Interesting article on homosexuality

[Mr. Boyce 13]

Here's a short piece which contains some interesting stuff.

 

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/07/catholic_churchs_issue_is_homosexuality_not_pedophilia.html

[evmori 11]

Does this mean Irish priest could be drunken homosexuals?

[DanKroh 11]

Yes, it's an "interesting" opinion piece pretty much devoid of anything remotely resembling facts, and at least one egregious lie about what Kinsey's report actually said.

[Mr. Boyce 13]

"More recently, in organs such as the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the Journal of Sex Research, the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy and Pediatrics, it has been established that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among child molesters."

 

 

-and-

 

When the National Review Board released its findings in 2004 regarding priestly sexual abuse, Robert S. Bennett, the noted attorney who headed the study said, "There are no doubt many outstanding priests of a homosexual orientation who live chaste, celibate lives, but any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature." Were they wrong to draw this conclusion?

 

Furthermore, the National Review Board explicitly said that "we must call attention to the homosexual behavior that characterized the vast majority of the cases of abuse observed in recent decades."

[CalicoPenn 729]

So the question is was the National Review Board wrong to draw the conclusion that the problem is one of homosexuality and not pedophila - and the answer is a resounding yes. The first problem with that statement is it is based solely on reported cases of abuse - and the key word there is reported. 80%+ of the reported cases of victims sexually abused by priests were homosexual in nature. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that 80%+ of actual cases were homosexual in nature. It could simply mean that more people were willing to report same sex abuse than opposite sex abuse. (Mathematical example - if there were 10,000 cases of actual abuse, 1,000 of which were homosexual in nature (10%) and 9,000 of which were heterosexual in nature (90%), but only 1,000 cases were reported, 800 of which were homosexual in nature (80% of 1,000), it becomes obvious that 80% of all cases aren't homosexual in nature).

 

Unfortunately, there is still a bit of a double standard in this world - as afraid as they are to come out and state they were sexually abused by a priest, men are more likely to report than women because men are more likely to be believed at this time than women. Part of that is we have been bombarded with more media reports of abuse allegations by men than women - I've said it before, I'll probably say it thousands of more times - media wants a hook - males claiming they were abused by priests is a far bigger hook than females claiming they were abused by priests - it's not fair, but it happens.

 

Reports in the media of priests abusing girls are given far less publicity. If that were to change - if there was a constant drumbeat of reports of priests abusing girls in the media for the next 5 years then that 80% number is very likely to drop precipitously to perhaps 50% or 30% or ???. Since we can't say with any reasonable assurance that the reports are comprehensive, then we must conclude that any statistical analysis of the reports are inherently flawed.

 

There is a second problem with the conclusion too. Pedophilia (and epephilia - Donovan is trying to be too clever by half by claiming that teenage abuse victims aren't a victim of pedophila - technically correct - so we must add epephilia into the mix) is not about sexual orientation. Neither the perpetrator's nor the victim's sexual orientation have anything to do with pedophilia and epehilia. Like rape, child sexual abuse is about power. It is not about sex, it is not about orientation - it is about being more powerful than one's victim. There has never been a proper study done on the actual sexual orientations of the priests that committed abuse. If one were to be done, and if it fell within the parameters of what is known about the sexual orientation of abusers outside the priesthood, then we could expect that about 95% of the abusers are heterosexual and 5% are homosexual. That alone should make us pause on accepting the National Review Board's conclusion as definitive.

 

So yes, the conclusion is incorrect - but that won't stop partisans like Donovan, who has other agendas in play as well (despite his words to the contrary, he wants all homosexuals purged from the ranks of the priesthood, and he is using these despicable acts to help make his case), from making the claims. He'll even twist conclusions found in respected journals to his own end - none of those journals found that homosexuals were disproportionately represented among child molesters - he ignores the power dynamics of abuse in order to conveniently try to make his argument. There is a large amount of same-sex child sexual abuse - but there is a large amount of heterosexual males that have abused boys. If there is any thing that is disproportionate, it is in how many straight men abuse boys (and no - they aren't gays in the closet - they are straight men on a power trip).

 

As an aside, there are some in the academic community that consider celibacy to be a distinct sexual orientation - if we were to accept this, then shouldn't the Natonal Review Board's conclusion be that celibates represent 100% of child molesters in the priesthood?

[DanKroh 11]

"More recently, in organs such as the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the Journal of Sex Research, the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy and Pediatrics, it has been established that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among child molesters."

 

This is not "facts". If these articles are so extensive, then why doesn't he cite them explicitly, or even better, quote direct information from them? Since he has shown that referencing a specific study (Kinsey et.al, 1948, for example) does not preclude attributing information that appears NOWHERE in that study.

 

The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America all have policy statements stating there is no correlation between homosexuality and child abuse. Notice it says no CORRELATION, which Mr. Donohue claims there is. Why would they have these statements if there were such overwhelming evidence in peer-reviewed professional journals to the contrary?

 

"When the National Review Board released its findings in 2004 regarding priestly sexual abuse, Robert S. Bennett, the noted attorney who headed the study said, "There are no doubt many outstanding priests of a homosexual orientation who live chaste, celibate lives, but any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature." Were they wrong to draw this conclusion?"

 

That 80% of reported abuse cases involved boys may well be a fact, one of the few that Donahue cites, if the National Review Board of the Conference of Catholic Bishops (an unbiased group, to be sure) is to be believed. But what is the "conclusion" exactly? Since all priestly abuse in the RCC is performed by males, then yes, by definition, 80% of the reported abuse cases were homosexual in nature. However, that DOES NOT MEAN that the men involved are gay men. Abuse is about power over someone weaker, not sexual attraction or love. A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual.

 

And what about that 20% of reported abuse involving girls? Are "The Gays" responsible for that, too?

 

Mr. Donohue's opinion piece is not really so much about homosexuality (as your thread title proclaims), as it is about trying to absolve the RCC, methinks.

[BadenP 93]

What is missed here is that RC priests are both predators and homosexuals based on the environment of the seminary high schools and seminaries, not their sexuality, where young boys are assigned to older classmates as a sort of servant and is where the abuse begins in many seminaries, especially in the 70's and before. The older priests prey on the boys convincing them this deviant behavior is somehow holy. The saddest part of all is that these boys become men are ordained and take this deviant behavior with them to their parishes. In the case of the RC church this is more of an institutional problem than anything else.

[Mr. Boyce 13]

With this, I'm just trying to find answers.

 

There is a lot of partisan stuff developed around these issues---a lot of heat, rather than illumination. And it does little good to IMMEDIATELY ASSUME, without studying a document, how it COULD be procedurally flawed.

 

Let's study the document.

 

Let's examine our own prejudices---perhaps it IS the case that proportionately more pedophiles are homosexual---EVEN IF we wish it were not the case.

 

I see liberals as being loud and close-minded on this very challenging and difficult issue. Heck, I'm used to seeing conservatives act belligerently like that.

[fglover9 10]

BadenP,

 

Where did you get all your info from? This the third post I've seen in the forums today that has some type of reference to Catholics (or RC as you say) and the disparaging remarks that accompany them. I'm quite sure you've never been in a seminary in all of your life to have the expertise to condemn these young men and find your statements to be quite profound. I can attest to the fact that I have and I have served on staff with a few seminarians (our chaplains) over the past few years. Remarkable men they are.......''A Scout is reverent'' applies not only to your religion but also the respect you give to other religions as well.

[BadenP 93]

fglover

 

I have been an ordained minister for over 12 years now I am also a licensed pastoral counselor. Several of my clients are priests who have been referred to me by the local bishop, or ex priests trying to pull their lives back together. These are their experiences and stories. I was also a RC for much of my life and have had experiences with pedophile priests. Like it or not the Catholic church clergy is seriously in trouble, the laity has little knowledge about how deep this problem is within the church. Respecting a faith does NOT mean ignoring a deeply rooted problem within the clergy that people put their trust in.

[DanKroh 11]

"Let's study the document."

 

What document? Donohue's op-ed? My study of it reveals that he presents no conclusions based facts that can be verified, but gives several examples of information that is proven to be incorrect. What more is there to study?

 

"Let's examine our own prejudices---perhaps it IS the case that proportionately more pedophiles are homosexual---EVEN IF we wish it were not the case."

 

Yes, let's examine those, please. On what exactly do you base your supposition that proportionately more pedophiles are homosexual, other than wishing and prejudice, and the say-so of Bill Donohue, who presents no evidence to support HIS opinion, and has, shall we say, just a little bias himself?

 

On the other hand, if you do a little research, you can find several original peer-reviewed research papers that support the APA, et.al. position that it is not so.

 

I'm sorry, but given your history of comments on this forum, I find your claim that you are "just trying to find answers" a little disingenuous. Rather, you seem ready to IMMEDIATELY ASSUME that Mr. Donohue has all the answers you need.

[Mr. Boyce 13]

The facts would be those in the studies the man cites.

 

It is an insult to hear your angry assertions about my intentions. You do not know me, and you are making false assertions. This does not help any judicious study of these matters.

 

Why the ad hominem? Why shoot the messenger (Mr. Donahue)? Analyze the message. Study the facts. You may find your biases unsupported.

[fglover9 10]

BadenP,

 

Now that you have clarified where you are coming from I totally understand your comment. When I read the second post I had a totally different opinion of you because of the approach you took. And I do agree the RC church does have some problems and perhaps people like you are helping the older priests through some of these difficulties that they have had and that is greatly appreciated. My concern going forward is that these younger seminarians do not have to go through this. Read your first post then your second and you'll understand where I'm coming from.

[BadenP 93]

The sad part is fglover that this kind of crap is still going on in some seminaries world wide, especially in Mexico, Latin America, some parts of Europe, even in the USA. The best solution IMO is to have priest candidates go to mainstream coed Catholic theology schools instead of these closed seminaries, this would be a great way to start the elimination of this problem. In addition I think it would also give these priest candidates a much better and more informed view of the world and the people they would be helping.Pope Benedict however is against this proposal saying that these priest candidates are special and holy and should be kept seperate from the lay people, which is why this problem will continue to crop up now and in the future. My answer to Benedict is hogwash.

[DanKroh 11]

"The facts would be those in the studies the man cites."

 

What citations? He names a bunch of journals, but no specific studies. The one study he does cite, Kinsey, et.al. (1948), he states a total falsehood. Nowhere in that study does it say that "37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old." NOWHERE. And I HAVE ready the entire Kinsey study, which I suspect Mr. Donohue has not.

 

"It is an insult to hear your angry assertions about my intentions. You do not know me, and you are making false assertions. This does not help any judicious study of these matters."

 

Well, then you assume anger where there is none. I am asserting my opinion based on your history of posts in this forum, in which have been quite clear about your feelings that pedophilia and homosexuality are connected, which you have supported by quoting documented hate groups and practitioners of false science. If you have had a change of heart and are now actually seeking facts, then I am happy to hear that. I think my mood upon writing this could best be described as confused. Confused as to what purpose posting this article serves here other than to continue to perpetuate the smear that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals, and very confuses as to why you keep trying to treat Donohue's op-ed as a scientific research study.

 

"Why the ad hominem? Why shoot the messenger (Mr. Donahue)? Analyze the message. Study the facts. You may find your biases unsupported."

 

What ad hominem? I am simply pointing out your history of opinions expressed here. As for Mr. Donohue (whose history of opinion I am also VERY familiar with), he may try and wrap up his homophobic scree in the mantle of concern for his church, but it doesn't change what it is. That is my analysis. He presents no facts to study. He presents logical fallacies and outright falsehoods. I have real research and facts, and would be happy to give you some references from which to read them yourself (and have in the past, which you evidently have not availed yourself of).

 

And if all you have is to keep telling me that my "biases" are unsupported, then you obviously don't understand what I do for a living (despite having said it many, many times), and we have nothing more to discuss. But if you continue to present biased opinions and fallacies as facts, I will continue to challenge them.