish problem." There IS an entire group of people being disparaged because some of there members, even a disproportionate number (percentage-wise) are acting unacceptably. It is never just to denigrate an entire group because of the actions of a few.



And these are all examples of amazingly homophobic rants. The problem is pedophilia. Equating pedophilia with homosexuality is simply inaccurate, and either badly uninformed or the act of a bigot. The pedophile wants to sexual engage with children. Gender is not typically a major driver. In the church, you have an all male clergy (which is one part of skewing the numbers) and far more opportunity to engage with young boys than girls (alter boys, etc.).

Neither I nor the article I referenced is equating pedophilia with homosexuality. If you'd look honestly at the numbers, most of the victims are post-pubescent - which makes it, indeed, a homosexual problem. That's not "homophobic" - it's straight fact. How about dealing with it instead of flinging emotion-based accusations?

[carpedm9587]

Neither I nor the article I referenced is equating pedophilia with homosexuality. If you'd look honestly at the numbers, most of the victims are post-pubescent - which makes it, indeed, a homosexual problem. That's not "homophobic" - it's straight fact. How about dealing with it instead of flinging emotion-based accusations?

So ask yourself this question: if the majority of the acts were perpetrated on young, post-pubescent women, would we be hearing about the church's "heterosexual problem?"

Somehow, I think not. Hence my comments.

[One Bad Pig]

So ask yourself this question: if the majority of the acts were perpetrated on young, post-pubescent women, would we be hearing about the church's "heterosexual problem?"

Somehow, I think not. Hence my comments.

We're not dealing with hypotheticals here, Carpe. How about not taking refuge in fantasyland?

[carpedm9587]

We're not dealing with hypotheticals here, Carpe. How about not taking refuge in fantasyland?

I'm not - I'm making a point. If the predominant victims were girls, would you be discussing the church's "heterosexual problem?" I'm inclined to believe not. I think you also know that would not be the case. You see, heterosexuality is considered "normal and OK," so you (and others) would be looking for other psychological factors - separate from sexual orientation. But homosexuality - that's a big no-no. So immediately it's about the sexual orientation - and not about other psychological factors.

Do I have evidence? Absolutely. Separate from the Catholic Church, the predominant victims of under-age sexual abuse are girls. But we do not hear about the "heterosexual problem" in that context. The references are to pedophilia when it is pre-pubescent children, and "sexual abuse of a minor" when they are not. We do not say that a hetero-sexual abusing children is doing so because they are hetero-sexual. But when they are homosexual - suddenly the issue is sexual orientation.