By Diogenes (articles ) | Nov 19, 2009
The John Jay report offers a brilliant insight into the background for the sex-abuse scandal:
The pattern of deviant sexual behavior by clerics is consistent with several other behavioral changes in society between 1960 and 1990, including use of drugs, and an increase in divorce and criminal behavior.
Ah. See, that's why you pay $1.8 million for really high-class social-science research. Society changed between 1960 and 1990. You wouldn't have made that observation yourself.
Once you think about it, though, it all becomes clear. Mrs. Robinson got a divorce and Junior smoked weed at college, so naturally Father Mulligan chased his altar boys. The connection is clear.
Not nearly so clear is the connection between the gender of the victims and the preferences of the predators. On that point the lead social scientist demands great logical rigor.
“It’s important to separate the sexual identity and the behavior,” Terry said. “Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature but not have a homosexual identity.”
Right. Just because you perform homosexual acts, that doesn't mean you're homosexual. Therefore, the established fact that well over 80% of the abuse involved homosexual acts sheds no light on the question of whether homosexuals were disproportionately involved.
More than 4 years ago your Uncle Di asked:
Is there a single Catholic on the planet -- and I include the bishops' own mothers in the question -- who really believes the purpose of this study is to discover -- and not to camouflage -- the causes of priestly sexual abuse?
I claim no prophecy points for predicting that the rain would fall earthward.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Paladin -
Nov. 20, 2009 12:57 PM ET USA
Having been in the seminary during the 1970’s I can attest to the homosexual subculture. It was not only present it was pervasive. To say that homosexuality is not a factor is to deny the obvious and risk repeating this crisis. You can't fail if you follow the Natural Law, that's why we have it.
Posted by: opraem -
Nov. 19, 2009 11:13 PM ET USA
look who's signing the check. the consultants will deliver the report/recommendations wanted by the guy who's paying them.
Posted by: wvcatholic -
Nov. 19, 2009 10:51 PM ET USA
To refine the argument: Where women are not available such as in prison or to a lesser extent boarding schools and the military otherwise heterosexual men may engage in homosexual acts. Also homosexual men (think British aristocracy) may marry and father children. So certain constraints MAY change a person's sexual behavior. The problem is that in most abuse cases there were no constraints - the perpetrator could have easily chosen a boy or a girl. This is where their explanation falls apart.
Posted by: michaelrafferty5029 -
Nov. 19, 2009 10:30 PM ET USA
Please read Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression, first published in 1966. Be sure to read the part about male pigeons isolated from female pigeons. Those horny birds ended up doing mating dances to folded napkins. How many convicts do you think enter prison are homosexual? Testosterone is a powerful thing. As any self-respecting convict, priest or pigeon will tell you.
Posted by: benjohnfischer4971 -
Nov. 19, 2009 9:27 PM ET USA
The statistics may corroborate the statement that abusers did not identify themselves as gay, but the followup explanation was absurd: they compared the situation to straight men in prison having gay sex. But surely a man in prison has limited options while a priest has equal access to girls as with boys? Unless all the abusers were basketball coaches with access to the locker room?
Posted by: Hal -
Nov. 19, 2009 3:45 PM ET USA
Are you surprised the Bishops paid for and listen to this cant? I'm not. It's the divided sexuality theory that the American Psychological Association and University social scientists have been pushing for the last 20-25 years. It is an artificial construction of human sexuality completely at odds with the natural law, bu enormously popular because it absolves an individual from responsibility for or identification with sexual acts. When evaluated in the light of day, it's plainly absurd.