FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: USCCB Study 'debunks' (homosexual) theory on priests' sex abuse
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
::)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09322/1014329-84.stm

Quote:U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Baltimore
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

BALTIMORE -- Researchers at New York's John Jay College of Criminal Justice, reporting initial findings in their look into causes of the Catholic church's 2002 sexual-abuse scandal, yesterday said they can't attribute it to gay priests or seminaries for teenagers.

"We do not have data to support ... those assertions," said Karen Terry, lead researcher for the $1.8 million study commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is meeting this week in Baltimore.

Dr. Terry presented her interim report on the same day that the bishops conference also adopted a pastoral letter on marriage and a statement on reproductive technologies and approved the final part of a new translation of the Mass.

Some Catholic leaders have contended that because 80 percent of the abuse victims were male, the crisis must have been caused by gay priests acting out. But Dr. Terry said she found that abusers were confused about their sexuality and had poor social skills, but had no clear pattern of homosexual behavior.  :o

She believes that they abused boys mainly because they had access to boys. "Even though there was sexual abuse of many boys, that doesn't necessarily mean that the person had a homosexual identity," she said.  :doh:

The study said the abuse rose dramatically in the 1960s and '70s, and has been declining since 1985. She said this paralleled other bad behavior, such as drug abuse, in the wider society.

Her findings were critical of the bishops for often ignoring victims' needs. But she credited the bishops with instituting seminary programs in the 1980s that she believes prevented later abuse.

Before those programs, Dr. Terry said, seminarians received little help to understand themselves as emotional, relational and sexual beings. "Clergy who, as seminarians, had explicit human formation preparation seem to have been less likely to abuse than those without such preparation," she said.

The bishops adopted a pastoral letter on marriage, which delved into gay marriage, divorce, cohabitation and birth control. Yet none of the conference debate focused on gay marriage.

Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., chairman of the drafting committee, said the pastoral letter was intended as the foundation of an array of future efforts the bishops have planned as part of a comprehensive initiative to strengthen marriage. These range from television public service announcements emphasizing communication to a Web site specifically for Hispanic couples.

The letter, passed on a 180-45 vote, is to be available at http://www.usccb.org/laity/LoveandLife/M...eFINAL.pdf.

The pamphlet "Life-Giving Love in an Age of Technology," which the conference approved 220-4, was intended to address what Archbishop Justin Rigali, chairman of the bishops' pro-life committee, called "great confusion" among Catholics about medically assisted reproduction. "Any method of making babies is considered by many to be pro-life. There is a need to help Catholics understand specific differences between the Catholic understanding and a secular understanding of human life," he said.

The Catholic church forbids artificial intervention either to prevent or start a pregnancy, arguing that the process impairs cooperation with God and reduces children to consumer choices.

The pamphlet will have a link to a Web site with information about what kinds of medical assistance with conception are and aren't acceptable to the church. But the pamphlet left somewhat vague the practice of "embryo adoption," in which couples seek implantation of embryos that other couples have abandoned at fertility clinics.

A recent Vatican document discouraged but did not explicitly ban that practice, intended to save the embryos. "That question was addressed by the Vatican document, and the conclusions are not something that we can say they have either outlawed or accepted," Cardinal Rigali said.

After long debate, the bishops passed the last five segments of a new translation of the Mass that Bishop Donald Trautman of Erie, Pa., has argued is awkward and ungrammatical. Bishop Arthur Serratelli, the liturgy committee chairman, said no translation is perfect, but "the new translation is good and worthy of our use. Perfection will come when the liturgy on Earth gives way to that of heaven."


:puke:
(11-19-2009, 01:58 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote: [ -> ]She believes that they abused boys mainly because they had access to boys. "Even though there was sexual abuse of many boys, that doesn't necessarily mean that the person had a homosexual identity," she said.  :doh:

Isn't that like saying "Even though I had sex before I was married, that doesn't mean I had pre marital sex."  ???



(11-19-2009, 04:21 AM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2009, 01:58 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote: [ -> ]She believes that they abused boys mainly because they had access to boys. "Even though there was sexual abuse of many boys, that doesn't necessarily mean that the person had a homosexual identity," she said.  :doh:

Isn't that like saying "Even though I had sex before I was married, that doesn't mean I had pre marital sex."  ???

I think it's more like saying, "Even though I committed adultery, I am not an adulterer."

These people treat homosexuals as if they are some kind of "third sex".  Traditionally, they were regarded merely as men who are predisposed to a certain kind of sin.  As far as I'm concerned, a man who sexually abuses boys (even if he is not sexually attracted to adult men) is a homosexual by definition,  just as a man who steals is a thief.
(11-19-2009, 04:21 AM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2009, 01:58 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote: [ -> ]She believes that they abused boys mainly because they had access to boys. "Even though there was sexual abuse of many boys, that doesn't necessarily mean that the person had a homosexual identity," she said.  :doh:
Isn't that like saying "Even though I had sex before I was married, that doesn't mean I had pre marital sex."  ???
BINGO :laughing:
you've hit the nail on the head
Iuvenalis Wrote:she found that abusers were confused about their sexuality and had poor social skills

These are areas worth exploring as well. Trads have beaten the whole sodomy thing to death. The poor formation of priests itself, especially those who entered seminary at a tender age, are worth plumbing as well. I wonder if some folk are hesitant to explore this arena in causing the rash of child abuse because it undermines the idea that things were peachy before the Council.

Quote:"Even though there was sexual abuse of many boys, that doesn't necessarily mean that the person had a homosexual identity,"

I do think this is possible. Not moral, but possible. Historically, for example in Ancient Greece and Rome, it was common for men to keep boys on the side for gratification while still living heterosexual lives with their wives.
Not spo much Rome as greece. Clrarly this study is an attempt by the bishops to save their asses and cloud reality. Its a diversion
If raping boys then ur a sodomite, that's that
The kids molested  by these priests are mainly boys.
Is man who abuses a boy homosexual or heterosexual? Possibly some among them are bisexual perverts, but they are few.
These purported "experts" are either homosexual thewselves or politically correct people who won't risk their reputation struggling aginst the gay lobby inside and outside the US RCC
The roots of this evil are clearly explained in Mrs Engel's book. I didn't read the book (impossible to purchase it easily frm France), but only a summary 20 pages long by Th. Droleskey.
I think Mrs Engel is right, don't you think so?
(11-19-2009, 05:34 AM)spasiisochrani Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2009, 04:21 AM)Petertherock Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-19-2009, 01:58 AM)Iuvenalis Wrote: [ -> ]She believes that they abused boys mainly because they had access to boys. "Even though there was sexual abuse of many boys, that doesn't necessarily mean that the person had a homosexual identity," she said.  :doh:

Isn't that like saying "Even though I had sex before I was married, that doesn't mean I had pre marital sex."  ???

I think it's more like saying, "Even though I committed adultery, I am not an adulterer."

These people treat homosexuals as if they are some kind of "third sex".  Traditionally, they were regarded merely as men who are predisposed to a certain kind of sin.  As far as I'm concerned, a man who sexually abuses boys (even if he is not sexually attracted to adult men) is a homosexual by definition,  just as a man who steals is a thief.
I'd say it's more that they're a sodomite, not necessarily that they're a homosexual.  Like the difference between a thief (sodomite) and a kleptomaniac (homosexual).  One of them is a sin they commit, the other has it as part of their identity.  They've made it a compulsion or obsession.
Of course, the USCCB was going to have to put a spin on the study they commissioned.(It also took them only about seven years). First, it wasn't homosexuality that was the chief cause, but "pedophilia". Then when this was thoroughly debunked, they had to come up with an "explanation" that would have made Bill "it all depends on what you mean by the meaning of the word 'is' " Clinton envious.

What's the old saying, "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining?" Someone forgot to inform the USCCB, whose movie reviewer gave such glowing kudos to "Brokeback Mountain", that enough people are onto the Lavender Mafia, and no amount of double talk, lying, or covering up can obscure what they're all about.

The jig is up, boys. The sooner you realize it, the better.   
Pages: 1 2