Posted on 04/25/2002 10:00:49 AM PDT by Incorrigible
Get It Straight
The hypocrisy of blaming gays for sexual abuse by priests.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, April 24, 2002, at 2:01 PM PT
| |
The one thing everybody knows about the Roman Catholic Church is that you're supposed to confess your sins. Everybody, that is, except the church's leaders. First they failed to come clean about sexual abuse by priests. Then they failed to come clean about having covered up the abuse. Every time they assured the public that nothing else would come out, something else came out.
Now the bishops, the cardinals, and conservative interest groups have a new story. The problem, they say, is homosexuality. If the church gets rid of gay priests, everything will be fine. But the more questions you ask about this story, the more contradictions you find. The cardinals' problem isn't that they can't keep the priesthood straight. The problem is that once again, they can't keep their story straight. Here are four key points on which their new alibi doesn't add up.
1. Profiling. The Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Roman Catholic Faithful, and numerous priests and bishops suggest that the church should weed out gay priests because a disproportionate share of sexual abuse cases involving priests are male-on-male. Credible reports say 90 percent of the victims are boys. Conservatives don't care that most gay priests don't molest kids. Their view is that it's fair to presume that an individual is dangerous if he's part of a high-risk group.
Unless, of course, we're talking about priests as a whole. In that case, conservatives point out the unfairness of judging the group on the basis of a few bad apples. Consider the FRC's April 5 statement, "Media Hides Homosexuality Connection in Sex Abuse Scandal." According to the FRC, the "connection" is that "most cases" of abuse by priests are male-on-male. The standard for blaming a crime on a group, in other words, is what percentage of the crime is committed by the group. But in the same statement, FRC scolds the media for besmirching the Catholic clergy, when in fact the abusers are "a very small number of priests." Suddenly, FRC's standard for blaming a crime on a group isn't what percentage of the crime is committed by the group—that would be inconvenient, since 100 percent of sex abuse by priests is committed by priests—but what percentage of the group commits the crime.
How do gays measure up to that standard? What percentage of gay priests have sexually abused children? The FRC doesn't say. Why not? Well, according to last Friday's New York Times, there are 46,000 Catholic priests in the United States; 30 percent to 50 percent of Catholic seminarians are gay; and lawyers for victims "claim to have lists of more than 1,000 priests accused of abuse in the United States." If you assume the worst—that only 30 percent of priests are gay, that 2,000 priests will end up accused, and that all the accused priests are guilty, gay, and current rather than former priests—fewer than 15 percent of gay priests have committed sexual abuse. If the 2,000 cases are spread over a period of 80 percent turnover in the priesthood, or if the number of guilty priests is more like 1,100, or if the percentage of priests who are gay is more like 50 percent, then only about 8 percent of gay priests have committed sexual abuse. According to the Catholic League, that's the rate of pedophilia "in the general adult population."
 |
If you want to use profiling to weed out pedophiles, there's a far more effective way. One hundred percent of sexual abuse by priests is committed by men. So is nearly all sexual abuse of children. While it's hard to tell who's gay, it's easy to tell who's male. The ideal solution would be to ban men from the priesthood. The modest alternative would be to admit women. If conservatives were serious about protecting kids, they'd begin with that step. Instead, they've rejected it.
2. Deviance. When pedophiles such as the notorious Rev. Paul Shanley dissent from the Catholic hierarchy, conservatives dismiss them as twisted heretics. When these same pedophiles dissent from gay rights groups, conservatives infer that the pedophiles, not the gay rights groups, represent gay thinking. Connie Marshner, the director of the Free Congress Foundation's Center for Governance, argues that sexual liberalism has infected Catholicism and that the church must return to its roots. Meanwhile, she quotes a "pederast theoretician" who recently denounced the gay rights movement for preaching "assimilation" and trying to "demonize cross-generational love." So the gay rights movement, like the Catholic Church, rejects pederasty, right? Well, no. According to Marshner, the church's rejection is genuine, while the movement's rejection is tactical.
3. Alternate causality. According to conservatives, sexual abuse by priests can't be blamed on celibacy, since many clergymen who molest minors are married. "The best evidence suggests that the rate of priest pedophilia is about the same as found among the clergy of other religions," Catholic League President Bill Donohue pointed out four weeks ago. "Indeed, the Anglican dioceses in British Columbia are going bankrupt because so many ministers can't keep their hands to themselves. And these men are married." Donohue's logic sounds pretty solid: Some sexual abusers in the clergy are married; married clergymen aren't subject to the celibacy rule; therefore, some sexual abusers in the clergy aren't subject to the celibacy rule; therefore, sexual abuse in the clergy can't be blamed on the celibacy rule.
Let's try the same logic on homosexuality. Some sexual abusers in the clergy are married; married clergymen generally aren't gay; therefore, some sexual abusers in the clergy aren't gay; therefore, sexual abuse in the clergy can't be blamed on homosexuality—right? Uh, not exactly. "It is intellectually outrageous and deceitful to pretend that we don't know what's going on here," Donohue said on Fox News this week. "Too many sexually active gays have been in the priesthood, and it's about time they were routed out."
4. Gray area. The old school of sexuality held that deviance was continuous: Stray from the path of righteousness, and pretty soon you'll be lying with other men, children, and dogs. The new school separates these practices into distinct orientations or disorders. The old school had coherence; the new school has cachet. The gay-blamers can't figure out which way to go. If they say homosexuality is distinct from pedophilia, they can't blame the latter on the former. On the other hand, if they say homosexuality is just one manifestation of waywardness, they can't assure the public that getting rid of the former will get rid of the latter.
The result is precisely the kind of moral confusion conservatives claim to oppose. To project coherence, they attribute abuse by priests to "sexual anarchy" and "moral chaos." At the same time, to make the blame-gays theory look scientific, they draw convenient distinctions. According to Traditional Values Coalition Chairman Lou Sheldon, "To describe these priests as 'pedophiles' is clearly inaccurate—unless their victims are under the age of 13. The truth is that these are homosexuals who are engaging in pederasty or so-called consensual 'boy-love.' " Similarly, Cardinal Adam Maida of Detroit said this week that "the behavioral scientists are telling us, the sociologists, it's not truly a pedophilia-type problem but a homosexual problem."
Maida, Sheldon, and other clerics and activists think they're safeguarding morality. But by describing a sexual relationship with a child between the ages of 13 and 17, unlike sex with a younger child, as a matter of hetero- or homosexual orientation, they are, in a strange way, normalizing such relationships. They're framing sex with teen-agers more like sex with adults and less like sex with children. They still believe it's wrong, but they're undermining the basis of that belief. And by insisting that the church has a gay problem, not a pedophile problem, they're letting pedophiles off the hook.
They're also letting men who have sex with teen-age girls off the hook. Last Sunday, National Review editor Rich Lowry said of priestly abuse, "A lot of these cases don't involve the molestation of little boys, pedophilia. [They] involve having sex with teen-age boys, which is more sort of homosexual behavior. … I'm not justifying it. It's just not something heterosexual men do." Yesterday, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago added that the church should allow "wiggle room" in punishing abusive priests. "There is a difference between a moral monster like [homosexual molester Father John] Geoghan, who preys upon little children, and does so in a serial fashion, and someone who perhaps under the influence of alcohol engages in an action with a 17- or 16-year-old young woman who returns his affection," said George.
"Not something heterosexual men do"? "Wiggle room" for sex with a 16-year-old "young woman"? Look who's liberal now.
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
No one cares what happens in the bedroom. Guess what? They already do! Homosexuals want it to be very public and open. Laws are broken all the time such as sodomy with no one arrested. It doesn't make it legal, yet!
Act, Otherwise I am a pedophile for being attracted to a young girl.
Ah, this tired old line yet again! Don't you guys ever come up with anything new?
Attraction to the opposite sex is the biological norm.
Acting upon an attraction is a chosen behavior!
In fact, under what conditions could I "choose" to be attracted to men? I just don't see it.
Discounting the sort of things that occur when men are placed in sexual isolation, it would require a lot of work to make sure a perversion acceptable to a mentally stable and healthy human being. You'd probably have to start very early, in the child's formative years, by teaching them that homosexual behavior was perfectly acceptable from a moral, personal, and society view. Also teach them that anyone who disagrees with this is hateful. Make up a nonsense term, such as "homophobia," to describe this otherwise normal reaction to degeneracy.
Continue this teaching thoughout the child's schooling so as to sexualize the child before they are emotionally or mentally ready to deal with all of the issues concerning human sexuality, particularly the abberent variety.
Make sure that no mention of morality is permitted! The lone exception being to continue to rail against "homophobia!"
As the young man enters into adolescence and his hormones begin to rage, tell him that any "confusion" concerning homosexuality is proof that his is a homosexual.
I think you'd have had to undergo such a major psychological manipulation to have a normal child willfully accept homosexual behaviors.
The person who is actually attracted to the same sex without such manipulation is simply ill and in need of treatment to recover from their illness.
Sexually normal people had better wake up before these sexual deviants get their political agendas advanced any further.
Now TRANSSEXUALS and CROSS-DRESSERS are given the same protection as ethnic and religious groups in New York. How revolting!!!
If a person is attracted to the same sex, they are suffering from Same Sex Attraction Disorder and they are in need of treatment.
If they act on it, they are a sexual degenerate.
No more than it is for Republicans to have the government enforce that "Thou shalt not murder" thing.
Worst case is more like 1-2% are gay. Where do they come up with 30-50%???? It is amazing how they create facts to make a point.
Why only African violets? Sounds racist to me.
SD
From what the Wanderer has reported, Mundelein is part of the lavender mafia.
SD
Heterosexual attractions are *normal* and *natural* for men. Further, it is *normal* and *natural* for men to find teenage girls (16-17) attractive. In more primitive societies girls are still married at very young ages. There are good reasons to do this if you live in a primitive culture where childbirth is dangerous and life expectancies are short (i.e. 99% of human history.)
However, that was then, this is now. No matter how much some men would like to fool around with 16-17 year olds, those girls are still *jailbait.* Even so, the fundamental attraction is NOT abnormal - it just needs to be deferred a year or two and hopefully the attraction is directed toward the right outcome - marriage.
This does NOT mean that homosexual and heterosexual attractions to teenagers are in any way morally equivalent, or that in either case they should be acted upon. But the heterosexual attraction is a built-in, natural part of perpetuating the race, while the other is fundamentally disordered.
This doesn't mean I think gays should be persecuted, beat up, etc. Nor does it necessarily mean that gay sex acts should be illegal for those over 18. But the homosexual attraction is not, and never will be morally equivalent to the heterosexual one.
If both parties consent, it's wholly different than murder. If one party does not consent, their rights have been violated and the government is entitled to step in. That's the same for hetero- and homosexual behavior.
I believe they are the only ones that do really well potted. Lord knows we don't want any of that wild variety getting in!
Can the mentally ill consent?
Duh, almost forgot. If both parties do consent, does that mean that it is no longer murder? Nope, it's still a murder. Go ask Kevorkian if you don't believe me.
Or, go ask the voters of the State of Oregon. They have a different interpretation, which is why they've legalized assisted suicide.
Can the mentally ill consent?
No.
With regard to your second argument, you negate the ability of men to overcome their carnal desires and sublimate them into good works. It’s no surprise that in our “if it feels good, do it” culture, there are many who simply believe that this state of “positive” celibacy is beyond man’s reach – in fact, there are many who apparently believe celibacy to be more abnormal than homosexuality. This argument ignores the good done by celibate priests through the centuries – yes, there have been abuses in every age, and perhaps the current crisis is one of the worst in memory – but it does not negate man’s ability to overcome his carnal desires for the greater good.
It were better that the Church had far fewer, celibate priests, cardinals and bishops of moral integrity than thousands who use the sacred trust of their office to defile the young.
1. A "gay" priest is a sexually-active priest. Therefore, every "gay" priest is a bad priest, and should be gotten rid of.
2. MOST of the cases of abuse involve "gay" priests because the abuse was committed on adolescent/young adult males. This is a reason, in addition to #1, to dismiss "gay" priests.
3. A chaste homosexual priest is, by definition, not a molester of anyone. There is no reason to attempt to root out who, among chaste priests, has same-sex attractions, because all chaste priests are non-molesters.
I haven't seen The Wanderer and they don't seem to have a website. Have they reported recently on Mundelein being a hothouse for gays? Is Cardinal George doing anything about it? (I thought he was going to reverse the Bernardin openness to gay seminarians and priests.)
My comments on this subject are sure to offend those who are deviants or liberals who want to promote the same. Of course, deviants can take it as an insult, but it is an honest assessment. To be a practician of gay behavior and look for public support of the same is insulting. When gays wanted equal rights, that was one thing. However, they prove time and again that it is not enough untill they have defined deviancy down enough that it becomes the norm.
You have yet to see me get hostile, but you should check your dictionary if you do not know the meaning of the word. There are deviant behaviors that are commonly described in the vernacular of today's news reports that were unspeakable before Clintoon came to town. His first challenge was gays in the military.....which shows what the rest of his term would be about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.