(New York-AP) – The New York Archdiocese distanced itself today from a high-ranking official’s sermon that blamed the Catholic Church’s child-molestation scandal on gay priests and American immorality. Spokesman Joe Zwilling says Monsignor Eugene Clark, the rector of St. Patrick’s, was speaking for himself when he called the U.S. “probably the most immoral country in the Western Hemisphere.”
Standing in for Egan at Saint Patrick’s, Clark labeled homosexuality “a disorder” and said that admitting gay students into seminaries was a “grave mistake.” He estimated that 3 percent of U.S. clergymen were “sexual molesters” provoked by sexual images in popular entertainment. In a separate statement today, Clark said that his homily had been “misconstrued and misinterpreted.”
—“Misconstrued and misinterpreted,” my eye. The Monsignor may bite my OTHER wrist, too.
Shayna, doreen hit the point about ephebophilia (or hebephilia) not being a mental disorder, as recognized by the DSM-IV, which is the standard authority on the diagnosis of mental disorders.
Thanks to doreen’s link, I took a second look at the DSM-IV, and the DSM-IV specifically rejects the idea that ephebophilia is a mental disorder. Sexual Abuse of a Child is listed in the Personality Disorders section of the DSM-IV under “Other Conditions That May Be a Focus of Clinical Attention.”
The DSM-IV states “[t]hese are not mental disorders, but one of the individuals involved may have a mental disorder that is not itself the focus of, and may or may not be related to the clinical attention.”
I know you meant this as a joke, and I did laugh. But I personally believe that the fact that ephebophilia isn’t a mental disorder makes these pricks more evil, not less.
“Misconstrued and misinterpreted” in Churchspeak means “I ran my mouth without engaging my brain and somebody called me on it.” It’s not limited to Catholicism; contemplate the Falwell/Robinson faux pas of September 14.
It might be worth doing a GD thread on ephebophilia if there is adequate knowledge available among us or on the Internet to discuss it intelligently. My understanding is that it was normally a mutually desired activity, not molestation in the sense I’d usually use the term, of an adult manipulating a child out of ignorance. In short, man wants to boink, adolescent boy wants to boink, both know what they’re planning to do, and go about it. There is a serious moral question about the man’s culpability in terms of potentially “warping” the boy’s psychological makeup, but IMHO that is something to debate, not assume and automatically condemn.
I’m not very optimistic, seeing all these characters attempting to misdirect our attention from the real problem. Yo, Monsignor Clark, Mr. Donohue: The fucking problem is that members of the episcopacy allowed child-molesters to get away with it. Period.
Besides… all this abuse dates back YEARS and was perpetrated by veteran priests… who would have likely come into the priesthood BEFORE “permissiveness” and “general social immorality” got anywhere. So IT’S NOT AMERICAN SOCIETY. Post-1980s American Society must be the most “THINK-OF-THE-CHILDREN”- oriented society on Earth.
And yes, with ephebophilia the issue is one of the adult’s moral responsibility – hey, the act is essentially the same thing as “statutory rape”.
Although it certainly is sometimes a mutually desirable activity (although in most cases the minor is below the age of consent), I don’t know that there’s been any research on how common manipulation is, or even if it could be determined.Nearly all of the publicized cases (and they may not be representative) involve adults in a position of authority to the adolescent (priests and ministers, teachers, coaches,etc). A sexual relationship within the context of that authority may be inherently manipulative. Additionally, I want to point out, that while most people would probably imagine at least a 13 or 14 year old when they hear the word “adolescent”, it is not uncommon to see a 10 year old who is most of the way through puberty.
Well, first of all, “ephebophilia” means sexual attraction to post-pubescent minors. It says nothing about actions, so your posit is incorrect.
Second, your post (and your many other threads on religion) reads to me that you (fortunately) have avoided the perils of being a Catholic youth. To a devout Catholic youth, there is really almost no possibility of a relationship of equals with a priest. They are the authority of the Church personified.
Finally, who gives a damn whether the adolescent boy wants to boink? As exemplified by our laws on statutory rape, we consider a youth unable to give informed consent to sexual activity (particularly with an adult). The presumption (and it appears to be a good one, based on psychological studies) is that, in the large majority of cases, such sexual activity will result in psychological harm.
Sorry for making any assumptions, Sua. As with previous threads where I’ve been taken to task by TheRyan, I thought that “generally” would imply “Yeah, I know that this is not true in every case but it was my understanding that it was in the majority of cases, and I welcome correction.”
I do see clearly your point on the priest’s authority as viewed by the boy.
And I was more interested in discussing, not what our laws presume, but in whether it actually is a harmful experience in a few, some, most, or all cases. (My initial presumption some years ago would have been the one you state and say is supported by studies; matt_mcl in old threads has identified cases in which it is not; and the few occasions on which boys I’ve worked with have spoken of such experiences, the impacts appear to have been a mixed bag, with some traumatized and some taking it as a “rite of passage” sort of experience that did not bother them. Which is why I raised the question in the first place.
How many times were children abused, only to have their parents complain to the Church rather than the police. I may have missed something somewhere, but what I’ve been hearing is that the cases were almost universally taken to the Church to be handled, rather than the police. Molestation is molestation, it doesn’t matter who does it, the police should be notified.
Poly fair enough. I’m not a purist on just about anything; therefore I certainly recognize that, in some instances, a sexual encounter by a post-pubescent minor with an adult may be positive and affirming for the child.
But don’t discount the law. The law is, in most instances, a reflection of society, and societal approval (or disapproval) certainly plays a serious role in psychological health. Even without regard to the legalities of the situation, can you see a minor openly discussing his/her sexual relationship with a priest, or vice versa? No, because society condemns such liasons. Should we choose to ignore the issue of whether society is right or wrong in such condemnation (IMO, it is right, but let’s put that aside), we still have to consider the psychological impact of a child engaging in a behavior that he/she knows would result in oppobrium if it were discovered.
photopat, that is one of the things every sexual predator counts upon: that the victims (or their guardians) will seek to avoid public scandal.
Then again, when something like this happens at a school, how often will parents head to the School Board rather than straight to the police station? The difference being, the School Board (at least in the last 20-some years, and rightly so) has no choice but to promptly take appropriate action. Which should have been the policy of the dioceses all along.
(Last week our Archbishop announced to the faithful that if any such case comes up, they should first go to the civil authorities, then go to the Church. That’s progress, but it’s also a way to relieve the diocese from being the ones who take the initiative against the predatory priest; our local media and Catholic Lay organizations are sooooo weak when faced with a dude in a funny hat I don’t expect them to call them on it)
In the news here this week: there are two cases under investigation in the SJ archdiocese, the priests are currently suspended … Meanwhile the Youth Counselor from a local Evangelical ministry was found guilty of messing about with a 13-year-old and making videos of it (so on top of StatRape/Child Sex Abuse he’s charged with Child Porn)
Man, Jesus is gonna have to come back one or two days early for all the severe ass-kicking He’s gona have to deal to his staff, before he gets to work on the regular sinners…