John Jay researcher: No link between homosexual abuse, homosexuality
April 06, 2010
It is an “unwarranted conclusion” to assert that the majority of priests who abused children are homosexuals, according to a data analyst for a study on clerical abuse conducted on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
“The majority of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature,” notes Margaret Smith. “That participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man.”
- Expert: Donohue's claim that most abusive priests are gay is "unwarranted" (Media Matters)
- Credits – The John Jay College Research Team (USCCB)
- US: Abuse scandal’s total cost approaches $2.2 billion; most victims male (CWN, 3/24)
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: voxfem -
Apr. 06, 2010 10:12 PM ET USA
Because each person is supposed to self-identify sexually. Check out some of the things taught in high school "health" classes. Kids are encouraged to explore and experiment and then self-identify. Which means that sex is becoming detached from the person engaging in it; the object of the act is even less relevant to the act. Instead of being seen as one of the greatest gifts God has given us, we are told it is toy which belongs to us and no one has the right to take it away.
Posted by: Frodo1945 -
Apr. 06, 2010 9:57 PM ET USA
Ms. Smith, just give us the facts, we'll draw the conclusions. Thank you for your hard work. I heard the Democrats need someone to explain how Obamacare is good for us.
Posted by: Steve214 -
Apr. 06, 2010 9:12 PM ET USA
It's amazing that the bishops paid these idiots for this drivel. Well, actually, they are not idiots: they are intellectuals who have a world view totally incompatible with Catholicism. So, why is the Church turning to them?
Posted by: Savonarola -
Apr. 06, 2010 9:02 PM ET USA
Did the bishops pay the "experts" to reach this rather remarkable conclusion for some reason?
Posted by: TheJournalist64 -
Apr. 06, 2010 7:01 PM ET USA
Idiocy masquerading as scholarship.
Posted by: jeremiahjj -
Apr. 06, 2010 6:34 PM ET USA
Margaret Smith, the criminologist who worked on the 2004 study, said that while Donohue quoted the study's data correctly, he "drew an unwarranted conclusion" in asserting that most abusers were gay. "The majority of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature. That participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man," Smith said. Um, sorry, but if participation in homosexual acts isn't homosexual, what is it? I have it now -- it's a sin! Shoulda thought of that.
Posted by: rpp -
Apr. 06, 2010 6:31 PM ET USA
Yet another demonstration of the fact that in order to be politically correct, people need to leave their brains at home.
Posted by: Savanarola -
Apr. 06, 2010 6:18 PM ET USA
And the USCCB paid these people how much for the study?
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Apr. 06, 2010 2:50 PM ET USA
Yes, a gay man is a man who uses moisturizer and plucks his eyebrows. The majority of incidents uncovered in the study weren't pedophilia, they were men who use moisturizer having horizontal dialogue with teenage men, specifically ages 14 to 17. Alcibiades, call your office, Margaret Smith is on line one.
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Apr. 06, 2010 2:46 PM ET USA
Is this the Nuremberg defense?
Posted by: Saved by Grace -
Apr. 06, 2010 2:42 PM ET USA
Excuse me, but regardless of whether the abuser was gay or straight it was homosexual behavior, a disordered behavior that caused the problem. Unfortunately some people like Donohue bring out the inconvenient truth from time to time, and those who want to defend the indefensible (ie. homosexual behavior) can't stand the bright light of Truth!
Posted by: mjarman7759049 -
Apr. 06, 2010 2:35 PM ET USA
It gets worse. Ms. Smith compares the priesthood to a prison population and thereby suggests that the same-sex nature of the abuse is an issue of access to victims. Presumably, our priests are so socially restricted that they would never have access to females. Who knew? I guess that's why we hire experts! But again the solution to the problem is not removing unworthy priests but eliminating the celibacy rule, right?
Posted by: DrJazz -
Apr. 06, 2010 11:48 AM ET USA
In a related study, Ms. Smith has noted that repeated participation in baseball games does not make one a baseball player.
Posted by: sparch -
Apr. 06, 2010 10:08 AM ET USA
When are the american bishops going to stop paying "experts" to express opinions that protect a secular world while putting themselves (the bishops)and the church in grave danger. This is how the power of the bishops have eroded over the last sixty years.
Posted by: Cornelius -
Apr. 06, 2010 9:49 AM ET USA
Her statement is loaded - a "gay man" is generally construed as a sexual orientation integrated with an specific ideological worldview. One can have a settled homosexual orientation (and therefore BE homosexual) without possessing the ideological component.
Posted by: adamah -
Apr. 06, 2010 8:24 AM ET USA
If it walks like a duck..........