Replies

Isn’t it nice that the Leftistsscum media picked the Holiest Week in the Catholic calendar to smear Catholics?

I can’t wait to read about the Muslim atrocities committed arornd the world during Ramadan

So keep kids away from teachers and priests; got it.

“A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse by Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford University and Santa Clara University states that ‘available research suggests that approximately 2 to 5% of priests have had a sexual experience with a minor’ which ‘is lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%.’”

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

This is the article I've been waiting for. He doesn't mention some things (like the Lavender Mafia) or the fact that sexual abuse has way tapered off, details like that. But the most important points are all there. The hatred of Catholicism is what is driving the current load, not hatred of sexual abuse of minors. Maybe a very few critics are sincere, but if they mention nothing except the Catholic Church, they're just Catholic haters IMO.

bttt

There are between one million and one and half million K-12 teachers in the U.S. and about 46,000 Catholic priests.

But in making comparisons of cases of abuse definitions of what constitutes abuse matter greatly. Here from one of the studies referred to in the article are some pertinent comments on what is called abuse in the study:

“POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE
Educator Sexual Misconduct:
A Synthesis of Existing LiteratureUsing the Ontario College of Teachers “Professional Advisory on
Professional Misconduct Related to Sexual Abuse and Sexual Misconduct” (2002,
p. 2) as a guide, educator sexual misconduct in this review is defined as any
“behavior of a sexual nature which may constitute professional misconduct.”
(p. 1). Included in this broad listing are several types of conduct including overt
and covert actions:
• Any conduct that would amount to sexual harassment under Title IX
of the (U.S.) Education Amendments of 1972.
• Any conduct that would amount to sexual abuse of a minor person
under state criminal codes.
• Any sexual relationship by an educator with a student, regardless of
the student’s age; with a former student under 18; with a former
student (regardless of age) who suffers from a disability that would
prevent consent in a relationship. All students enrolled in the school
and in any organization in which the educator holds a position of
trust and responsibility are included.
• Any activity directed toward establishing a sexual relationship such
as sending intimate letters; engaging in sexualized dialogue in
person, via the Internet, in writing or by phone; making suggestive
comments; dating a student....

3.1.1.1 AAUW data and Shakeshaft secondary analysis. This
analysis used data collected for American Association of University Women in Fall 2000
by Harris International. Eighth through 11th grade students in the sample responded to a
survey administered by trained interviewers during English classes. The survey asked
students about their experiences of various forms of sexual harassment or abuse in
school using the question below. Students responded to each of the 14 types of sexual
harassment listed below by selecting one of the following frequencies: “often,”
17
“occasionally,” “rarely,” “never,” or “don’t know.” The 14 stems were developed by an
advisory panel of experts in the field of sexual harassment and correspond to behaviors
that legally constitute sexual harassment, abuse, or misconduct. The question focuses
on experiences that occurred in school. The gating question asked students to respond
to each type of behavior, no matter who the abuser had been. Follow-up questions for
each of the behaviors identified the role of the abuser (student, teacher, other school
employee, etc.) and the place where the abuse occurred. The question asked students
was:
During your whole school life, how often, if at all, has anyone (this includes
students, teachers, other school employees, or anyone else) done the following
things to you when you did not want them to?
• Made sexual comments, jokes, gestures, or looks.
• Showed, gave or left you sexual pictures, photographs, illustrations,
messages, or notes.
• Wrote sexual messages/graffiti about you on bathroom walls, in locker
rooms, etc.
• Spread sexual rumors about you.
• Said you were gay or a lesbian.
• Spied on you as you dressed or showered at school.
• Flashed or “mooned” you.
• Touched, grabbed, or pinched you in a sexual way.
• Intentionally brushed up against you in a sexual way.
• Pulled at your clothing in a sexual way.
• Pulled off or down your clothing.
• Blocked your way or cornered you in a sexual way.
• Forced you to kiss him/her.
• Forced you to do something sexual, other than kissing.”

Blocking someones way is not the same as anally sodomizing a seven year old boy.

Nor is signing a teaching contract a vocation from God.

Good stuff.

There are problems in all institutions, but the attempt to dilute the problem in the Catholic priesthood doesn't help the argument.

Back in 2002, when the homosexual priest scandal broke over the levy, thousands cried and demanded that the church defrock and toss out homosexual priests.

The Catholic church failed to do so then, and it fails to do so today.

The Gay Priest Problem

This former priest told me that his gay clerical colleagues constantly taunted the straight priests in their diocese, telling them that they might as well get girlfriends, because nobody cared. In fact, said the former priest, this was true: the bishop was in their corner, and nobody would care at all. The former priest said the rigors of the celibate life were tough enough without having to deal with many of one's fellow priests making a mockery of it. This man told me every heterosexual in his ordination class eventually left the priesthood, demoralized.....Sipe, who is probably the expert on the sexual lives of Catholic clerics, told me that the seminary system is the problem. Many seminaries are run by corrupt gay clerics, he said (Fr. Doyle agreed). If a seminarian struggling with homosexuality and chastity is admitted, the attempt will quickly be made to corrupt him by getting him involved in sexual activity. If he falls, he's done for. Even if he repents and lives a blameless celibate life thenceforth, the network has something on him, and is willing to use it. He's been neutralized. Besides, the network takes care of its own. It's impossible to say for sure how many bishops are thus compromised.

As it turned out, I interviewed a woman who had worked for him closely in one of his previous assignments, and who had gone to him to report that one of his priests was engaged in some very perverse sexual acts in the church. The woman told me that Bishop X. did nothing about it, and even informed the malign cleric, who taunted the woman by saying, "He's not going to touch me. When you have them by the balls, their hearts follow." This priest eventually went to prison (I checked) for sexually abusing minors, and this bishop's career advanced to a plum see. Unless you've spent a lot of time talking to people who have dealt with this stuff personally, it's hard to believe this situation really exists. I interviewed a seminarian who had been studying in a religious order's seminary, but who left for a diocesan seminary because, he said, gay sex was open and rampant in the particular order seminary in which he was studying. He told his own parents about what he was dealing with, and they didn't believe him. They couldn't believe him: priests didn't do these sorts of things, as they saw it. I firmly believe that John Paul II was so dreadful on the scandal because he couldn't face the extent and degree of the corruption.

Fr. Cozzens was, and is, correct. And Fr. Shaughnessy, the Jesuit who identified the Catholic Church's inability to deal straightforwardly with the powerful gay subculture in its clerical ranks, is also correct about the broader institutional effect of this culture of denial. But I don't look for the Roman Catholic church, or other churches dealing with the issue in its clergy, to talk about this honestly, or at all, anytime soon. Too many people, gay and straight on all sides of the issue, inside the churches and outside, are too invested in keeping up appearances. UPDATE: I ran across just now an old post from Grant Gallicho at the Commonweal blog asserting that conservative Catholics are distorting statistics to make the scandal seem like an exclusively gay problem. Grant quotes directly from the John Jay Report: The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female.

The church and whine and complain all it wants about how "unfair" the criticism has been. The real issues is that the church REFUSES to deal with the cancer of rampant homosexuality in its ranks.

Father Cozzens estimated on Meet the Press several years ago that the number of homosexual priests was probably 50%, or higher. Father Doyle agreed.

This isn't a "problem." This is a cancer that has just about succeeded in killing the body, but the patient still denies he is sick.

As to this, the AP tells us about a Congress-mandated study placing the number of students sexually abused by an education worker at some point between kindergarten and 12th grade at 4.5 million.

Well, find this incredibly busy education worker and kick him out!

Some quick googling (so sue me google) comes up with recent numbers of 6.8 million teachers in the USA and 408,000 Catholic priests in the world. Project those numbers per capita and the teachers don't look quite so bad.