Why Get Mad at Bill Donahue?

[quote]therajraj wrote:
What is the makeup of sex of most alter servers while sex abuse was predominantely going on? Is it mostly boys? Mostly girls? 50/50?

These Priests have repressed sexual urges also hold a position of authority over alter servers and spend an inordinate time around them. Regardless of the sex of the alter servers, they choose to prey on them because they develop attraction overtime.

Edit: this is what I was suggesting originally, again not stating it as fact.
[/quote]

1983, girls were allowed to be altar servers.

John Jay Study:
81% of victims were boys.
100% of priests are male.
4% of all priests between 1950-2002 were accused of abuse.
6% of the accused priests (which was only 4%) were pedophiles.
So, 94% of ACCUSED priests weren’t pedophiles.

So if the majority of the ACCUSED aren’t pedophiles…I don’t think we can label it a pedophile problem.

Allowing men open about their SSA into the priesthood had started in the mid to late 50’s.
70% of priests that abused had become priests before the 1970.

When they started allowing that to happen, heterosexual men stopped entering the priesthood, their rate of application and formation declined severely.

Don’t know, if 81% of cases are male on male abuse, and 96% of the accused were not seen as having problems pedophilia (from professionals)… it would seem that there was another reason why 81% of the victims were male.

[quote]groo wrote:
This is hardly the worst scandal the Catholic Church has ever faced. The reason celibate clergy arose was because of the moral turpitude of the clergy around the time of the reformation. In addition to the church not wanting to lose benefices and property, the threat of losing members of the faith to protestant newcomers was very real.[/quote]

Celibacy was a common rule in the Latin right from the start, almost all Bishops were picked from celibate monks. Also, the rule of celibacy become universal in the 11th century not during the reformation.

Your accusation about losing property is unfounded since Canon Law forbade priests and monks from owning land and property. There was no worrying about losing land, because the priests didn’t own land.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
And most sex abuse that occurs in the non-secular world happens in the Catholic Church. Why is that?
[/quote]

…what? The Catholic Church has the lowest percentage of abuse in their clergy.

[quote]forlife wrote:
As has been pointed out by BC and kamuii, the priests in question weren’t pedophiles or homosexuals. They were ephebophiles.

More importantly, the whole argument is a fail.

Even if they were gay (and they weren’t), why would it mean homosexuality is inherently bad, any more than heterosexual abuse of young women would mean that heterosexuality is bad?[/quote]

Homosexual ACTS (not homosexuality itself) is inherently bad whether it abuses minors or not.

Though I found this interesting:

“The Holy See stated that the majority of Catholic clergy who had committed acts of sexual abuse against under 18 year olds should not be viewed as paedophiles, but as homosexuals who are attracted to sex with adolescent males.”

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
As has been pointed out by BC and kamuii, the priests in question weren’t pedophiles or homosexuals. They were ephebophiles.

More importantly, the whole argument is a fail.

Even if they were gay (and they weren’t), why would it mean homosexuality is inherently bad, any more than heterosexual abuse of young women would mean that heterosexuality is bad?[/quote]

Homosexual ACTS (not homosexuality itself) is inherently bad whether it abuses minors or not.

Though I found this interesting:

“The Holy See stated that the majority of Catholic clergy who had committed acts of sexual abuse against under 18 year olds should not be viewed as paedophiles, but as homosexuals who are attracted to sex with adolescent males.”[/quote]

Care to address either of my actual points?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
And most sex abuse that occurs in the non-secular world happens in the Catholic Church. Why is that?
[/quote]

…what? The Catholic Church has the lowest percentage of abuse in their clergy.[/quote]

Proof?

Which religion has more cases of sex abuse?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Though I found this interesting:

“The Holy See stated that the majority of Catholic clergy who had committed acts of sexual abuse against under 18 year olds should not be viewed as paedophiles, but as homosexuals who are attracted to sex with adolescent males.”[/quote]

So even the church recognizes these aren’t pedophiles, but homosexuals.

[quote]forlife wrote:
As has been pointed out by BC and kamuii, the priests in question weren’t pedophiles or homosexuals. They were ephebophiles.

More importantly, the whole argument is a fail.

Even if they were gay (and they weren’t), why would it mean homosexuality is inherently bad, any more than heterosexual abuse of young women would mean that heterosexuality is bad?[/quote]

So attraction to young men with adult male characteristics isn’t homosexuality, is that what you’re saying? It’s only ephebophilia if it’s an EXCLUSIVE attraction. Just because a priest may have sexed up a 16 y/o boy doesn’t mean he wouldn’t do the same with a 26 y/o man.

[quote]forlife wrote:
As has been pointed out by BC and kamuii, the priests in question weren’t pedophiles or homosexuals. They were ephebophiles.

More importantly, the whole argument is a fail.

Even if they were gay (and they weren’t), why would it mean homosexuality is inherently bad, any more than heterosexual abuse of young women would mean that heterosexuality is bad?[/quote]

No abuse is abuse and should be dealt with a harshly. The problem doesn’t speak to the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. The problem is that most of the cases were homosexual in nature. So it does give pause. Like I stated before. The line hasn’t been clearly drawn between a healthy homosexual outlook and on that includes derangement. What I mean is before the fact, it is difficult to discern the difference between deviant and totally deranged before hand. Hence the moratorium is related to what I would call ‘heading it off at the pass’. Homosexuals can, and do make great priests. The moratorium is in effect, until a system is in place to better filter out derangement. Like it or not, homosexuality blurs the lines. The church has to be damned careful as they don’t want anything like this to happen again.
Trust me it’s a pain in the ass. I had to go through all kinds of background checks and stuff just to be catechist.
But we don’t slam the door on folks…Our piano player is queer as a 3 dollar bill.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
What is the makeup of sex of most alter servers while sex abuse was predominantely going on? Is it mostly boys? Mostly girls? 50/50?

These Priests have repressed sexual urges also hold a position of authority over alter servers and spend an inordinate time around them. Regardless of the sex of the alter servers, they choose to prey on them because they develop attraction overtime.

Edit: this is what I was suggesting originally, again not stating it as fact.
[/quote]

1983, girls were allowed to be altar servers.

John Jay Study:
81% of victims were boys.
100% of priests are male.
4% of all priests between 1950-2002 were accused of abuse.
6% of the accused priests (which was only 4%) were pedophiles.
So, 94% of ACCUSED priests weren’t pedophiles.

So if the majority of the ACCUSED aren’t pedophiles…I don’t think we can label it a pedophile problem.

Allowing men open about their SSA into the priesthood had started in the mid to late 50’s.
70% of priests that abused had become priests before the 1970.

When they started allowing that to happen, heterosexual men stopped entering the priesthood, their rate of application and formation declined severely.

Don’t know, if 81% of cases are male on male abuse, and 96% of the accused were not seen as having problems pedophilia (from professionals)… it would seem that there was another reason why 81% of the victims were male.[/quote]

The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period:

22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.[15][16][17] Catholic Church sexual abuse cases - Wikipedia

It’s been awhile since I read the John Jay study, do you have a link to that 6% figure? It seems odd (although certainly possible) that 6% of the abusers were pedophiles when 23% of the victims were 10 or under.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
And most sex abuse that occurs in the non-secular world happens in the Catholic Church. Why is that?
[/quote]

…what? The Catholic Church has the lowest percentage of abuse in their clergy.[/quote]

Proof?

Which religion has more cases of sex abuse?[/quote]

Not sure, these two studies say the Catholic Church’s clergy is about the same as others, but that doesn’t really tell much. I’ll look for my other source (where I read it).

http://ww.scu.edu/cas/psychology/faculty/upload/Plante-Clergy-Paper-2.pdf
http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html

Edit: Something, Sex abuse spans spectrum of churches - CSMonitor.com

Pedohysteria is ripping apart western societies. It teaches young people to hate older people and to see every male over 18 as a possible threat instead of a rolemodel. It teaches even 17 year old ?children? that they are infants without responsibility and control over their bodies. It is a shameless exploitation of the true extension of paedophilia and child sexual abuse (sex with pre-pubescents). It is a moral hysteria created by feminists in order to limit competition from younger females in a free sexual market. It it is inflicting ruinous consequences upon society.

I posted about this years ago. There was a study that concluded celibacy was the main factor contributing to the problem.

Here is how it works. Most young men who go into seminary school are teenagers who either have none or very little experience with sex. So they are not at a mature level of development when it comes to sex and they are not going to develop any further because of celibacy.

Or in other words, the ability to get laid requires certain social skills (a.k.a. game)that aren’t going to develop if you aren’t out there trying to get some and to get a girl requires more skills.

Years later they may be grown men but, when it comes to sex they are stuck at an immature level of development. As priests they are in a position where they command respect and admiration from youngsters whose level of sexual maturity is on a par with their own.

It’s easier for them to socialize with boys and 14-15 year old boys are near the same level of development. So that is why 14-15 year old boys seem to be preferred.

[quote]clip11 wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
This is just another lame attempt to vilify and attack gays.

Priests molesting boys is fucked up.

Someones mad…[/quote]

How are we villifying gays by telling the truth? Or is the truth homophobic? All im saying is that the problem in the catholic church is a homosexual problem, not a pedophile problem like the MSM claims because most boys were teenagers when the abuse began.[/quote]

Firstly, you’re wasting time by “spinning” an issue. Fact is fact. You’re in no better position to say who has a problem with what than anyone else. Write a journal article, cite references, interview people then maybe we have a worthy discussion.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter if they were ‘teenagers’ or ‘boys’. They were lured into a false sense of security and taken advantage of. It doesn’t matter how you want to define them, they were still young enough to not be able to defend themselves.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Also, girls are far more likely to have been sexually abused + the vast majority of child sex offenders are male…sooooo…yeah, paedophiles with no morals, empathy, self-control are the problem here. [/quote]

Wait are you saying girls were more sexually abused? Because studies show 81% (well, 80.9%) were boys. So…[/quote]

Weeelllll…clearly that goes against the norm. One can only sensibly conclude then, it’s a Catholic priest problem then.

OR

Perhaps, it’s just an unfortunate by-product of living a certain lifestyle/availability of boys.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I posted about this years ago. There was a study that concluded celibacy was the main factor contributing to the problem.

Here is how it works. Most young men who go into seminary school are teenagers who either have none or very little experience with sex. So they are not at a mature level of development when it comes to sex and they are not going to develop any further because of celibacy.

Or in other words, the ability to get laid requires certain social skills (a.k.a. game)that aren’t going to develop if you aren’t out there trying to get some and to get a girl requires more skills.

Years later they may be grown men but, when it comes to sex they are stuck at an immature level of development. As priests they are in a position where they command respect and admiration from youngsters whose level of sexual maturity is on a par with their own.

It’s easier for them to socialize with boys and 14-15 year old boys are near the same level of development. So that is why 14-15 year old boys seem to be preferred.

[/quote]

Sifu, I usually completely agree with just about everything you write here, but I’m sorry to say this is just wrong. I corrected Rohnyn when he made a very similar statement a while back and he never conceded even though I provided hard evidence. I will do so here, too. Main thing, the average ordinand is in his 30’s, a college graduate, many with post-graduate certifications, and have lived more than enough of a life to be mature enough to make the decision to commit to a life of service and celibacy.

Also, if you are going to mention a study “concluded” that celibacy was the issue, I am going to ask to see that study. I’ve not once ever seen anyone produce anything that even approached such a conclusion, and I’ve searched for one.

Here are the 2011 statistics:

http://4thepriests.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/typical-new-american-priest-matches-the-age-of-jesus-in-his-ministry-years/

the median age of ordinands is 31; the mean age, 34
for diocesan ordinands, the mean age is 30; for religious ordinands, it is 36

the typical diocesan ordinand has lived in his diocese for 15 years
69% are white, 15% are Latino, 10% are Asian, and 5% are African-American
33% were foreign born, with the typical foreign-born ordinand entering the US in 1998 at age 25; the most typical countries of origin were Colombia, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland, and Vietnam
52% of religious ordinands are foreign-born
8% are converts, with the typical convert entering the Church at age 25
60% had completed college before entering the seminary
47% attended a Catholic elementary school, 39% attended a Catholic high school, and 39% attended a Catholic college; 4% were homeschooled
34% have a relative who was a priest or religious
in 82% of cases, both parents were Catholic
37% have four or more siblings; 16% have three siblings
94% had a full-time job before entering the seminary
8% served in the military, and 19% had a parent with a career in the military
66% were encouraged by a parish priest to consider a vocation; 42% were encouraged by their mother, and 27% by their father
52% were discouraged by a parent from considering a vocation; 20% were discouraged by a priest, and 8% were discouraged by a religious
ordinands typically first began to consider the priesthood at 16
48% took part in a parish youth group, 30% participated in Boy Scouts, and 23% participated in the Knights of Columbus before entering the seminary
21% attended World Youth Day, and 8% attended a Franciscan University of Steubenville high school youth conference
71% served as altar servers, and 55% served as readers at Mass
70% prayed the Rosary and 65% took part in Eucharistic adoration before entering the seminary

Here are the 2010 stats, and trust me, they have not changed that much over the years. You are welcome to try and prove me wrong, though, if you don’t think so:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the_priests_of_2010/

â?¢ the average age of ordinands is 37; the median age of diocesan ordinands is 33
â?¢ 10% are converts
â?¢ 37% have a relative who is a priest or religious
â?¢ 55% have more than two siblings
â?¢ 49% attended a Catholic elementary school; 39% attended a Catholic college
â?¢ 60% completed college before entering the seminary; 92% held full-time jobs
â?¢ 78% were encouraged by a priest to enter the seminary
â?¢ 50% were discouraged by parents or other family members from considering the seminary; 15% were discouraged by priests, while 4% were discouraged by religious
â?¢ 19% attended a World Youth Day; 8% attended a Franciscan University of Steubenville High School Youth Conference
â?¢ 67% regularly prayed the Rosary before entering seminary; 65% regularly took part in Eucharistic adoration
â?¢ the seminarians typically began to consider a priestly vocation when they were 18

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
And most sex abuse that occurs in the non-secular world happens in the Catholic Church. Why is that?
[/quote]

…what? The Catholic Church has the lowest percentage of abuse in their clergy.[/quote]

Proof?

Which religion has more cases of sex abuse?[/quote]

It’s his opinion, dude. Isn’t that enough?

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:

[quote]clip11 wrote:

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
This is just another lame attempt to vilify and attack gays.

Priests molesting boys is fucked up.

Someones mad…[/quote]

How are we villifying gays by telling the truth? Or is the truth homophobic? All im saying is that the problem in the catholic church is a homosexual problem, not a pedophile problem like the MSM claims because most boys were teenagers when the abuse began.[/quote]

Firstly, you’re wasting time by “spinning” an issue. Fact is fact. You’re in no better position to say who has a problem with what than anyone else. Write a journal article, cite references, interview people then maybe we have a worthy discussion.

Secondly, it doesn’t matter if they were ‘teenagers’ or ‘boys’. They were lured into a false sense of security and taken advantage of. It doesn’t matter how you want to define them, they were still young enough to not be able to defend themselves.[/quote]

  1. I know its a problem with homosexuality and not pedophilia because the majority of boys abused were teenagers and not children. I know this because I can take 5 mins to look up what a pedophile is in a medical dictionary. You know i, I know it we both know it. Just because a talking head with a PHD or a news anchor says something doesn’t make it true. And you do know they use the term pedophile not only to avoid offending gays, but to avoid the discussion of gays in the priesthood.

  2. Yes all sexual abuse is bad, but you can’t reasonably say a 15 or 16 y/o is just as defensless as an 8 year old. I just mentioned in another post where a 15 y/o kid but a middle age man in the hospital after punching him off his bike with some brass knuckles for no reason at all. So saying it doesn’t matter if they were teenagers or little boys is a blatant attempt to ignore the root problem which is homosexual priests.

[quote]clip11 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
As has been pointed out by BC and kamuii, the priests in question weren’t pedophiles or homosexuals. They were ephebophiles.

More importantly, the whole argument is a fail.

Even if they were gay (and they weren’t), why would it mean homosexuality is inherently bad, any more than heterosexual abuse of young women would mean that heterosexuality is bad?[/quote]

So attraction to young men with adult male characteristics isn’t homosexuality, is that what you’re saying? It’s only ephebophilia if it’s an EXCLUSIVE attraction. Just because a priest may have sexed up a 16 y/o boy doesn’t mean he wouldn’t do the same with a 26 y/o man.[/quote]

If they we’re equally attracted to adult men, they could have easily engaged in those relationships without risking criminal prosecution.

And more to the point, why are you drawing overgeneralizations about gays based on a small percentage of Catholic priests that engage in reprehensible behavior?

I mean, it’s not like you’ve ever disparaged gays in any of your other threads.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]clip11 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
As has been pointed out by BC and kamuii, the priests in question weren’t pedophiles or homosexuals. They were ephebophiles.

More importantly, the whole argument is a fail.

Even if they were gay (and they weren’t), why would it mean homosexuality is inherently bad, any more than heterosexual abuse of young women would mean that heterosexuality is bad?[/quote]

So attraction to young men with adult male characteristics isn’t homosexuality, is that what you’re saying? It’s only ephebophilia if it’s an EXCLUSIVE attraction. Just because a priest may have sexed up a 16 y/o boy doesn’t mean he wouldn’t do the same with a 26 y/o man.[/quote]

If they we’re equally attracted to adult men, they could have easily engaged in those relationships without risking criminal prosecution.

And more to the point, why are you drawing overgeneralizations about gays based on a small percentage of Catholic priests that engage in reprehensible behavior?

I mean, it’s not like you’ve ever disparaged gays in any of your other threads.[/quote]

Im not saying gays are more likely to be abusers than anyone else. I was pointing out how the MSM tries to overlook the problem of homosexuality in the catholic church by pretending it’s pedophilia which aint the case.