Catholic Abuse Scandal was Primarily Homosexual

[exchemist]

Also bear in the mind that until recent years, altar servers were all boys, girls were not allowed. And they are most frequently in close proximity with priests, helping prep for Mass. So it's a question of availability of victims as well. But the far right will always ignore the full picture if it gives them an opportunity to bash gay people.

Indeed. @Viker 's reference to "prison sex" is highly relevant.

 

[KW]

In fact, interestingly, this report specifically contradicts the claim in the OP. I quote the relevant section of the summary:

Individual, Psychological Factors

• Less than 5 percent of the priests with allegations of abuse exhibited behavior consistent with a diagnosis of pedophilia (a psychiatric disorder that is character- ized by recurrent fantasies, urges, and behaviors about prepubescent children). Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as “pedophile priests.”

• Priests with allegations of sexually abusing minors are not significantly more likely than other priests to have personality or mood disorders.

• Sexual behavior in violation of the commitment to celibacy was reported by 80 percent of the priests who participated in residential psychological treatment, but most sexual behavior was with adults.

• The majority of priests who were given residential treatment following an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor also reported sexual behavior with adult partners.

• Those priests who had sexual relationships either before seminary or while in seminary were more likely to also have sexual relationships after ordination, but those relationships were most likely to be with adults. They were not significantly more likely to abuse minors.

• Priests who had same-sex sexual experiences either before seminary or in seminary were more likely to have sexual behavior after ordination, but this behavior was most likely with adults. These men were not significantly more likely to abuse minors.
  
• Priests who were sexually abused as minors themselves were more likely to abuse minors than those without a history of abuse.
• Priests who lacked close social bonds, and those whose family spoke negatively or not at all about sex, were more likely to sexually abuse minors than those who had a history of close social bonds and positive discus- sions about sexual behavior. In general, priests from the ordination cohorts of the 1940s and 1950s showed evidence of difficulty with intimacy.
  
  So, as some of us suspected, this Church Militant claim seems to have been a piece of made up disinformation in furtherance of an anti-homosexual agenda - and to lay a few red herrings across the path.

That in no ways undercuts the conclusion of Church Militant or the facts.

The victims were primarily teen boys. The perpetrators were homosexual in these cases.

 

[exchemist]

That is no ways undercuts the conclusion of Church Militant or the facts.

The victims were primarily teen boys. The perpetrators were homosexual in these cases.

The report explicitly says that priests with same-sex experiences were NOT more likely to be abusers than others.

Furthermore I refer you to @Viker 's shrewd comparison to prison sex. There are occasions when otherwise heterosexual men will resort to homosexual sex, through deprivation of any other outlet for their desires. This seems to be notoriously true of US prisons, as a matter of fact. Were you not aware of this?

 

[Viker]

That in no ways undercuts the conclusion of Church Militant or the facts.

The victims were primarily teen boys. The perpetrators were homosexual in these cases.

One can take facts and twist them to their advantage. Church Militant did that well. Most others who have no interest in sharing a confirmation bias will see things for what they are.

 

[Viker]

I'm going to scare many of you, now.


Homosexual acts do not always imply homosexuality. Run and hide if you wish, now.

 

[KW]

The report explicitly says that priests with same-sex experiences were NOT more likely to be abusers than others.

Furthermore I refer you to @Viker 's shrewd comparison to prison sex. There are occasions when otherwise heterosexual men will resort to homosexual sex, through deprivation of any other outlet for their desires. This seems to be notoriously true of US prisons, as a matter of fact. Were you not aware of this?

It says that over 70% of the victims were teen boys.

 

[Left Coast]

This is not about bashing gay people. It's about homosexuals abusing others.

Some gay people abuse others. Some straight people abuse others. Neither of those facts is relevant to the sexual orientation itself.

It is a long-standing homophobic trope to paint us as pedophiles. To make people afraid of us and paint us as some sort of predators who are dangerous to children or society at large. When the truth is we are just regular people who are not dangerous and just want what everyone else wants - love compassion, respect, understanding.

I am thankful that more and more people in society have moved past the ignorant myths about us and recognize us for the beautiful human beings we are, worthy of love and respect and equal rights.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The report concerns an audit year that runs from July 1, 2019 through June 30, 2020.
Suzanne Healey, chair of the National Review Board, said the audit identified 22 allegations of abuse occurring recently. In each case civil authorities were also notified of the allegation so that local law enforcement could address the problems as needed.

There's more to it than that. Most of the abuse was against children, and of those children mostly young boys. Two things to consider here:

1. Priests for a very long time had much easier access to boys than girls. Girls were only permitted to serve at the altar in 1994, and much of the abuse history is before that time.
2. Boys, being children, tend to be more androgynous than grown men. Even in prison, and aboard ship, horny straight men preferred younger, hairless male targets to those who more resembled themselves.

For that reason, I think quite a lot (certainly not all!) was less homosexual than purely child sexual abuse.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think there was an effort by some progressive gays to infiltrate and use the Church for their own agenda.

These same groups attack Church doctrine in other areas as well.

Worse comes to worse, you can always fall back on conspiracy theories...

 

[KW]

Some gay people abuse others. Some straight people abuse others. Neither of those facts is relevant to the sexual orientation itself.

It is a long-standing homophobic trope to paint us as pedophiles. To make people afraid of us and paint us as some sort of predators who are dangerous to children or society at large. When the truth is we are just regular people who are not dangerous and just want what everyone else wants - love compassion, respect, understanding.

I am thankful that more and more people in society have moved past the ignorant myths about us and recognize us for the beautiful human beings we are, worthy of love and respect and equal rights.

Most of the abuse was not pedophilia.

 

[pearl]

• So, as some of us suspected, this Church Militant claim seems to have been a piece of made up disinformation in furtherance of an anti-homosexual agenda - and to lay a few red herrings across the path.

I totally agree.

 

[KW]

There's more to it than that. Most of the abuse was against children, and of those children mostly young boys. Two things to consider here:

1. Priests for a very long time had much easier access to boys than girls. Girls were only permitted to serve at the altar in 1994, and much of the abuse history is before that time.
2. Boys, being children, tend to be more androgynous than grown men. Even in prison, and aboard ship, horny straight men preferred younger, hairless male targets to those who more resembled themselves.

For that reason, I think quite a lot (certainly not all!) was less homosexual than purely child sexual abuse.

No, most of the abuse was teen boys.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm going to scare many of you, now.


Homosexual acts do not always imply homosexuality. Run and hide if you wish, now.

 

[Left Coast]

Most of the abuse was not pedophilia.

Pederasty is still child abuse, not "homosexuality." And again, the situation has a lot to do with other environmental factors in the Catholic Church: altar servers were previously all boys, priesthood is an all-male profession and thus anyone wanting to become a priest and spending more time around priests for training or counseling will be boys, priests are sometimes sexually repressed by their vow of celibacy, etc.

None of that is an excuse for painting this situation as being about gay people broadly speaking. Again, we are not dangerous to children or society. We are just normal people.

 

[pearl]

There are occasions when otherwise heterosexual men will resort to homosexual sex,

True, of any artificial environment, but that does not represent true homosexuality, but heterosexual perversion.

 

[Viker]

No, most of the abuse was teen boys.

Notice a word you used? Abuse? Sexual abuse or rape can happen to anyone from anyone. Many of the institutions made rape to easy for men to rape the preferred acolytes or progeny in these organizations, boys. Looks homosexual from the outside but it's rape. Rape is rape is rape. Most rapes in the world are done by men against girls. Does this mean that heterosexuality is to blame or is it abuse of authority to blame?

 

[KW]

Pederasty is still child abuse, not "homosexuality." And again, the situation has a lot to do with other environmental factors in the Catholic Church: altar servers were previously all boys, priesthood is an all-male profession and thus anyone wanting to become a priest and spending more time around priests for training or counseling will be boys, priests are sometimes sexually repressed by their vow of celibacy, etc.

None of that is an excuse for painting this situation as being about gay people broadly speaking. Again, we are not dangerous to children or society. We are just normal people.

Ignoring the fact that 80% of the abuse was homosexual is worse.

The reality is that those who don't accept Catholic teaching on sexual morality should not be priests.

 

[sayak83]

It says that over 70% of the victims were teen boys.

Do you understand that heterosexual people under conditions of sexual deprivation have a significantly greater propensity to engage in same gender sex? That sex can be about showing power and dominance rather than attraction?
Most victims were make does not mean that most perpetrators were homosexual.

 

[KW]

Do you understand that heterosexual people under conditions of sexual deprivation have a significantly greater propensity to engage in same gender sex? That sex can be about showing power and dominance rather than attraction?
Most victims were make does not mean that most perpetrators were homosexual.

I understand that is a common excuse.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The National Review Board, recruiting a research team from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, released its initial report in 2004. The results were conclusive: This was not a "pedophile" scandal, but a homosexual scandal. Eighty percent of the alleged victims were male, and nearly 90 percent were post-pubescent, with "only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children."

I addition, almost all the abuse happened 20 years ago or more.

The Church has taken action to block actively gay men from becoming priests and instituted other safety measures which have virtually ended instances of abuse.

I understand your desire to defend the Roman Catholic Church since you are a Catholic yourself. As an ex-Christian myself, I know how important it is for Christians to staunchly defend their preferred Christian beliefs and Christianity as a whole. So, it stands to reason that you, as a devout Catholic, would want to ward off any objections and accusations against your church. However, you resorting to vicious name-calling ("leftists," "bigots," "bigots stick together," "bigoted hatred") not only tarnishes your staunch defense of your church, but it also tarnishes your personal reputation as a Christian. I think it would also help your defense of your church if you used an independent source to validate the report of the National Review Board since it was already reviewed and disputed by another member in post # 33. I think the adage, "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar," would work much better for you in convincing other people that what you wrote in your OP is the truth. I'm offering you some friendly advice. Take it or leave it.