You've been shadow boxing with your own fallacious idea. I've never heard this meme and I haven't said one thing about the general population of married men. I have completely restricted my remarks to the rare group of people that are pedophiles and that's because they and only they are associated with the priesthood. That makes them significant. Combining pedophiles with (what used to be called) ebophiles together hides the homosexual behavior because they are part of the second group and have different demographic characteristics.
As I posted before, describing pedophiles as married says something about the general population of pedophiles not the general population of married men.
The media constantly puts out the idea that the Catholic priesthood is filled with pedophiles and people suddenly believe the solution to this is to allow married men. It's repeated on this site, I see it mentioned in public and have heard it tossed out by people at work. The Church itself is responding to it in the “Protecting God's Children” program which concentrates heavily on pedophiles and says very little about those who pursue teenagers. Allowing marriage will not weed out pedophiles and does nothing to protect the group of children who are at risk from homosexuals.
“You've been shadow boxing with your own fallacious idea. I've never heard this meme and I haven't said one thing about the general population of married men.”
You haven't been paying attention over the past few decades.
I can't tell you how often I've heard folks, to counter the fact that homosexuals abuse minors at a far higher rate than heterosexuals, that “most abuse is by heterosexual [or even married] men.” I first heard this in a psychology class in 1977.
“I have completely restricted my remarks to the rare group of people that are pedophiles and that's because they and only they are associated with the priesthood.”
I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate with this. Obviously, the child sex abuse scandal in the Church was mostly about homosexual priests who preyed mostly on pubescent boys.
“As I posted before, describing pedophiles as married says something about the general population of pedophiles not the general population of married men.”
Although the word you used originally was “pedophile,” the study you cited doesn't seem to use that language or restrict itself thusly. In any event, although I've seen assertions to the contrary, most cites I've seen suggest that among the less than 10% of abusers who are “true pedophiles” - folks whose primary sexual orientation is neither heterosexual or homosexual (and even that designation is disputed) - most “true pedophiles” do not, indeed, marry, especially because nearly by definition, someone who engages in the marital act with an adult spouse isn't a “true pedophile.”
Thus, although there will be some folks who are “true pedophiles” (if that is truly a valid category of sexual orientation) who marry, to say that the vast majority of them are married is an astounding claim and requires astounding evidence. You haven't presented any astounding evidence of the claim, nor even any direct evidence of the claim, but only very weak indirect evidence.
As for the media, they generally use the word “pedophile” interchangeably with phrases like “child molester” or “child sex abuser.” The distinction between the two terms is lost on the media, and thus talking about it is pretty irrelevant.
The Church also makes a similar confusion.
It is true that permitting priests to be married men wouldn't substantially alter the number of “true pedophiles” in the priesthood, but that's not because married men comprise the “vast majority” of pedophiles (a terrible libel), but rather that so few priests were “true pedophiles” (again, if such a category exists objectively) in the first place.
sitetest