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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.