Not really, what you’re suggesting is to derail the topic of this thread because it makes people who support the gay agenda uncomfortable. I mean it’s just so pathetic how this thread derailed. It’d be like if we had a case about a boy raping priest and the first response was “but the protestants do it too!”.
I find it really funny that these folks lash out right away about this case about this gay activist. That’s the part of mentality that led to the cover-up in the Catholic Church in the first place (other than the advice from the orthodox psychiatrists that they could just be rehabilitated and given another chance). It’s the same mentality that allows for the rampant abuse in public schools to continue on, because some people seem to think that teachers are automatically heroes, totally above reproach. Same with the gay activists, “Oh they couldn’t do anything wrong, they’re for equality!!!1!”.
But some people are so beholden to their ideology that they unthinkingly commit the same thing they accuse other people of doing. Or they forget the real victims and just focus on how to turn this into an opportunity to score political points. Sad what fanaticism can do…
When 1 to 2 percent of the population have homosexual inclinations and yet a very large percentage of abuse victims were of the same sex as the perpetrator then it should be acknowledged that a significant element of the Church’s problems involved homosexuality.
To fail to acknowledge this is to do some pretty strong sweeping under a different rug.
Avoids what I asked. Pedophilia is defined as the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty. It can be attraction to either sex but some pedophiles are only attracted to one sex. Most of the priest who abused teens were not pedophiles by definition. They did not choose a male because they were handy as you suggest but because their preference was male that makes it homosexual. It does not mean that all homosexuals are pedophiles nor all pedophiles are homosexual but it does mean that some are. Since pedophiles are defined as the sexual attraction to children who have not yet reached puberty and priest abused boys who had reached puberty you can’t call it pedophilia so what would YOU call it if not homosexuality.
An adult having sexual contact with say a 9 year old doesn’t automatically make them a pedophile. A pedophile is a very specific classification that involves attraction, usually to a particular age and sex. Pedophiles are extremely picky and will do whatever it takes to get access to their target. They are not opportunists that abuse whatever child is within reach.
That is a general definition, not the clinical definition, which does cut it off at 13. From your source (paragraph 2):
The current edition, DSM-IV, categorizes pedophilia as a disorder only if the sexual fantasies or urges involve prepubescent children (defined as 13 or younger), if they last at least six months, if the individual has acted on them, or if they cause marked distress (including legal problems). The DSM-IV also specifies that a person be at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the prepubescent child.