Reactions to the John Jay Report

 

Yesterday, the John Jay College research team released their report on the clerical sex-abuse scandal, titled “The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010.” First, hats off to the U.S. bishops for commissioning the report and outsourcing the investigation to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, as indeed sexual abuse is a crime against the law, a grievous mortal sin in the Church, and an offense to God.

One myth that is dispelled in the report’s pages is that there are many pedophiles in the priesthood. Of nearly 6,000 priests accused of abuse over the past half-century (only 5 percent of the total number of priests during that period), less than 4 percent of those could be considered pedophiles — that is, men who prey on children. Any percentage is too high, but clearly pedophilia is statistically very rare in the Catholic priesthood. The researchers also note that celibacy is not the root of the problem, and that priests may be less likely to abuse than men in analogous professions.

However, there is still something strange here: The researchers found no statistical evidence that gay priests were more likely than straight priests to abuse minors. The disproportionate number of adolescent male victims was about opportunity, not preference or pathology, the report concluded. But a very high percentage of the abuse (excepting pedophilia) was of teenage boys, and not teenage girls. Is the report telling us that a majority of the abusers were heterosexual priests abusing teenage boys? This strains credulity. I sense an agenda for the homosexual priesthood is behind this conclusion.

The researchers make a convincing argument that there is a clerical culture (though I hope it is waning) that tends to “take care of its own,” not dissimilar to a law-enforcement culture that operates in reflexively defensive and self-protective behavior. It’s an important observation, as it has been pointed our repeatedly that the hierarchy and diocesan curia seemed in many cases to be more interested in shielding and rehabilitating the abuser priest than acknowledging the physical and spiritual devastation of abused children and their families.

The report does make a case for much better formation in the seminary, emphasizing that we must also “do a better job supporting priests and providing respites from their often grinding schedules.”

As this is a secular report and appears scientific and generally even-handed, I think it would be useful for the USCCB to make its own analysis report of this “Long Lent,” as the late Rev. Richard Neuhaus put it. There already has been a relatively recent Vatican investigation of American seminaries, which on the whole seem well on their way to eliminating much of the post-Vatican II doctrinal and liturgical aberrations that were universally rampant from the 1960s until at least the 1990s. I would also hope that bishops, vocation directors, and psychological screeners of possible vocations are looking for quality over quantity in priestly candidates. Unworthy candidates need to be rejected, regardless of supposed pastoral needs.

There also should be much greater emphasis on the physical, psychological, and — most importantly — the spiritual health of diocesan priests. A happy priest is not only a busy priest but, above all, a holy priest.  Blessed Pope John Paul the Great is a compelling role model, as is the patron saint of priests, St. John Mary Vianney.

 

Rev. C. J. McCloskey III

By

Fr. C. J. McCloskey III is a Church Historian and a research fellow of the Faith and Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. After and while earning a degree in economics from Columbia University, he worked for two major firms on Wall Street. Visit his website at www.frmcloskey.com.

  • http://blogsofasoul.blogspot.com Nick

    “I sense an agenda for the homosexual priesthood is behind this conclusion.”

    Then why would you accept the conclusion at all? If it’s deliberately biased against the whole truth, how can you accept it as a sound report? You can’t have it both ways.

    Besides, if the report is correct about the sexual revolution, it would make sense considering the sexual experimentation of people who follow the revolution.

    Finally, a lot of people are angry about the report, as if it lays the blame on others rather than on priests. They seem to forget two things: responsibility and culture.

  • Deacon Ed

    The question one must ask is: “Can anything good ever come out of New York?”

    Always the answer is couched in terms of what secular authorities, and sadly our Catholic Church these days, knows best – psychology and sociology.

    I once was invited to a meeting as someone trained in Psychology which was convened to discuss what to do with an offending priest. The bishop at the time, the Vicar General and the rest of the clerical officials usually at such meetings were all present. Psychological explanations for the priest’s behavior were bandied about.
    I then asked whether we were not, in fact, dealing with a spiritual problem – a problem of sin. There was stunned silence in the room seeming to suggest how dare I suggest something as preposterous as that. Or else it was, “Why didn’t we think about that?”

    Here’s my explanation and I would put up all the tea in China behind it: I would say that not one of those priests who molested boys had a confessor whom they saw regularly (no not a spiritual director – a confessor). My guess is that offending priests never went to confession. By the time the 60′s rolled around, confession was out of vogue.

    There…I could have saved the USCCB hundreds of thousands of dollars.

  • Oswaldo Castro

    I guess the John Jay College report means that abusers must have been bisexual!

  • http://www.bannonoceanart.com bill bannon

    CNN did a section on this last night that was critical of the report in that the standard psychological manual has a different age point for pedaphilia (13 years old) rather than that of the study which used 10 years old and which distorts the percentage but still the old report had given 5% for all offenders. So now they’re saying 5% of the 5% were pedaphiles. Let’s say it’s way more when you use 13 years of age, what’s the difference….all these men were saying the Mass…receiving Christ….and molesting. It’s both evil and bizarre whether the older youth like 16 years of age were also sinning consensually though not perpetrating a crime.
    Bizarre is the non homosexual claim. The priests in question on the day off in civilian clothes could have went
    to female prostitutes. They didn’t….they were largely gays who maybe in that old generation could not come out of the closet to old line parents so they joined the priesthood to avoid the dilemna of why they weren’t marrying.
    But they were gays who were also manipulative of a group who looked up to them as to power.

    There were two scandals: the pervs…..and those authorities
    who moved them away from complaining parishes to unaware parishes. Which sin is worse, we will find out
    when we are at the Last Judgement where every nook and
    cranny of this period will be brought out into the
    open…..and not by human committees.

    As for blaming the promiscuous culture of the time? Well who do we blame for scandal number two….Bishops etc. moving known abusers to unsuspecting parishes. Was that too Santana’s fault at Woodstock? We are telling the world to go to confession and we’re having a devil of a time doing that very thing when it’s real for us.

    • Carl

      “Of nearly 6,000 priests accused of abuse over the past half-century (only 5 percent of the total number of priests during that period), less than 4 percent of those could be considered pedophiles — that is, men who prey on children.”

      6,000 = 5% of total over past 1/2 century

      6,000 X 4% = 240 pedophiles

  • Donna Bethell

    This report demonstrates that the bishops still don’t get it. To claim that self-identified homosexuals were no more likely to abuse than self-identified heterosexuals is patently absurd. The key is in the “self-identified.” I can just hear the interview:

    Q. Are you homosexual or heterosexual? A. I am a healthy heterosexual.

    Q. Did you hit on young boys? A. Well, yes.

  • Cathy

    I do believe in taking care of one’s own, the great problem is not that clericalism did that, but that many moved from doing just that. A man in the priesthood who sexually molests a child cannot be, mercifully, either to himself or to the children in the parish, placed back into full ministerial priesthood. I also do not believe that the answer is to laicize the man and place him back into society. Perhaps the most merciful suggestion was given by the Servants of the Paraclete back in the 1950′s when they suggested purchasing an island and housing the offenders there to live out their lives in prayer and repentance.

  • Mr Flapatap

    Many of these cases came at a where the psychology “experts” were downplaying the long-term effects of abuse on children. They minimized the damage to the victims and now they cry out that the victims were ignored. I remember not that long ago that a psychological study was being touted by NAMBLA types because the “experts” concluded that a young boy’s sexual relation with a grown man could have some benefits. The Church made mistakes and sinned but I don’t see why the therapists and psychologists should get a free ride for their errors.

  • Christopher Manion

    The lawyers writing this report were evidently so intent on excusing the superiors and bishops of the abusers that they (unintentionally) slander them. Consider this passage on page 89 of the report:

    “The archival data further suggest that the 1993 accusation against Cardinal Bernardin, later recanted, had left an impression that perhaps a significant number of other accusations were actually false.”

    If this is true, that “impression” had consequences. It led to a wholesale rejection on the part of many administrators and ordinaries of allegations that victims and families brought to them. It left numerous abusers free to abuse again — and they did.

    The John Jay researchers imply that bishops in the 1990s – a majority of whom owed their appointments to Cardinal Bernardin — allowed some misplaced loyalty to their friend and colleague profoundly to cloud their judgment and to interfere with their legislative, judicial, and executive duties as outlined in Canon 185. This implication does not constitute a compliment.

    Look at it this way: are we to assume that, had Cardinal Bernardin not been falsely accused, our bishops would have immediately and thoroughly investigated every abuse charge and acted with alacrity in dispensing justice to those found guilty of abuse? And that the eruption of the scandals into the public eye in 2002 would not have happened?

  • Chris in Maryland

    I was so shocked and disappointed to read ArchB. Dolan’s statement about these predators being “vulnerable” to their abusive acts – what an absolutely repulsive attitude toward this problem.

  • Chris in Maryland

    This 2nd John Jay “project” seems like it was engineered to undermine the conclusions of the 2004 Report on the Crisis in the Church in the United States. No one can deny the facts – 81% of the cases were homosexual predation, 78% of their victims were pubescent boys and teens.

    As stated on p. 80 of the “Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States,” 27 Feb 2004, issued by the National Review Board, composed of prominent lay Catholics like Bob Bennett, Leon Panetta, Anne Burke et al, “[W]e must call attention to the homosexual behavior that characterized the vast majority of the cases of abuse…[T]hat eighty-one percent of the reported victims of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy were boys shows that the crisis was characterized by homosexual behavior.”

    So Robert

  • Chris in Maryland

    Obviously, forces inside John Jay and USCCB didn’t like the conclusions drawn by Robert Bennet, one of the top criminal lawyers in the world, joined by other prominent Catholics like Leon Panetta, Anne Burke, etc in the 2004 Report on the Crisis. No, no, we need to have 2nd rate drones from John Jay send us all to re-education camp, so that the gay insurgency in USCCB can try to force Catholics to drink the cool-aid or else be shouted down in any conversation about this crime. Clearly – John Jay in now part of the coverup. All that remains now is to see who in USCCB is.

  • Jon Juergensen

    Homosexuality had nothing to do with the predominantly homosexual abuse of boys by male priests much like Islam had nothing to do with the Islamic 9/11 terrorists.

  • Jon Juergensen

    The USCCB paid top dollar for a report that denies the obvious – that homosexuality was the cause of the predominantly homosexual abuse of children by male priests – and the USCCB got its money’s worth.

  • Chris in Maryland

    USCCB and John Jay just did a PR move for their cred worse than Newt Gingrich did for his! Now that’s hard to top…

  • Chris in Maryland

    And by the way USCCB et al, all of us parents that were forced to undergo your “Child Protection Program” from “Virtus” notice that the new John Jay project is the exact same propoganda denying the threat of homosexual predators.

    • kathy

      How true, Chris. When I filled out the evaluation form after completing Virtus training I asked when the Church was going to deal honestly with the homosexual priest issue. I am still waiting.

      • Chris in Maryland

        Amen Kathy.

  • Mike

    St. Alphonsus Ligouri said that it was his opinion that only men who had been free from mortal sin for several years were fit for the priesthood, and could be said to have a real calling. (“My opinion, not church teaching” can’t recall which book this was in… perhaps his work on the eucharist?) He also felt that it was worse to pursue the priesthood if you had no calling to it, than it was to not answer a true calling from God.

    What about the loss of frequent confession? Were these men going to confession regularly? Was self-abuse also already a problem? (I would have to think it was.) Did they believe that the latter was a mortal sin, or did they subscribe to the psycho-babble beliefs of the times?

  • Chris in Maryland

    I would like to temper my remarks about ArchB. Dolan’s statement (7:19 pm on 5.19), by saying that I respect ArchB. Dolan, and I meant no personal disrespect toward him, or to his office in the Church.

    I would reword my statement, and say that all Bishops and Church spokesmen should stop the “therapeutic rhetoric” in reference to the abusers in these sex abuse cases. These cases are first and foremost cases of mortal sins, and the Church should be discussing these things in the context of morality and justice, not in the context of psychology and psychotherapy. The language of morality and justice communicates a focus on protecting those young people, about 80% boys in their “tweens” or teens who have suffered from the sinful offense against them. The rhetoric of psychology and psychotherapy gives the impression of a preference/sympathy for the offenders.

  • Larry Northon

    There is one other point in the report which I believe needs further thought and discussion. Although most of the abuse took place in the 1970′s, the bulk of the priest-offenders were ordained in the 1940′s and 50′s. According to the report, if you add those ordained in the 60′s you reach a majority. Although the John Jay study was limited to the sexual abuse matter, undeniably this was linked to the general apostasy and moral/doctrinal/disciplinary chaos which reigned in the Church from about 1970 to ’90. I’m 56 years old, and have lived most of my life in the Archdiocese of Chicago, so I have vivid memories of that epoch. One of the things I remember is this: by no means did the chaos only involve those coming of age in the sixties. In fact, there was already a corps of enablers in place, including dissenting theologians, radical seminary professors and admissions directors, rebellious parish priests, restless nuns, and bishops who either tolerated or actively encouraged the frat-house atmosphere. All of these people came from much earlier eras, well before Pope John XXIII and Vatican II–possibly from or before the reign of Pius XII. It is apparent that the groundwork for what happened in the late 20th Century was laid by the century’s midpoint. And yet those were supposed to have been the good ole days–the Golden Age of the Church in America. It would appear in retrospect that the edifice was rotten and waiting to collapse by the 1940′s. I have yet to read a comprehensive analysis of how and why this enabler generation was formed and allowed to pre-position itself so as to lead the rebels of the 1960′s and 70′s when the time came. Such a discussion is long overdue.

    • Chris in Maryland

      Larry:

      You are absolutely correct. I am 55 years old – and I saw the same exact thing – I grew up in Long Island, NY. My high school, Chaminade HS in Mineola, went through a major split in the Marianist order. Mass, once artistically beautiful, especially regarding the rich dynamics of the liturgical year, was flattened out and homogenized. In my late 20′s, I lived 5 yrs in Chicago…I was shocked at the abusus in the Church.

    • Donna Bethell

      The first John Jay report had some interesting statistics: the typical abuser began less than ten years after ordination, when in his early to mid thirties. So at the peak, the abusers had been ordained in the late 1960s through mid 1970s. But the bishops and chancery officials came from earlier generations. For an excellent account of the rot in the Church in America for the last 100 years, see Philip Lawler’s “The Faithful Departed.”

      When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, my father had a number of books on catechetics and apologetics, published mostly between 1935 and 1945. Evidently he had bought them as a young man, a college student. I asked him why he had so many and he said that he could see even then that things were going soft and he thought he should get those books while they were available. How right he was! Just try to find them today. I read them and learned far more than I did in 12 years of Catholic schooling, and I went through before things really got bad!

  • Doug Sirman

    Last year, I took a class in human development in which I was taught that the current age of ONSET of puberty for american males was 12 and that this had lowered from 50 years ago when it was 14. Puberty is a physical and physiological change which takes place over two to four years, not just a couple of months.

    The distinguishing characteristic of pedophilia is sexual attraction to individuals who exhibit few or no secondary sexual characteristics (pubic hair, axillary hair, enlarged genitals, etc.). Specific age limits such as “older than 10” simply do not apply.

    Attempting to claim that molesting or raping a 12 year old is about “teh gays” and not pedophile priests is a stupid evasion based on ignorance at best, and an obvious lie at worst.

    That being said, heterosexual men, even immensely aroused heterosexual men, simply do NOT fellate teenaged boys. Regardless of their ridiculous inaccuracies regarding puberty, a significant portion of victims were males exhibiting at least some secondary sexual characteristics. The John Jay claim of “any port in a storm” is asinine in it’s ignorance of human behavior.

    The first scandal is not a distinction between pedophilia and homophilia; it is about the willingness on the part of a very small minority of priests to sexually abuse children for the purposes of sexual and ego gratification.

    The second and IMO larger and more impactful scandal, is the fact that a significan MAJORITY of Bishops who have been confronted with this situation, have willingly and repeatedly chosen to sacrifice “someone else’s” children, rather than let any priest look bad.

    The third and most disseminated scandal to me is threefold: the ongoing willingness, even eagerness, of Bishops to lie or at least distort the truth about what happened; the willingness and even eagerness of so-called “orthodox” celebucatholics to disseminate these propagandistic lies; and thirdly, the utter stupidity and willing gullibility of some catholics in believing these lies.

    It is my suspicion that this is because what some catholics truly worship isn’t God, it’s the priesthood/church.

  • Chris in Maryland

    Doug:

    Stop passing the cool-aid…that’s part of the coverup.

    This is a homosexual predator problem that infiltrated the priesthood (and ministries of other faiths, and schools, etc) born of the decay mentioned by Donna and Larry. Justice for victims of homosexual predators demands that The Church (among others) face the truth.

    John Jay trying to spin a counter-interpretation of the obvious conclusion from the facts of the 2004 study is a complete embarrassment for them – and a total loss of credbility. Their new interpretation is the same hogwash concocted by “Virtus” in league with the former ArchB. of Washington, DC. Many of the parents (such as my wife and I) who were forced into the “Virtus” re-education camp actually read the 2004 Crisis Report, and challenged the robots delivering the “Virtus” cool-aid – NO HOMOSEXUAL PROBLEM HERE. Sorry…that stuff doesn’t flush.

    • Doug Sirman

      Chris, did you just miss the part where I said: “…a significant portion of victims were males exhibiting at least some secondary sexual characteristics. The John Jay claim of “any port in a storm” is asinine in it’s ignorance of human behavior.”

      In case I wasn’t clear, that IS homosexual predation, and it is significantly present in the population of victims.

      What chaps me is this groundless demand that it be one or the other; it’s just another pathetic attempt to shift blame away from the general population. The fact is, there is a very significant portion of victims who exhibited no secondary sexual characteristics and were thus, by definition, abused by pedophile priests; AND there is a slightly higher portion who were obviously the prey of homosexual priests. This isn’t an either/or problem, it’s a “both” problem.

      The Church facing the truth starts with you and I facing the truth. After all, are we not part of the church, or are you one of those poor fools who believes that only the ordained are really the church? It’s not something “they” need to do, it’s something we all need to do. Trying to blame it on a population that can be demonized and marginalized is just another attempt to shift blame away. If we’re going to be that dishonest with ourselves and everyone else, we might as well be bishops.

      Our Church did this. The Church militant DID this, and for the most part, continues to distort the truth and to lie about it.

      • Chris in Maryland

        Doug:

        You keep the cool-aid pal.

        No one’s blaming people with homosexual attraction – we all have friends and family who we love who struggle with those things.

        Given a choice btw leading Catholic laymen of the 2004 National Review Board, versus the 2011 “re-education squad,” I stand with Bob Bennett, Leon Panetta et al and blame the homosexual predators. This is a group that does need to be marginalized Doug (i.e., in jail). And I note that this group has no qualms about viciously destroying the businesses of people in CA who opposed gay marriage. And they have no qualms about desecrating Churches in their “shaming demonstrations.”

        Not buying the redefinitions Doug…this generation defines away all facts it doesn’t like to face: Gas and food inflation up? No problem – just don’t count gas and food in inflation. Unemployment figures surging? Stop counting unemployed who can’t find work. Facts and conclusions of leading Catholic laymen investigating sex abuse too hard to face at USCCB bureaucracy? Hire unknown 2nd rate drones from John Jay to suffocate the original 2004 conclusions.

        Pedophilia is a problem. It’s just not the problem documented in 2004.

        • Doug Sirman

          Chris, you seem to be under the impression that I’m claiming this isn’t really a problem of homosexual priests. That’s inaccurate. I definitely think that was and remains a major contribution to the creation and continuation of the scandal. A very, VERY significant portion of the victims were adolescent boys. I don’t know if it’s the majority, but if it isn’t, it’s darned close.

          What I’m not willing to buy is the notion that pedophilia had nothing to do with the scandal. It most certainly did.

          What I’m also unwilling to buy is the idiotic notion that 11 year olds are, on average, adolescent. You can call that a “redefinition” all you want, but it is you and the JJC who are doing the redefining.

          The average age of onset for puberty in males is 12. Puberty takes approximately 2 years to complete. It is a logical impossibility for people to begin puberty at the age of 12 and then
          complete puberty when they turn 11.

          Or, are you and the JJC suggesting that the victims were time-travelers?

          • Chris in Maryland

            Doug:

            As the 2004 data show – the vast percentage (>80%) of these cases were male predators of male tweens and teens. As to the thrust of the data, this is the dominant issue to deal with.

            John Jay 2011 has has asserted the doublespeek that the cause of the abuse of male teens and tweens by “male abusers” is “confused sexual identity.”

            This false assertion is the motivation for the new report – to prevent truthful inquiry into the cause of over 80% of the soul-murdering abuse. That’s the issue that demands our attention in response to this under-handed report.

  • http://deleted Mark

    “An error in the beginning is an error indeed” – St. Thomas Aquinas

    From Wiki:

    “Prior to and throughout most of the 20th century, common standard psychology viewed homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness.

    In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature now only demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality.”

    So magically, in 1973, via political pressure and the empty promise of a “gay gene” alone, our society decided that Natural Law should be abandoned and the Church’s eternal teaching of homosexuality as “intrinsically disordered” be ignored — or worse, sneered at.

    How insidious pride is. In order to appear intelligent, educated and tolerant, we discarded prudence, discernment, humility, obedience, common sense and common decency, while allowing thousands of innocent children’s lives to be destroyed.

    And the worst part is that the limp-wristed left still doesn’t get it.

  • Chris in Maryland

    Amen Mark!

  • Bill Russell

    The 1973 “declassification” of homosexauity as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association was a political coup, as personally attested to me by a highly placed authority among those involved and who objected. It has done much damage. But one cannot fool Mother Nature. It is unscientific and, worse, is a good example of “scientism” run amok. It has led to the politicization of a disorder, so that homosexualism has devolved into a “movement” with its own “gay lobby.”

  • Tony Esolen

    A couple of things:

    1. Even if as many as one third of the priests were homosexual, that would mean that they were EIGHT times as responsible for the victims. Do the math.

    2. It is absolutely true that all the illuminati were making light of pedophilia. Mary Eberstadt has called it “Pedophile Chic.” There’s a book called, I think, New Directions, on sexuality, published by the Catholic Left in the late 1970′s. I have the filthy thing somewhere upstairs. That book can’t manage to frown even on bestiality.

    3. Um, I’d like the Catholic leftists and the conservatives BOTH to ask a simple question: “What in the hell do you think it was that ruined so many of these boys’ lives? It wouldn’t be that their natural masculinity had been perverted, would it?”

  • Martial Artist

    Professor Esolen,

    I apologize for having to ask, but I am not exactly clear on what you are attempting to get at by the question in the third item above.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  • Tony Esolen

    Hello Keith,

    I wrote about this for Crisis Magazine some years ago. It’s just that calling what the boys suffered “sexual abuse” did not begin to address what actually happened to them. If a corrupt nun had seduced them, that would also be a terrible thing, but not nearly so psychologically devastating a thing. And that’s what nobody wanted to talk about. The kid who has an encounter with a Mrs. Robinson does not look back upon it with unspeakable shame. That’s because, though it was a sin, it did not pervert his masculine nature.

    I’m having trouble with the new Crisis setup here — maybe it’s just my computer, but I can’t type anything of any complexity without having to wait for the program to catch up with my typing …

    • Beth

      Hello Prof. Esolen–did you have an article posted here at Crisis yesterday but is not up today? The piece addressing exactly your response to this article.

      Was I looking at the wrong site? I wanted to read it again and share with others but can’t seem to find it.

    • Carl

      Annoying isn’t it.

      Type in a word processor first than cut and paste.

      Much better!

  • Michael PS

    At the risk of stating the obvious, the distinction between a victim’s gender and a perpetrator’s sexual orientation is important because many child molesters do not really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

    In other words, many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals are attracted to children, not to men or women.

    • Chris in Maryland

      Michael PS:

      That is Orwellian doublespeek.

      When teen age minor females are statutorily raped by male predators, the predators’ attraction is to the female, the female victim’s minority is selected by the abuser as the way of attaining control over the victim. And we don’t call these abusers pedophiles, or other such nonsense. And we don’t say they are confused about their sexual identity. We call the abusers statutory rapists.

      Homosexuality is an objective disorder, and homosexual acts, like many other sexually immoral acts, are mortal sins. And adult male sex abuse of male tweens and teens is homosexual predation, and NOT, as Ms. Terry of John Jay insists, abuse of male teens and tweens by “male abusers” with “confused sexual identity.”

  • Tom

    As a health professional, part of my job I actually deal with abuse cases from both a medical and legal point of view. An 11 and 12 year old child are 11 and 12 year old child. This new definition by the bishops is scandalous from every point of view, starting with the physiological/developmental angle. Apologists are even worse in my eyes. Don’t people remember being of that age? Shame on you. But perhaps now days all is permitted under the new ecclesiastically sanctioned “holy shamelessness”, that abusing an 11 years old is sort of “less bad”, because that person is really an adult. This is disgusting. It makes me want to vomit, period.

  • Pingback: LisaGraas.com | UN Panel seems to think the Catholic Church is like the Borg instead of the Body of Christ

  • Pingback: UN Panel seems to think the Catholic Church is like the Borg instead of the Body of Christ | Catholic Bandita

MENU