From CBS/AP … yes.. AP again…
My E & C.
SANTIAGO, Chile, April 12, 2010
Pope’s No. 2: Sex Abuse Tied to Homosexuality
Cardinal Bertone’s Remarks Cause Uproar; U.S. Priest Slams Vatican for "Incompetence and Irresponsibility"(CBS/AP) Updated at 7:15 a.m. Eastern. [The original title seems to have been "Sex abuse not tied to celibacy"]
The Vatican’s second-highest authority says the sex scandals haunting the Roman Catholic Church are linked to homosexuality and not celibacy among priests. [There are the two points… homosexuality and celibacy. But they shifted the title of the story.]
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s secretary of state, made the comments during a news conference Monday in Chile, where one of the church’s highest-profile pedophile cases involves a priest having sex with young girls. [A rare case.]
"Many psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relation between celibacy and pedophilia. But many others have demonstrated, I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true," said Bertone. "That is the problem." [Note the vocabulary… we find "linked", "tied" and "relation". It’s enough to make your eyeballs explode.]
His comments drew angry reactions from Chile’s gay rights advocates. [NEWSFLASH! SUN RISES AT DAWN! Of course it did.]
[Read this closely. Keep in mind that the present MSM campaign against the Church is about destroying the Church’s authority to teach…] "Neither Bertone nor the Vatican has the moral authority to give lessons on sexuality," said Rolando Jimenez, president of the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation in Chile.
Jimenez also said no reputable study exists to support the cardinal’s claims. [Really?]
"This is a perverse strategy [I find that pretty ironic…] by the Vatican to shirk its own ethical and legal responsibility by making a spurious and disgusting connection," he said. [Speaking of "spurious and disgusting connections". But I digress.]
That sentiment was echoed by international rights groups in the United States, reports CBS News correspondent Elaine Quijano.
[So now begins CBS’s defense of homosexuals.] "As reputable studies have proven and common sense bears out, there is no connection between gay people and pedophilia," Michael Cole of the Human Rights Campaign told CBS News in a written statement. "When the church makes gay people a scapegoat for pedophiles, it ignores one problem and creates another."
Meanwhile, a lone priest in Massachusetts has spoken out in harsh criticism of the Church leadership, including the Vatican, reports Quijano.
"They have not admitted to the cover-up. They are in constant denial," Father James Scahill, [Could that be "Schall"? No. This is James Scahill, who has garnered awards from such prestigious organizations as Voice of the Faithful. The perfect source for an outlet such as AP. ] a longtime critic of the Church’s response to the crisis told CBS News. "If by the slimmest of chances the Pope and his bishops didn’t know, then they should resign because of total, complete ignorance, incompetence and irresponsibility."
At least one of the highest-profile pedophiles in the Chilean church victimized young girls, including a teenager who became pregnant.
At the time, the archbishop of the capital, Santiago, received multiple complaints about Father Jose Andres Aguirre from families concerned for their daughters. But the priest – known to his parishioners as Father Tato – continued serving at a number of Catholic girls schools in the city.
Later the church sent Aguirre out of Chile twice amid abuse allegations. He was eventually sentenced to 12 years in prison for abusing 10 teenage girls.
One of the girls, identified as Paula, said that she and the priest started to have sex when she was 16 and that it lasted until she was 20.
She told the Chilean newspaper La Nacion: "I thought it wasn’t that bad to have sex with him because when I told priests about it at confession they just told me to pray and that was it. They knew, and some of them guessed that it was Father Tato. But everyone looked the other way. No one corrected or helped me."
She said one of the priests she confessed to about her sex with Aguirre was Bishop Francisco Jose Cox, who himself was facing allegations of pedophilia.
Cox had been bishop in La Serena, in northern Chile, for seven years when he was removed in 1997 amid rumors that he was a pedophile. He was first transferred to Santiago, then Rome, then Colombia, and finally Germany. The Schoenstatt movement, a worldwide lay community within the Catholic Church, paid for the moves and his treatment.
In 2002, Santiago Archbishop Francisco Javier Erraruriz said Cox had agreed to be removed for "inappropriate conduct."
The archbishop acknowledged Cox had shown "affection that was a bit exuberant," especially toward children, but said, "I’m not aware of any formal allegation backed by evidence." [A question… in Chile was is the age of consent? What the priest did was wrong, but was it illegal by Chilean law? I genuinely don’t know. If it was not illegal in a civil sense because of a low age of consent established by Chilean law, then the Church still did something to remove that priest from pastoral ministry. Also, is heterosexual sex with a 16 year old technically pedophilia? Is this a case of … something else? My point here is that there seems to be a very loose applications of terms in these news stories.]
Erraruriz said Cox volunteered to be confined to a Schoenstatt convent in Colombia to continue "praying to God for his pardon for the errors he has made."
Last week, the archbishop admitted the Chilean church was investigating cases of priest pedophilia after playing the issue down for years.
"There is something to these pedophilia abuses – just a few, thank God," Errazuriz said in an interview on state television.
Loading ...
I don’t understand why the church leadership continues to use the terms pedophilia and homosexuality interchangeably. Cardinal Bertone tried to make a distinction but did not do a good job of defining the differences. This first thing that needs to be done is to define the terms clearly. The MSM will not do it for us as it is in their interest to confuse the terms. The John Jay study conclusions indicated the nature of the homosexual problem but tried to disconnect the abuse and sexual orientation of the offenders in the summary and recommendations.
If celibacy involves abstaining from sexual activity then how can anyone make the argument that celibacy is related to any sort of sexual deviancy? Common sense would say that one sort of sexual deviancy, such as homosexual activity, would lead to other forms of sexual deviancy.
JohnE,
The argument is that celibacy is so disordered that it leads an otherwise sound man to pedophilia.
On the other hand, I wonder what language the comments were originally made in, and whether this is just a poor translation. Studies would suggest that homosexuality is not linked to pedophilia — however, the cases that the article talks about are not pedophilia! This term refers to the sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children. in the article, they’re talking about cases with post-pubescent minors. Are these terms identical in the source language?
These are equally reprehensible crimes, of course, but there’s a major clinical difference in these cases! The question now being asked should be more clearly stated as, “Are priests with homosexual inclinations more likely to react to a celibate lifestyle by acting out with post-pubescent minors?” (Similarly with heterosexual inclinations, of course, but that’s a separate question. And easily answered, given that for 96% of priests over the last 60 years, the answer of abuse — any kind — is “NO!”)
Fr. Z, Father James Schall, SJ, is a professor at Georgetown U. (where classes are in session). I am virtually certain that was not a garble for his name. And it’s very unlike him, anyway. He doesn’t bluster.
Cardinal Bertone is fanning the flames. Yes, there are pedophiles in the priesthood and perhaps at higher level than in the general. The outrage is not over the crimes by the priests, its over the coverup and enabling by the bishops. Conservatives shouldn’t be pointing fingers at homosexuality and liberals shouldn’t be pointing fingers at celibacy. Bishops are supposed to oversee their flocks, protecting them. Until prelates like Bertone show that they are more concerned with creating effective governance, enshrining best-practice directives, and punishing the inept than with homosexuality among the priesthood, the firestorm will get worse and worse. Bertone has to go. He’s the man who needs to see the big picture, and he doesn’t.
Regarding JohnE’s comment: Perhaps we should distinguish the meanings of “celibacy”–“chastity”–“continence” as well.
The whole thing is a mess and from where I sit most of what is going on is absolutely oblivious to the harm that has been done and is being done, by the ranting and raving in public media, to those who have suffered and survived all kinds of sexual predation. I certainly don’t have any hard and fast answers but I do know that there is a need for everyone to stop posturing long enough to look and listen to those whose experiences are of the first order and not five or six times removed.
I posted a few comments here from the perspective of at least one who has struggled with such thing over time:
http://irenikontheskete.blogspot.com/2010/04/over-last-day-or-so-i-posted-following.html
In answer to the age of consent, this is what I found on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_South_America
And I note from googling that Fr. Scahill is a darling of Voice of the Faithful (whatever happened to them?).
The continuing confusion of the words “pedophile” and “homosexual” comes right out of the devil’s dictionary. Every story whether told by the NY Slimes or the UCCB uses the words interchangably! A perfect example of the results of this mishmash occured outside of St. Patrick’s on Easter when homosexuals were protesting the Church’s “child molestation scandal”. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-429845
Father Z said, “is heterosexual sex with a 16 year old technically pedophilia?”
Merriam-Webster’s online Dictionary defines pedophillia as ‘sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object’.
At what age does a young person cease to be a ‘child’? Perhaps that depends on the young person.
Many times, the perpetrator begins the ‘grooming process’ of the victim long before the actually physical sexual relationship begins, waiting until the ‘child’ is above the legal age (which would require criminal charges to be filed were they caught). Pedophiles are master manipulators. The ‘grooming process’ is part the sexual abuse.
Fornication is always against God’s law. The fact that this priest was an adult and held a position of power over a 16 year old makes such a sin/crime absolutely heinous.
Sexual abuse is a sin against a child’s very soul. The wounds can last a lifetime.
As I read on the internet about this current crisis in the church, I have seen very little call for prayers for those who have been so very wounded by being sexually abused. That needs to change.
Please stop right now and pray for healing and comfort for those precious children and young people who have been sinned against by being sexually abused, whether by a priest, a nun, a Protestant pastor, a school teacher, coach, etc.
Per Fr.Leo’s link:
…In Chile, the age at which there are no restrictions for sexual activities is 18, while the minimum age of consent is 14. Limitations exist between 14 and 18 years old (Art. 362 Chilean Penal Code). Even when not clearly stated in Article 362, later on, in Article 365, homosexual activity is declared illegal with anyone under 18 years old….
I have said this in other places and say it now- do NOT use a dictionary like Websters when discussing matters that have a technical nature. Look at what medical professionals and common sense say
Pedophilia is that attraction to pre-pubescent children. There one freakin’ example was of a 16 yr old girl…by definition not pedophilia. Heck, a 16 year girl can get married under Church law (except where local bishops have set higher ages). In most places in the world a 16yr old IS an adult…In fact being married at 16 was at one time not rare, but common. And the idiots at CBS think that refutes the charge of homosexuality?
One might claim this is ephebophilia, which strictly speaking is a preference for late adolescents (post-pubescent). But of course this is not a disorder when the person himself is young, it is only a disorder in cases like Charlie Chaplin…where they are fixated on youth in that way. And the most common case of hebephilia and ephebophilia is homosexual
Indeed homosexuals glory in this. Read their coming to age stories. Often it is cases of an older man victimizing them at puberty or right after, though sometimes before (in which case it is pedophilia) and them realizing through this that they were gay
So their one example, as if one example somehow disproves a general tendency, is actually not in any sense of the word pedophilia, and is only an example of what used to be called seduction (and maybe not even that, after all many if not most 16 yr old are sexual active as it is). I grant it was an abuse both as fornication and as a seductor, in both senses of the word, but hardly more than statutory rape. And it is absolutely ridiculous to call it pedophilia when they are post-pubescent, let alone above legal age. Heck, you might as well call the case of a boss seducing his secretary pedophilia, even if she is 40.
The majority of sex abuse cases are not pedophilia, but ephebophilia, between older homosexual predators and pubescent and post pubescent men. And the vast majority of the cases that are pedophilia are homosexual as well. Considering that homosexuals are a minority, that they are a majority of sexual predators of youth is more than correlation.
Does anyone have a lead on the text of the actual press conference, in the original language, and not AP’s coverage of it? If he said something like “homosexuality = pedophilia”, then that’s a problem. However, if he said, “celibacy isn’t the problem, it’s homosexuality”, and not using the word “pedophilia”, then there’s the reasonable possibility he was talking about abuse of post-pubescent children; if most of these abuses are of boys, then it might be more reasonable, clinically speaking, to label this as rooted in homosexuality.
It all comes down to what was *really* said… anyone got a lead on where to find that?
This may come of as a bit discombobulated, but I will try to be as succint as possible.
First, I would like to see a John Jay study on the number of homosexual priests, in the USA, as opposed to heterosexual priests.
Second, I would like to see a [John Jay study on the number of said homosexual priests, in the USA, who have been convicted of sexual abuse.
Third, I would like to see a John Jay study on the number heterosexual priests, in the USA who have been convicted of sexual abuse.
Fourth, I would like to see a John Jay study on the number of homosexual priests, in the USA, who have been convicted of pedophilia as opposed to hebephilia.
Fifth, I would like to see a John Jay study on the number of heterosexual priests, in the USA, who have been convicted of pedophilia as opposed to hebephilia.
With all of that being said, I daresay that this scourge upon the Church has not been taken to this level of detail, because it would, in fact, show that homosexuality is the root cause of this issue and that Cardinal Bertone is correct.
If the bishops want to correct this aggregious action, I think that the above distinctions would be very important distinctions to make. It would start drilling down the problem. I am not saying that a homosexual cannot be faithfully celibate or faithfully chaste, but what I am saying (and seem to be in agreement with the Cardinal) is that I believe that the issue isn’t really a heterosexual problem but rather a homosexual problem, because the heterosexual act is not always disordered. The homosexual act is and it is through this disordered action that can more easily lead to the various problems with which the Church is dealing with.
Alas, we probably won’t see any studies of this type though….they are too accurate and too damning of a segment of society that cannot be damned, by society. Sad.
Please include to the fourth and fifth points, ephebophilia so that they read,
“Fourth, I would like to see a John Jay study on the number of homosexual priests, in the USA, who have been convicted of pedophilia as opposed to hebephilia and ephebophilia.
Fifth, I would like to see a John Jay study on the number of heterosexual priests, in the USA, who have been convicted of pedophilia as opposed to hebephilia and ephebophilia.”
(I really should make complete thoughts….)
I’m going to play a bit of devil’s advocate here, because I think a lot of people are missing the point when they hear others say that celibacy is the problem. I have seen a lot of people comment that the last thing the pedophile priest wants is a wife. That is true. However, if the Catholic Church allowed married men to be priests, perhaps there would be more priests, and homosexual priests (or pedophile priests) would not have looked at the priesthood as a place to find refuge. Of course, I think this has all changed now. I’m younger, so I don’t exactly know, but at the time most of these pedophile priests were entering the priesthood, wasn’t a single man living alone looked upon as strange, so in order to hide the fact that they were homosexual they entered the priesthood?
“is heterosexual sex with a 16 year old technically pedophilia?”
Not even close. It is most properly called ephebophilia – if anything.
Of course if it were, we would be in the ridiculous position of considering Almanzo Wilder of the “Little House” books a pedophile for taking the 16 year old Laura Ingalls to wife. He started courting her when she was 15. Almanzo was 10 years older than Laura.
Have people lost all sense of history?
That is of course a rhetorical question. When one has an agenda it is very easy to feign ignorance.
@Mark01 – I don’t think that was the issue. I think that for men entering seminary in the 1940s through the early 1960s, would often start at high school seminaries, then move through college and finally major seminaries. With that being said, I don’t think that the idea of sexuality, let alone homosexuality was even discussed.
What I think was this, I think that with the social revolution of the 1960s and “the Age of Aquarius” as it were, the idea that homosexuality was no longer considered deviant, led many men to experiment with each other. Many young priests at that time honsestly thought (I know this through conversations with older priests) that the loosening of morality would allow for freer thought with regard to marriage, sexual orientation, and birth control. Once this did not become the norm and was actually squelched, many revolted and the mass exodus happened, and the sexual deviation from within the the Church began. Ask yourself this question. When did the majority of the molestations, etc….happen? You’ll find the answer is the 1960s and following.
I think that the problem, while most certainly one that that needs to be examined by the Church, was not propogated by the sustained morality of the Church, but rather the revolutionary ideas of it’s clergy and subsequent disobedience. Now they are paying for their disobedience. Amazing how 1960 years of moral teaching holds weight and 40 years of disobedience to that teaching causes crumbling…..
My two cents.
This whole issue is getting out of hand, is seriously harming the Church around the world, and thanks to the mainstream media’s intentional misrepresentation of the facts is turning public opinion around the world overwhelmingly against the Church and the Pope. The fact that this issue has been so public for at least 6 years, even though most of the allegations are “old”, gives the impression (right or wrong) that the Church continues to ignore the problem.
Combine all of this with the MSM having an agenda to destroy the Church and the political correctness of politicians around the world and the problem is compounded. The fact that few outside the Church understand or want to understand the Church’s actual policy in such cases or how allegations are handled only makes the problem worse. They look to how such allegations are supposed to be handled in the “civilian world” and compare that to what they know, or don’t know, or are told the Church has done or not done and they are shocked.
The Church, if it is to avoid the damning of public opinion and the legal consequences of countries being pressured to allow subpoenas of the Pope and law suits directed at Rome itself, needs to take very specifc, firm and timely steps to counter the on-going criticism. A (weak) start was made yesderday when the Church published its “rules” which Bishops around the world must follow in such cases. That attempt was not helped when the “draft” circulated last Friday was foud to be somewhat different than the formal document published yesterday. It is important to remember that this Pope has enemies within the Church who will “leak” potentially embarassing information to the MSM in hopes of undermining a Pope they believe is too traditional.
Not to be a doomsdayer but if this issue is not resolved, and q
His comments drew angry reactions from Chile’s gay rights advocates. [NEWSFLASH! SUN RISES AT DAWN! Of course it did.]
Not only in Chile….
Since Bill Donahue’s statement on Larry King and other programs, gay rights advocates have been working overtime at wrongfully promoting any homosexual connection between priests and boys as being a myth. The gay rights coalitions have cited studies to disprove Bill’s statement. Where’s the rest of the story? The MSM has once again displayed their bias.
CatholicCultural.org has a good article written by Brian W. Clowes, PhD and David L. Sonnier entitled, “Child Molestation by Homosexual and Heterosexuals which cites studies that supports Donahue’s statement. We need to educate ourselves on this very important subject. It’s worth the read.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6506&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=603961
woops–I must have exceeded the word count with the above post which posted itself without my proofing it. Anyhow, to conclude, if this issue is not resolved and quickly our hopes for liturgical reform, restoration of the TLM etc will be dashed. The Church will simply become paralyzed becuase of the defensive (legal and otherwise) psture it will be forced to assume.
Solution? I have a couple of thoughts. One a clear and widely disseminated policy that says all allegations of sexual abuse will be thoroughly investigated administratively by the Church and that in all cases civil authorities will be notified and requested to initiate their own independant investigation. And, perhaps of greatest importance, in any allegation the alleged offender will be “administratively suspended” (i.e. removed from pastoral duties and public contact) until the invesitgation is concluded. This is how it works when law enforcement officers are accused of misconduct and the public is accepting of that. Is it fair and well received by the innocent cop? Maybe yes, maybe no but it is accepted as the price of doing business and for the purpose of protecting the agency’s reputation with the public. The Church needs to adopt similar measures ASAP.
LarryPGH: Lifesitenews journalist who wrote this is very reliable. Maybe it will help clarify….http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041215.html
Joshua08 at 11:26am:
Amen. You are precisely correct. How anyone can fail to comprehend and agree with your statements and conclusions is beyond me. In my opinion, it takes a willful ignorance to ignore the pertinent facts in your final paragraph. There’s a huge elephant in the living room, and no one’s doing anything about it. I think sometimes maybe that the ones in charge of removing the elephant from the room are themselves secretly elephants.
The outrage is not over the crimes by the priests, its over the coverup and enabling by the bishops. Conservatives shouldn’t be pointing fingers at homosexuality…Until prelates like Bertone show that they are more concerned with creating effective governance, enshrining best-practice directives, and punishing the inept than with homosexuality among the priesthood…
This is nonsense. This is absolutely about homosexuality in the priesthood. The homosexuals infiltrated the priesthood. The primary failure of the Church was in letting it happen, during the 50s, 60s and 70s, despite the constant prohibition against it. Then the homosexuals did what homosexuals do, they molested teenage boys. The Church tried to cover it up to prevent public scandal, and embarassment, and frankly, half the bishops were homosexuals themselves, and were thus compromised.
The central story is the Church failing to maintain its discipline and keep out homosexuals, but the world prefers to exclaim that the Church has a pedophile problem. It doesn’t. It had a homosexual priest problem. But that’s not politically correct, and the world refuses to permit that message to get out.
If the Church had maintained its discipline and obeyed its own teachings on homosexuality and continued to refuse entry of homosexuals into its seminaries, 85% of this would have never happened, and there’d bo no story today.
The Church made a big mistake in its aggiornamento of the 1960s and compromising with the spirit of this world, and the Church owes its faithful and the world a big apology for letting homosexual deviants destroy the credibility of its priesthood.
Can anyone help provide documentation OUTSIDE of Church/Catholic sources that link homosexuality to Pedophilia? Something scholarly? A true achademic psycological study? I want to ensure that I’m educated on the issue and not simply parroting nonsense that’s easily cut down. The first rule of Apologetics is be armed with facts. Right now I feel about as sound in defending this connection as I would to Luther’s mythical “Here I stand, I can do no other” or the apocryphal St. Francis statement of “Preach the gospel, use words only when necessary”. Repeating things we’d like to be true, isn’t the same as what IS true.
I don’t dispute the connection, I just wish we were all responding using the same academically credible sources in unison.
I don’t believe arguing the age of consent in Chile is a productive defense.
However:
Article 362 of the Chilean Penal Code provides that the age at which there are no restrictions for sexual activities is 18. Sexual contact with anyone under age 14 is statutory rape.
Article 363 provides an additional penalty for sexual contact with anyone between ages 14 and 18 in four situations:
1. When one takes advantage of a mental anomaly or perturbation of the child, even if transitory;
2. When one takes advantage of a dependency or subordinate relationship of the child, like in cases when the aggressor is in charge of the custody, education or caretaking of the child, or when there exists a laboral relationship with the child;
3. When one takes advantage of severely neglected children; and
4. When one takes advantage of the sexual ignorance or inexperience of the child.
I imagine Article 363, section 2 would apply in this case.
It is telling that they sought a quote from the gay lobbying group Human Rights Campaign for the article. ‘Surpisingly,’ they thought is discriminatory to blame homosexuals for the abuse.
As for Father James Scahill of the Diocese of Springfield, MA, why does his opinion merit national coverage? In his view, the Pope & hierarchy are guilty irregardless of the facts. This claim is unsupported by the evidence.
Heads do need to roll, but Pope Benedict’s is not one of them.
Brian K You hit the nail on the head: “The Church made a big mistake in its aggiornamento of the 1960s and compromising with the spirit of this world” What was so great about the spirit of this world, which was coming out of a genocidal world war, fighting atheistic Communism and opening to a hyper commercialized and hyper sexualized private life.
talonh,
Implicit in your post is the presumption that the John Jay study is not “A true achademic psycological study” and is not “academically credible”.
On the off chance that you believe this (instead of simply anticipating arguments from others), what criteria would you use to determine if a study of the issue is credible? Perhaps a better strategy would be to turn the argument around and ask that the detractors of the John Jay study cite evidence identifying why the John Jay study is not credible.
Excuse my naivete, but what does “MSM” stand for?
“MSM” = “main stream media”.
If I might just say this: seminary formation until about five to ten years ago was either negligent or downright awful when it came to living “consecrated celibacy”. The majority of cases involving the abuse of minors went on many, many years ago when it was either presumed one accepted the discipline of living as a chaste celibate as a priest, or problems were overlooked.
Whether it is a homosexual problem or just “arrested development” does not matter. If precise, firm and consistent formation in the seminary was not provided, ergo: these sexual problems, crimes, misconduct.
The chickens are coming home to roost, I’m afraid.
Formation in religious communities maybe not have been perfect; but understanding what “chaste celibacy” is was probably much more clear. For diocesan priests, I think it depended upon the seminary, formator, spiritual director and bishop/vocation director. That’s not to “slam” diocesan priests, at all. Many of my confreres could probably give all kinds of evidence that unless this whole issue of chaste celibacy was dealt with, all kinds of problems ensued.
LarryPGH:
Bertone`s words are quoted in the original Italian in the Italian newspaper Il Sole at
http://quotidianonet.ilsole24ore.com/cronaca/2010/04/13/318001-pedofili_legati_omosessualita.shtml
The article also goes on to quote Professor Tonino Cantelmi, President of the Associazione italiana Psicologi e Psichiatri Cattolici (Aippc), who said that there was no foundation for the hypothesis that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. He also offers a gloss on what perhaps Bertone meant to say:
” Bertone, secondo Cantelmi, “forse si riferiva semplicemente ai casi di pedofilia nel clero, che spesso riguardano casi di minorenni già sviluppati, e quindi in quel caso non si può parlare di pedofilia in senso stretto ma di omosessualità”. “
“s heterosexual sex with a 16 year old technically pedophilia? ”
no pedophilia involves prepubescent children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
postpubescent child abuse is referred to as ephebophilia
Ephebophilia is the sexual preference of adults for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
Bingo, BrianK.
This is absolutely about homosexuality in the priesthood. The homosexuals infiltrated the priesthood. The primary failure of the Church was in letting it happen, during the 50s, 60s and 70s, despite the constant prohibition against it. Then the homosexuals did what homosexuals do, they molested teenage boys. The Church tried to cover it up to prevent public scandal, and embarassment, and frankly, half the bishops were homosexuals themselves, and were thus compromised.
“Then the homosexuals did what homosexuals do, they molested teenage boys.”
Brian K and DistrubedMary, that is the most hateful, bigoted thing I have ever read on this blog. May God forgive you.
JoyfulMom7, unfortunately your comment has gone down the rabbit hole. But I’d like to cheer it, as a first-time commenter here. I am always happy to pray for the Holy Father, as another commenter advised in linking to the Newman Society’s effort, yet I too am still looking for an organized prayer/Holy Hours/rosaries offering for the healing and salvation of molested children.
This is sad. Not only are the victims of abuse deprived of knowing that we do care (and want to make reparation), but an opportunity to demonstrate repentance in the wider world is lost.
Mark1 wrote: “I have seen a lot of people comment that the last thing the pedophile priest wants is a wife. That is true.”
Actually, it’s not true. A sizeable number of pedophiles marry so that they can have children to molest — either their own children, or stepchildren. They also look for single mothers to cohabitate with. Look it up.
I don’t know of any studies that show homosexual men are more likely to be pedophiles. In fact, the studies I have read indicate that many pedophiles are indifferent as to the sex of their victims. It’s the CHILD part that matters to them.
However, there is plenty of evidence that many homosexual men (I don’t know a percentage, and I don’t know about women) are attracted to post-pubescent boys. That’s the “ephebophilia” people are speaking about above. It is a favorite theme of gay writing, films, and art.
None of the abuse has anything to do with celibacy. Nazareth Priest may be correct in his assessment of seminary life, but if seminaries in the ’70s and ’80s had produced men who were sexually perverse, then the numbers of abuse and ordinary but scandalous cases would be huge. Instead, they are about the same as the general public. I would like to know the percentage of homosexual priests who seduced and/or abused adolescent boys, vs. the percentage of homosexual men who are not priest who did the same. I’ll bet they are equal — which would indicate that it was homosexuality, and not celibacy or priestly formation, that was to blame. In any case, I don’t know anyone who has ever credibly suggested that normal men can be turned into pedophiles or ephebophiles by ANYTHING, although under duress they can be made to engage in that behavior in prison or boarding school, or some other closed society that requires it. Certainly nothing like living in a rectory and working with hundreds or thousands of sexually normal people.
Really, a pedophile would have to be nuts (in other ways) to pick priesthood as a way to get to children. It’s demanding and requires a long time in school. Public school teaching is much easier to get into, as is coaching or finding a desperate single mom to move in with.
No. All those with same sex attraction do NOT abuse children/minors; nor do they necessarily have sinful relationships with adults.
This about men who did not understand or accept their promise to remain celibate in chastity.
And, it is about their superiors who either tried to cover up or disregard their criminal or sinful behavior.
When Card. Bertone is talking about a link between homosexuality and the abuse of minors, he is talking about the majority of cases where priests seduced/abused boys/teens/young men.
I’m sorry if you are offended, Ioannes Andreades, but it is not hateful to print the truth.
Before political correctness destroyed the academic credibility of the twin APAs, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association, it was not difficult to locate academic evidence of the rates of abuse of minor males by homosexuals. It is a known part of the homosexual subculture. They call it “chickenhawking” and glamorize it in much of their coming of age literature.
For statistical data, see the 2004 U.S. Department of Education study titled Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature, http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/index.html. Page 36 of the study reports “Percent Same-Sex Misconduct as Percent of All Misconduct Reported” in the four major studies cited as 28.3, 17.8, 7.5, 27. These numbers correlate very closely with FBI statistics from the 1960s and 1970s that 30% of all molestation of minors occurs at the hands of homosexuals. This latter data is almost impossible to locate online now, given government political correctness these days.
If homosexuals only make up 0.7% of the population, a statistic universally accepted prior to the political correctness that infiltrated the twin APAs in the 1970s, then homosexuals are 40 times more likely to molest than their heterosexual counterparts.
This is the reason that the CDF, in SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOL.HTM stated:
II. Applications
10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
13. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person’s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
14. The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be “either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing” (cf. No. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to “manipulate the church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws” (cf. No. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that “any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people … are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (cf. No. 9).
In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law.
15. Since in the assessment of proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. No. 17), strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they affect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the) homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which could include such things as “family” participation in the health benefits given to employees (cf. No. 9)?
16. Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. No. 17).
Gail F,
Check out the paper referenced by deborah-anne — 13 April 2010 @ 12:31 pm, and look at the studies they list and see if that supports your understanding or not. I think they address the statistical relationships you raise, but I’m not sure, ’cause I’m not sure I understood what you were saying! No offense intended, I’m having a bad day myself.
DisturbedMary,
Your translation is subtly different than the AP’s or Reuter’s. I wonder where they got it?
terryprest,
There’s no credit given to any other sources in the Quotidiano.net article, but interestingly, it follows the flow of the AP report, moving directly from Bertone’s quote to the Chilean homosexual advocate’s assertions. I’m wondering whether they got the quote from AP, then translated it back. Of course, they mention that this was a radio interview given by Bertone, and I hadn’t seen that fact mentioned elsewhere. Sure love to get my hands on the original…
(Anyway, my guess is that “pedofilia” has a different shade of meaning in Italian than it does in English, and Bertone is about to be pilloried based on the fact that the two words are cognates with different meanings! I looked up “pedofilia” at wordreference.com, and the Italian definition I got back was “attrazione sessuale morbosa nei confronti de bambini e adolescenti”.
Ah-ha! So, if in Italian, Bertone meant “there is a relationship between homosexuality and *the molestation of adolescents*”, then that’s a whole different statement than “there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia”!!! (Of course, it begs the question of whether homosexuals are more likely to molest teens than heterosexuals, which, I believe, studies show that they do not — however, it is at least more debatable than “homosexuality causes pederasty”!)
Fr James Scahill is pastor of St Michael’s parish in East Longmeadow, MA, in the diocese of Springfield, MA.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/04/east_longmeadow_priest_james_s_1.html
The link above takes you to a local news outlet, http://www.masslive.com, where Fr Scahill boasts of having gotten standing ovations when he called for the Pope to resign. One lone person booed, and shouted “Heretic!”
Scahill is all about the publicity.
When petitions against a same-sex marriage referendum were circulated in most parishes, per directive from the bishop, Scahill refused to allow them in his parish.
Yeah, he’s a darling of Voice of the NOT-Faithful.
The comments that accompany 3 different stories about his sermon are predictably ugly. Maybe some posters here can go and add some light to the darkness?
Last fall, when the diocese closed many parishes,comments about the Catholic Church included such outright hatred as one poster who said he wanted to see all Catholic Churches burn to the ground…..with Catholics trapped inside them.
Everyone needs to review RELIGIOSORUM INSTITUTIO, Instruction on the Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders, by the Sacred Congregation For Religious, February 2, 1961, http://www.papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23religios.htm
D) The Required Chastity
29. Importance Of This Point; Young Persons Are To Be Properly Instructed And Warned Of Its Dangers
Among the proofs and signs of a divine vocation the virtue of chastity is regarded as absolutely necessary “because it is largely for this reason that candidates for the ranks of the clergy choose this type of life for themselves and persevere in it.” Consequently:
a) “Watchful and diligent care is to be taken that candidates for the clergy should have a high esteem and love for chastity, and should safeguard it in their souls.
b) “Not only, therefore, are clerics to be informed in due time on the nature of priestly celibacy, the chastity which they are to observe (cf. can. 132), and the demands of this obligation, but they are likewise to be warned of the dangers into which they can fall on this account. Consequently, candidates for Sacred Orders are to be exhorted to protect themselves from dangers from their earliest years.”28
c) Although virginity embraced for the kingdom of heaven is more excellent than matrimony, nevertheless, candidates for Sacred Orders should not be unaware of the nobility of married life as exemplified in Christian marriage established by the plan of God. Therefore, let them be so instructed that, with a clear understanding of the advantages of Christian matrimony, they may deliberately and freely embrace the greater good of priestly and religious chastity.
d) But should superiors find a candidate unable to observe ecclesiastical celibacy and practice priestly chastity, then, completely ignoring any other outstanding qualities, they should bar him from the religious life and the priesthood (cf. Stat. Gen., art. 34, S 2, 4 ), conforming to the following directives and using all prudence and discretion in the application of the same, namely:
30. Those To Be Excluded; Practical Directives
1. A candidate who shows himself certainly unable to observe religious and priestly chastity, either because of frequent sins against chastity or because of a sexual bent of mind or excessive weakness of will, is not to be admitted to the minor seminary and, much less, to the novitiate or to profession. If he has already been accepted but is not yet perpetually professed, then he should be sent away immediately or advised to withdraw, according to individual cases, no matter what point in his formation he has already reached. Should he be perpetually professed, he is to be barred absolutely and permanently from tonsure and the reception of any Order, especially Sacred Orders. If circumstances should so demand, he shall be dismissed from the community, with due observance of the prescriptions of canon law.
2. Consequently, any candidate who has a habit of solitary sins and who has not given well-founded hope that he can break this habit within a period of time to be determined prudently, is not to be admitted to the novitiate. Nor can a candidate be admitted to first profession or to renewal of vows unless he has really amended his ways. But if a novice or a temporarily professed religious gives evidence of a firm purpose of amendment with good grounds for hope of success, his probation can be extended as provided for in canon law (canons 571, S2; 574, S2; 973, S 3; Stat. Gen., art. 34, S 2, 3 ).
Well-grounded hope of amendment can be provided by those youths who are physically and psychically normal or endowed with good bodily and mental health, who are noted for solid piety and the other virtues intimately connected with chastity, and who sincerely desire the religious and priestly life.
3. A much stricter policy must be followed in admission to perpetual profession and advancement to Sacred Orders. No one should be admitted to perpetual vows or promoted to Sacred Orders unless he has acquired a firm habit of continency and has given in every case consistent proof of habitual chastity over a period of at least one year. If within this year prior to perpetual profession or ordination to Sacred Orders doubt should arise because of new falls, the candidate is to be barred from perpetual profession or Sacred Orders (cf. above, no. 16) unless, as far as profession is concerned, time is available either by common law or by special indult to extend the period for testing chastity and there be question of a candidate who, as was stated above (no. 30, 2) affords good prospects of amendment.
4. If a student in a minor seminary has sinned gravely against the sixth commandment with a person of the same or the other sex, or has been the occasion of grave scandal in the matter of chastity, he is to be dismissed immediately as stipulated in canon 1371, except if prudent consideration of the act and of the situation of the student by the superiors or confessors should counsel a different policy in an individual case, sc., in the case of a boy who has been seduced and who is gifted with excellent qualities and is truly penitent, or when the sin was an objectively imperfect act.
If a novice or a professed religious who has not yet made perpetual vows should be guilty of the same offense, he is to be sent away from the community or, should the circumstances so demand, he is to be dismissed with due observance of canon 647, S 2, 1 . If a perpetually professed religious is found guilty of any such sin, he is to be perpetually excluded from tonsure and the reception of any further Order. If the case belongs to the external forum, he is to receive a canonical warning unless, as provided for in canons 653 and 668, there be grounds for sending him back to the world (cf. Stat. Gen., art. 34, S 2, 4 ).
Lastly, should he be a subdeacon or deacon, then, without prejudice to the above-mentioned directives and if the case should so demand, the superiors should take up with the Holy See the question of his reduction to the lay state.
For these reasons, clerics who in their diocese or religious who in another community have sinned gravely against chastity with another person are not to be admitted with a view to the priesthood, even on a trial basis, unless there be clear evidence of excusing causes or of circumstances which can at least notably diminish responsibility in conscience (Circular Letter of S. C. of the Sacraments, n. 16; Canon Law Digest, 4, p. 314).
Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
5. Very special investigation is needed for those students who, although they have hitherto been free of formal sins against chastity, nevertheless suffer from morbid or abnormal sexuality, especially sexual hyperesthesia or an erotic bent of nature, to whom religious celibacy would be a continual act of heroism and a trying martyrdom. For chastity, in so far as it implies abstinence from sexual pleasure, not only becomes very difficult for many people but the very state of celibacy and the consequent loneliness and separation from one’s family becomes so difficult for certain individuals gifted with excessive sensitivity and tenderness, that they are not fit subjects for the religious life. This question should perhaps receive more careful attention from novice masters and superiors of scholasticates than from confessors since such natural tendencies do not come out so clearly in confession as in the common life and daily contact.
Comment by LarryPGH — 13 April 2010 @ 3:20 pm
LarryPGH, See my comment to Gail F,
Comment by mpm — 13 April 2010 @ 3:19 pm
with regard to your last conclusion.
Susan the Short: Scahill is a disgrace.
What a jerk! I hope whoever is his bishop will call him in and read him “the riot act”. Like we need more numbskulls in the priesthood!
Well, I watched the newsreport…Springfield, MA Diocese…okay…lived quite close to there for a while. Doesn’t surprise me. Don’t expect any correction any time soon.
If this priest does not have access to the numerous reports/information available to him via the internet, then he’s just a “stooge” for the MSM and all the other hates mongers.
And that the congregation stood up and applauded him tells you what kind of condition that local Church is in. Thanks be to God there is a cloister of Dominican Nuns praying day and night in that Diocese.
I could not imagine that happening here in the rural upper midwest. People would probably stare back at you and/or give you the “finger” later…
Nazareth Priest,
Exactly. We expect this kind of stuff from the MSM, but there’s no excuse for a priest to columniate the Holy Father.
Here’s a blog article I saw earlier about this:
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2010/04/father-james-scahill-accuses-holy.html
There are snippets from a response by the Bishop in news articles, but I can’t find the entire statement anywhere yet:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/04/13/amid_furor_priest_gets_support/
Note how a NY Times photographer just happened to be there after the Mass.
Vincenzo: And, I believe the Shrine of Divine Mercy is in that same Diocese (I may be wrong here). Thanks be to God there were thousands making reparation while this clergy person was making scandal.
The “sign” that ticked me off before anything came outta his mouth was that he was not in proper clerical dress and as he talked he was obviously the “mouthpiece” of the liberal, dissenting garbage that unfortunately is the case with much of the Northeast. I lived there and taught there for a number of years. Disgusting. Many of these priests should be corrected in no uncertain terms. Alas, I fear, it will not happen.
LarryPGH:
My knowledge of Italian is not up to considering the precise meaning of “pedofilia” in Italian.
However looking closely at the Italian as to what Bertone is reported to have said: he said that he had been recently advised that many others [that is, psychiatrists and psychologists] have shown a link between pedophilia and homosexuality.
It looks as if he is talking about “pedophilia” in a narrow clinical sense, rather than in a more colloquial sense.
Professor Cantelmi seems to make the same distinction between the two meanings of the word “pedophilia”: between its use “in senso stretto” (in its strict or narrow sense) and that in its wider sense.
Is this the distinction which Joshua08 made between “pedophilia” and “ephebophilia” in one of the earlier comments ?
The Mayo Clinic published a Special Article on “A Profile of Pedophilia:
Definition, Characteristics of Offenders, Recidivism,Treatment Outcomes, and Forensic Issues” by RYAN C. W. HALL, MD, AND RICHARD C. W. HALL, MD, PA [Mayo Clinic Proceedings April 2007 vol. 82 no. 4 457-471 ] which is available for download as a .pdf file at http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full.pdf+html
The authors state that:
“Pedophilia is a clinical diagnosis usually made by a psychiatrist or psychologist. It is not a criminal or legal term … By diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, a pedophile is an individual who fantasizes about, is sexually aroused by, or experiences sexual urges toward prepubescent children (generally <13 years) for a period of at least 6 months.”
They then go on to distinguish the abuse of adolescent children thus:
“Technically, individuals who engage in sexual activities with pubescent teenagers under the legal age of consent (ages 13-16 years) are known as hebophiles (attracted to females) or ephebophiles (attracted to males).15-17 The term hebophilia (also spelled as hebephilia) is becoming a generic
term to describe sexual interest in either male or female pubescent children”
But from reading the article by the Mayo Clinic, one wonders if Bertone either was misinformed by his expert or has confused the narrow clinical definition of the term with its wider meaning.
And, as you say, it would seem more likely that what Bertone meant to say was “there is a relationship between homosexuality and the molestation of adolescents“ which, again, as you say is an entirely different statement that there is “a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia”.
In this vitally important subject, and the debates and discussions to follow, it is crucial to define terms correctly and have the assistance of psychiatrists and psychologists. It would seem from the Mayo clinic article that this is an immensely complex subject which cannot be dealt with by way of soundbites and a “one size fits all” solution. It would seem that there are different factors operating for different victims depending on the age and situation of the victim. There would also appear to be a number of different types of offender.
Could it be that the Pope is silent because he recognises that this is a very complex and difficult problem which cannot be sorted out in a few days or weeks ? One hopes that the measures to be taken in the near future by the Church will not be ineffective and the same problems will not re- surface again in twenty or thirty years. No one would want to visit on the Church in the future what it has gone through recently and in the last 10-15 years because of these problems.
Probably on purpose, the AP misrepresents the point the church has been trying to make
The point is not: homosexuality has lead to the pedophilia
The point is: the problem is homosexuality, not pedophilia.
It would be right to criticize the first point, as many studies find there is not any significant difference between the rates of pedophila between hetero and homosexual people, and at that point, even the sex of the minor does not have as much of an influence, or at least not one strictly tied to the criminals declared sexuality.
On the other hand, there is not question that often these cases are not pedophilic acts, but rather homosexual ones, or at least ephebophilia, which, since it concerns post-pubecent people, does not have much seperation from “normal” hetero or homosexual acts, other than the cultural stigma attached to it.
Salvatore_Guiseppe: Exactly.
Any man who seduces/abuses a post-pubescent male into sexual acts is committing a homosexual act. Homosexual. We have Freud to thank for this “label”. Before it was called sodomy. And that is much more clear.
Someone who commits a homosexual act is not, necessarily, what the pundits like to called “a homosexual”; yet it is a homosexual, sodomistic act. The whole “myth” of Homosexuality/Gay etc. is something else.
Nazareth Priest: Yes, the National Shrine of Divine Mercy is in the Springfield diocese, in the town of Stockbridge, MA (of Norman Rockwell fame).
Vincenzo: try my blog http://newenglandcatholic.blogspot.com I am trying to stay on top of this story since it’s in my own diocese.
Try also http://www.masslive.com for the Diocese’s response.
Susan the Short, aka, Walburga
To see Cardinal Bertone publicly stating the obvious connection between the sex abuse scandals and homosexuality is welcome, but it is not helpful to see the word “pedophilia” tossed around where it doesn’t apply. Why can’t he get this right? It’s not that complicated. You would think after all that has transpired, His Eminence would have command of the proper terminology. Or is this a case of poor translation?
In any event, contrast Cardinal Bertone’s pull-no-punches approach to homosexuality with the USCCB’s approach; in case you missed it, spending $1 million of our hard earned money so the John Jay College can tell us that men who are sexually attracted to teenage boys don’t necessarily have a “homosexual identity.”
Friends, the left-loon anti-Catholic media wants to have it both ways:
1) They want to harm the Church by dredging up these old cases from 30-40 years ago.
2) But on the other hand, they love gays, gay sex, gay marriage, so they have to throw up a smokescreen that these cases are not about homosexual sex (even though 80% of them are) and attribute them to pedophilia because they can then trot out some hoary “evidence” that homosexuals are not necessarily pedophiles.
What’s the slimey media to do?
I have the displeasure of reading the Boston Globe everyday. This Scahill is a $%@!ing hypocrite of the highest order. He accuses the Holy Father of lying while employing wilfully and maliciously deceitful reporting from the New York Times.
For the past two days we’ve been treated to Globe articles about a homily he preached Sunday calling for the Pope’s resignation. And tell me, how did the Glbe become aware of a single homily by a parish priest in western/central Massachusetts? Can you say “orchestrated”?
it’s like watching a “reality” show on network television and then having it occasionally dawn on you, “This is a little too convenient to be catching this private conversation… and from multiple camera angles, to boot!” This self-promoting jackal of a Judas priest wanted some more limelight from his ideological commrades, so he tipped off his buddies in the local media before the homily was spewed.
On a side note: when, if ever, would it be justified to vocally interupt an outrageously and deliberatelt heretical homily or gross liturgical abuse (such as having a woman “priest” concelebrate or a layman preach)? Because if I was in Scahill’s parish I don’t know if I could have held my toungue during that abortion of a sermon.
Ridiculous. How can you cite a trend or a study, and not give the information out? The he-said-she-said that the Church AND MSM is playing is beyond juvenile. It feels like I’m back in middle school reading English papers or something. The good Cardinal should have known to say “According to study X by group so-and-so, we acknowledge the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia,” and not “Well, I was told by some one that this connection exists.” And I don’t mean to seem like a crazed liberal (because believe me I’m not), but how could His Eminence not be concerned about marginalizing an entire sector of people who exist in the Church? ALSO, I’m tired of the hair-splitting that is the discussion of pre and post-pubescent. The whole thing is just gross no matter what if you ask me.
Thomas S: My opinion. if any priest talks like that in the homily or has any liturgical abuse as you describe: Get up and walk out. You don’t have to put with that. Find another Mass; if you can’t, (God forgive me if I’m wrong) don’t worry it about if you can’t. Say a Rosary and go home.
And I am not surprised, AT ALL, by the orchestration of this crap. Having lived in CT for several years, being aware of all that was going on, I think that this is just par for the course.
Those bishops better wake up and do something.
I know it’s not easy, with the whole political/dissenting clap-trap that goes on there. But we’re not playing soft-ball anymore.
This priest is outta line; he’s way beyond just giving his own opinion. That’s schismatic talk if I ever heard it. And I may get in trouble for saying it; but say it I will.
Thanks for your address, Susan the Short (aka Walburga)…I’ll keep posted with your blog. I lived in CT for several years; it will be very interesting to keep in touch with all that is going on. My prayers and blessing.
The State of the Church in the North-East
My husband is from Brockton, Mass. Sometimes I wonder what happened up there. Most Catholics I’ve met have NO idea about even the basic facts of their faith. He went to Sunday school for years. Result: social doctrine. It’s so frustrating!!
It will take numerous generations to fix that problem. They seem more protestant than I was; even during my most militant times!
Since I’m the convert in the family, I’ve been trying to guide them back to the real thing… a very difficult task!!
I believe pedophilia in general means illicit sex, meaning underage sex in general – worldwide.
I find it curious that some claim that the use of pedophilia is wrong in the cases here, US, when IF the person has an understanding of pedophilia=underage sex then they are using it correctly. It is technically only beneficial to use it strictly for the small group when you are a professional dealing with an offender. Also, some claim that the term is used to conjure up a horrible, terrible picture. What was good about it? All of it is horrible and just because they are “of age” sort of or have hit puberty, doesn’t mean they weren’t groomed for the abuse. There was an unfair advantage.
REGARDLESS of how you classify these, even if s/he was of consent age, you find a misuse of power – the priest was over the school as was the priest that abused the deaf boys.
But of course, the largest group so far here are boys between the ages of 11-14 which are not older teens or near the age of consent.
“I believe pedophilia in general means illicit sex…”
You only believe that, Mrs. O, because the terminology has been misused so often that you have abandoned its true meaning. In other words, you’re allowing the activists to redefine it, which is just what they want.
“IF the person has an understanding of pedophilia=underage sex then they are using it correctly.”
No. They misunderstand it and are therefore misusing it. If I thought a monkey was an ape and called it that, would I be using the label correctly? Of course not.
The term “pedophilia” is being deliberately misapplied to blur the details of what has taken place. Why? Because the details matter; they tell us that this far more than just an “abuse of power” (which is a gross oversimplification – yelling at your secretary is an abuse of power too).
The details indicate that homosexuality is a key factor in the vast majority of abuse cases, and misidentifying them as “pedophilia” is meant to hide this fact and it must be corrected.
I can offer two perspectives: my experience growing up as the child of a professional dancer, thus observing the gay milieu from close up – and my experience as an attorney with sexual abuse cases.
On the one hand, the “homosexual culture” – at least in the arts – celebrates the “coming of age” narrative where an older homosexual seduces a young boy. It has even crept into the mainstream (there was a book for middle school kids called The Man Without a Face about an older homosexual seducing a boy). Certainly the entire culture idolizes youth and beauty. If I had a dollar for every sleek, tanned, grey-haired sophisticate that I saw squiring around a handsome teenager, I could retire.
On the legal side, a surprising number of prosecutions for child molestation and sodomy involve older homosexual males and boys in the 12-14 age group. Since many of these never get prosecuted, I suspect we are only seeing a small fraction of the cases out there.
By the way, even the homosexuals think the actual pedophiles — the ones who abuse pre-pubescent children — are creepy. We run across them VERY occasionally in the legal world. They seem to be completely indifferent as to whether their victims are male or female.
Louie, if you want to launch the crusade to correctly define which age group = what type of abuse, go ahead.
They still haven’t answered regarding the largest which is male between the ages of 11-14. Those are NOT older teenagers. So do you group them with the younger or older? Eb or Ped? Depends on the picture you are wanting to draw. Just saying.
It is an abuse of power first.
The much-disputed categories (pedophile, ephebophile, etc.) seem to be helpful only to those who must diagnose the condition of the offender with a view to the benefits to be sought from “treatment”, pharmacology, etc. I am acquainted personally with a child who was suffering from anxiety, for whom extensive diagnoses were performed in order to detect whether the issue was emotional or cognitive. When I asked what the difference was, the psychiatrist told me it mattered as to the kind of drugs that would be prescribed, without necessarily entailing anything else. In other words, even with the proper regime of pharmacology, she would still need to learn how to overcome anxiety.
This is not important for the Church’s purposes. Any mortal sin against the sixth commandment by a cleric involving a person under 18 years of age is a “canonical crime”, regardless of the cleric’s “condition”, or how he may have come to have that condition. That is the trigger that sets off the canonical procedures to be taken, and in the US the notification of the civil authorities, etc.
External sexual acts (heterosexual and homosexual) committed by clerics with non-minors is a separate question, not covered by the exact same procedures, as I understand it, unless it also involves abuse of the Sacrament of Penance, whether by solicitation in Confession, or by the priest absolving his own accomplice in the sin.
The “gay culture” has a name for the “gay man” homing-in on youngsters: he’s a “chicken-hawk”. How can you have a name for something and then deny that it exists?
I suppose I should not be shocked to find Catholics believing what they want to believe and ignoring much scientific evidence to the contrary. After all, you guys believe in gods.
As has been said many times already: while the majority of the Catholic church’s criminals engaged in male-male sexual activities, that is at variance with the larger world, where girls are far more likely to be sexually assaulted by an adult than are boys. People who sexually assault others (minors or adults) have poorly formed personalities.
Distinctions are drawn in classifying child sexual abusers between “Regressed” and “Fixated.” Fixated offenders are those that have a paraphilia of attraction to children or who are somewhat “stuck” in their emotional and sexual development. The minority of child abusers are regressed offenders are those who develop normal sexual peer relationships but in times of stress regress to immature sexuality and abuse children.
Finally, I’ve already quoted Herek’s statement that “The important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals–who are often characterized as fixated–are attracted to children, not to men or women.”
The thing for the church to focus upon is the prevention of fixated, sexually immature, power-hungry people with pathological personalities from being able to use the unique lifestyle of the Catholic priest to harm children. A clergy lifestyle in which a person enjoys a position of authority in the community, has a trusted access to children, can live in a situation that allows for impulsivity that is not accountable to a spouse, and by virtue of his celibacy does not need to form an mature sexuality will be attractive to the child sex abuser. It’s the church’s job, if it wants to retain that structure, to make sure that such people don’t get into those positions.
If additionally the Church would like to expel from or reject for its clergy homosexually attracted people, because it thinks such people are immoral let it go ahead. But it shouldn’t imagine that this is an act of protection of children. There’s much more to it than that.
Mrs O,
It certainly is an abuse of power.
But that doesn’t help identify and quantify the perpetrators, which is what we’re going to have to do to clean them out.
The dividing line is not age, but puberty. Molesters of pre-pubescent children are pedophiles. Many boys 11-14 are pubescent.
If someone abuses their power and authority and crosses lines, they are going to be suspect in my book. NOT just sexual abuse, but in general. You are mistaken to believe that just men who are homosexual are going to abuse OR who have abused.
Because many adult men/women have been abused by clergy.
I am glad the USCCB is looking at it from all angles.
If people want to draw conclusions, so be it.
Celibacy is the cause???
Does that mean that every single person in the world, every aunt and uncle or brother or sister who is not married is a molester? When does being unmarried make you a molester?
Is it not true that gay pornography often features young boys? The man-boy club, etc. ?
We’ve had altar girls for decades, even more than boys – so why do the cases with boys continue at 90%? Hmmm?
Is it not true that gay pornography often features young boys?
Type “teen girls” into Google and see what you get.
Mrs. O – this isn’t that complicated. Pedophilia properly defined is NOT the nature of the current scandal. No one, anywhere, has even attempted to define it as such via statistical data; they simply toss the word “pedophile” around with impunity. Those – like me – who are focused on the truth being brought into the light of day, can point to a number of studies that give statistical support for the fact that pedophilia is not the issue.
If you’re interested in seeing an answer to your question re: the makeup of the victims; e.g. pre-pubescent / post-pubescent, you’ll find references from independent sources here:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040104.html
Blurring the reality of what has taken place through the use of inappropriate terminology serves no good purpose. I can’t help but wonder what your motives are for wanting to see the obvious link to homosexuality covered up…
I do not think it was JUST a homosexual problem.
I also do not think it is any more sinister for people to be confused with the term/meaning pedophile than it is for those who misuse the term acting-up vs acting-out.
Apparently the Vatican has now “clarified” the Cardinal`s remarks:
See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7097668.ece
I am curious about those who seem (overly) concerned with marginalizing an entire sector of people who exist in the Church.
When dod the Church’s mission change from
“Assist individuals with overcoming their sinful inclinations and disorders so that they may achieve Salvation” to:
“Do not offend groups of individuals for fear that they will leave the Church”?
For what its worth, I believe that homosexuality is primarily a spiritual disease, and spiritual methods are needed to cure it. Yes, it is something that can be cured rather than simply treating the symptoms. Why is it that our focus is on helping homosexuals to live a chaste life (which is required of all, by the way) instead of helping homosexuals to stop being, well, homosexual?
MichaelJ,
The answer is because it is politically incorrect to treat homosexuality as a disorder on any level. Sure, Church teaching clearly recognizes homosexual activity as sinful, but politically correct forces in the Church (the USCCB for example) appear eager to shield homosexuality from plain view in general. Why? Sheer political correctness? Too many homosexuals in key positions of authority? I don’t really know… but whatever the cause, it reeks.
The official removal of homosexuality from the “disorder” category in the psychiatric and psychological fields is purely a matter of politics, not science. Here’s the back story on how this happened if you’re interested.
http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf
In the end, you are correct; a group of people are left to suffer from their disorder while the modern culture is determined to celebrate its own openness by telling them that they’re just fine. If God forbid you mention that these poor individuals deserve help as a matter of compassion, it is you who are labeled intolerant. This is the world in which we live…
This is one of the silliest statements I’ve heard from the press. The case was one of the highest profile cases because the MSM covered it the most extensively. My guess is that any homosexual cases that were brought to light didn’t get that kind of coverage even if they were more extensive in number and severity.
Fr. Z. can correct me, but I was under the impression that if a priest used what he learned in the confessional to alert church authorities about this particular priest, the confessor would be immediately excommunicated.