Some reflections on recent events, by Anthony Esolen.
Second, the whole of the meta-crime was homosexual. That is, we do not have examples of womanizing priests or priests with fetishes for girls going out of their way to recruit other such priests, forming a tight little cabal, covering for one another, suborning young men into this wicked way of life, issuing veiled threats against anyone who would go public, and snubbing those who did not approve. There was no network of abusers of girls. This network was about men who wanted to do things with boys and men.
I feel like we’ve gone over this a thousand times on CAF. But really, why can’t Esolen speak to the fact (or heck, even acknowledge) that priests traditionally have had greater access to males?
I simply don’t think that’s the case. Priests have access to both boys and girls, men and women. There was an outlier case in the Kansas City Mo. diocese–a priest whose favored group was elementary school girls. Obviously he wasn’t pat of the 81%. And the homosexual cliques in various seminaries have been commented on in recent months as well as in Michael Rose’s book Goodbye Good Men.
Are you suggesting that sexual preference is driven by access? More than a few priests have been caught while visiting a red light district on personal time. They have ample non church access if their intent is to sin.
Many pedophiles express no specific preference for boys or girls, which means for many, access does matter.
I read the pedophiles in general show a clear preference for girls. Priests had fairly equal access to either sex in the families in their parish.
But this OP is not talking about pedophiles, it’s about pederasts and homosexuals.
just found this reference, showing pedophilia was relatively rare and most abusers are pederasts.
First, a look at the statistics: The most detailed statistics on child abuse for the Catholic clergy that I can find comes from the special report based on a national survey of victimization conducted for the 2004 American Catholic bishops’ conference. The findings reveal that the frequency of child abuse among Catholic priests is not remarkable-involving around 4 % of priests and deacons who served in the U.S., but its pattern is. Outside of the Catholic Church, the overwhelming numbers of juvenile victims of sexual abuse are female. Within the church, however, four out of five of their victims are male. Most were adolescents aged 14 or over; 15% were under 10.
May be trtue, but the vast majority of abuse cases are not pedophilia. So your point is a red herring argument, is it not?
Until recently I would not have thought that homosexuality among priests was that much of a problem. But beginning with the John Jay Report, that perception changed for me, even though the report’s authors did not seem to recognize the obvious. Now, the more I read about this, the more discouraging the news seems.
I don’t know what relevance that has. Firstly, priests have access to everyone in the parish, not to mention the entire world outside the church “off duty”. Secondly, for at least the last 30yrs, the most obvious access that priests have to young people- alter servers- has been pretty dominated by girls, if not at least 50-50. Not to mention the almost all female staff at the parish office. IMO this is even more indicative if mostly boys and men are preyed upon.
Access doesn’t inform preference. I work in a field heavily dominated by men. In fact there are almost no women. I do not suddenly find myself attracted to other men. I think the only thing access informs is recruitment pool. When I went to college, the no joke sales pitch given to me one on one for basically everywhere I applied was “this campus is 60-70% female”. I imagine most guys got that pitch, because it probably is very effective. I could see it argued that an exclusively male, celibate, profession would attract homosexual men who want to hide their homosexual tendencies behind celibacy. Other than that, I am not sure what relevance it has.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.