[TSgt]

A complete and disgusting white wash by the Catholic church.

The only thing missing from there unrepentant report is, “the children were just asking to be raped.”

I have to go throw up now.

[rlmorel]

The root is not pedophilia. It is homosexuality. As much as homosexuals complain and protest, it is the truth.

[bboop]

You don’t just suppose, as has happened in history many times before, that ‘someone’ does not like the Catholic Church and wants to destroy it? So that man can be God? just a thot.

Satan hates the Cross and all it stands for.

[Flightdeck]

“...ephebophilia (a sexual attraction to adolescents, often boys) was clearly a serious problem. But to label this a “pedophilia crisis” is ignorant, sloppy, or malicious.”

Malicious, because ephebophilia is so much less disgusting and evil than pedophilia? This report is pathetic and as trustworthy as a critique of the Glenn Beck Show paid for by Media Matters.

[Bigg Red]

MARK

[mas cerveza por favor]

A Church that was not in doctrinal and moral confusion from the late 1960s until the 1978 election of John Paul II might have been better armored against the worst impacts of the sexual free-for-all unleashed in the mid-1960s.

The Church hierarchy was mired in doctrinal and moral confusion all through the JP2 papacy. Weigel's attempt to whitewash his hero John Paul "the Great" is pathetic.

Also, the idea of blaming Church problems on society is backward. Christians are supposed to the leaven of society.

[mas cerveza por favor]

They should call this report the John Gay study.

[Upstate NY Guy]

Most of those abused (51 percent) were aged eleven to fourteen and 27 percent of victims were fifteen to seventeen; 16 percent were eight to ten and 6 percent were younger than seven....clearly a serious problem. But to label this a “pedophilia crisis” is ignorant, sloppy, or malicious.

What???! Not pedophilia??? This writer is nuts. Any man who wants to have sex with a boy 17 years or younger is a seriously sick pedophile. And more than half of the abused kids 14 years or younger! Unfreakingbelievable that this writer does not consider this behavior to be a pedophilia crisis.

This article clearly points out why this problem continues to go on decade after decade...too many people who could do something about it are in denial.

[Mr Rogers]

“Clerical ephebophilia (a sexual attraction to adolescents, often boys) was clearly a serious problem. But to label this a “pedophilia crisis” is ignorant, sloppy, or malicious.”

No, it is normal use of the word in common language, as opposed to specialists. When men try to get oral sex from a 12 year old, the common usage calls that pedophilia: “sexual desire in an adult for a child.” - Random House Dictionary

When the 12 or 13 year old is a male, and men have sex acts with him, it is a cross between homosexuality and pedophilia.

I don’t think this is a case of Catholic priests becoming homosexuals or pedophiles, but of homosexuals and pedophiles being drawn to the Catholic priesthood. Maybe it is the theatrical aspect of being a priest, or maybe the idea of having authority over the young, or both, but SOMETHING draws homosexual pedophiles. It might take a time where homosexuals - including celibate homosexuals - need to be thrown out wholesale to restore the good name of Catholics.

[Salvation]

Just so the facts get out here:

In 2010,

seven credible cases of abuse were reported in a church that numbers over 65 million adherents.

[ansel12]

the average rate of abuse throughout the United States was 134 for every 100,000 young people.

Does anyone know if the writer is describing confirmed sexual abuse, or some diluted catch all category?

[marshmallow]

The American narrative of the Catholic Church’s struggles with the clerical sexual abuse of the young has been dominated by several tropes firmly set in journalistic concrete: that this was and is a “pedophilia” crisis; that the sexual abuse of the young is an ongoing danger in the Church; that the Catholic Church was and remains a uniquely dangerous environment for young people; that a high percentage of priests were abusers; that abusive behavior is more likely from celibates, such that a change in the Church’s discipline of priestly celibacy would be important in protecting the young; that the Church’s bishops were, as a rule, willfully negligent in handling reports of abuse; that the Church really hasn’t learned any lessons from the revelations that began in the Long Lent of 2002.

Set in "FR concrete", too.

I'm not surprised some posters are wetting their pants.

These are precisely the exact points made by the "whack-a-mole" gang on FR, week in, week out and no studies, irrespective of their origins, no statistics, no arguments, are ever going to alter their attitude. Never.........ever. Of course they're going to scream "whitewash".

It's entirely evident by now that the general issue of sex abuse holds little interest for the FR hoi polloi unless the adjective "Catholic" is placed in front of it.

So be it.

The Church is being purified, painfully yet assuredly of this plague and in spite of the lavender mafia and their episcopal enablers, it will be just fine.

The report is flawed but not for the reasons parroted by the compulsive naysayers. It's flawed because it skirts around the issue of homosexuality. It says nothing about the widespread flouting of the Church's own discipline by bishops and seminary rectors concerning who may be ordained. It totally ignores this elephant in the living room, as Weigel states.

The fact that this study was even commissioned suggests that the USCCB is still groping around, hoping to be able to avoid the conclusion which is patently obvious to everybody else. This is their legacy. It's the legacy of AmChurch. The chickens coming home to roost. The American hierarchy thumbed its nose at Rome for decades with the "we'll do it our way" attitude and this is what they got.

It's a fitting epitaph for the AmChurch tombstone.

Good riddance.

[DollyCali]

BTTT