Praise for report on gay priests and sex abuse

"the fixation on gay priests" as the cause of the sex scandal "is part of a long litany of simplistic, wrong-headed solutions and scape-goating," by the Catholic hierarchy.

GAY BISHOPS and CARDINALS included....come out, come out wherever you are....

cf. http://www.richardsipe.com/

Or more to the point:

http://www.richardsipe.com/Click_and_Learn/2006-08-01-Sexual_Orientation...

Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of the gay Catholic group DignityUSA, called the report "very welcome news for gay people, gay priests, and our families and friends."

Yes, and we all know that as a result of this VERY WELCOME NEWS, Ms. Duddy-Burke, all chapters of Dignity USA will now be allowed to start meeting and having liturgies in ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES, right?

No one is so blind as those who will not see. There are enough studies already completed on sexual identity and pedophilia. The burden is on folks like Nienstadt to prove a connection rather than having to prove that homosexuality does not cause it. Do we also need to prove that our Irish ancestors are not all alcoholics; that our Italian relatives don't overeat and that Catholic Imigrants are not shiftless.
Bishop Braxton, being the scholar that he is, asked the right question (should Gay person be admitted to Orders)which was answered carefully by the John Jay researcher Smith in the affirmative. But again, if you have already made up your mind, or you wish to let the prevalent cultural bias trump good science, then don't admit them.

Perhaps this will enlighten those with open minds and hearts. Homophobia runs rampant in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as does misogyny. The bishops tried to remove the spotlight from themselves by devaluing homosexuals. Many of the bishops and some cardinals know they are guilty of coverup in the sexual abuse of children and many of them know the world sees their behavior as criminal and unethical by every human standard of decency. This is why they have tried to take the spotlight off themselves. Again,this is but another example of the hierarchy's loss of moral authority and credibility in the eyes of most human beings. The scapegoating in this instance has had deadly and violent consequences for homosexual persons. The bishops have much blood on their hands and disenfranchising women and gay people from the Church is the opposite of Christ's message to love each other. How many of these bishops and cardinals are themselves homosexual? My guess is that there are most likely quite a few.

"I wouldn't put a lot of credence in [the report's tentative finding that there is no causal relationship between sexual abuse and homosexuality]," says AB Nienstedt.

I'm not surprised by this guy's statement.

There's a lot of information not given "credence" by our ecclesial hierarchs.

Like history, for instance!

"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine," wrote Joseph Ratzinger more than forty years ago.

Pope Bennie, you need to take this Nienstedt fella under your wing and teach him a thing or two about the "credence" of "facts."

"Some bishops, however, said it is too early to draw conclusions about the researchers' findings. 'I wouldn't put a lot of credence in it,' said Archbishop John Nienstedt of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis."

No, I'm sure I would put my assurance in his easy thoughtless response. At the very least, a responsible bishop would say he would study it more and talk to others and reflect on its meaning. This is simply useless talk from someone who prefers his own prejudices and cares nothing for what the truth/reality of the situation is. Glad I'm not where he is.

After reading the John Jay report, I do not know how the researchers reached the conclusions they did as quoted. Definitively there is a correlation between homosexual acts committed by priests and pubescent boys. It was quite shocking there wasn't any correlation analysis between the various acts (independent variables) and the the age of the boys (dependent variable) in their groups 11-14, 14-17. This seems rather sloppy analysis and proves quite disappointing. In addition, since the (arch)diocese has the various psychological reports on these priests there did not appear to be an identification of sexual interest (men or women or men/women) of the particular priest. Since the researchers did no correlation the conclusions appear beyond the scope of the data. Just because homosexual acts were carried out on the victims does not necessarily suggest their sexual preference. In addition, if there is a strong correlation between sexual identity and the various acts perpetrated, what difference is there in that grouping (1960s-early 1980s) that is different in the grouping after the early 1980s? Surely, it is not because all homosexual or bisexual men were banned at that time. So what characteristics are different? John Jay's simplistic analysis gives only ephemeral data which can prove anything including the existence of Santa Claus. Rather an indepth analysis can provide valuable insights as to where we were in this tragedy, what changes occurred to bring it to an end and what springboard studies may be carried out in the future to ensure a healthy celebate priesthood.

What exactly is a "deep-seated" homosexual tendency? Does this mean that men who are bisexual don't have as "deep" a tendency toward homosexual behavior as men who think they are just plain gay? Or, do we judge the "severity" of one's homosexual tendencies by the number of times they've acted on their attraction to men, or by how overtly "feminine" they are? Is there such a thing as a "shallow-seated" homosexual tendency? And if there is, should those with "homosexuality lite" be viewed as suitable candidates for the priesthood?

I'm scratching my head here.

The problem is that Catholic doctrine views same-sex attraction as some kind of pathology, like autism, schizophrenia, mental retardation, or maybe even drug addiction.

As Catholics, we SAY that homosexuals themselves aren't the problem, that homosexual sex is the problem. And we SAY we want and expect them to live celebate lives. But it doesn't seem like we really mean it. Many of our bishops seem to believe that gay men are incapable of controlling themselves--around each other and around children.

There's only one problem with this view: There are millions of gay people who are monogamous, stable, sane, hardworking, and kind.

There has long been speculation that there are a lot of gay men in the priesthood. I'd like to read more details of the study; if they determined that gay priests aren't any more likely to become abusers than straight priests, then they must have been able to determine with some accuracy how many of our priests are gay.

I think we should look at gay people as individuals--just like we look at straight people. Stereotypes are clearly not helpful.

'"I wouldn't put a lot of credence in it," said Archbishop John Nienstedt.'

One can not be taught if one does not want to learn. As in any kind of rape, pederasty is not about sex but power. Personal frustrations take expression as anger, hurt and destruction. Here sexual orientation is irrelevant as these
'shadows' are the common bane of humankind. The bishops should know this.

Still, Nienstedt said "a priest has to be accessible to all his people, and someone with a strong same-sex attraction would not be good to have in the pastoral care of people."

Using this logic, "straight" priest would not be able to give pastoral care to women.

Still, Nienstedt said "a priest has to be accessible to all his people, and someone with a strong same-sex attraction would not be good to have in the pastoral care of people."

Using this logic, "straight" priest would not be able to give pastoral care to women.

In 2004 the National Review Board (working for the Bishops) said that "any evaluation of the causes and context of the current crisis [priest sex abuse] must be cognizant of the fact that more than 80 percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature." Hello?

John

The bottom line is that the bishops have to ensure this problem comes to an end. The profile of the abuse crisis is pretty clear. 80% of the alleged victims were male. The crisis was prdominately one of ephebophilia of a homosexual nature.

But the question to be asked is how deeply ephebophilia runs into the general homosexual population. This study provides no real answer to that question. The answer to that question is something the bishops need to know. Rome has come up with guidelines on admission to the priesthood in terms of homosexuality which I believe are fair.

There should be no attempt to single out or demonize anyone with a homosexual condition in terms of the priesthood or otherwise. It needs to be borne in mind that all humans have a defective sexuality based on their fallen nature due to Original Sin. There is plenty of distorted sexuality among heterosexuals. No one can throw any stones based upon sexual orientation per se.

There is evidence that the fear is that of homosexuality, above and beyond that of child abuse. And a need to turn the attention away from one's own homosexual tendencies -- and practices -- onto others. Don't look at us, they are the culprits. We are pure. The Iranian president is not the only or first to praise "purity" as an all-important element. So has the Catholic church. And Pope Benedict is obvious compensating for his own sexual feelings and activities.