You did a terrific job separating the act from the orientation when it comes to pedophiles vs. pederasts. That same type of separation should be extended beyond that comparison. There are lots of heterosexual people who engage in homosexual activity. (My sense is that women are more likely to experiment, but that may not be true.)
Many of the priests now being accused of molestation were recruited into the priesthood at a very early age, long before they had any opportunity to define for themselves what their orientation was (is). Most psychologists will tell you that these men are not homosexual, but instead are psychologically immature when it comes to sexual matters.
The answer may not be to ban homosexuals, but instead to stop recruiting young teens into the priesthood (something that has already happened, for the most part). I'm betting that 20 to 30 years from now, we'll see that the incidence of priests molesting children will be much less frequent.
Aside from pederast being exclusively a male action (according to Websters (http://www.m-w.com)) I get the idea and agree that teenage girls are in more danger of being molested by older men than teenage boys. However, there is no evidence that a man is homosexual except for the sexual acts he performs. The molesting of a boy is ipso facto homosexuality.
You did a terrific job separating the act from the orientation when it comes to pedophiles vs. pederasts.
Yes, bimbo is correct. I've also heard it called Ephebophilia. In either case, over 95% of of the abuse cases involved priests (males) molesting post pubescent boys under 18 years of age. Such acts have it's defenders mind you (ie North American Man-Boy Love Association or NAMBLA).
That same type of separation should be extended beyond that comparison. There are lots of heterosexual people who engage in homosexual activity. (My sense is that women are more likely to experiment, but that may not be true.)
There are lots of people with too much time on their hands. Many of the heterosexual men I've encountered that "experimented" with homosexuality were simply latent or in denial. (I worked in the theater for a while so I've had lots of opportunity to meet people who transcended gender.)
Many of the priests now being accused of molestation were recruited into the priesthood at a very early age, long before they had any opportunity to define for themselves what their orientation was (is).
A case can be made for this but it sounds much more like and excuse than a reason. However, a case can be made even more clearly that homosexuality itself is a yearning for extended adolescence.
Years ago, members of the clergy would also travel in threes since it was harder to commit sins if three people had to agree. (There used to be jokes about three nuns in a station wagon.) Since Vatican II, clergy members were extended much more freedom. Though pederasty was certainly an issue before the 1960's, the ability to keep it a secret became easier. The whole sexual revolution thing at the time also had an effect. We see that in secular life with increased abortions, out-of-wedlock births and divorce.
Most psychologists will tell you that these men are not homosexual, but instead are psychologically immature when it comes to sexual matters.
Listening to psychologists is what provided the false floor of reasoning for transferring abusive priests from parish to parish.
The answer may not be to ban homosexuals, but instead to stop recruiting young teens into the priesthood (something that has already happened, for the most part). I'm betting that 20 to 30 years from now, we'll see that the incidence of priests molesting children will be much less frequent.
Recruiting college age students is really the only practical way to maintain a celibate priesthood. As men get older, there are many more ties to society that would prevent them from becoming a priest as it is currently defined. (My wife has threatened to divorce me the day the Church allows married priests!) However, the problem for the past 30 years, maybe more, is that a "lavender mafia" as it's been called, has taken over the role of recruiting and training priests. I've heard that many seminaries are barely tolerable for young, orthodox, heterosexual men and that many leave before taking their vows. This aspect alone is going to be extremely difficult for Cardinal Estevez or anyone to change.
That’s not true, the pathology is same-sex sexual attraction. That’s like saying so-called “bisexuals” are not homosexual because they have normal man/woman relations, one still has a paraphilic disorder regardless of exhibiting any right/normal behavior.
Most child molestation involves young girls being molested by men,
Of course there are, that’s because men are responsible for 93% of all molestations. The glaring statistic is that homosexuals are only 3% of the population and yet responsible for over 35% of boy molestations.
and even when men molest boys there is no evidence that the men are homosexual.
Umm…the paraphilia is same-sex sexual attraction and is independent of a pedophilic paraphilia. Those who suffer from paraphilic disorders often practice multiple paraphilias, i.e. fetishes, S&M, bestiality, Transvestic Fetishism…, …
You did a terrific job separating the act from the orientation when it comes to pedophiles vs. pederasts.
That’s debatable, the AMA says the age cut-off is 12 and the APA say’s age 13. Some say it’s the age of puberty but since puberty keeps happening earlier and earlier in childhood (cases of children under 10 are common) the cutoff is arbitrary and the distinction between pederast and pedophile becomes blurred and irrelevant. But that’s a debate for another time.
MissMillie - You're in an outer universe somewhere. When a man molests a sexually mature teenage boy, engaging in male/male sexual behavior, he is obviously homosexual. Normal men, even if immature, do not go after teenage boys.
Either the Church bans homosexuals as priests, or parents will never again trust priests with their teenage sons. The Church must choose. I vote for returning to the day when parents could be happy that a priest expressed some interest in their teenage son. Today, they'd be afraid, very afraid, and rightfully so.