Gay Cover-Up Must End

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='10 April 2010 - 10:47 AM' timestamp='1270910859' post='2090409']
Since homosexuality is a disordered desire, it might be that attraction to very young individuals is coexistant with homosexual desire because the individual has deep seated issues.
[/quote]

Yes. I think it's actually quite normal in the history of the world for homosexual males to be attracted to boys much younger than themselves. Just look at the Greeks for heavens' sake.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='11 April 2010 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1271016501' post='2091063']
That's because the survey was specifically of sexual abuse [i]of minors[/i]. The cut-off age was 17. (Many of these cases involved "seduction" of adolescent boys "exploring" their sexuality.) Once the kid's eighteen, it's no longer considered sex abuse, but legal homosexual activity.
[/quote]

Thanks for making my point

[quote]
In light of those statistics, why in the John Jay study of clerical sexual abuse were only 9% of the victims girls, rather than 90%?

This makes the homosexual element of the priestly abuse cases all the more glaring. An overwhelming majority of the abuse by priests was homosexual in nature, and notably little of it was "heterosexual."
Clearly the problem in the seminaries and priesthood was more than just a matter of horny guys unable to restrain themselves.
[/quote]

Yes 9% of the victims were girls. What Saint Therese was trying to suggest is that homosexuals are more predatory than heterosexuals. That's false. you're stating that there is an inordinate amount of homosexuals in the priesthood. (And therefore more predatory homosexuals) That seems to be more the case.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='11 April 2010 - 05:05 PM' timestamp='1271019924' post='2091094']
Probably because young boys serve a much larger part in Church duties than young girls do.[/quote]
Only as altar boys (that is, before the altar girls took over). So someone has to be serving at the altar in order to be the object of a priest's sexual attention?
Now that just as many, if not more, altar servers are female, I suppose more girls will be abused?

[quote]If boys are around more often, then the statistics will show more boys being molested.
[/quote]
Your source?
It's not like parish priests are never in contact with females.

[quote] But you can't have it both ways, here. If you want to say that molestation by priests doesn't happen very often then you can't go around trying to make the boys v.s. girls statistic seem like a huge number.[/quote]
Only a very small percentage of priests sexually abuse anybody. Yet of the abuse that does happen, the overwhelming majority is homosexual. There's no contradiction there.
And I regard any sexual abuse by a priest as way too much.

[Socrates]

[quote] Yes 9% of the victims were girls. What Saint Therese was trying to suggest is that homosexuals are more predatory than heterosexuals. That's false. you're stating that there is an inordinate amount of homosexuals in the priesthood. (And therefore more predatory homosexuals) That seems to be more the case.
[/quote]
What's the case is that homosexuals are responsible for an inordinate amount of sexual abuse among the clergy. Contrary to what some assert, I doubt a full 81% of priests are homosexual. I'd say this is probably due to homosexuals being more likely to join the seminary/priesthood for the wrong reasons.
As St. Therese has pointed out, homosexuality is in itself disordered.

Your consistent defense of sexual perversion does not become a "Church Scholar."

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='11 April 2010 - 05:53 PM' timestamp='1271022824' post='2091120']
What's the case is that homosexuals are responsible for an inordinate amount of sexual abuse among the clergy. Contrary to what some assert, I doubt a full 81% of priests are homosexual. I'd say this is probably due to homosexuals being more likely to join the seminary/priesthood for the wrong reasons.
As St. Therese has pointed out, homosexuality is in itself disordered.

Your consistent defense of sexual perversion does not become a "Church Scholar."
[/quote]

Feel free to show me where I'm "defending" any sexual perversion. I did not say anything about the nature of homosexuality. What I said was the desire to have sex with young people is a disorder unto itself that affects both homosexuals and heterosexuals. And that it does not affect homosexuals disproportionally. How that is a defense of sexual perversion, feel free to explain.

[mortify]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='11 April 2010 - 05:34 AM' timestamp='1270978441' post='2090858']
That doesn't prove that his homosexuality (if he is gay) caused him to molest those boys. By that logic I could say: the man who molested 200 deaf boys was a Catholic priest thus...[/quote]

The issue is not over [i]causes[/i] but over the [i]nature[/i] of the sex abuse scandal. We're not dealing with pedophilia, that is extremely rare, what we're dealing with is homosexuality, or if you want to be more specific homosexual pederasty.

[quote]And wait...pre-seminary? As in a minor seminary for kids aged 12-17? Who was he having gay sex with at that age and in that place? Another priest perhaps? Honestly no one with half a brain buys the scapegoat.[/quote]

Murphy's disordered sexuality was already manifesting in high school (minor seminary.) An expert in sexual disorders who interviewed Murphy [url="http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case#document/p6"][b][u]DOCUMENTS[/u][/b][/url] he and his companion decided to stop their activities two years prior to ordination, but clearly in Murphy's case it did not stop.

What's interesting is that the expert details a victim profile which reveals an interest in young adults, or those closer to adulthood. The victims were between the ages of 15 and 22, medium build, dark haired, and had an average height of 5'8'' (note that the average male 20+ in the US is around 5'9''.) He was also calculating in choosing his victims, he tended towards those who had greater communication difficulties, parents who lived far away and rarely visited them, and those who misbehaved. It's rather easy to suggest that Murphy's interest wasn't in children per se, but in young adults who were easy victims.

With regards to Murphy's homosexuality, I think it's hard to deny. In the same link to the primary documents I mention above, in a letter dated June 10, 1997 from David Walsh to Rev Brundage, Walsh reports Murphy gave a deaf man a "catalogue of homosexual bars, etc." Now I wonder why he would be in possession of such a thing?

[quote]There a pedophile priests not because homosexuality is rampant in the priesthood as the right would claim or because celibacy causes them to rape little boys as the left would claim.[/quote]

The reality is pedophilia is a very small component of what we call the "sex abuse scandal in the Church," the question is why has the scandal been labeled such?

[OraProMe]

Saint Therese,

I've already explained that the Church's tradition of entrusting girls to nuns and boys to priests may explain this. Also the major issue here isn't that it was "homosexual in nature" but that they were minors and they were raped. Would it have all been hunky dory if it were little girls being raped instead? Come on, the blame for this falls on your Church's hierarchy for failing to take adequate action and moving priests from one parish to another. Stop trying to use homosexuals as a scapegoat.

Edited April 12, 2010 by OraProMe