Catholics Blame Gays for their Pedophile Problem

[tumbleweed41]

Pro-Choice implies the choice of all available options, abortion or carrying the fetus to term and then perhaps adoption.
Pro-Abortion implies one would encourage abortion.
Pro-Life implies one would encourage carrying the fetus to term, and then perhaps adoption.
Anti-Choice and Anti-Abortion implies no choice other than carrying the fetus to term would be available.

For instance, I would never take away a woman's choice of options, including abortion.(Pro-Choice)
On the other hand, I would be hard pressed to ever encourage abortion. (Pro-Abortion)

 

[AxisMundi]

Now isn't that odd. I followed your link (which was an article written in 2003), and according to it, Mrs. Alberta Martin of Elba, Alabama was the last surviving widow of a Confederate soldier. Mrs. Martin passed away in 2004 (according to Infoplease - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908934.html).

In a vain attempt to help you out, I also Googled up this story, about a lady named Maudie White Hopkins, who (sadly) passed away two years ago.

As a former "Civil War living historian", you seem to be misinformed on this issue. Perhaps you'd like to brush up on such claims. I know you wouldn't want to just make outrageous claims that were unsubstantiated.

What in the world was I thinking? I forgot that you don't care about your credibility, or what others think of it. I really must apologize for even bringing it up.

Stalking are we?

Didn't read my whole response, did we?

The link was an old one I had sitting in my favs folder.

I was unaware that Maudie Celia Hopkins passed away in '08, I've been absent from that community since '06.

 

[tumbleweed41]

As much as I would like to see child molesters brutally raped in prison, I could not in good conscience endorse such action.

 

[AxisMundi]

I feel you have all missed a very valid point, this point was stressed in no uncertain terms by the podcast four's podcast available on iTunes which illustrated where facts and fiction regarding homosexuality and the abuse of minors is discussed thoroughly and expertly!!

So how about a synopsis for those of us who don't have iTunes, or a link of some kind?

 

[McBell]

Bull whatever to some people, facts of knowledge to others.

Wrong again.
It is just plain bull ****.
period.
You wanting it to be fact, you presenting it as fact, you needing it to be fact does not make it fact.
Nope.
It remains a big steaming pile of bull ****.

You keep thinking that a person magically changes their mental position after they have been released from prison. Fairytales seem to suit you.

You either have me confused with someone else or you are trying to dictate to me what I think and believe.

Which is it?

 

[McBell]

I feel you have all missed a very valid point, this point was stressed in no uncertain terms by the podcast four's podcast available on iTunes which illustrated where facts and fiction regarding homosexuality and the abuse of minors is discussed thoroughly and expertly!!

I feel that you have not presented any point.
Instead you have merely referred to some anonymous podcast.

 

[footprints]

Pro-Choice implies the choice of all available options, abortion or carrying the fetus to term and then perhaps adoption.
Pro-Abortion implies one would encourage abortion.
Pro-Life implies one would encourage carrying the fetus to term, and then perhaps adoption.
Anti-Choice and Anti-Abortion implies no choice other than carrying the fetus to term would be available.

For instance, I would never take away a woman's choice of options, including abortion.(Pro-Choice)
On the other hand, I would be hard pressed to ever encourage abortion. (Pro-Abortion)

LOL people already had all the other options to choose from, the only one they didn't have was the option of abortion as a contraceptive, which is the option Pro-Choice people were fighting to include.

 

[Flow]

As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, the conservative Catholic Leauge placed a full-page ad in the New York Times on Tuesday that claimed that the sexual abuse scandal currently roiling the Catholic Church is a crisis of “homosexuality,” not “pedophilia.” On CNN yesterday, Catholic League President William Donohue defended the assertion by pointing to a study that found that “three out of every four” of the male victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests were “post-pubescent, meaning that it’s homosexuality driven.” “It’s not a matter of my opinion to say that this is a pedophilia crisis. It’s been a homosexual crisis all along,” said Donohue. He then asserted that “there’s a connection between homosexuality and sexual abuse of minors“:

SANCHEZ: Well, let me just stop you right there, because immediately as you say that, there are people watching this show, and I can hear them saying this, Bill Donohue, shame on you. Are you saying all gays are pedophiles?

DONOHUE: As I said in the ad, which I wrote, most gay priests are not molesters, but most of the molesters have been gay. And I also said, that there’s no such thing as a — that homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior.

Let me give you a quick example. I’m Irish. Everybody who has half a brain knows that the Irish have a bigger problem with alcoholism than the Italians or the Chinese, for example. Does that mean because you’re an Irishman, therefore, you are driven to become an alcoholic? Of course, not.

i guess this is proof that the Catholic Church cant take responsibility for its actions.

Once acceptance takes place, change can begin to occur.

 

[footprints]

Wrong again.
It is just plain bull ****.
period.
You wanting it to be fact, you presenting it as fact, you needing it to be fact does not make it fact.
Nope.
It remains a big steaming pile of bull ****.


You either have me confused with someone else or you are trying to dictate to me what I think and believe.

Which is it?

More fairytales from you.

Whether you like to admit facts of life or not, rape does occur in prisons. Whether you like to admit facts of life or not, people do not change the mentality they have in prison by some magical power, just because they are released.

 

[Autodidact]

So let's say the guy's right. It's a gay, gay, gay problem. So gay. All these gay priests doing gay things to boys. Apparently, when it's infiltrated by evil sinful gays, the Church suddenly becomes utterly incapable of regulating them, but instead for some reason has to give them opportunity and license to be as gay as possible with as many boys as possible for as long as possible, and also to do everything in its power to ensure that they are protected from being prosecuted or suffering any negative consequences whatsoever for their evil, sinful, gay actions. ?

 

[McBell]

More fairytales from you.

Nope.
Wrong yet again.
It is not fairy tales from me, it is strawman from you.

Whether you like to admit facts of life or not, rape does occur in prisons. Whether you like to admit facts of life or not, people do not change the mentality they have in prison by some magical power, just because they are released.

Why you would try to pin this strawman to me is rather amusing.
I never said anything about rape, in jail, out of jail, or otherwise.
I had thought perhaps you had me confused with someone else.
Still do actually.

Perhaps a recap is in order.....

. People who condone rape in goal or turn a blind eye to it, are responsible for the rapists next victim.

What a blatant load of steaming Bull ****.

Here I am talking about the condoning and turning a blind eye makes one responsible for the rapists next act.
That is pure bull ****.

Now how you were able to take that to mean that I condone rape is beyond me.
But that is your strawman, your fairytale, not mine.

 

[xkatz]

Wow. Apologetics at work.

As well as stupidity and incompetence. :yes:

 

[footprints]

So let's say the guy's right. It's a gay, gay, gay problem. So gay. All these gay priests doing gay things to boys. Apparently, when it's infiltrated by evil sinful gays, the Church suddenly becomes utterly incapable of regulating them, but instead for some reason has to give them opportunity and license to be as gay as possible with as many boys as possible for as long as possible, and also to do everything in its power to ensure that they are protected from being prosecuted or suffering any negative consequences whatsoever for their evil, sinful, gay actions. ?

When churches/religions become the only people in the world to try and hide their shame, then hypotheticals like that above may have some validity. When churches/religions become the only people in the world to blame others for their own wrongs, then hyypotheticals like that above may have some validity.

I cannot rationally nor logically say whether some clergy who have perpetrated these acts, have been gay by natural, sexual orientation. These facts, if they are known, are not released to the general public, well at least not to date, here in Australia. To say, one way or the other would be mere speculation from a persons own imagination.

What we know of human nature, celibacy isn't a normal attribute for a sexually, mature adult. It, in itself, defies nature.

Whether the perpetrators are homosexual, or heterosexual, has no bearing on the accountability they now must face.

 

[footprints]

Nope.
Wrong yet again.
It is not fairy tales from me, it is strawman from you.


Why you would try to pin this strawman to me is rather amusing.
I never said anything about rape, in jail, out of jail, or otherwise.
I had thought perhaps you had me confused with someone else.
Still do actually.

Perhaps a recap is in order.....


Here I am talking about the condoning and turning a blind eye makes one responsible for the rapists next act.
That is pure bull ****.

Now how you were able to take that to mean that I condone rape is beyond me.
But that is your strawman, your fairytale, not mine.

LOL your strawman arguement holds no validity with me. Only you as do the fairytales you keep as truth.

1: Rape and other sexual abuses are a fact of life in gaols.
2: A persons mentality doesn't magically change.
3: A person who overlooks or turns a blind eye to rape/sexual abuses, is just as guility as the perpetrator and without ensuring the practice is stopped and the perpetrator made known his/her actions are not deemed fit by normal society, they are in fact now responsible for the next victim, due to item 2 above. Which is of course, the position of many posters in this forum, as they hold the Church just as responsible for protecting the perpetrator, as they hold the perpetrator.

You build your argument on stawmen and fairytales. Denial of reality doesn't help you.

 

[footprints]

Nope........

Now how you were able to take that to mean that I condone rape is beyond me.
But that is your strawman, your fairytale, not mine.

A few more facts which your mind lives in instant denial of, or refuses to take into consideration.

a) The vast majority of inmates released from gaol, will be repeat offenders and will be back in gaol again. The simple reason for this, they were not rehabilitated in gaol before they were released, and were sent straight back to the environment which created the problem in the first instance.

b) The vast majority of inmates in gaol, learn how to do more wrongs in life, than they knew before they went into gaol. Gaol at this present point of time, could be considered an education system for how to commit crime. The reason being for this, the inmates are not rehabilitated, and of those that seek counselling, it has little effect, due to the overpowering voices of the maddening crowd (other inmates).

c) If people do not do something to help themselves, then only they are to blame for the end resultant. If people do not choose to have criminals rehabilitated properly in gaol, they deserve whatever comes out of them, for what is released is of their own creation.

d) Even sexual predators can be rehabilitated in many cases. Some of course are too far gone, to be rehabilitated, albeit we do have the knowledge to fix this problem, removing the amygdala is just one of the methods we could adopt. The person in question would never look at another human being sexually ever again.

Society and people in society are responsible for all the good, the bad and the ugly which exists in society. Adults will stand up and take responsibility and accountablity for their actions or inactions.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I wonder if a lot of these "pedophile" priests would be normal straight or gay men if they weren't priests and supposed to be celibate. After all, some straight men become homosexual in the woman-deprived environment of prison. Is it possible some otherwise normal straight/gay men become pedophiles in the adult sex-partner deprived environment of the priesthood?

The other question I have, is WHY has the Church been so tolerant of these actions and willing to cover them up? If a nun got pregnant and had an abortion, I imagine she would probably be kicked out of her order and disgraced. Yet a priest molests some boys, then does it again, then a third time, and it's all hush-hush.
Is it a "boys club" thing?
Are so many Catholic clergymen themselves pedophiles, that they are willing to cover for their fellow pedophiles?
Is it because there is such a shortage of priests, they want to save every one they can?
Or is it hushed up because they are afraid it will damage the reputation of the Church?

The other possibility is that it is part of their Christian belief in forgiveness of sinners .... the problem with that idea is, like I said, if a priest or nun had a consensual relationship with adults and broke their celibacy vows, wouldn't they be de-frocked, denied communion, excommunicated, etc.?

 

[Alceste]

I wonder if a lot of these "pedophile" priests would be normal straight or gay men if they weren't priests and supposed to be celibate. After all, some straight men become homosexual in the woman-deprived environment of prison. Is it possible some otherwise normal straight/gay men become pedophiles in the adult sex-partner deprived environment of the priesthood?

Hang on now, nobody is "becoming" gay because there aren't any members of the opposite sex around. Either the home team turns you on all the time, or it doesn't, all the time. Whether or not you publicly identify yourself as "gay" or "straight" has to do with the degree to which you're turned on. If you look at Brad Pitt in Fight Club and go "ew... man flesh, gross", you aren't gay, and you will not "turn" gay even if you are locked up in a cell with Brad Pitt for a hundred years. If, on the other hand, you watch Fight Club and go "Hmmm.... well maybe if we were locked in a cell together I would want to feel those pecs" I'm sorry to tell you you're just a little bit gay, even outside prison.

The other question I have, is WHY has the Church been so tolerant of these actions and willing to cover them up? If a nun got pregnant and had an abortion, I imagine she would probably be kicked out of her order and disgraced. Yet a priest molests some boys, then does it again, then a third time, and it's all hush-hush.
Is it a "boys club" thing?
Are so many Catholic clergymen themselves pedophiles, that they are willing to cover for their fellow pedophiles?
Is it because there is such a shortage of priests, they want to save every one they can?
Or is it hushed up because they are afraid it will damage the reputation of the Church?

The other possibility is that it is part of their Christian belief in forgiveness of sinners .... the problem with that idea is, like I said, if a priest or nun had a consensual relationship with adults and broke their celibacy vows, wouldn't they be de-frocked, denied communion, excommunicated, etc.?

I think you're right - concern for the reputation of the church and belief in repentance and forgiveness are the issues. I also think that if you exaggerate the "wrongness" of sexual expression in your own mind, you will inevitably find yourself committing acts you simply can't bear to publicly admit to. As with an individual, so with the Catholic Church in general. They didn't shelter child molesters because they approved of it, but because they couldn't bear the shame of it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hang on now, nobody is "becoming" gay because there aren't any members of the opposite sex around. Either the home team turns you on all the time, or it doesn't, all the time.

That seems like a good assumption and that's what I would have assumed, but the evidence seems to paint a more complicated and diverse reality. There do seem to be people who have a definite preference for the opposite sex but will resort to homosexuality (as the dominant partner) in a prison context. http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/images/Prison_Homosexuality_and_Its_Effect.pdf

And I note in passing that it is complicated in animals as well, male domestic cats for example will mount each other or accept being mounted out of sexual frustration from lack of access to females.

 

[Alceste]

That seems like a good assumption and that's what I would have assumed, but the evidence seems to paint a more complicated and diverse reality. There do seem to be people who have a definite preference for the opposite sex but will resort to homosexuality (as the dominant partner) in a prison context. http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/images/Prison_Homosexuality_and_Its_Effect.pdf

And I note in passing that it is complicated in animals as well, male domestic cats for example will mount each other or accept being mounted out of sexual frustration from lack of access to females.

A "definite preference" for chicks doesn't preclude a bit of an interest in dudes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A "definite preference" for chicks doesn't preclude a bit of an interest in dudes.

Maybe, but for some that bit of an interest in dudes is overpowered by a big interest in women under normal circumstances. I wonder if being in the priesthood has an effect on a person's sexuality or behavior as well?