Posted on 12/03/2005 4:05:47 PM PST by wagglebee
In last Wednesday's Page 1 story headlined "Rome is to Ban Gays as Priests," New York Times reporters Ian Fisher and Laurie Goldstein reported the following:
"Experts have noted that it is incorrect to equate pedophilia with homosexuality."
These Times writers do not mention the names or arguments of a single one of these "experts" – suggesting that classic definition of experts: "X the unknown quality, followed by 'spert' – a short drip."
Does the New York Times believe that this nation's largest and best-known pedophilia organization, the North American Man/Boy Love Association is comprised of heterosexuals?
Do these Times reporters have any evidence that the vast majority of Catholic priests whose sexual use of children or early adolescents cost the church so much in lawsuits and priestly imprisonment was due to heterosexual priests seducing or raping young girls?
The new Vatican document, officially published Tuesday, excludes from the Roman Catholic priesthood candidates "who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called 'gay culture.'"
Only candidates for the priesthood who experienced "transitory" homosexual tendencies that were "clearly overcome" at least three years before ordination as a deacon are to be allowed ordination.
The Times also reported – this part probably accurately: "Many conservatives called the document a necessary correction, saying the number of gay men in seminaries has deterred heterosexual men from applying."
But the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Most Rev. William Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., declared in his diocesan newspaper in October the following:
"There are many wonderful and excellent priests in the church who have a gay orientation, are chaste and celibate, and are very effective ministers of the Gospel. Witch hunts and gay-bashing have no place in the church."
But what about the Vatican document signed by Pope Benedict XVI that denies ordination to anyone who is "actively homosexual, has deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or supports the so-called 'gay culture'"?
Does Bishop Skylstad believe that this is either "witch-hunting" or "gay-bashing": And if not, why not?
Ping.
The Roman Catholic Church has noted a correlation of sufficient size that they are enabled to tell the "experts" to go jump in lake.
If you want on/off the ping list let me and little jeremiah know.
"Does the New York Times believe that this nation's largest and best-known pedophilia organization, the North American Man/Boy Love Association is comprised of heterosexuals?"
Actually, the homosexual lobby would absolutely have you believe this.
They dispute the data provided by Dr. Paul Cameron that showed homosexuals were 10X more likely to engage in pedophilia than heterosexuals. They dispute it because they say that just because a guy boinks a little boy does not make him homosexual.
Hello???
That's nice.
However, the victims have overwhelmingly been adolescent boys. That is not "pedophilia". That is Pederasty which, by definition, involves homosexual conduct.
Is this unnamed plurality of experts comprised of expert homosexual predators, expert supporters of homosexual predators or a combination of both?
-the MSM seems to ignore reality and choose delusion to support the delusional... The experts & the MSM are part of the problem.
The study results show overwhelming findings that objectively one must draw but only one legitimate conclusion -homosexual predation was the primary activity that the sexual abuse was evidenced...
Some argue that the homosexual acts were not homosexual because only children were physically or psychologically raped of their innocence -they have as yet no 'orientation' and or mature sexuality or that the subjective rainbow gender spectrum rather than the binary 'sex' is an appropriate sexual identifier (very similar to the abortion argument claiming a baby is but a lump of flesh)? Some argue that the homosexual acts were not done by homosexuals (as if homosexual activity that defines homosexuals somehow does not now define homosexuals)?
It is weird logic to ignore that which specifically differentiates those who suffer from the homosexual disorder that predisposes them to homosexual activity and or those that actually participate in the activity and argue that this has nothing to do with homosexuals and or homosexual activity?
Regardless the politically correct illogical argumentative gymnastics and contrived hoops that some may posit I jump through -I myself will remain standing on Terra firma --simply put, the discussion involves activity -the abuse a majority of which was homosexual -the study was objectively scientific -not subjectively politically correct -as such a homosexual act was categorized a homosexual act and same sex sexual activity was identified as such...
The homosexual disorder is objectively defined by a predisposition to the activity... Homosexual activity is objectively defined by the activity -not the cause -not the intent -not anything morally irrelevant... Homosexual activists may gnash their teeth all they want -the facts speak for themselves...
Some still choose to ignore the obvious -regardless, the ignorance and or denial in this area will be overcome in the Church -the only question is will secular society get a clue or will it continue with its head in the politically correct sands of moral relativism?
In summary, objectively as to the sexual abuse of children all that is known is the activity -objectively, the majority of activity was homosexual predation -period...
Small except:
The study produced some important findings about the nature of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.
- Unlike in the general population, more males than females were allegedly. In fact, there was a significant difference between genders, with four out of five alleged victims being male.
- The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.
- The allegations of sexual abuse involved a variety of sexual acts, and most of the priests involved were alleged to have committed multiple acts per victim. Indeed, much of the sexual abuse reported involved serious sexual offenses.
- According to the allegations of sexual abuse, the most frequent context of the sexual incidents occurred during a social event. Additionally, many of the priests with allegations of abuse socialized with the family of the alleged victim.
- The most common place of occurrence was the residence of the priest though incidents of abuse allegedly occurred in a wide variety of locations.
I note again clearly that this study confirms what other also not overly publicized or widely known or acknowledged studies have found -homosexual predation...
How about the cause and effect connection between homosexual sodomy and the worldwide AIDS problem, which is costing billions of dollars and millions of lives? Aren't homosexual sodomites the root cause of the problem? Why doesn't Congress hold hearings about this, as a public health issue? It's more important than drug use by baseball players.
I don't believe that it has ever been established that homosexuality had any concrete link to causing the HIV virus; however, they certainly contributed to it's spread.
Cardinal Cottier:There is a word that is never used and that, however, is important when we see the work that priests do; it is the word "ephebophilia."
It is not pedophilia, which is attraction to small boys, but refers to attraction to adolescents. It is a very ambiguous and decisive age for every one. And I think it is a very extended form of homosexuality.
This is just a dishonest attempt to play loose with the facts. They are correct, not every homosexual is a pedophile, thus it does not "equate", however there is a strong correlation between homosexuals and pedophilia..thus the use of the statement in the article is dishonest. Hum...NYT dishonest...who would have thunk? Just another example of agenda driven reporting.
Experts told the Church that pedophilia can be cured in their treatment centers but homosexuality can't. The Church sent the priests to their treatment centers so obviously the perverts involved in sex then had to be homosexuals. The Church has figured out the difference.
Pedophiles have no interest in sexually mature persons of either sex, even adolescents. There were some pedophiles too, to be sure, but the Church is justified in controlling homosexual contamination of the priesthood without bringing the pedophiles into the discussion at all.
Homosexual activists routinely employ the accurate observation that most child molesters are heterosexual.
True, and most people who ride bicycles, eat hamburgers, and watch TV are also heterosexuals...simply because about 97% of the human population is comprised of individuals who engage in normal heterosexual sexual activity.
In fact, about 70% of all child molesting cases involve adults whose adult relationships are heterosexual, while only 30 percent of child molestation cases involves adults whose adult (or molesting) sexual activity is same-sex.
Now let that sink in a second, and do the math...
Three percent of the population responsible for a dramatically disproportionate 30% of all child molesting cases, while 97% of the population is responsible for a disproportionately low 70% of all child molesting.
Meaning, as a matter of simple mathematics, that individuals who engage in same-sex behavior with other adults are multiple times more likely to commit acts of child molesting...in fact, it figures out to about, whaddaya know, 10x more likely per capita.
Betcha that Bishop Sklystad is gay. Any takers?? Ther SHOULD have been a witch hunt YEARS ago....all this crap wouldn't have happened!
"There are many wonderful and excellent priests in the church who have a gay orientation, are chaste and celibate, and are very effective ministers of the Gospel. Witch hunts and gay-bashing have no place in the church."
This man is not morally fit to work for Roto-Rooter, much less to be a priest.
I suppose he could be so ignorant as to believe what he says, which would make him a dupe rather than a liar, but I doubt it.
The whole reason that "witch hunts" are thought to be bad is that we presume that there are no witches. If there actually were witches, working evil through spells and such, then a witch hunt would be a perfectly rational and good thing to have.
The difference is that there actually are homosexuals using their position as faithless priests to gain access to the rectums of their young parishoners. To label attempts to rid ourselves of these predators "witch hunts" is dishonest in the extreme.
I will be helping out Little Jeremiah with this ping list for a few days.
AMEN!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.