Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Options
1…118119121123124…131

Comments

  • Options
    #3602
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Festus, just so there's no confusion here...are you saying as per here


    that in your view, there was no cover-up by the RCC of child sex abuse cases? If so...wow. Talk about being wilfully blind. I seem to remember government inquiries into this! Ever hear of the Ryan Commission?

    Mods, I don't mind if this gets moved, I just want Festus to say plainly what he means.

    I didn't say there wasn't a cover up. What I said was the cover up was conducted by gay and gay friendly priests and bishops. Do gays not look out for each other?


  • Options
    #3603
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote: »
    I didn't say there wasn't a cover up. What I said was the cover up was conducted by gay and gay friendly priests and bishops. Do gays not look out for each other?

    Can you just stop digging that hole you're in for longer than five minutes? You've already been reported, by myself and others, for your homophobic language, and here you are again, continuing it.
    No, gays "don't look out for each other". What, you think a majority of LGBTs are part of a conspiracy of some sort, rubbing each other's backs? I'm bisexual, and I don't look out for someone purely because they're gay. I assess the situation and act on the best evidence.
    As for the priests and bishops covering up for each other...when was it established that the only ones involved in the cover-up were homosexual? Where's your evidence?
    What about Cardinal Brady? In 2008, he criticised government proposals to recognise cohabiting and same sex couples. I wouldn't call that gay friendly...yet as a mere father, he did nothing to stop Brendan Smyth from abusing children. In fact, he made things worse, by allowing Smyth to continue.


  • Options
    #3604
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    I didn't say there wasn't a cover up. What I said was the cover up was conducted by gay and gay friendly priests and bishops. Do gays not look out for each other?

    Are you being serious?

    I'd be under what you label "gay friendly" but you can be certain that I would never conceal knowledge of child abuse from the authorities, and am insulted by the implication to the contrary.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #3605
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    SW wrote: »
    Are you being serious?

    I'd be under what you label "gay friendly" but you can be certain that I would never conceal knowledge of child abuse from the authorities, and am insulted by the implication to the contrary.

    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.


  • Options
    #3606
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Can you just stop digging that hole you're in for longer than five minutes? You've already been reported, by myself and others, for your homophobic language, and here you are again, continuing it.
    No, gays "don't look out for each other". What, you think a majority of LGBTs are part of a conspiracy of some sort, rubbing each other's backs? I'm bisexual, and I don't look out for someone purely because they're gay. I assess the situation and act on the best evidence.
    As for the priests and bishops covering up for each other...when was it established that the only ones involved in the cover-up were homosexual? Where's your evidence?
    What about Cardinal Brady? In 2008, he criticised government proposals to recognise cohabiting and same sex couples. I wouldn't call that gay friendly...yet as a mere father, he did nothing to stop Brendan Smyth from abusing children. In fact, he made things worse, by allowing Smyth to continue.

    Stating facts is not homophobia.

    It is a fact that gay priests abused teenage boys. That is not a homophobic statement.

    It is a fact that when abuse was uncovered the Church did not do the right thing and the fact that many in the hierarchy were and are gay and gay friendly has implications in the actions the Church took. That is not homophobia.

    Your use of inflammatory language when I am stating the facts is only showing you up as intolerant and narrow minded.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3607
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote: »
    Stating facts is not homophobia.

    It is a fact that gay priests abused teenage boys. That is not a homophobic statement.

    It is a fact that when abuse was uncovered the Church did not do the right thing and the fact that many in the hierarchy were and are gay and gay friendly has implications in the actions the Church took. That is not homophobia.

    Your use of inflammatory language when I am stating the facts is only showing you up as intolerant and narrow minded.

    ...I asked for evidence. Where is it? All I see is something about gay priests having implications on actions taken by the church. Where is your evidence that it was gay priests and gay friendly priests only who were involved? Why are you looking for and seeing apparent this homosexual conspiracy?


  • Options
    #3608
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    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 sorry, but you're quite wrong.

    It was not gay priests in the church that werre the problem, unless you can prove that all gay priests have sexually assaulted children as well as proving that no heterosexual priests abused children.

    so could you please stop suggesting that gay = child abuser.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #3609
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Festus wrote: »
    that's inflammatory
    How so?


    that's an inflammatory unfounded sweeping generalization
    It's not inflammatory, it's a logical conclusion from your assertion that the Catholic church is full of gay men, abusing and covering up each others crimes. That would take decades of infiltration at every level of the organisation.


    that's continuing the debate with unfounded assertions despite warnings from the mod that this is not the place for this discussion
    I'm continuing the debate based on your assertions and I thought it was accepted as fact by both the public, the law and the church itself that there were cover ups.
    SW wrote: »
    Number of posts regarding child abuse moved to appropriate thread.
    This forum must be constant mod work. :D


  • Options
    #3610
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    SW wrote: »
    It was not gay priests in the church that werre the problem, unless you can prove that all gay priests have sexually assaulted children as well as proving that no heterosexual priests abused children.
    Hetrosexual men wouldn't be abusing children, but the same goes for homosexual men. It's someone with pedophilia that will abuse children for sexual gratification, there's the physical abuse, which has barely been touched on since the sexual scandal kicked off, but priests and teachers back then used to physically beat the crap out of children. But I'd guess we can leave that one for another day.

    I'm sure hetrosexual priests would have been abusing their position of power to bed women for as long as the church has been around. To think of the power the clergy had in the past it's not surprising there was so much abuse of power.


  • Options
    #3611
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    ScumLord wrote: »

    It's not inflammatory, it's a logical conclusion from your assertion that the Catholic church is full of gay men, abusing and covering up each others crimes. That would take decades of infiltration at every level of the organisation.

    I did not assert that the Church is full of gay men. I said there are gay men in the Church and some in the past abused teenage boys. It may even be still going on today in some part of the world.

    Yes it was an infiltration - no argument with that. Some gay men with certain tendecies saw an opportunity in the Church just as child abusers do in the teaching profession, police force, social services etc. etc.

    ScumLord wrote: »
    I'm continuing the debate based on your assertions and I thought it was accepted as fact by both the public, the law and the church itself that there were cover ups.

    This forum must be constant mod work. :D

    What you and the public are denying is that the abuse was homosexual and carried out by gay priests when all the evidence that the abuse was carried out by homosexual priests on teenage boys is there in all the reports.

    Are you that scared of the gay lobby ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3612
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    I did not assert that the Church is full of gay men. I said there are gay men in the Church and some in the past abused teenage boys. It may even be still going on today in some part of the world.

    Yes it was an infiltration - no argument with that. Some gay men with certain tendecies saw an opportunity in the Church just as child abusers do in the teaching profession, police force, social services etc. etc.

    What you and the public are denying is that the abuse was homosexual and carried out by gay priests when all the evidence that the abuse was carried out by homosexual priests on teenage boys is there in all the reports.

    Are you that scared of the gay lobby ?

    why is it that they're homosexual if in the church, but child abusers elsewhere?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #3613
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    SW wrote: »
    I sorry, but you're quite wrong.

    It was not gay priests in the church that werre the problem, unless you can prove that all gay priests have sexually assaulted children as well as proving that no heterosexual priests abused children.

    The majority of the abuse was on teenage boys by adult males. That is homosexual.

    I'm not saying that all gay priests were the problem. What I am saying is that the gay priests who abused boys were the problem
    SW wrote: »
    so could you please stop suggesting that gay = child abuser.

    I'm not and I accept that not all gay men are attracted to teenagers. What I am saying is that if a gay man abuses a teenage boy then that gay man is a child abuser.

    What I don't like now is how the gay lobby is trying to cover up this abuse by calling it pedophilia when it clearly wasn't and not allowing people to state the facts which make it clear that the majority of the abuse was homosexual and carried out by gay priests.


  • Options
    #3614
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    SW wrote: »
    why is it that they're homosexual if in the church, but child abusers elsewhere?


    I am not saying that.

    If a gay man abuses a teenager he is a child abuser no matter where he is.


  • Options
    #3615
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Hetrosexual men wouldn't be abusing children, but the same goes for homosexual men. It's someone with pedophilia that will abuse children for sexual gratification, there's the physical abuse, which has barely been touched on since the sexual scandal kicked off, but priests and teachers back then used to physically beat the crap out of children. But I'd guess we can leave that one for another day.

    I'm sure hetrosexual priests would have been abusing their position of power to bed women for as long as the church has been around. To think of the power the clergy had in the past it's not surprising there was so much abuse of power.

    There was little or no pedophile abuse - There was some heterosexual abuse of teenage girls but the vast majority of the abuse was pederasty - adult males on teenage boys. This is what the reports state.

    You can keep covering up this homosexual abuse all you like but I will keep stating the facts.

    Some gay priests in the Church abused teenage boys. Fact.
    More gay priests abused boys than straight priests abused girls. Fact.


  • Options
    #3616
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote: »
    There was little or no pedophile abuse - There was some heterosexual abuse of teenage girls but the vast majority of the abuse was pederasty - adult males on teenage boys. This is what the reports state.

    You can keep covering up this homosexual abuse all you like but I will keep stating the facts.

    Some gay priests in the Church abused teenage boys. Fact.
    More gay priests abused boys than straight priests abused girls. Fact.

    Let's get back on track. This whole kerfuffle with you started when someone else (I can't remember who) listed off a whole list of things the RCC was responsible for in the past, and in your response, you tried to downplay the RCC's responsibility by somehow trying to focus on the homosexuality of the priests.

    Let's for the sake of argument, grant that. Let's say it was only homosexual priests, or a vast majority of the abuse was by homosexual priests. So what? What does that do to the original argument by that other person showing a whole litany of abuses that the RCC has done? Whether the priests were genuinely homosexual or not is beside the point - the fact remains that they abused minors (people under 18) both physically and sexually for decades, that this activity was covered up and that abusive members of the priesthood were moved around rather than letting them be exposed and involve the church in scandal.


  • Options
    #3617
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    I am not saying that.

    If a gay man abuses a teenager he is a child abuser no matter where he is.
    you kinda are because you're putting the focus on homosexuality rather than the priests having easier access to children/teens compared to the rest of the general population.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #3618
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Festus wrote: »
    Yes it was an infiltration - no argument with that. Some gay men with certain tendecies saw an opportunity in the Church just as child abusers do in the teaching profession, police force, social services etc. etc.
    An infiltration assumes that these men colluded to enter the church with the intention of abusing young boys because they were gay. If they were to enact their plan by 1960 they would have had to enter the priesthood much sooner so they were in positions of power by the time the abuses started so they could cover it up. It would probably take two lifetimes to set up such a cartel within the church. Maybe it just happened by accident but it's as likely to have happened over the course of hundreds of years meaning there could have been gay men directing the church through most of it's formative years.


    I think it's much more likely that the once you're in the church you're in the church, and they would have covered up any wrong doings carried out by any priest or nun, whether that's, beating children, sexualy abusing young boys, young men, young girls, adult women, other priests. I think they would have done just about anything to protect the reputation of the church even if that meant hiding an abuser away and allowing them to continue abusing their power just doing it in a less high profile place.


    I think that's a problem systemic in the church and is not confined to a gay community within the priesthood.



    What you and the public are denying is that the abuse was homosexual and carried out by gay priests when all the evidence that the abuse was carried out by homosexual priests on teenage boys is there in all the reports.
    You keep saying that but I don't really see any proof. Maybe there where gay men preying on young boys in the same way you get men preying on young women. Because they know those people are more susceptible to being taken advantage of. It may not be full blown peadophilia but it's trying to take advantage of people that can't fight back. It's not the same as a man or woman falling in love with an equal because they get along with each other.
    Festus wrote: »
    More gay priests abused boys than straight priests abused girls. Fact.
    I don't believe that for a second.

    You can't keep spouting your opinion as fact.


  • Options
    #3619
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    SW wrote: »
    you kinda are because you're putting the focus on homosexuality rather than the priests having easier access to children/teens compared to the rest of the general population.

    I'm putting the focus on homosexuality because that is what the issue was, and with gay and gay friendly clergy in the hierarchy still is.

    It wasn't that their access was easier it was that they had access to teenagers and the majority of the abuse was by homosexual priests on teenage boys.


  • Options
    #3620
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    ScumLord wrote: »
    You can't keep spouting your opinion as fact.

    I'm not spouting opinion. The facts are in the reports.


  • Options
    #3621
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    I'm putting the focus on homosexuality because that is what the issue was, and with gay and gay friendly clergy in the hierarchy still is.

    It wasn't that their access was easier it was that they had access to teenagers and the majority of the abuse was by homosexual priests on teenage boys.

    That's just wrong. Homosexuals are quite capable (just like the rest of the population) of not sexually assaulting children/minors. So it clearly isn't homosexuality that is the issue.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3622
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote: »
    I'm putting the focus on homosexuality because that is what the issue was, and with gay and gay friendly clergy in the hierarchy still is.

    It wasn't that their access was easier it was that they had access to teenagers and the majority of the abuse was by homosexual priests on teenage boys.

    Can you back up that "majority of victims were teenage post-pubescent boys" you keep mentioning? Where's your evidence?
    I know Wikipedia isn't the greatest of sources but it does have this
    The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of allegations, investigations, trials and convictions of child sexual abuse crimes committed by Catholic priests, nuns and members of Roman Catholic orders against boys and girls as young as three years old, with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

    Again, it doesn't matter if the priests were genuinely homosexual, unless you're trying to paint a picture of only homosexual child sex abuse having occurred throughout the church's history. Are you attempting to say that heterosexual child sex abuse didn't occurr?


  • Options
    #3623
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Festus wrote: »
    I'm putting the focus on homosexuality because that is what the issue was, and with gay and gay friendly clergy in the hierarchy still is.
    So we can draw the line at, the gays did it? Nothing more to see here, them damn gays at it again everything else is fine?
    It wasn't that their access was easier it was that they had access to teenagers and the majority of the abuse was by homosexual priests on teenage boys.
    You keep saying that but no one believes you, show some statistics from a reputable source.

    So do you think that societies more relaxed attitude to homosexuality has allowed gay men to leave the church and pick up men at gay bars instead? Would that be a good thing?

    It was pretty ballsy of them to see the church, the most vocal opponent of homosexuality as the perfect institution for them to infiltrate for access for easy access to abuse victims.


  • Options
    #3624
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    SW wrote: »
    That's just wrong. Homosexuals are quite capable (just like the rest of the population) of not sexually assaulting children/minors. So it clearly isn't homosexuality that is the issue.

    you only have to be capable of not doing something if you already have an interest in doing it.
    If you have no interest then the capacity to not do it is redundant.

    The issue is as the facts say it is and the facts state that the majority of the abuse was homosexual and carried out by homosexual \ gay priests on teenage boys.
    While you might be of the opinion that homosexuality isn't the issue the facts say otherwise.


  • Options
    #3625
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote: »
    you only have to be capable of not doing something if you already have an interest in doing it.
    If you have no interest then the capacity to not do it is redundant.

    The issue is as the facts say it is and the facts state that the majority of the abuse was homosexual and carried out by homosexual \ gay priests on teenage boys.
    While you might be of the opinion that homosexuality isn't the issue the facts say otherwise.

    For the nth time, the homosexuality isn't the issue. Even if what you state as fact is true (again, EVIDENCE please!), the problem isn't that there are/were homosexual priests in large numbers. The problem is the abuse that was done by them. Why do you focus so strongly on that? Does this "fact" of yours somehow excuse the RCC from responsibility?
    I couldn't care less whether the priests were homo or hetero. That doesn't do anything at all to change that they abused children.


  • Options
    #3626
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,713 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    you only have to be capable of not doing something if you already have an interest in doing it.
    If you have no interest then the capacity to not do it is redundant.
    Well then you've just argued against homosexuality being the issue as it
    The issue is as the facts say it is and the facts state that the majority of the abuse was homosexual and carried out by homosexual \ gay priests on teenage boys.

    While you might be of the opinion that homosexuality isn't the issue the facts say otherwise.
    The facts do nothing of the sort. I haven't seen any studies/evidence to show that any homosexual with access to children/teens will ultimately abuse the minors.

    Do you have any evidence to show otherwise?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #3627
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    ScumLord wrote: »
    You keep saying that but no one believes you, show some statistics from a reputable source.

    like I said it's all in the reports

    http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/
    ScumLord wrote: »
    It was pretty ballsy of them to see the church, the most vocal opponent of homosexuality as the perfect institution for them to infiltrate for access for easy access to abuse victims.

    The Gay lobby has been after the Church for a long time.


  • Options
    #3628
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    SW wrote: »
    Well then you've just argued against homosexuality being the issue as it

    I never said homosexuality was the issue. I believe I referred to the abusers as homosexuals because they targeted teenage boys and abused them homosexually. The issue was homosexual abusers.
    SW wrote: »
    The facts do nothing of the sort. I haven't seen any studies/evidence to show that any homosexual with access to children/teens will ultimately abuse the minors.

    That isn't the point. The point is that the abuse in the Church was primarliy homosexual and teenagers were targeted.

    Anyone who states otherwise or tries to make out it was pedophilia is covering up the homosexual abuse.
    SW wrote: »
    Do you have any evidence to show otherwise?

    Read the Ryan and Murphy reports,


  • Options
    #3629
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus wrote: »
    like I said it's all in the reports

    http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/



    The Gay lobby has been after the Church for a long time.

    Care to narrow it down? We're not reading through all that for something that is YOUR viewpoint. Burden of proof is on you - give us a more concise link, or a page number or a quote or something.
    As for the gay lobby - gee, I wonder why. Might have something to do with calling homosexuality a sin and campaigning heavily against it for years or something...


  • Options
    #3630
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    I found someone who writes better than I do.





    HOMOSEXUALITY AND SEXUAL ABUSE

    Source: Catalyst September Issue 2010, From The President's Desk




    The conventional wisdom maintains there is a pedophilia crisis in the Catholic Church. Popular as this position is, it is empirically wrong: the data show it has been a homosexual crisis all along. The evidence is not ambiguous, though there is a reluctance to let the data drive the conclusion. But that is a function of politics, not scholarship.
    Alfred Kinsey was the first to identify a correlation between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors. In 1948, he found that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. More recently, in organs such as the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the Journal of Sex Research, the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, and Pediatrics, it has been established that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among child molesters.
    Correlation is not causation; it is an association. So to say that there is a correlation between homosexual orientation and the sexual abuse of minors is not to say that being a homosexual makes one a molester. On the other hand, it makes no sense to pretend that there is no relationship between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of minors.
    Think of it this way. We know there is a correlation between being Irish and being an alcoholic, but that doesn’t mean all Irishmen are, or will become, alcoholics. But it does mean they have a special problem in this area.
    After the Boston Globe broke the story on priestly sexual abuse in 2002, the American bishops established an independent panel to study this issue. When the National Review Board released its findings in 2004, noted Washington attorney Robert S. Bennett, who headed the study, said, “There are no doubt many outstanding priests of a homosexual orientation who live chaste, celibate lives, but any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature.”
    Furthermore, the panel explicitly said that “we must call attention to the homosexual behavior that characterized the vast majority of the cases of abuse observed in recent decades.”
    One of those who served on the National Review Board, Dr. Paul McHugh, is former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins. He is on record saying, “This behavior was homosexual predation on American Catholic youth, yet it’s not being discussed.” More recently, the New York Times ran a story on Leslie Lothstein, another psychologist who has treated abusive priests. He concluded that “only a small minority were true pedophiles.”
    Roderick MacLeish Jr. was the Boston lawyer who pressed the case against the Archdiocese of Boston; he examined all the files on this subject. As reported by Michael Paulson in the Boston Globe, MacLeish concluded that “90 percent of the nearly 400 sexual abuse victims he has represented are boys, and three quarters of them are post-pubescent.” Once again, the issue is homosexuality, not pedophilia.
    Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons is a psychiatrist who has spent years treating sexually abusive priests. “Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia,” he said earlier this year. Instead, they have found a “relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.” Fitzgibbons goes further, saying, “Every priest whom I treated who was involved with children sexually had previously been involved in adult homosexual relationships.” Notice he didn’t saysome priests.
    Need more proof? When the John Jay College of Criminal Justice released its findings, the Boston Globe, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its investigation, commented that “more than three-quarters of the victims were post pubescent, meaning the abuse did not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia.” So if the definitive study, which covered the years 1950-2002, concludes that pedophilia was never the issue, why does elite opinion insist that there is a “pedophilia crisis” in the Catholic Church?
    If most of the damage was done by gay priests, it raises the question whether there would have been a scandal at all had homosexuals been barred from the priesthood. While the conclusion—no gays, no scandal—is simplistic, it nonetheless reveals more than it conceals. It is too simplistic because it does not take into account the fact that in the 1970s (at the height of the scandal), America was in the throes of a sexual revolution, one which touched every institution in society, including the Catholic Church; no matter what the composition of the priesthood, some problems were on the horizon given the cultural turbulence of this period.
    Having said as much, it should be obvious that if eight in ten of the molesters had never been allowed to become priests, the scandal as we know it would have been avoided.

    MOD EDIT: Link to source


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3631
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    I'm sorry but this just isn't going to cut it, a catholic website promoting catholic viewpoints and hysterias is going to promote the idea that the gays are satans stormtroopers, it's biased and untrustworthy.
    Festus wrote: »
    In 1948, he found that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.
    How many of these gay men would have been around the age of 17? did you even look up this Kinsey lad? He sounds like a bit of a sexual deviant himself. He appears to have been a repressed homosexual and his work has been discredited because he only spoke to one peadophile not the many he made out.


    Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons
    a mouthpiece for the Catholic church. He's promoting a catholic lifestyle not doing science.

    If most of the damage was done by gay priests,
    The damage was done by the church ignoring and allowing it to happen. Were the nuns that abused women in laundrys gay too?


Advertisement