[TSgt]

Who said anything about "consensual"?????

Okay, then why even use an argument that it was homosexual rape rather than pedophile rape?

I'll tell you why, because homosexual doesn't sound as bad as pedophile. It takes an unthinkable amount of evil to rape a child. The RCC knows this and doesn't want to go anywhere near the word pedophile though it accurately describes the abusers.

The most hardened criminals in the worst prisons can tell you the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile. And they aren't too kind to the latter...

[ArrogantBustard]

I'll tell you why,

Cut it out with the attempted mind reading. You have failed miserably at doing it.

Unlike some folks, who seem to desire only throwing nasty rhetoric at the Church, many of us actually want to SOLVE the problem.

This cannot be done unless it is properly identified.

Thing is, the problem has been properly identified: it's homosexuals assaulting young teenagers.

Solution: Comply with directives from the Vatican. DO NOT admit homosexuals to the priesthood or religious life.

You seem to be defending abusive homosexuals. It doesn't look good.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Okay, then why even use an argument that it was homosexual rape rather than pedophile rape? I'll tell you why, because homosexual doesn't sound as bad as pedophile."

Stop that. Just stop it, TSgt. Read this carefully: nobody here has excused or justified pedophilia or homosexual rape.

Each and every act of pedophilia AND every homosexual act with a minor AND every heterosexual act with a minor is morally wrong and legally criminal. News flash: we all agree on this: you, me, Campion, all the Catholics, everybody.

You have been unable to offer a single example of anyone here saying homosexual rape isn't as bad as pedophilia.

People are making a distinction between two kinds of crime, based on two classes of victims:

• children of both sexes under the age of puberty: these are victims of the crime of pedophilia; and
• boys over the age of puberty, but under the age of consent: these are victims of the crime of homosexual sexual abuse, e.g. statutory or forcible rape.

Both bad! Both abominable! Both criminal!

Why make a distinction?

Well, for one thing, the morally upright leadership of the Catholic Church (and the Boy Scouts, the LDS, and other churches and especially groups who work with youth), are convinced that people with a homosexual tendency or orientation should be completely excluded from leadership; and that any homosexual acts whatsoever are morally disordered.

Meanwhile, as you have surely noticed, there's a Gay Movement out there, more influential and politically powerful every day, that insists that gay sex is fine and groups which strive to exclude gays from leadership are discriminatory and kids should be encouraged to explore and affirm their sexuality.

That's moral insanity. And that's what we're fighting.

That's why it is essential for us to point out the fact that it's homosexual clergy who are responsible for the vast preponderance of the abuse.

Because we don't want homosexual clergy.

Because homosexual men should never have been ordained to begin with.

Because this whole stinking thing is a violation of Catholic sexual ethics.

Now do you see?