Smoking Gun for Ratzinger. That's it!

[Meadmaker]

I read a column with an interesting take on this "smoking gun" issue. (Sorry, didn't save the link.) One of the things that has been misrepresented is exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger's role in all of this was. At least according to the column, and it seems reasonable to me, the one and only question that was in Cardinal Ratzinger's column was whether the priest in question should be released by the church from his acceptance of Holy Orders and his corresponding vow of chastity.

The question of whether he should remain in contact with children as a priest serving in a parish was actually a question for the local Bishop, not the Cardinal.

Some people don't quite understand the difference between a Catholic Priest and a Protestant Minister. Cardinal Ratzinger saying that the guy had to remain a priest didn't have anything to do with whether he actually celebrated mass for a community, or worked in conjunction with a parish. Meanwhile, this case was already in the hands of secular police. In other words, Ratzinger wasn't protecting the priest, and wasn't doing anything that was keeping this guy in contact with children. All he was doing was saying that a pervert like this shouldn't necessarily be released from a vow of chastitiy.

If you thought vows of chastity were a good thing, and at least sometimes effective, it would be hard to argue with the Cardinal's position.

Personally, I think vows of chastity are stupid and the whole celibacy system is rotten to the core, but that's just me, and since I'm no longer Catholic I don't feel like I'm in a postion to tell them how to run their church.

On a public relations side, it's still pretty bad for the Cardinal, now Pope. Even within the Church, an awful lot of people would still see priests as being church representatives, and would expect criminals to be defrocked, even if that isn't precisely the case.

 

[Christian Klippel]

I think the real problem is not so much about what Ratzinger did or did not do. The real problem is that the church knows about all the child abuses for a long, long time, and has effectively done nothing to stop it.

Every sane person would instantly conclude that it is a bad idea to let some child molester close to children again. However, that thought escapes the church people. One has to question why that is. Could it be that far, far more of these people are involved in such misbehavior? In German we have a saying: "Eine Krähe hackt der anderen kein Auge aus." Roughly translated meaning that one crow doesn't pick another crow's eye.

The latest comment by the bishops in regard to Connecticut's plan to remove the statue of limitation surely does suggest that. After all, what sane reason could there be to oppose that?

It definitely smells rotten everywhere.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[shandyjan]

Can the denial of ones own sexuality, the guilt about bodily pleasures etc. actually be part of why some men (often priests) actually become depraved? I know some careers attract perverts. But can perverts be made by the constricts of such unforgiving rules on natural human instincts?
Reading of the former popes beating himself over feeling unworthy I found very worrying. Is mental illness a part of rising the ranks in the catholic church?

 

[154]

Everyone is quick to say "pedophile," and rightfully so.
They say "homosexual" much more rarely. Why is that?

 

[Toke]

Everyone is quick to say "pedophile," and rightfully so.
They say "homosexual" much more rarely. Why is that?

In my case (and most others here) there is a problem when a paedophile priest assault children, of any sex.
If a priest is gay and have an adult friend/lover/husband there is little to complain about.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Everyone is quick to say "pedophile," and rightfully so.
They say "homosexual" much more rarely. Why is that?

Pedophilia is a heinous crime, homosexuality isn't.

Period.

 

[154]

Pedophilia is a heinous crime, homosexuality isn't.

Period.

Regardless, the truth of the matter is, whether it troubles you or not, that the vast majority of these pedophiles are homosexual, yet they are not called homosexual pedophiles.

This society now actively seeks to avoid criticizing or offending gays for anything.

I know, I know... homophobia, homophobe...

 

[Toke]

I have seen no signs of gays being more or less likely to be paedophiles than straits.
It could be different in the rcc than in general population, but still no proper survey.

So, yes.
You sound like a homophobe.

 

[Ignatowski]

Regardless, the truth of the matter is, whether it troubles you or not, that the vast majority of these pedophiles are homosexual

what information are you basing this statement on?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Regardless, the truth of the matter is, whether it troubles you or not, that the vast majority of these pedophiles are homosexual, yet they are not called homosexual pedophiles.

This society now actively seeks to avoid criticizing or offending gays for anything.

I know, I know... homophobia, homophobe...

Using this stupid claptrap which passes for a logical argument, I might also point out that all of the offenders in question are male.

Therefore, we should have increased scrutiny of all males, hetero- or homosexual, period.

Right?

 

[MattusMaximus]

what information are you basing this statement on?

The "blame the gays" pamphlet he/she received from the Vatican recently, apparently.

 

[Meadmaker]

Regardless, the truth of the matter is, whether it troubles you or not, that the vast majority of these pedophiles are homosexual, yet they are not called homosexual pedophiles.

This society now actively seeks to avoid criticizing or offending gays for anything.

I know, I know... homophobia, homophobe...

The vast majority are also men.* Why don't we call them male pedophiles? Answer: Because no one here cares about that. It isn't the "male" part, and it isn't the "homosexual" part that we care about. It's the "pedophile" part.

To be fair, I heard a defender of the Catholic Church on the radio the other day, and he had an interesting point. He claimed that the vast majority of victims were not prepubescent. They were, in fact, adolescent males. In that case, there is no real pedophilia invovled.

Sex with teenagers isn't pedophilia. It's just creepy. It is also exploiting a position of power to coerce someone into sexual activity. It's also still a crime unless the child is over the age of consent, which a huge number wouldn't be. I'm also not absolutely certain he was correct about the age breakdown.

In short, it's an interesting point, but if you give it just a moment's thought, it means absolutely nothing to a rational mind. On the other hand, it might mean something to someone who is trying to deflect criticism onto a maligned minority.

For what it's worth, back in our parish, none of the boys ever complained about inappropriate behavior on the part of the priest, but several of the girls did say they thought he was trying to cop a feel. I remember the discussions in junior high school, with those barely pubescent females. So, there was a case where the guy wasn't homosexual, and wasn't, technically, a pedophile. He was still a creep, though.

* ETA: It looks like the other MM beat me to it.

But while I'm here, the fact that most of the allegations do, in fact, involve homosexual behavior does lend weight to the suggestion that most priests are gay.

 

[154]

Using this stupid claptrap which passes for a logical argument, I might also point out that all of the offenders in question are male.

Therefore, we should have increased scrutiny of all males, hetero- or homosexual, period.

Right?

This "stupid claptrap" is the simple truth and obviously bothers some people who do not want that stated.
Yes. The molesters in the Catholic Church here just so happen to be, with only a few exceptions that I've ever heard of, male homosexual pedophiles. Yes.
Make of it what you will. Period.

The "blame the gays" pamphlet he/she received from the Vatican recently, apparently.

You think I support, approve, or defend the Vatican in any way?!

 

[MattusMaximus]

This "stupid claptrap" is the simple truth and obviously bothers some people who do not want that stated.
Yes. The molesters in the Catholic Church here just so happen to be, with only a few exceptions that I've ever heard of, male homosexual pedophiles. Yes.
Make of it what you will. Period.

I think it's garbage. Show us the evidence that homosexuality has any sort of causal connection to pedophilia. Otherwise, admit that you're just making crap up.

You're also cherry-picking, because you are ignoring the fact that numerous young girls have also been sexually abused by *male* Catholic priests. That kind of blows a hole in your argument.

You think I support, approve, or defend the Vatican in any way?!

No, I just think you hate gays.

 

[Ladewig]

Regardless, the truth of the matter is, whether it troubles you or not, that the vast majority of these pedophiles are homosexual, yet they are not called homosexual pedophiles.

This society now actively seeks to avoid criticizing or offending gays for anything.

I know, I know... homophobia, homophobe...

Having sex with minors is both harmful and illegal.

Homosexual activity, in and of itself, is neither harmful nor illegal.

If you have evidence that homosexuals molest children at rates higher than heterosexuals, then present it. If you do not have evidence to support that assertion, then your point is without merit.

 

[154]

I think it's garbage. Show us the evidence that homosexuality has any sort of causal connection to pedophilia. Otherwise, admit that you're just making crap up.

I never said nor do I believe that homosexuality has any sort of causal connection to pedophilia. I said that it appears that the vast majority of the pedophiles in the Catholic Church are homosexual.

You're also cherry-picking, because you are ignoring the fact that numerous young girls have also been sexually abused by *male* Catholic priests. That kind of blows a hole in your argument.

Stop lying.
Of course, "numerous young girls have also been sexually abused by *male* Catholic priests." I don't doubt that for a second. Nevertheless, again, try to follow here, the vast majority of cases that I have heard about, read about, and seen documentation of have been men abusing boys.

No, I just think you hate gays.

Of course you do.

If you have evidence that homosexuals molest children at rates higher than heterosexuals, then present it. If you do not have evidence to support that assertion, then your point is without merit.

That was never my words or my point. Try re-reading what I've actually said several times herein now if necessary to understand.

 

[Simon39759]

Everyone is quick to say "pedophile," and rightfully so.
They say "homosexual" much more rarely. Why is that?

a) Because a great number of girls were also abused.

b) If there is, indeed, a difference (it remain to be demonstrated), this could simply due to a difference in accessibility of the priest to boy or girls (let's call it the choir-boy effect.

c) Pedophilia is pretty well known and it is well supported that the sex of the victim is irrelevant to the attraction of the bastard. He will rape indiscriminately male or female children depending of which he can get his grubby little hands on.

d) When studied, the rare few studies that detected an effect of homosexuality on pedophilia actually suggest an inverse correlation. In other world, evidences (weakly) suggest that, if anything, gays are less likely to engage in pedophilia.


So, yes, you sound like a homophobe. An ill informed homophobe...

 

[Ladewig]

I never said nor do I believe that homosexuality has any sort of causal connection to pedophilia. I said that the vast majority of the pedophiles in the Catholic Church are homosexual.

One possible explanation for that is that priests have more access to boys than girls because of the structure of the RCC. Altar boys work closely with priests in roles that girls do not assume. The percentage of homosexual encounters may not be the result of homosexuals being more depraved or their more likely to molest minors.

Furthermore, RCC priest molestations account for a very small percentage of all sexual abuse of minors in the U.S.

 

[154]

So, yes, you sound like a homophobe. An ill informed homophobe...

Shall we start searching for as many accounts as we can find from recent years?
In the last five years or so, I recall two incidents that have involved girls. In the same timeframe, I have seen no less than about three dozen accounts involving boys.
As I first said, some people, many people absolutely resist acknowledging this.
They hate it when somebody dares say it.
We are not supposed to do anything but "celebrate diversity."
Before much longer, not celebrating diversity will be a punishable offense.

Furthermore, RCC priest molestations account for a very small percentage of all sexual abuse of minors in the U.S.

I don't disagree. But, here and now, in this thread, we and I are talking about rampant sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

 

[Ladewig]

I don't disagree. But, here and now, in this thread, we and I are talking about rampant sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.

Well, the thread's actual topic is the official response for the church hierarchy. I still don't understand why it is necessary to discuss the percentage of offenses that are homosexual in a thread devoted to Benedict XVI's response or lack thereof. Do you have a good reason for bringing it up in this thread?

We are not supposed to do anything but "celebrate diversity."
Before much longer, not celebrating diversity will be a punishable offense.

Hyperbole much?