Why Get Mad at Bill Donahue?

[quote]pat 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]

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]

I agree it doesn’t speak to the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

The solution, it seems to me, is not to categorically discriminate against faithful gay Catholics, but rather to have a very thorough background check like you describe, along with an unequivocal strict policy of investigation and enforcement whenever abuse is suspected, regardless of the victim’s gender.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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]

Nope, there is no room for interpretation here, purely numbers. Nice try though.

And you still haven’t answered my question, what is your opinion on OP?

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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/

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

[/quote]

If they’re planning on entering the seminary, what sort of sexual history could they possibly have?

I doubt most of these guys were out at bars trying to pick up women before entering.

My friends sister became a nun and she remained a virgin all throughout college.

Going to college first before entering the seminary doesn’t mean anything.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat 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]

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]

I agree it doesn’t speak to the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

The solution, it seems to me, is not to categorically discriminate against faithful gay Catholics, but rather to have a very thorough background check like you describe, along with an unequivocal strict policy of investigation and enforcement whenever abuse is suspected, regardless of the victim’s gender.[/quote]

That is correct, but my understanding is that it is in fact only a temporary measure until it can be sorted out and a proper process in place…You have to understand that this has to be implemented world wide, so when dealing with 3rd world countries you don’t just hop on your lap top and get a background, or go to your local psyc…It’s got to be sorted out world wide.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
My friends sister became a nun and she remained a virgin all throughout college.

Going to college first before entering the seminary doesn’t mean anything.[/quote]

How ugly IS she?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

If they’re planning on entering the seminary, what sort of sexual history could they possibly have?

I doubt most of these guys were out at bars trying to pick up women before entering. [/quote]

I know you really really really want to cram this square peg into your round worldview any way you can, but it’s not going to happen.

First, it doesn’t matter if what you say is even true, because it doesn’t affect my point in the post I was replying to.

Second, it’s not true. New oridinands come from all kinds of backgrounds, many of them quite a bit more wild than you might expect. See Father Corapi for one easy example. Possibly not the best example due to what happened to him recently, but it goes to show that priests are often a lot more experienced and world-wise than they get credit for.

But if it makes you more comfortable you can continue to do what you and other posters have been doing throughout this thread, just making shit up that fits with what you want to believe and then repeating it as gospel.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
My friends sister became a nun and she remained a virgin all throughout college.

Going to college first before entering the seminary doesn’t mean anything.[/quote]

How ugly IS she?[/quote]

You tell me.

Her sister (my friend) openly spoke about her being a virgin.

Edit: she is not ugly.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
My friends sister became a nun and she remained a virgin all throughout college.

Going to college first before entering the seminary doesn’t mean anything.[/quote]

You’ll never be satisfied. Can you not see how strong your bias is? You are just shutting off fact after pure fact, refusing to see anything other than what you believe.The initial assertion was that new seminarians were mainly kids with practically no life experience upon which to base their decision to become a priest.

I have demonstrated this is not true.

Okay?

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
My friends sister became a nun and she remained a virgin all throughout college.

Going to college first before entering the seminary doesn’t mean anything.[/quote]

You’ll never be satisfied. Can you not see how strong your bias is? You are just shutting off fact after pure fact, refusing to see anything other than what you believe.The initial assertion was that new seminarians were mainly kids with practically no life experience upon which to base their decision to become a priest.

I have demonstrated this is not true.

Okay? [/quote]

Life experience includes relationships with women. So no I disagree.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[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]

Nope, there is no room for interpretation here, purely numbers. Nice try though.
[/quote]

Right. I see. When it benefits your argument, you get to climb up on that horse and demand proof of other’s assertions. But when it comes to your argument, well, you said it was an opinion, and then you get to just keep repeating the same shit in the face of ever mounting evidence that every premise your opinion is based upon is false. Okay.

Not sure. I know there are certain gay priests and gay Catholics who have chosen a life of celibacy and do quite well with it, as far as I know. There was obviously a certain kind of person, though, that was being ordained, who clearly had some psychological disorders. It also appears that a not insignificant amount of these priests appeared to prefer boys to girls. I think there is probably some set of similar personality traits among them and I’d like to find out what they are so that they can be identified in the future and not allowed to make it into seminary.

I’d honestly like to know what the root of the problem is because I want to make sure this shit never happens again, too.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

If they’re planning on entering the seminary, what sort of sexual history could they possibly have?

I doubt most of these guys were out at bars trying to pick up women before entering. [/quote]

I know you really really really want to cram this square peg into your round worldview any way you can, but it’s not going to happen.

First, it doesn’t matter if what you say is even true, because it doesn’t affect my point in the post I was replying to.

Second, it’s not true. New oridinands come from all kinds of backgrounds, many of them quite a bit more wild than you might expect. See Father Corapi for one easy example. Possibly not the best example due to what happened to him recently, but it goes to show that priests are often a lot more experienced and world-wise than they get credit for.

But if it makes you more comfortable you can continue to do what you and other posters have been doing throughout this thread, just making shit up that fits with what you want to believe and then repeating it as gospel. [/quote]

What would you say is the most typical background for a priest?

Is Father Corapi the average priest or the exception to the rule?

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Right. I see. When it benefits your argument, you get to climb up on that horse and demand proof of other’s assertions. But when it comes to your argument, well, you said it was an opinion, and then you get to just keep repeating the same shit in the face of ever mounting evidence that every premise your opinion is based upon is false. Okay.
[/quote]

Nope, I explained why I thought celibacy could be a contributing factor, you just don’t agree.

What church has the most sex abuse is purely a quantitative measurement. So no, what you are asserting I’m doing is untrue.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
My friends sister became a nun and she remained a virgin all throughout college.

Going to college first before entering the seminary doesn’t mean anything.[/quote]

You’ll never be satisfied. Can you not see how strong your bias is? You are just shutting off fact after pure fact, refusing to see anything other than what you believe.The initial assertion was that new seminarians were mainly kids with practically no life experience upon which to base their decision to become a priest.

I have demonstrated this is not true.

Okay? [/quote]

Life experience includes relationships with women. So no I disagree.[/quote]

You disagree with what? You want a sexual resume from each priest? Some of them, possibly many, have sex before being ordained! Some of them probably do not, too. Either way it doesn’t matter! There is STILL no evidence, there has still not been ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that the choice of lifelong celibacy tends to lead to sexual deviance.

Has your friend’s sister started molesting kids yet? When do you think she will?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

If they’re planning on entering the seminary, what sort of sexual history could they possibly have?

I doubt most of these guys were out at bars trying to pick up women before entering. [/quote]

I know you really really really want to cram this square peg into your round worldview any way you can, but it’s not going to happen.

First, it doesn’t matter if what you say is even true, because it doesn’t affect my point in the post I was replying to.

Second, it’s not true. New oridinands come from all kinds of backgrounds, many of them quite a bit more wild than you might expect. See Father Corapi for one easy example. Possibly not the best example due to what happened to him recently, but it goes to show that priests are often a lot more experienced and world-wise than they get credit for.

But if it makes you more comfortable you can continue to do what you and other posters have been doing throughout this thread, just making shit up that fits with what you want to believe and then repeating it as gospel. [/quote]

What would you say is the most typical background for a priest?

Is Father Corapi the average priest or the exception to the rule?
[/quote]

There are all sorts of priests. I don’t even know if there is a “typical” background. I provided to surveys with a large amount of information a few posts up.

Yeah, Father Corapi is probably an exception, but Catholics do not view his story with any sort of surprise. We know we are all sinners. Jesus chose to hang out with prostitutes and (hated) tax collectors. Paul was KILLING the early disciples of Jesus before he was called.

Like I said, your bias is too strong and blatantly obvious. No matter how much information you are provided with, you are not going to be satisfied. You’ll just keep demanding one more thing.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Right. I see. When it benefits your argument, you get to climb up on that horse and demand proof of other’s assertions. But when it comes to your argument, well, you said it was an opinion, and then you get to just keep repeating the same shit in the face of ever mounting evidence that every premise your opinion is based upon is false. Okay.
[/quote]

Nope, I explained why I thought celibacy could be a contributing factor, you just don’t agree.

What church has the most sex abuse is purely a quantitative measurement. So no, what you are asserting I’m doing is untrue.[/quote]

Why not google it yourself if you care so much? It took me about 5 seconds to find this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Like I said, your bias is too strong and blatantly obvious. No matter how much information you are provided with, you are not going to be satisfied. You’ll just keep demanding one more thing. [/quote]

The same is true of you. The only way you will even consider celibacy to be a factor is if you are given a study that could never be done.

Look, I doubt every person to enter the seminary is able to handle the vow of celibacy very well.

Those that don’t could perhaps lash out in other ways. I don’t see this as a stretch, you do end of story.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Right. I see. When it benefits your argument, you get to climb up on that horse and demand proof of other’s assertions. But when it comes to your argument, well, you said it was an opinion, and then you get to just keep repeating the same shit in the face of ever mounting evidence that every premise your opinion is based upon is false. Okay.
[/quote]

Nope, I explained why I thought celibacy could be a contributing factor, you just don’t agree.

What church has the most sex abuse is purely a quantitative measurement. So no, what you are asserting I’m doing is untrue.[/quote]

Why not google it yourself if you care so much? It took me about 5 seconds to find this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html
[/quote]

It’s up to BC to google it.

Not sure why you even brought this up.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Like I said, your bias is too strong and blatantly obvious. No matter how much information you are provided with, you are not going to be satisfied. You’ll just keep demanding one more thing. [/quote]

The same is true of you. The only way you will even consider celibacy to be a factor is if you are given a study that could never be done.

Look, I doubt every person to enter the seminary is able to handle the vow of celibacy very well.

Those that don’t could perhaps lash out in other ways. I don’t see this as a stretch, you do end of story.

[/quote]

No, see, I don’t need any more studies. I’ve provided evidence in spades to back up my claims, while you have provided…your opinion that you formed from watching a prison documentary. The rate of Catholic molester priests to regular joe plumber molesters is pretty much the same. On top of that, the rate of Catholic priests who are celibate and DO NOT molest is ASTRONOMICALLY high compared to those who do. So calling this the root of the problem makes no sense.

But I know none of that will stop you.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Right. I see. When it benefits your argument, you get to climb up on that horse and demand proof of other’s assertions. But when it comes to your argument, well, you said it was an opinion, and then you get to just keep repeating the same shit in the face of ever mounting evidence that every premise your opinion is based upon is false. Okay.
[/quote]

Nope, I explained why I thought celibacy could be a contributing factor, you just don’t agree.

What church has the most sex abuse is purely a quantitative measurement. So no, what you are asserting I’m doing is untrue.[/quote]

Why not google it yourself if you care so much? It took me about 5 seconds to find this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html
[/quote]

It’s up to BC to google it.

Not sure why you even brought this up.[/quote]

I just gave you a link and this is your response. It’s not a fight between elementary school kids. The link is relevant to your demand. Read it.