Catholic church and child molestation redux

Gyrate · February 10, 2011, 6:03pm

In the Ask a Catholic thread, I asked OP and new joiner **terryobrien80 **

To which he replied:

Let me give you some facts. Its hard to put briefly, but I will try:

FIRST: The Church is not a single corporate entitily as most people think. Even though were are “one” regarding doctrines and beliefs, when it comes to management and administrative affairs, each diocese and its bishop are COMPLETELY autonomous. You could compare the set-up to the governors of states: Governors are all Americans under the same American flag and US Constitution, but no governor has any say at all in what another governor of another state does. So while a few misguided bishops handled things badly, you cannot say that “the whole Church-covering-up-for-child-molesters”. That is simply a non-sequitor. The vast majority of bishops handle their business just fine. But, just as there was a Judas among the 12 apostles (constituting about an 8% screw-up ratio) there are always some bad eggs in the Church.

SECOND: The VAST mojority of these cases involved boys around the age of 14 or so. That means the issue is homosexuality, not pedophelia. This is a CRUCIAL point that the media TOTALLY ignored. Why? Because the media PROMOTES the homosexual lifestyle, and they can hardly say that it caused the problem. But framing it as “pedophelia” was sure to arouse anger because people hate those who harm children (and the media hates the church I might add) and that was the spin the media gave it.

Now mind you, I AM NOT EXCUSING THE PRIESTS AT ALL. But, you cannot fix a problem if you don’t know the root of the problem, and it was not pedophelia (although there were a few instances of that as well.)

Now, I am not claiming to be an expert on the subject but this assessment seems wrong in every way. Claiming that only “a few bad eggs” among the bishops were responsible for what was essentially a worldwide and multi-decade (and likely longer) cover-up of abuse makes no sense at all. Blaming the abuse on homosexuals not only relies on the truth of the assertion that the “vast majority” of the victims were teenaged boys (which I’d like a cite for) but also conveniently throws the blame onto one of the Church’s favorite bugaboos.

Blaming the media makes even less sense; these abuses have gone back a long time and societal acceptance of homosexuality is a very recent thing (and certainly doesn’t apply to sex with 14-year-olds even if the teenagers were willing participants, which they clearly were not. The media had absolutely no reason to favor homosexuals over Catholics in its portrayal of these scandals.

In short, I’m calling shenanigans on this. But I’m doing it here to avoid derailing the other thread.

Whack-a-Mole · February 10, 2011, 6:11pm

IIRC, psychologically, child molesters are not considered to be homosexuals even if they are molesting kids of the same sex.

This is not semantics. This is the psychology of the molester.

Gyrate · February 10, 2011, 6:15pm

That’s what I recall but I’ve got no cites to hand.

Plus, ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether the priests were molesting boys or girls - they were committing sexual assault on a minor, and the Church (at whatever level) was covering it up on a wide scale and allowing the offenders to continue to commit these acts with their superior’s knowledge.

shiftless · February 10, 2011, 6:18pm

It reads to me like homos and the media who promote them are to blame for priests having sex with underaged kids. What can the hierarchy do against that team-up?

I came into that thread because I was curious to learn more about Catholicism. If this is what the Catholic church espouses I’m going to have to re-evaluate some of my friends. And I’m not gay nor a member of the media

saoirse · February 10, 2011, 6:18pm

I don’t see any reason not to call them homosexuals, if they prefer boys. And as pointed out, the boys were physically mature, so it’s really not accurate to call them pedophiles.

A better question would be, “What is it about the priesthood that attracts so many ephebophiles?” And also, if blame for the scandal lies with the individual bishops, one of those bishops would have to be the Pope himself, who covered up several different scandals including one in his own diocese, before he came to Rome.

Guinastasia · February 10, 2011, 6:26pm

Nor were all of them in their teens – I can’t remember how old you have to be to become an altar boy, but it’s definitely younger than 14.

Gyrate · February 10, 2011, 6:29pm

The cite he posted in that thread puts the percentage of victims of either gender who were first abused at age 14 or older at 40%, so that’s 60% at 13 or younger. Not a “vast majority” at all.

Whack-a-Mole · February 10, 2011, 6:36pm

I’d like to see the statistics on that but even granting it for the sake of argument that just makes them a hebephile which is still a disorder (look it up in the DSM IV…or are they up to V now?).

As far defining them as homosexual that is a distinct mistake and not one supported by the medical community when they are looking into this issue.

It may be simpler for you to think that way but you’d be wrong.

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as “homosexual molestation.” The adjective “homosexual” (or “heterosexual” when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim’s gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men’s sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men’s abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don’t implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.

The distinction between a victim’s gender and a perpetrator’s sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don’t really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

SOURCE: Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

RitterSport · February 10, 2011, 6:43pm

Also, inasmuch as the media may promote the “homosexual agenda” now (I disagree, but whatever), they definitely were not back when a lot of the pedophiles/rapists were getting the job done.

CalMeacham · February 10, 2011, 6:50pm

In my day, you join in the 3rd grade. I was an altar boy before I was 10.

AshenLady · February 10, 2011, 6:57pm

No one in their right mind excuses priests who molest children, anymore than do most people excuse Muslims who would stone a woman to death for adultery, rape a child or any such behavior that is reprehensible.

Religion, being something less than divine, in realty perhaps, is fraught with all the problems and fragilities that come with the human condition.

saoirse · February 10, 2011, 6:59pm

That makes no sense to me. Since when is sexual orientation contingent on having an adult sexuality?

Whack-a-Mole · February 10, 2011, 7:04pm

The attraction for them is “children”. Not “people with penises”.

Here is the relevant bit in what I quoted:

“Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.”

shiftless · February 10, 2011, 7:05pm

I’m still hoping someone will come in here and tell me, even better - show me, that the views terryobrien80 claims are “Catholic” are not actually. Someone tell me he is not speaking for all, or even most Catholics, please. He claims to be an expert.

Gyrate · February 10, 2011, 7:17pm

I think he holds the view of a very specific conservative (politically and religiously) Catholic subset, which he characterizes as “true Catholicism”.

To be fair, I suspect that only the Pope gets to have the last word on what is “Catholic” and even then only in very specific circumstances.

Bricker · February 10, 2011, 7:20pm

I assume you mean what he’s posted in the other thread?

In my view, he’s painting with a pretty narrow brush. His views are not impermissible under the Church; neither are all of them necessary for a Catholic to hold.

If you have a specific “this doesn’t sound right,” I’ll tackle it.

saoirse · February 10, 2011, 7:23pm

That seems like an awfully controversial and counterintuitive statement to be based on judgements about 175 prisoners in 1978. But this is a little off-topic.

Anyway, terryobrien80 is pretty much in the mainstream of Catholic thought. The idea is that the scandals were abberations. The hard line the Church has taken has helped push a lot of people out of the church, which means that the devout hear about these incidents less than they did say 10 years ago. It’s become a very effective feedback loop for those people who want one.

shiftless · February 10, 2011, 7:24pm

I mean specifically what Gyrate quoted at the beginning. I asked in the the other thread how he formulated that view and he linked to a site that was multi-denominational but it is “Ask a Catholic.”

Whack-a-Mole · February 10, 2011, 7:32pm

It is not off topic since in the OP part of the argument was that the issue was largely homosexual and not pedophilia.

Also, that is not the only study cited in that article. If you have some counter evidence from the medical community put it up.

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects’ penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

Science cannot prove a negative. Thus, these studies do not prove that homosexual or bisexual males are no more likely than heterosexual males to molest children. However, each of them failed to prove the alternative hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.

SOURCE: Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Shodan · February 10, 2011, 7:38pm

Why doesn’t this make sense? The Roman Catholic church is thousands of years old, a world-wide organization, and has hundreds of millions of adherents. Why would you expect that the bad eggs would be confined only to a small space or time?

The John Jay report on the scandal in the US church has some useful figures.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Catholic priests are no more likely to attack minors than anyone else who interacts with minors, such as teachers.

If that were the case in the Catholic scandals, one would expect that roughly 50% of the victims would be female. Instead

Regards,
Shodan