The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

shruikan2553 · 10-02-2015 7:01pm

ScumLord wrote: »

I've heard stories that basically said that Vatican city was like some gay resort at night. I doubt it though, the rumors came around the same time as Berlusconi's bunga bunga parties.

I would think that the vatican is full of the most devout Catholic from around the world.

They're the ones you need to watch out for

Benny_Cake · 10-02-2015 7:45pm

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd imagine boys were the victims because back then boys were more easily available. I know the one who abused me wasn't gay, he abused both males and females. Maybe he was bisexual :eek:

I'd imagine that's pretty much the case. At the time there were no girls serving as altar servers. Even now I'm not aware of any male religious orders who run schools for girls.

Painting this colossal mess as some type of "gay conspiracy" may serve as a comfort blanket in avoiding uncomfortable truths but it simply doesn't hold up. It's a slur against gay people in general, not to mention the very many decent and honourable gay men who serve as priests.

RikuoAmero · 10-02-2015 7:57pm

Festus wrote: »

Well, I can actually if two or more are operating in cahoots.

Even if every catholic priest was homosexual and even if every catholic priest was an abuser, that still wouldn't justify your paranoia of homosexual people, since those members of the homosexual population who are catholic priests represent only a tiny tiny fraction of that population.
You are focusing on something that is completely irrelevant to the situation. No-one cares here if the priests were homosexual. We care about their actions, that is, the abuse of minors, AND more importantly, the cover-up. You for some weird reason are not focusing on those two issues. You are devoting your entire attention on the homosexuality of the priests.
You're sounding like other people I've talked to in the past. One took your stance on this very topic (the sex abuse scandal) and went to the extreme, saying that all gay men are only gay because they were raped as children, and that NAMBLA is a powerful lobby group within the RCC.

Speaking of lobby groups...so what? You do realise that the various positions of the RCC were all born out of political struggle, don't you? For example, the doctrine of the Trinity. That wasn't set church teaching until the end of the 4th century. As for the celibacy of priests, that wasn't mandated until 1139 - hell, from the gospels, there is a mention of the Apostle Peter having a wife.
If all of these teachings and commands are really so important to your god, how come they weren't part of your religion's dogma for the first thousand years?
If what you're afraid of is change in dogma, of admitting that dogma that you had lived with before is somehow wrong, don't be. The RCC has changed dogma many a time throughout it's history (ever hear of Vatican II?)

Festus · 10-02-2015 8:34pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Even if every catholic priest was homosexual and even if every catholic priest was an abuser, that still wouldn't justify your paranoia of homosexual people, since those members of the homosexual population who are catholic priests represent only a tiny tiny fraction of that population.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I do however have a problem with gays, priests or otherwise, who abuse children and minors.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

You are focusing on something that is completely irrelevant to the situation. No-one cares here if the priests were homosexual.

Of course not. You don't care if some gays abuse children and minors. You care if the abuse is carried out by a priest and ignore the fact that if the priest is gay and abuses boys because that doesn't suit the gay agenda.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

We care about their actions, that is, the abuse of minors, AND more importantly, the cover-up. You for some weird reason are not focusing on those two issues. You are devoting your entire attention on the homosexuality of the priests.

I don't care about the homosexuality of the priests. What I do care about is that they abused boys homosexually because they were gay. There is a difference.
I also care about the fact tht the majority of the abuse was homosexual and gay and liberal idiots running the world are still covering it up.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

You're sounding like other people I've talked to in the past. One took your stance on this very topic (the sex abuse scandal) and went to the extreme, saying that all gay men are only gay because they were raped as children, and that NAMBLA is a powerful lobby group within the RCC.

I am not saying that all gay men are rapists or that all gay men have a tendency towards pederasty. What I am saying it that the fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual and carried out by gay men is being ignored and glossed over - essentially covered up.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Speaking of lobby groups...so what? You do realise that the various positions of the RCC were all born out of political struggle, don't you? For example, the doctrine of the Trinity. That wasn't set church teaching until the end of the 4th century. As for the celibacy of priests, that wasn't mandated until 1139 - hell, from the gospels, there is a mention of the Apostle Peter having a wife.

none of these things are political.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

If all of these teachings and commands are really so important to your god, how come they weren't part of your religion's dogma for the first thousand years?
If what you're afraid of is change in dogma, of admitting that dogma that you had lived with before is somehow wrong, don't be. The RCC has changed dogma many a time throughout it's history (ever hear of Vatican II?)

Not afraid of any change in dogma

Delirium · 10-02-2015 8:37pm

@Festus what is the difference between a homosexual and a gay person? you clearly see a distinction, so I'm curious as to what that is.

RikuoAmero · 10-02-2015 8:43pm

I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I do however have a problem with gays, priests or otherwise, who abuse children and minors.

The fact that you focus on the gays in that second sentence puts the lie to the first sentence. Why is it you didn't write "I do however have a problem with priests who abuse children and minors"? Why put the word gay in there, if you don't have a problem with them? The way you worded it implies strongly that you really only get into a huff if its gay people who abuse children, but won't get as ticked off if it were hetero people doing the crime.

none of these things are political.

There were struggles of opinion between rival camps in the early RCC, with some groups disappearing, such as the Arianist camp.

Not afraid of any change in dogma

Then why is it you have a problem with the divorce lobby group within the RCC and the other lobby groups you mentioned?

shruikan2553 · 10-02-2015 8:51pm

Festus, I'm assuming you arent a member of the RCC?

Festus · 10-02-2015 8:53pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

The fact that you focus on the gays in that second sentence puts the lie to the first sentence. Why is it you didn't write "I do however have a problem with priests who abuse children and minors"? Why put the word gay in there, if you don't have a problem with them? The way you worded it implies strongly that you really only get into a huff if its gay people who abuse children, but won't get as ticked off if it were hetero people doing the crime.

The reason I qualify the abuse is because you and everyone else who wants to attack the Catholic Church are ignoring the fact that the majority of the abuse was carried out by gay priests on teenage boys.

I get more than ticked off by all abuse of children and minors but in this case I am getting ticked off because the gay lobby doesn't want the fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual put in the spotlight and people like you are evidence of their success.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Then why is it you have a problem with the divorce lobby group within the RCC and the other lobby groups you mentioned?

You do know the Churches teachings on divorce don't you.

RikuoAmero · 10-02-2015 9:00pm

The reason I qualify the abuse is because you and everyone else who wants to attack the Catholic Church are ignoring the fact that the majority of the abuse was carried out by gay priests on teenage boys.

Again...even if true, so what? What makes the abuse by male priests of male children somehow worse or meriting of greater concern than the rape of a child of any gender by a person of any gender? Why is the gender and sexuality of the abuser and victims so interesting to you?

You do know the Churches teachings on divorce don't you.

Obviously. What does that have to do with my question, and your worry about these lobby groups?

Festus · 10-02-2015 9:03pm

SW wrote: »

That is not evidence that the "gay agenda" supports the abuse of minors as you have claimed. Care to provide evidence to your claim?

Already did. The reports all record that the majority of the sexual abuse was homosexual.

SW wrote: »

So it was the abusers, and the subsequent cover up by the relgious groups, and not homosexuality that was the problem.

I never said homosexuality was the problem. The problem was active homosexuals who abused minors. The fact that gay and gay friendly elements within the Church facilitated and protected them made the problem worse.
Now the problem is that the fact that the abuse was carried out by gays is being covered up.

SW wrote: »

No. It's that people don't agree with your anti-homosexual stance that it was homosexuality that was the problem rather than the actual abuse and cover up.

I never said that homosexuality was the problem.

SW wrote: »

If we change what you said as follow:

we can see just how silly it is.

yes, because the majority of the abuse wasn't heterosexual, it was homosexual.

SW wrote: »

Why do homosexuals have to answer for the actions of child abusers?

Never said they did. However the Gay lobby and their liberal friends do have to take responsibility for not letting the truth of the abuse and the fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual be known or discussed.

Festus · 10-02-2015 9:04pm

SW wrote: »

@Festus what is the difference between a homosexual and a gay person? you clearly see a distinction, so I'm curious as to what that is.

answered that in 3638

Basically homosexuality is an erotic attraction to members of the same sex. As in heterosexuality not all homosexuals act on their impulses and indulge in sexual activity.
Gays are homosexuals who do act on their sexual impulses and indulge in sexual activity with members of the same sex.
Not all homosexuals are gay. All gays are homosexual.

RikuoAmero · 10-02-2015 9:07pm

Festus wrote: »

answered that in 3638

By gay I mean homosexuals who are fully in support of the gay sexual lifestyle as opposed to homosexuals who deal with their desires in a Christian manner. While all gays are homosexual not all homosexuals are gay.

I can only presume that by "christian manner", since you are RCC, that you mean not acting at all on their sexual orientation. Accepting when told that their sexual orientation is somehow "sinful" while that of others is not.

Festus · 10-02-2015 9:12pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Accepting when told that their sexual orientation is somehow "sinful" while that of others is not.

Who says their sexual orientation is sinful ?

RikuoAmero · 10-02-2015 9:15pm

Festus wrote: »

Who says their sexual orientation is sinful ?

Are you serious? Before you point it out, I know that the RCC teaches NOW that it is "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil, but not as sinful". That wasn't always what it taught. How can something be a moral evil...but not sinful? Aren't the two supposed to be one and the same?

Festus · 10-02-2015 9:23pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Are you serious? Before you point it out, I know that the RCC teaches NOW that it is "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil, but not as sinful". That wasn't always what it taught. How can something be a moral evil...but not sinful? Aren't the two supposed to be one and the same?

What the Church teaches now is what is important.

I am not going to discuss a piece of a sentence taken out of context.

Delirium · 10-02-2015 9:27pm

Festus wrote: »

Already did. The reports all record that the majority of the sexual abuse was homosexual.

That isn't proof of a gay conspiracy. you need to establish that the priests are homosexual, and that they all conspired to join the priesthood to molest minors. Once you find such evidence, I suggest passing it on to the relevant authorities.

I never said homosexuality was the problem. The problem was active homosexuals who abused minors. The fact that gay and gay friendly elements within the Church facilitated and protected them made the problem worse.
Now the problem is that the fact that the abuse was carried out by gays is being covered up.

there you go again.... "active homosexuals" is not the correct term for those who abuse minors. The term is child abuser/ sex offender.

The abuse was covered up by the church because priests were doing the abusing rather than because of what sexuality a priest was.

I never said that homosexuality was the problem.

And yet you only just said that "active homosexuals" abused children and that gay and gay friendly members of the church facilitated a cover up.

yes, because the majority of the abuse wasn't heterosexual, it was homosexual.

the point was that if the priests were heterosexual, their sexuality wouldn't be an issue for you. that means you clearly have a problem with homosexuality.

Never said they did. However the Gay lobby do have to take responsibility for not letting the truth of the abuse and the fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual be known.

do you have evidence of this gay lobby actively suppressing information of the crimes? Information that the church concealed from the authorities?

Festus wrote: »

answered that in 3638
...
Basically homosexuality is an erotic attraction to members of the same sex. As in heterosexuality not all homosexuals act on their impulses and indulge in sexual activity.
Gays are homosexuals who do act on their sexual impulses and indulge in sexual activity with members of the same sex.
Not all homosexuals are gay. All gays are homosexual.

wrong. gay man = homosexual man.

RikuoAmero · 10-02-2015 10:15pm

What the Church teaches now is what is important.

Because what it teaches NOW surely cannot be wrong, surely MUST be what God wants. Just ignore those times in the past where it taught differently, such as not mandating celibacy for priests until the 1100s.

Festus · 10-02-2015 11:07pm

SW wrote: »

there you go again.... "active homosexuals" is not the correct term for those who abuse minors. The term is child abuser/ sex offender.

While a homosexual child abuser is a child abuser why isn't a homosexual who abuses minors homosexually a homosexual child abuser?

SW wrote: »

The abuse was covered up by the church because priests were doing the abusing rather than because of what sexuality a priest was.

I disgree, as well you know.

SW wrote: »

And yet you only just said that "active homosexuals" abused children and that gay and gay friendly members of the church facilitated a cover up.

Homosexuality itself was not the cause of the abuse it was the willingness of the homosexuals to abuse.

SW wrote: »

the point was that if the priests were heterosexual, their sexuality wouldn't be an issue for you. that means you clearly have a problem with homosexuality.

I have a problem with the fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual and that is not being acknowledged or examined. Perhaps the fact that homosexuals abused more than heterosexuals says something about homosexuality that should be investigated more thoroughly.

SW wrote: »

do you have evidence of this gay lobby actively suppressing information of the crimes? Information that the church concealed from the authorities?

that information has been suppressed by the gay lobby

SW wrote: »

wrong. gay man = homosexual man.

You asked me to explain the distinction I am using as there is a distinction between homosexuals who are openly gay and sexually active and homosexuals who are not sexually active. It is a distinction that was explained to me by a homosexual and it makes sense. Not all homosexuals want to be identified with a sexually active homosexuals or with gay socio-political organisations that openly openly anti-catholic or anti-Christ.

eviltwin · 10-02-2015 11:12pm

Someone who abuses children is a paedophile. Let's get away from the sexuality issue. It's got nothing to do with being attracted to members of the same or opposite sex, it's about being attracted to CHILDREN.

Festus · 10-02-2015 11:13pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Someone who abuses children is a paedophile. Let's get away from the sexuality issue. It's got nothing to do with being attracted to members of the same or opposite sex, it's about being attracted to CHILDREN.

the abuse wasn't paedophilic. The abuse was carried out on post pubescent boys and teenagers. That's pederasty

shruikan2553 · 10-02-2015 11:18pm

Festus wrote: »

While a homosexual child abuser is a child abuser why isn't a homosexual who abuses minors homosexually a homosexual child abuser?

I disgree, as well you know.

Homosexuality itself was not the cause of the abuse it was the willingness of the homosexuals to abuse.

I have a problem with the fact that the majority of the abuse was homosexual and that is not being acknowledged or examined. Perhaps the fact that homosexuals abused more than heterosexuals says something about homosexuality that should be investigated more thoroughly.

that information has been suppressed by the gay lobby

You asked me to explain the distinction I am using as there is a distinction between homosexuals who are openly gay and sexually active and homosexuals who are not sexually active. It is a distinction that was explained to me by a homosexual and it makes sense. Not all homosexuals want to be identified with a sexually active homosexuals or with gay socio-political organisations that openly openly anti-catholic or anti-Christ.

If the church has been taken over by the gay lobby why arent they in full support in treating gay people as equals?

If you are a Catholic why do you support homosexual child abusers who took over? Surely you would leave if it happened?

eviltwin · 10-02-2015 11:20pm

Festus wrote: »

the abuse wasn't paedophilic. The abuse was carried out on post pubescent boys and teenagers. That's pederasty

Not in all cases and it's splitting hairs, having forced sexual contact with a minor is abuse and is not something the majority of people gay or straight do.

RikuoAmero · 10-02-2015 11:45pm

Perhaps the fact that homosexuals abused more than heterosexuals says something about homosexuality that should be investigated more thoroughly.

Okay, hands up. Who else besides me knew that eventually the discussion would head in this direction?

Really Festus? You're going down this whole "I'm suspicious of homosexuality" route, because of the church scandals? What about thousands of years of heterosexual abuse of children? (just so I'm clear, in that sentence, I don't mean just the RCC, I mean throughout all of human history) Why are you not suspicious of heterosexual people?

Festus · 11-02-2015 12:06am

eviltwin wrote: »

Not in all cases and it's splitting hairs, having forced sexual contact with a minor is abuse and is not something the majority of people gay or straight do.

The difference between pedophilia - attraction to pre-pubescent sexually immature children, toddlers and babies, and the abuse that actually occured involving sexually maturing minors and teenages is marked. It is not splitting hairs and to say so is insulting to all victims of abuse regardless of the age at which it occurs or who perpetrated it.

Significant damage occurs and in the case of teenagers it is not without reason to suspect that the nature of the abuse can have significant effects on their later sexual orientation, and capacity to themselves become abusers. Not to clearly identify the nature of the abuse or to misrepresent it as mere abuse or pedophila when it clearly was not does further injustice to the victims of abuse.

While it is true that the majority of homosexuals and heterosexuals do not engage in abuse the fact that the majority of the abuse that occured in the Church was homosexual and carried out on teenage boys is pertinent and should not be dismissed.

eviltwin · 11-02-2015 12:14am

Festus wrote: »

The difference between pedophilia - attraction to pre-pubescent sexually immature children, toddlers and babies, and the abuse that actually occured involving sexually maturing minors and teenages is marked. It is not splitting hairs and to say so is insulting to all victims of abuse regardless of the age at which it occurs or who perpetrated it.

Significant damage occurs and in the case of teenagers it is not without reason to suspect that the nature of the abuse can have significant effects on their later sexual orientation, and capacity to themselves become abusers. Not to clearly identify the nature of the abuse or to misrepresent it as mere abuse or pedophila when it clearly was not does further injustice to the victims of abuse.

While it is true that the majority of homosexuals and heterosexuals do not engage in abuse the fact that the majority of the abuse that occured in the Church was homosexual and carried out on teenage boys is pertinent and should not be dismissed.

Oh would you stop. Age is irrelevant. Abuse isn't easier to cope with the younger/older you are. Forced sexual contact is a traumatic experience at any age. As said already abuse happened to boys because of the ease of availability of boys. Priests rarely came into contact with girls. Overall most child abuse victims are female. I'm actually disgusted as someone who was subjected to clerical sex abuse that you would use a national scandal to further your anti gay agenda. You should be ashamed.

Festus · 11-02-2015 12:18am

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, hands up. Who else besides me knew that eventually the discussion would head in this direction?

Really Festus? You're going down this whole "I'm suspicious of homosexuality" route, because of the church scandals? What about thousands of years of heterosexual abuse of children? (just so I'm clear, in that sentence, I don't mean just the RCC, I mean throughout all of human history) Why are you not suspicious of heterosexual people?

Why do you think I am not suspicious of heterosexual people? Given the number of heterosexual males abused by homosexuals in this country it would be silly not to. Who knows what kind of psychological psychosexual damage gets done to a heterosexual teenager when an adult male abuses them.

marienbad · 11-02-2015 12:27am

Festus wrote: »

Why do you think I am not suspicious of heterosexual people? Given the number of heterosexual males abused by homosexuals in this country it would be silly not to. Who knows what kind of psychological psychosexual damage gets done to a heterosexual teenager when an adult male abuses them.

This gets more bizarre with every post. You really do have an obsession about gay people .

Festus · 11-02-2015 12:28am

eviltwin wrote: »

Oh would you stop. Age is irrelevant.

age is relevant to the perpetrator. why is it not relevant to the discussion?

eviltwin wrote: »

Abuse isn't easier to cope with the younger/older you are. Forced sexual contact is a traumatic experience at any age.

I agree

eviltwin wrote: »

As said already abuse happened to boys because of the ease of availability of boys. Priests rarely came into contact with girls.

Availability had nothing to do with it. Heterosexual abusers don't abuse members of the same sex .

eviltwin wrote: »

Overall most child abuse victims are female.

In the cases of clerical child abuse the majority of the victims were teenage males. Read the reports.

Festus · 11-02-2015 12:31am

marienbad wrote: »

This gets more bizarre with every post. You really do have an obsession about gay people .

Not obessed with gay people but with getting the truth of the abuse scandal acknowledged and recognised based on the facts.

Would you not agree that the outcomes for a heterosexual teenage boy sexually abused by an adult woman would likely be different than for a heterosexual boy sexually abused by an adult male?

eviltwin · 11-02-2015 12:32am

Festus wrote: »

age is relevant to the perpetrator. why is it not relevant to the discussion?

I agree

Availability had nothing to do with it. Heterosexual abusers don't abuse members of the same sex .

In the cases of clerical child abuse the majority of the victims were teenage males. Read the reports.

In general child sex abuse victims are usually female and abused by a heterosexual man, usually a family member. Are you equally suspicious of fathers of young girls? Many girls were also sexually abused by priests, although the numbers are not as great as boys they are also victims and should not be forgotten but I guess they don't matter as they don't fit in with your agenda.

Festus · 11-02-2015 12:37am

eviltwin wrote: »

In general child sex abuse victims are usually female and abused by a heterosexual man, usually a family member.

So why are the numbers so skewed in the case of clerical sexual abuse?
and if as you say most abuse is heterosexual why was so much of the clerical abuse homosexual?

Perhaps not looking for answers to those questions fits your agenda better.

shruikan2553 · 11-02-2015 12:39am

Festus wrote: »

So why are the numbers so skewed in the case of clerical sexual abuse?
and if as you say most abuse is heterosexual why was so much of the clerical abuse homosexual?

Perhaps not looking for answers to those questions fits your agenda better.

Maybe it was space Nazis living on the moon.

marienbad · 11-02-2015 12:40am

Festus wrote: »

So why are the numbers so skewed in the case of clerical sexual abuse?
and if as you say most abuse is heterosexual why was so much of the clerical abuse homosexual?

Perhaps not looking for answers to those questions fits your agenda better.

Availability , and heterosexual men don't abuse boys -paedophiles do.

eviltwin · 11-02-2015 12:45am

Festus wrote: »

So why are the numbers so skewed in the case of clerical sexual abuse?
and if as you say most abuse is heterosexual why was so much of the clerical abuse homosexual?

Perhaps not looking for answers to those questions fits your agenda better.

First point is availability. It was a lot easier for a priest to get access to young boys back then. Paedophiles are careful and cunning, they protect themselves first and foremost and avoid drawing attention to themselves. They won't take unnecessary risks so if they have the choice between abusing a boy, especially one who is in state care and therefore doesn't have a family looking out for him, versus finding a girl they'll pick the boy most times. It's the safer option. A lot of paedophiles don't have a gender preference, many abuse both boys and girls depending on what is easier.

shruikan2553 · 11-02-2015 12:48am

Then theres this:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01542377

Costs money but the abstract says:

A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male.

It was probably made by the gay lobby who took over the Vatican though.

Festus · 11-02-2015 12:49am

marienbad wrote: »

Availability , and heterosexual men don't abuse boys -paedophiles do.

Pedophiles don't abuse post pubescent teenage minors, they abuse babies and toddlers, so the abuse was not pedophilic in nature according to the reports. Pedophiles do not find sexually mature or maturing minors sexually attractive. To keep peddling this lie is insulting to the victims and your own intelligence.

If heterosexual men don't abuse boys then you have negated your own argument on availability as The availability of boys does not make homosexuals out of heterosexuals.

eviltwin · 11-02-2015 12:53am

Festus wrote: »

Pedophiles don't abuse post pubescent teenage minors, they abuse babies and toddlers, so the abuse was not pedophilic in nature according to the reports. Pedophiles do not find sexually mature or maturing minors sexually attractive. To keep peddling this lie is insulting to the victims and your own intelligence.

If heterosexual men don't abuse boys then you have negated your own argument on availability as The availability of boys does not make homosexuals out of heterosexuals.

Are you denying young children were abused now?

marienbad · 11-02-2015 12:55am

Festus wrote: »

Pedophiles don't abuse post pubescent teenage minors, they abuse babies and toddlers, so the abuse was not pedophilic in nature according to the reports. Pedophiles do not find sexually mature or maturing minors sexually attractive. To keep peddling this lie is insulting to the victims and your own intelligence.

If heterosexual men don't abuse boys then you have negated your own argument on availability as The availability of boys does not make homosexuals out of heterosexuals.

This is just fantastical rubbish . No point in having a discussion with an obsessive .

RikuoAmero · 11-02-2015 9:32am

Festus wrote: »

Why do you think I am not suspicious of heterosexual people? Given the number of heterosexual males abused by homosexuals in this country it would be silly not to. Who knows what kind of psychological psychosexual damage gets done to a heterosexual teenager when an adult male abuses them.

To answer your question: it's because you are simply OBSESSED in this discussion with the topic of homosexuality. You've barely acknowledged the existence of heterosexuality.
You've looked at the reports, seen that apparently that in these scandals it was men abusing boys and for some reason, instead of looking for sound cogent reasons (such as the fact that these abusive men had far greater access to boys than girls, so chose boys as the easier target), you've launched into what I quite clearly call a fantasy of a conspiracy of a pro-gay lobby within the church and of eventually voicing a suspicion of homosexuality as a sexual orientation itself...
After all, look at what I've just quoted from you. You're worried about the number of hetero males abused by homosexual males.
Your writing style doesn't say anything at all about gender neutral abuse "I'm worried about the damage inflicted to kids by their abusers". No, you write about "the damage done to a heterosexual teenager when an adult male" (again, your anti-gay bias is shown there because that has a very strong implication that you don't care at all about the damage caused to an already homosexual teenager by an adult male, or that you don't worry at all about sexual abuse of children by women)

tommy2bad · 11-02-2015 11:07am

Festus wrote: »

Pedophiles don't abuse post pubescent teenage minors, they abuse babies and toddlers, so the abuse was not pedophilic in nature according to the reports. Pedophiles do not find sexually mature or maturing minors sexually attractive. To keep peddling this lie is insulting to the victims and your own intelligence.

If heterosexual men don't abuse boys then you have negated your own argument on availability as The availability of boys does not make homosexuals out of heterosexuals.

What's your point? Is this some kind of sideways attack on the age of content? What has puberty to do with it? We, in this society classified people as children until they are 18, so this was child abuse. If it was only 13 to 18 year olds who were abused then you might have a case but children as young as 4 and 5 were abused.
The church has been aware of this since the middle ages, probably long before then and it's reaction was not to protect the children but to protect itself. Blame the gay agenda, blame liberalism all you like but the fault is clearly with the institute that put it's own interests above it's stated mission.

MrPudding · 12-02-2015 3:13pm

Festus wrote: »

The issue here is with gays in the Church.

You will need to take that up with the gay priests who where involved and the gay friendly members of the hierarchy who assisted them.

I spotted a couple of typos in your post and fixed them for you. Your're welcome.

MrP

Festus · 12-02-2015 3:33pm

MrPudding wrote: »

I spotted a couple of typos in your post and fixed them for you. Your're welcome.

MrP

Your proof reading and editting could be better. I've corrected that for you

MrPudding wrote: »

The issue here is with some homosexuals in the Church.

You will need to take that up with the homosexual priests who were involved and gay frendly and liberal members of the hierarchy who assisted them.

aloyisious · 12-02-2015 5:28pm

On the lines of the clerical child abuse debate and links to paedophiles, has there been any mention of nuns sexually abusing girls of teen (and earlier) age in convents? Would such acts be seen as paedophile acts?

Festus · 12-02-2015 7:15pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Would such acts be seen as paedophile acts?

It cannot be seen as such of the victim is teenaged or post pubescent.

aloyisious · 12-02-2015 10:03pm

Festus wrote: »

It cannot be seen as such of the victim is teenaged or post pubescent.

So it'd be simple child abuse or even worse, rape.

RikuoAmero · 12-02-2015 10:05pm

I'm still wondering why Festus is so obsessed with whether or not it was homosexual child rape. Who cares? The important thing, the only thing that needs to be focused on is the abuse of minors by priests. Whether it was under 13 or just over 13 years doesn't matter, they're still minors, they were still abused. Why split hairs, Festus?

ScumLord · 13-02-2015 1:50pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I'm still wondering why Festus is so obsessed with whether or not it was homosexual child rape. Who cares?

Because by focusing his attentions on a gay conspiracy it focuses all his attention onto the gay priests who abused their power can he can avoid asking any real questions about the church and how it's run. We just have to ignore all the straight priests that have abused their power throughout the centuries and ignore the fact the church didn't seem to have enough of a problem with the gay agenda to excommunicate these "evil" men, instead they'd set them up with a fresh set of unsuspecting victims in a new location.

PopePalpatine · 19-03-2015 10:12am

Archbishop Philip Wilson from Australia has been charged with covering up clerical abuse.

Peregrinus · 19-03-2015 10:37am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Archbishop Philip Wilson from Australia has been charged with covering up clerical abuse.

For the record, I think Wilson has been charged under this section. The law in question doesn't deals specifically with sex abuse or child sexual abuse; it makes it an offence, in certain (fairly widely drawn) circumstances, to fail without reasonable excuse to report any serious indictable offence.

What I have linked to above is the current version of the legislation. It has been amended from time to time over the years, and the charge reportedly relates to things Wilson did (or, more accurately, failed to do) in the 1970s, so the law might have been stated in different terms them. I don't know this, though.

A wild guess says an awful lot is going to depend on the facts of the case - which we don't know yet - and on what is the extent of the "without reasonable excuse" get-out that the legislation provides. If it's shown that Wilson knew something and didn't report it, what reason will he give for not reporting it and will the courts think that was a "reasonable excuse"?

Interesting times. I doubt this one will be resolved quickly.

aloyisious · 20-03-2015 12:00am

Peregrinus wrote: »

For the record, I think Wilson has been charged under this section. The law in question doesn't deals specifically with sex abuse or child sexual abuse; it makes it an offence, in certain (fairly widely drawn) circumstances, to fail without reasonable excuse to report any serious indictable offence.

What I have linked to above is the current version of the legislation. It has been amended from time to time over the years, and the charge reportedly relates to things Wilson did (or, more accurately, failed to do) in the 1970s, so the law might have been stated in different terms them. I don't know this, though.

A wild guess says an awful lot is going to depend on the facts of the case - which we don't know yet - and on what is the extent of the "without reasonable excuse" get-out that the legislation provides. If it's shown that Wilson knew something and didn't report it, what reason will he give for not reporting it and will the courts think that was a "reasonable excuse"?

Interesting times. I doubt this one will be resolved quickly.

Possibly the court might take a plea "I heard about it in confessional situations and my mortal soul would be at risk if I divulged the admitted sins of the confessor outside the sacrament of confession" into consideration when summing-up is done. I don't know how far the Australian people/jury are prepared to go in giving that excuse a hearing now (noted Archbishop Hart's statement: "The presumption of innocence applies to Archbishop Wilson as it does to all citizens subject to criminal charges before the court. I urge people not to make any judgement until the charge against Archbishop Wilson has been dealt with by the court).

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Comments