In the next week. Brace yourselves for more huge attacks on the Church.

[StMichael]

Big name movie coming out called S.pot.light.

Edited October 26, 2015 by StMichael

[CrossCuT]

?

[dUSt]

Cool story bro.

[dominicansoul]

Another spotlight on the Catholic Church Sex Abuse Scandal...

this will never go away... and in some ways, it really shouldn't because we have to be reminded and learn from this horrendous episode and stop it from continuing (which it still does.., although we've gotten better at stopping it and preventing it...)

sadly, society doesn't understand this disordered behavior (can I say that?) affects a wide array of people in a variety of walks of life, institutions, etc, not just a small percentage of Catholic priests...

I just think the Catholic Church gets criticized all the more because we are supposed to be saints and not demons, and here, every single one of us is being held accountable for seemingly harboring demons who preyed on children...and that makes the Church a good punching bag for Hollywood.  Hollywood, on the other hand, has a crisis of child sex abuse amongst their ranks, but they don't seem to focus too much on that...

[StMichael]

I don't see anything cool about it.

One, the majority of these crimes were homosexual not pedophilia. Think this movie is going to say that? Two, the absolute loss of moral authority the Church has lost from this and not managing the PR (again, some 90+% of this was no pedophilia) add in the current Pope and we are essentially spinning out of control.

It is no secret that homosexuals, after Vatican II, went into the seminaries to hide. I know 3 men who did just that, 2 in Italy and 1 here, that eventually came out to their wives (yes they went into the seminary, which these men sinned greatly, then left the seminary before they became priests, got married, had kids and then as the landscape changed, came out...).

And no, I still have no idea why those in power of the Church allowed these great sins to be committed nor turned a blind eye to these men engaging in homosexual acts.

But it will never, ever be defined as such. 

Edited October 26, 2015 by StMichael

[Winchester]

Sex with somewhere under the age of consent isn't merely homosexual. Attraction to prepubescent people,  regardless of sex,  is pedophilia. 

The issue was never homosexual acts,  but instead child molestation. 

[Ice_nine]

I'm reading now that the most vulnerable age of church sex abuse victims were 11 to 14 year old males.

If you can't understand how a grown man wanting to touch a 13 year old boy is significantly different than wanting to touch another grown man, I cannot help you.

[Socrates]

According to the John Jay report, 81% of the victims were male, rather than female, and most were pubescent or older (and in the years 1990-2002, most were in the 15-17 year old age group).  Properly speaking, the bulk of the problem was not true pedophilia, but homosexual pederasty (or ebophilia).

[Winchester]

Ephebophilia.

[StMichael]

"Of about 3,000 reported cases of sexual misconduct among priests committed in the past 50 years, only 300, or 10 percent, of those cases involved true pedophiles. Pedophilia is psychologically classified as sexual attraction to prepubescent children, younger than 13. Ninety percent of the reported abuse cases involved Roman Catholic priests classified as ephebophiles, those attracted to teens between 13 and 19. Of those reported cases, 60 percent were homosexual abuse and 30 percent heterosexual abuse, according to the 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops."

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Spirituality/gay-priests-problem/story?id=10381964

ABCNews 2010

[Ice_nine]

if you want to split hairs over whether the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal was pedophilia or ephebophilia you can go ahead and do that amongst yourselves. I don't really want to participate. I still believe a grown man going after a 15 year old boy is more disturbed than going after a man of comparable age.

What I will not stand for is allowing you to shift the blame from members of Roman Catholic clergy who perpetuated abuse, and worst of all, covered it up and allowed it to continue with absolute disregard to the victims, whatever age they were. They are the ones who are guilty, not "the gays." I just hope we're all clear on that. The only thing that bothers me more than people assuming that there are a disproportionate number of child molesters in the priesthood is Catholics whitewashing the whole scandal and diverting the blame to groups they aren't particularly fond of.

[Socrates]

What I will not stand for is allowing you to shift the blame from members of Roman Catholic clergy who perpetuated abuse, and worst of all, covered it up and allowed it to continue with absolute disregard to the victims, whatever age they were. They are the ones who are guilty, not "the gays." 

Nobody's claiming they weren't guilty, or don't deserve blame. Their crime was horrific and dispicable, whatever their "orientation."  It was merely pointed out that a disproportionate amount of the abuse was in fact homosexual in nature, and at least some of it could probably had been prevented if seminaries had been doing their jobs of screening applicants and seminarians correctly.

[Ice_nine]

but the insistence that most of these child molesters are homosexual and therefore homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood (which is the logical conclusion) is what I have a problem with.

I haven't dug through all of the stats but one thing I know about statistics is omission or emphasis on certain figures can be applied by opposing sides to buttress their points. For example, I said most victims were 11-14 year olds which certainly seems to ebb more towards pedophilia than ephebophilia while you say (and I believe we're citing the exact same report), but oh no! most victims between 1990-2000 something were 15-17 year-olds, obviously this has to do with sexuality. So which one of us is "right"?

And of course, you can understand why a study conducted and analyzed by the same body who covered up child abuse might be found suspect by some people including me, but I digress.

In any case, what does it matter? If most victims were young girls would it be more or less shameful or a total travesty? Would you say the problem is allowing heterosexuals into the seminary? (Most people who sexually abuse children are heterosexual iirc). Of course not, because a grown man grooming and engaging in sexual behavior with a 14 year old has problems beyond his sexual-orientation.

If I understand you correctly you really, really have a problem with people painting the Catholic Church as guilty of pedophilia and covering that up because the real problem is not pedophilia but homosexuality? That is ridiculous to me. Trying to reframe it that way, it just makes me sick. The typical expression of homosexuality does not include grooming and abusing vulnerable people. I hope you know this.

[LionHeartedCrusader]

While the movie is going to be an attack on the church like no other from Hollywood, this is an example of the idea that all it takes is one person to portray an image. However, us Catholics need to recognize it was proven, these people committed things that were absolutely horrendous and we hate their sins like we would any other person, we should pray for their souls.

It would also be wise to use this "Bad Press" to engage people when questions are asked and try to bring more people into the church. I mean if a horrible example like Miley Cyrus used bad press to her favor, why can't we? We are not responsible for those atrocious actions. Also I thank God that these secular news outlets, no matter how "Anti-Catholic" their motives were, which I'm sure that was involved, were able to uncover this and save the poor souls put through this abuse, God works in mysterious ways and knows what he is doing. Lets use this for the best.

Edited October 29, 2015 by LionHeartedCrusader
Typo

[Peace]

if you want to split hairs over whether the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal was pedophilia or ephebophilia you can go ahead and do that amongst yourselves. I don't really want to participate. I still believe a grown man going after a 15 year old boy is more disturbed than going after a man of comparable age.

What I will not stand for is allowing you to shift the blame from members of Roman Catholic clergy who perpetuated abuse, and worst of all, covered it up and allowed it to continue with absolute disregard to the victims, whatever age they were. They are the ones who are guilty, not "the gays." I just hope we're all clear on that. The only thing that bothers me more than people assuming that there are a disproportionate number of child molesters in the priesthood is Catholics whitewashing the whole scandal and diverting the blame to groups they aren't particularly fond of.

Could not agree more.

If I understand you correctly you really, really have a problem with people painting the Catholic Church as guilty of pedophilia and covering that up because the real problem is not pedophilia but homosexuality? That is ridiculous to me. Trying to reframe it that way, it just makes me sick. The typical expression of homosexuality does not include grooming and abusing vulnerable people. I hope you know this.

This.

We are not responsible for those atrocious actions.

I think that every Catholic is responsible in some sense. We all have to take responsibility for what goes on in our Church.

Nobody's claiming they weren't guilty, or don't deserve blame. Their crime was horrific and dispicable, whatever their "orientation."  It was merely pointed out that a disproportionate amount of the abuse was in fact homosexual in nature, and at least some of it could probably had been prevented if seminaries had been doing their jobs of screening applicants and seminarians correctly.

That is not really how I read it. It felt like blame shifting. I don't know if that was the true intent or not, but that is how I perceived it, and probably some others too.