The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Festus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.