Catholic church and child molestation redux

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

To which he replied:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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