Prime Time last week. Parish Priest and Serial Abuser Walsh

AhSureTisGrand · 19-01-2011 08:16PM

Let's not forget either that much of the institutional abuse was non-sexual, or had sex as one aspect of many

Plowman · 19-01-2011 08:19PM

This post has been deleted.

Fanny Cradock · 19-01-2011 08:22PM

zoomtard wrote: »

Can I ask if anyone has considered a possible connection between the socio-economic deprivation in Ballyfermot at the time of these abuse cases (especially in terms of political or cultural influence of the average Catholic person in Ballyer) and the trend of putting what they used to call "troublesome" priests there?

That's an interesting suggestion.

ubertrad · 19-01-2011 08:23PM

efb wrote: »

So allowing for All perpetrators being male that puts homosexual abuse at 21%

Where are you getting 21% from?

efb · 19-01-2011 08:31PM

81% of 27%

georgieporgy · 19-01-2011 08:49PM

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

The point is you can't pin paedophilia on homosexuality. Yes of course there homosexuals who abuse children. There are gingers who abuse children too, but nobody tries to establish a link there

I wasn't really trying to establish that link. I am merely asking what is the sexual orientation of the abusers.

For example, take a 40 year old man who abuses a 7 year old girl, can we safely assume that his sexual orientation is homo? (yeah we know he is a paedophile also). No! you object- he is obviously heterosexual (and a deviant)

if the age of the female victim is 13, 15, 17.....do we say he may be homosexual? or in fact do we say he is obviously heterosexual?

Let me make it easy and jump to the conclusion; if all the perpetrators are adult males and 90-95% of the victims are male, it's a fair bet that the sexual orientation of the abusers is homo, albeit said abusers are criminal deviants. Not all homosexuals are abusers just like not all hetersexuals are abusers.

(what was the sexual orientation of Jeffrey Dahmer?)

StupidLikeAFox · 19-01-2011 09:14PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Let me make it easy and jump to the conclusion; if all the perpetrators are adult males and 90-95% of the victims are male, it's a fair bet that the sexual orientation of the abusers is homo[/SIZE]

I would put the reasons for those statistics being like that as-

1. The lack of physical intimacy with other people
2. The easy access priests had to young boys
3. The huge influence they had over the boys, which could be used to silence them

Im gonna go out on a limb and say that if priests were allowed to marry they wouldnt have had the same pent up sexual urges which were acted out on these kids.

ubertrad · 19-01-2011 09:19PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

if the age of the female victim is 13, 15, 17.....do we say he may be homosexual? or in fact do we say he is obviously heterosexual?

Let me make it easy and jump to the conclusion; if all the perpetrators are adult males and 90-95% of the victims are male, it's a fair bet that the sexual orientation of the abusers is homo, albeit said abusers are criminal deviants. Not all homosexuals are abusers just like not all hetersexuals are abusers.
[/SIZE]

I can see the sense in what you are saying.

The truth is not politically correct. Many heterosexual sports coaches get into big trouble because of natural attraction to their young teenage charges. I'm not condoning it, to be sure - it is an abuse of a position of trust and so on and is damaging to the victim. But does that mean that sports coach is a pedo? I think not. Yet he will probably find himself labelled as such.

efb · 19-01-2011 09:19PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

I wasn't really trying to establish that link. I am merely asking what is the sexual orientation of the abusers.

For example, take a 40 year old man who abuses a 7 year old girl, can we safely assume that his sexual orientation is homo? (yeah we know he is a paedophile also). No! you object- he is obviously heterosexual (and a deviant)

if the age of the female victim is 13, 15, 17.....do we say he may be homosexual? or in fact do we say he is obviously heterosexual?

Let me make it easy and jump to the conclusion; if all the perpetrators are adult males and 90-95% of the victims are male, it's a fair bet that the sexual orientation of the abusers is homo, albeit said abusers are criminal deviants. Not all homosexuals are abusers just like not all hetersexuals are abusers.

(what was the sexual orientation of Jeffrey Dahmer?)

Georgie as detailed earlier it has to post pubescent to be considered homosexuality

ubertrad · 19-01-2011 09:22PM

ColHol wrote: »

Im gonna go out on a limb and say that if priests were allowed to marry they wouldnt have had the same pent up sexual urges which were acted out on these kids.

Watch it that branch is awful high up!

Check this:
http://www.reformation.com/

Bear in mind also most pedophilia happens in the family home.

efb wrote: »

Georgie as detailed earlier it has to post pubescent to be considered homosexuality

Puberty is not a discrete, one-time event. It's a process.

Zombrex · 20-01-2011 12:08PM

ubertrad wrote: »

Now we can see that 22% was authentic pedophilia, but the 11-14 and 15-17 age ranges, which made up the majority of the victims, well they were teenagers and what I would describe as young men. That is homosexual abuse, not pedophila.

No it isn't, it is hebephilia abuse.

After hebephilia you have ephebophilia (teenagers not yet adult men/women).

Homosexuality is a form of teleiophilia (adult attraction).

Both hebephilia and ephebophilia abuse can fall under the term child abuse, given that it is sexual contact with a minor.

I stress the "abuse" part. Simply having hebephilia attraction is not in of itself illegal. Acting on it is.

A priest having sex with a 12 year old boy is no more homosexual abuse than him having sex with a 12 year old girl is heterosexual abuse, and studies into paedophila abuse and hebephilia have given indication that in a lot of abusers there is no teleiophilia present (ie they don't have attraction to adult men or adult women at all)

Zombrex · 20-01-2011 12:12PM

ColHol wrote: »

Im gonna go out on a limb and say that if priests were allowed to marry they wouldnt have had the same pent up sexual urges which were acted out on these kids.

That is unlikely. Pedophilia or hebephilia tends to be the primary philia (sexual attraction) of the abuser. They tend (not always mind) not to have any adult sexual attraction preference.

This is why, as has been pointed out, you tend not to get a child abuser priest also found to regularly use prostitutes.

It would be probably inaccurate to say that priesthood causes this. A more plausible explanation would be those with such anti-social philia preferences attempt to hide out in the priesthood, where their lack of adult sexual relationships will not seem surprising and they have access to children.

MrPudding · 20-01-2011 05:16PM

Wicknight wrote: »

No it isn't, it is hebephilia abuse.

After hebephilia you have ephebophilia (teenagers not yet adult men/women).

Homosexuality is a form of teleiophilia (adult attraction).

Both hebephilia and ephebophilia abuse can fall under the term child abuse, given that it is sexual contact with a minor.

I stress the "abuse" part. Simply having hebephilia attraction is not in of itself illegal. Acting on it is.

A priest having sex with a 12 year old boy is no more homosexual abuse than him having sex with a 12 year old girl is heterosexual abuse, and studies into paedophila abuse and hebephilia have given indication that in a lot of abusers there is no teleiophilia present (ie they don't have attraction to adult men or adult women at all)

And lets not forget, whatever fancy title you may wish to give it, it is still rape and sexual assault.

MrP

Zombrex · 20-01-2011 05:40PM

MrPudding wrote: »

And lets not forget, whatever fancy title you may wish to give it, it is still rape and sexual assault.

MrP

Agreed.

The issue is that, in a sort of bizarre attempt at deflection, some in the Catholic community, even in the Vatican, have been attempting to link the sexual abuse of minors with homosexuality and then extend that link to the gradual acceptance of homosexuality in society.

It is like they are trying to say this isn't our fault, we warned people that homosexuality was bad the rest of you didn't listen and started to tolerate homosexuals and now look what happened.

If it wasn't so serious it would be high on hysterical.

I would point out this seems a very minor fringe response among Catholics. I know quite a few Catholic people and I've never met in person someone who expressed this view. It seems to confined largely to the Internet opinion-sphere.

Xizors Palace · 20-01-2011 07:01PM

Wicknight wrote: »

we warned people that homosexuality was bad the rest of you didn't listen and started to tolerate homosexuals and now look what happened.

I would point out this seems a very minor fringe response among Catholics. I know quite a few Catholic people and I've never met in person someone who expressed this view. It seems to confined largely to the Internet opinion-sphere.

The Catholic Church teaches that all sexual activity outside marriage between one man and one woman is gravely sinful.

The Catholic Church holds all other sexual activity to be disordered, whether that be homosexuality, general fornication, or sexual abuse. It's all sin.

Homosexuality is just one element on a sliding scale of sin. Your little summary above, in bold, is not far from the mark.

You won't find many everyday Catholics who share this view, but it is the truth. I've had this conversation with others, and they are so brainwashed about the normality and acceptance of homosexuality, that they just can't accept that there were some gay priests who abused youths. They just can't make the link - it is against the way they have been trained to think. The Catholics who hold the alternative view are either common sense straight-talking people (like my brother!) or Catholics formed in their faith and not afraid to challenge the prevailing culture (like myself and others).

This is not to say that all homosexuals are abusers, nor is it about scape-goating an entire group of people, just to say that most of the abuse was of a predatory homosexual nature. If that is the case, then the Church needs to look carefully at what happened in the Church and how to prevent it in future. I surmise that the Church knows more about humanity than any of us on boards.ie and therefore has a pretty good idea of what happened.

georgieporgy · 20-01-2011 07:57PM

would I be right in thinking that all these new phelia subgroups are the invention of the noble science of psychology?

I must confess I know very little about psychology ... and I intend to keep it that way. :pac:

efb · 20-01-2011 07:59PM

Ignorance is certainly bliss, it seems...

Zombrex · 21-01-2011 02:24AM

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The Catholic Church teaches that all sexual activity outside marriage between one man and one woman is gravely sinful.

It doesn't teach that homosexuals are more likely to abuse children though, and neither does the Bible.

Despite this that hasn't stopped some Catholics from attempting to divert attention away from the cover up of sexual abuse by priests and bishops in the church by attempting to make an unsupported link between homosexuality and the widening acceptance of homosexuality (a adult philia) and paedophilia and hebephilia abuse.

Is it a sin to be disingenuous and to mislead? If so perhaps the Catholic church should stop worrying so much about the sin of homosexuality and look at little closer to home.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

You won't find many everyday Catholics who share this view, but it is the truth.

What is the truth, that homosexuality is a sin or that homosexuals have a tendency to molest children?

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I've had this conversation with others, and they are so brainwashed about the normality and acceptance of homosexuality, that they just can't accept that there were some gay priests who abused youths. They just can't make the link - it is against the way they have been trained to think.

That is probably because the link relies on a inaccurate and overly simplistic notion of sexual attraction.

One of the disadvantages for the Catholic Church with the greater acceptance of homosexuality is that there is a much lesser acceptances of outdated and inaccurate notions of homosexuals. Excuses that perhaps would have been accepted 50 or so years ago no longer stand up.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

This is not to say that all homosexuals are abusers, nor is it about scape-goating an entire group of people, just to say that most of the abuse was of a predatory homosexual nature.

Most of the abuse happened to children younger than 17. Therefore it was not homosexual in nature. No more than if I had a strong sexual desire to abuse a 15 year old girl that would be "heterosexual" in nature.

You are correct when you say that pedophilia is often inaccurately used to classify sexual desire towards children in or completing puberty.

But then you use the same sort of inaccuracy when classifying sexual desire towards pubescent children is homosexuality. It is neither the property of heterosexual attraction nor homosexual attraction to desire sexual contact with children. This is why other classifications are used for such desires.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

If that is the case, then the Church needs to look carefully at what happened in the Church and how to prevent it in future.

The Church have always known how to prevent child abuse. They have simply chosen not to to save the individuals and the organisation embarrassment.

This fixation with blaming homosexuality is just another disingenuous attempt to deflect responsibility or to claim that what was happening could not have been anticipated or prevented, or that what was happening was sanctioned outside the Church as well so it is unfair to blame the Church.

Again I'm pretty sure there is a sin in there some where ....

Zombrex · 21-01-2011 02:32AM

georgieporgy wrote: »

would I be right in thinking that all these new phelia subgroups are the invention of the noble science of psychology?

I must confess I know very little about psychology ... and I intend to keep it that way. :pac:

They are an invention of psychiatry, and thus medical terms.

I confess I am not sure of the exact link between psychiatry and psychology, other than psychiatry being a medical profession and psychology being an academic one.

Xizors Palace · 21-01-2011 03:35AM

Wicknight wrote: »

They are an invention of psychiatry, and thus medical terms.

I confess I am not sure of the exact link between psychiatry and psychology, other than psychiatry being a medical profession and psychology being an academic one.

Psychology is for things have gone a bit wrong, whereas psychiatry is for when the **** hits the fan.

zoomtard · 21-01-2011 08:45AM

Wicknight wrote: »

They are an invention of psychiatry, and thus medical terms.

I confess I am not sure of the exact link between psychiatry and psychology, other than psychiatry being a medical profession and psychology being an academic one.

Here's the issue: they are makey upey terms by high flying academic eggheads Wicknight! Just this week I was at a doctor's office and he was talking to me about "aortas" and "Cholesterol". I just told him to shove it and his "manmade terms" invented by cynical secular Western science.

SonOfAdam · 21-01-2011 11:12AM

zoomtard wrote:

Here's the issue: they are makey upey terms by high flying academic eggheads Wicknight! Just this week I was at a doctor's office and he was talking to me about "aortas" and "Cholesterol". I just told him to shove it and his "manmade terms" invented by cynical secular Western science.

lol:)

Zombrex · 21-01-2011 12:26PM

zoomtard wrote: »

Here's the issue: they are makey upey terms by high flying academic eggheads Wicknight! Just this week I was at a doctor's office and he was talking to me about "aortas" and "Cholesterol". I just told him to shove it and his "manmade terms" invented by cynical secular Western science.

dang Communist!

georgieporgy · 22-01-2011 01:50PM

Wicknight wrote: »

They are an invention of psychiatry, and thus medical terms.

I confess I am not sure of the exact link between psychiatry and psychology, other than psychiatry being a medical profession and psychology being an academic one.

Thanks, I think I'm beginning to understand it now.

hebephelia and epebophilia (adult male sexual attraction towards another male at various ages between 11 and 17) are serious psychiatric disorders for which medical treatment is available/advised. If these desires are acted out on the youthful target they are considered serious crimes and deserve severe punishment by the state. such a person is commonly referred to as a sexual pervert.

teleiophilia (adult male attraction towards another male over age 18) also referred to as homosexual attraction, is something completely normal, healthy, cannot be changed (treated) as one is born that way. And if these desires are acted out it is legal and even considered good and loving. such a person is not referred to as a sexual pervert.

Have I got it right? Some of this terminology is new to me, and the pronounciation of some of the words takes some effort but I can see how it all makes sense in a funny sort of way.

Xizors Palace · 22-01-2011 03:37PM

georgieporgy wrote: »

Thanks, I think I'm beginning to understand it now.

hebephelia and epebophilia (adult male sexual attraction towards another male at various ages between 11 and 17) are serious psychiatric disorders for which medical treatment is available/advised. If these desires are acted out on the youthful target they are considered serious crimes and deserve severe punishment by the state. such a person is commonly referred to as a sexual pervert.

teleiophilia (adult male attraction towards another male over age 18) also referred to as homosexual attraction, is something completely normal, healthy, cannot be changed (treated) as one is born that way. And if these desires are acted out it is legal and even considered good and loving. such a person is not referred to as a sexual pervert.

Have I got it right? Some of this terminology is new to me, and the pronounciation of some of the words takes some effort but I can see how it all makes sense in a funny sort of way.

You got it right, your little article on the other hand...

teleiophilia sounds like a new phone company. :-) That commentary is putting a non-Christian, non-scientific spin on homosexuality.

Funny, I was just reading about this myself last night. The APA who produce the DSM do not recognise ephebophilia as a diagnosis.

The article I read basically made the point that we really should just see and call things as they are. A man attracted to young men (i.e. teenage boys) is a homosexual. We don't need to disguise it by giving it a new name just because we can't bring ourselves to name the problem for what it is.

"The John Jay report notes that the proportion of victims who were male increased in the 1960s and reached 86 percent in the '70s, remaining there through the 1980s. In a footnote, the NRB report responds to the frequent obscuring of the homosexual factor by reference to 'ephebophilia.' The authors write, 'The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (IV) does not recognize ephebophilia as a distinct disorder. Ephebophilia is thus not a disorder in the technical sense, but rather a newly coined descriptive term for homosexual attraction to adolescent males.'" [ibid]

The article is here:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/apr/10040104

El_Duderino 09 · 22-01-2011 04:52PM

"Now we can see that 22% was authentic pedophilia, but the 11-14 and 15-17 age ranges, which made up the majority of the victims, well they were teenagers and what I would describe as young men. That is homosexual abuse, not pedophila. Additionally, most of the abusers had not been abused as kids so don't fit the pedo profile of one having been abused oneself and going on to victimise others."

Greetings all.
The term Ephebophilia (according to wikipedia) refers to the sexual preference for mid to late adolescents generally 15-19 Specifically 14-19 in males.
Hebephilia refers to preference for prepubescents
pedophilia refers to sexual preference in minors below the age of consent.

According to wikipedia ephebophilia would not incorporate the 51% in the study you referenced. Even so, it is pedophilia if the children are below the age of concent.

Question for Ubertrad If a 40 year old lay man has sex with his neighbour's 13 year old daughter or son, what do you call it? Personally I say he is a pedophile in either case.
I dont mean to put words in your mouth but would you argue that if he has sex with the girl it is significantly different to having sex with the boy?

Xizors Palace · 22-01-2011 05:23PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

"Now we can see that 22% was authentic pedophilia, but the 11-14 and 15-17 age ranges, which made up the majority of the victims, well they were teenagers and what I would describe as young men. That is homosexual abuse, not pedophila. Additionally, most of the abusers had not been abused as kids so don't fit the pedo profile of one having been abused oneself and going on to victimise others."

Greetings all.
The term Ephebophilia (according to wikipedia) refers to the sexual preference for mid to late adolescents generally 15-19 Specifically 14-19 in males.
Hebephilia refers to preference for prepubescents
pedophilia refers to sexual preference in minors below the age of consent.

According to wikipedia ephebophilia would not incorporate the 51% in the study you referenced. Even so, it is pedophilia if the children are below the age of concent.

Question for Ubertrad If a 40 year old lay man has sex with his neighbour's 13 year old daughter or son, what do you call it? Personally I say he is a pedophile in either case.
I dont mean to put words in your mouth but would you argue that if he has sex with the girl it is significantly different to having sex with the boy?

The bits I've highlighted in bold I would term 'political pedophilia' - that is, it sexual abuse which it suits the prevailing norm to term pedophilia, because to do otherwise would challenge the societally accepted norm that homosexual is good, healthy, and normal. But there is a form of abuse called homosexual predation, which includes manipulation, seduction, initiation, and rape.

The truth is not politically correct, however. Additionally, people mature at different rates, and that in earlier times, it was quite acceptable for girls to marry at an age we would now consider unsuitable, so what was today's pedophile in previous times might have been quite acceptable, given that many girls are quite mature at an age which is below the legal age of consent.

Please note that I am not challenging the wisdom or need for a legal age of consent, nor questioning the need for the protection the law ought to provide the vulnerable and young.

I pose this question for you: if a man is attracted to a strapping young man aged 14 or 15, would you call that homosexuality or pedophilia?

El_Duderino 09 · 22-01-2011 06:02PM

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The bits I've highlighted in bold I would term 'political pedophilia' - that is, it sexual abuse which it suits the prevailing norm to term pedophilia, because to do otherwise would challenge the societally accepted norm that homosexual is good, healthy, and normal.

The truth is not politically correct, however. Additionally, people mature at different rates, and that in earlier times, it was quite acceptable for girls to marry at an age we would now consider unsuitable, so what was today's pedophile in previous times might have been quite acceptable, given that many girls are quite mature at an age which is below the legal age of consent.

Please note that I am not challenging the wisdom or need for a legal age of consent, nor questioning the need for the protection the law ought to provide the vulnerable and young.

I pose this question for you: if a man is attracted to a strapping young man, would you call that homosexuality or pedophilia?

Ah yes i see where you're coming from but in the case of abusing a minor of the opposite sex it is still termed pedophilia. where does that fit into the pro gay agenda you allude to? i agree that the idea of homosexuality being normal is the politically correct view, but not the normal view in our society. (i dont think sexuality can be good or bad, healthy or unhealthy between consenting adults. i dont see it as a moral issue)

i agree entirely with your second paragraph, once 'Political pedophilia' and conventions like slavery were acceptable now they are not and its probably better that way. do you agree?

Good question lets explore. i assume you mean acting on his attraction and by 'man' you mean under 20
assume the attracted man is 40 and the strapping fellow is 13, i really dont think its anything other than pedophilia. i say it in the spirit most people mean it and you call political pedophilia. i mean to say its wrong. luckily the law agrees.
if the young man is 18 its homosexuality as far as the law goes.
i concede that there could be a particularly innocent 20 year old with whom sex would be harmful and so, wrong, in all but law.
likewise there could be a 16 year old who is mature enough for sex not to cause harm but it is rightly illegal to protect the interests of most children.
there must also be provision for people of similar age engaging in normal experimentation
have i interpreted your question correctly?

Xizors Palace · 22-01-2011 06:14PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah yes i see where you're coming from but in the case of abusing a minor of the opposite sex it is still termed pedophilia. where does that fit into the pro gay agenda you allude to? i agree that the idea of homosexuality being normal is the politically correct view, but not the normal view in our society. (i dont think sexuality can be good or bad, healthy or unhealthy between consenting adults. i dont see it as a moral issue)

i agree entirely with your second paragraph, once 'Political pedophilia' and conventions like slavery were acceptable now they are not and its probably better that way. do you agree?

Good question lets explore. i assume you mean acting on his attraction and by 'man' you mean under 20
assume the attracted man is 40 and the strapping fellow is 13, i really dont think its anything other than pedophilia. i say it in the spirit most people mean it and you call political pedophilia. i mean to say its wrong. luckily the law agrees.
if the young man is 18 its homosexuality as far as the law goes.
i concede that there could be a particularly innocent 20 year old with whom sex would be harmful and so, wrong, in all but law.
likewise there could be a 16 year old who is mature enough for sex not to cause harm but it is rightly illegal to protect the interests of most children.

have i interpreted your question correctly?

So according to your way of thinking, if the boy is 15, it is pedophilia, but becomes homosexuality the next day when he turns 16 (UK age of consent) at 3pm?

And again, according to your thought, in Ireland, it is pedophilia if the boy is 16, but homosexuality three hours later when he turns 17? Is this what you mean to say?

I think we can fall into the trap of intellectualising a problem without actually addressing it. We seek to mask reality with fancy terms, whilst the dog in the street is perfectly aware of what happened. The dog in the street knows what the predominant problem was in the priesthood. Additionally, if it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

I suppose there are also conflicting moralities at play too. The orthodox Christian position would be that sex is only for marriage between one man and one woman. Once you depart from that, it gets murky.

Take Peter Tatchell. He is a gay activist who advocates for a lower age of consent. This means young people will be put at risk of predation. If a 40 year old preys upon a strapping 15 year old, that would still be wrong (despite what new UK legislation might say), and it would be homosexual predation, not pedophilia. Do you agree?

I say call a spade a spade. If an adult man is attracted to pre-pubescent kids, that's pedophilia. If he is attracted to adolescent males, that's homosexuality. Most of the abuse in America, as illustrated by the authoritative John Jay Report, was inflicted on adolescents; that is, young males becoming men, vulnerable as they were to the advances, manipulation, seduction, and rape of their abusers.

Within the gay movement itself, there are conflicting opinions about what is acceptable and what is not. I guess that is what happens when you stray from the straight and narrow path illuminated by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Perhaps if more priests had been paying attention to the Magisterium and to living their Christian faith, rather than satiating their perverse desires in the 'free love' way, we mightn't have ended up in the mess we are in.

That's really all I have to say about the matter, in a nutshell.

JimiTime · 22-01-2011 06:53PM

Xizors Palace wrote: »

What if the boy is 15? It is pedophilia, but becomes homosexuality the next day when he turns 16 (UK age of consent) at 3pm?

No. Paedophilia is being sexually attracted to pre pubescent children. Sex with a 15 year old may be illegal, but its certainly not paedophilia.

Prime Time last week. Parish Priest and Serial Abuser Walsh

Comments