Bertone vs. Benedict.
April 12, 2010, 4:43 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone on celibacy, homosexuality, and pedophilia in the church’s sexual-abuse crisis:
Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia. (April 2010)
Pope Benedict on homosexuality and pedophilia in the abuse crisis:
I am deeply ashamed, and we will do what is possible so this cannot happen again in the future. I do not wish to talk at this moment about homosexuality, but about pedophilia, which is another thing. (April 2008)
Well, after blaming the media, Jews, Vatican II, the ’60s, Masons and secularism, it was only a matter of time until they started going after The Gays.
Bertone is adding oil to the fire.
It’s all the fault of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
OK – I am completely convinced that these prelates are not listening and I am getting pretty close to returning the favour.
This issue is their behaviour once these public incidents came to light.
Roy Bourgeois was given thirty days to recant after attending a woman’s ordination or face excommunication. The priest in Milwaukee and any number of cases faced years and years of canonical procedures.
That says it all :(
Vatican reaction reveals scapegoat mechanism
Often Benedict XVI seems wiser and more humane than his critics. He deserves our support because of his office and because he no doubt did the best he could in his various jobs.
Unfortunately, the Italian bishops who have tried to support him have revealed that they have learnt little since the time of Mussolini.
“I do not wish to talk at this moment about homosexuality” says Benedict. This suggests that he is going to talk about it at another moment. Perhaps the surprising papal initiative that Bertone promises will be some declaration on homosexuality or gay priests — ominous indeed!
Amazing. The same folks who complain that Pope John Paul did not do enough regarding this scandal, now, when Pope Benedict has done something, wail almost as loud.
In addition to the Church instituting measures (which Pope Benedict has already done) to improve the quality and accuracy of the psychological assessments of candidates for the priesthood, of course one of the things the Church needs to do (and in fact has already done) is to take steps to help ensure that seminaries do not inadvertently ordain any more gay clergy.
Certainly there are several things to do in order to ensure this sort of thing does not happen again, but conducting better psychological assessments, trying to weed out gay men and otherwise troubled seminarians seems to be a very good starting point.
What else do you think the Church ought to do regarding all this?
If only Bertone knew how many of his priest confreres were gay…including many of those who work for him at the Vatican. If only…
But to be honest (and to be a bit crass) Bertone has always impressed me as a bit of a dolt. When you look at him, there doesn’t seem to be much going on upstairs. I know that this can sound quite uncharitable, but it is my impression. If I sin by saying this, I think it is only venial. Bertone is no Casaroli and he is certainly no Consalvi–the greatest of papal diplomats. Let us recall what Metternich said of Consalvi after his influence and work at the Congress of Vienna. The great architect post-Napoleonic Europe said of the great cardinal: “He was the master of us all.” If there is another Consalvi in the present college of cardinals, would he please speak now? There isn’t much time
Ken: besides weeding out gay men, of course the other obvious thing the Church needs to do is to weed out single men in their 20s and 30s. There’s no doubt that young single men in our society are much more prone to molesting kids than any other category.
Ken, are you really going there with blaming gays again? This is most tiresome. No proof whatsoever, and yet we must be repeatedly subjected to such blathering. Simply repeating old wives tales from the ’50s will not solve today’s problems.
Wasn’t the priestly abuse mostly man on man, i.e., homosexual?
Mark & Ken: You have a boring revolving tape!
Does man on man sex in prisons/the foxhole (yes, Virginia, it DID happen there!)/with sexual predators mean that those in involved are homosexual? Or does it have something to do with the circumstances/power relationship/opportunity of the moment?
This all gets so very borrrrrrrrrring after awhile.
Joseph:
He deserves our support because of his office and because he no doubt did the best he could in his various jobs.
It is because of his office that he is being criticized. “To whom much has been given – much is expected.” Benedict is not the victim here – don’t forget that. He is the leader for many Catholics and Christians and so far what I am witnessing of his leadership is very disappointing.
I think trying to protect him and deflect blame to lesser officials is not at all a loving thing to do – it is simply perpetuating a dysfunctional situation.
The man’s silence is deafening.
Jimmy–
At the risk of boring you even further, your comment presumes that priests don’t have access to females–does that make any sense?
Posted by Dorothy Carter
I believe that Bertone is the same person who told people a few years ago that condoms are completely useless against AIDS. He is a font of misinformation.
I like how he cites his proof: “I have recently been told..” That’s just great.
Well I have recently been told that if we abolish the curia, most of our problems will be solved, so let’s do that!
Mark:
“At the risk of boring you even further, …”
Too late!
Wasn’t the priestly abuse mostly man on man, i.e., homosexual?
No, it was mostly man on boy.
At the risk of boring you even further, your comment presumes that priests don’t have access to females–does that make any sense?
It’s interesting that nobody brings this up, but in all of the talk about how “celibacy doesn’t cause pedophilia” and the like, it is never mentioned that — according to the estimates I have seen — at any given time, about 50 percent of priests are sexually active.
Abbe Pierre, a beloved priest famous for his work with the poor in France, gave an interview shortly before his death, during which a journalist asked him if he had respected his promise of celibacy. To which Abbe Pierre answered: “Mostly, except for a few times.”
The church in France reacted to the interview by saying that, at 90 years old or so, he was getting senile.
Lots of us are sooo reassured that there aren’t any gays in seminary any more. Uhmm, any open gays, that is. So, make that: we’re reassured that all the gays in seminary are now closeted gays. I’m sure this will work out nicely for them and for all of us. It caused lots of abuse last time, but I feel reassured that this time will be different.
Fr. Anthony Ruff, OSB
Often Benedict XVI seems wiser and more humane than his critics. He deserves our support because of his office and because he no doubt did the best he could in his various jobs.
Exactly what does such support entail and on what evidence ought one to conclude that Benedict’s performance in his various offices was adequate? Or are you asking believers to set aside their consciences and blindly defend him. Isn’t that precisely the issue that got the Church into its current mess?
In any event, when the dust settles (and it will with the onset of ‘crisis fatigue’), the structural problems that got the institutional Church into this mess will remain.
Eric—
Well, since I’ve already bored you to tears, there’s no point in stopping now. If, say, 2% of the population has homosexual desires, then one would think that 2% of the priestly abuse would have been man on man. Instead, the percentage was larger—much larger—than that. Why do you think people are reluctant to understand the full implications of that finding? It would be a tragedy if some in the Vatican sacrificed our children for the good of the universal church. It would be no less a tragedy if the Vatican’s critics would now sacrifice our children on the altar of political correctness.
Mark,
The reason your harping on gays is tedious is that it is quite frankly libelous; pure calumny. The fact that you feel free to continue to insinuate that gay people are by nature child molesters is not just being “politically incorrect,” as you say. It is demonstrably false, long ago disproved and was a petty way of demonizing gay people used in the past by such famous hypocrites as J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn.
So yes, when you come here and try to blame the current situation on gay people, you might as well be blathering on about alien abductions. They are are roughly equivalent in the level of fact involved.
And the fact that you would continue to beat this horse despite the fact that commenters have said “Enough!” seems to indicate that you are not interested in rational dialogue–which is the entire purpose of a comment section.
The gays-are-at-fault canard has been debunked so often there’s little reason to go over that turf again.
But I do think it would be a tragedy to sacrifice our children on the altar of political correctness — which is why the real answer is to ordain women, and only women. Ladies are rarely child abusers. Yes, the solution seems to smack of utilitarianism a bit, but all the conservatives seem to be on board with that approach.
Interesting.
David N., even if the estimates you have seen were true, this does not change the fact that those who are not Married are called to be celibate.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/celibacy
The old everyone is doing it so why shouldn’t I, is not a mature argument.
Nor does it change the fact that there is a correlation between being untruthful or “hiding” the truth and covering up the truth.
I wouldn’t say Benedict’s performance was adequate; he was just doing the best he could.
I thought that link was zany and then I noticed it is Richard Sipe’s page, so I guess I have to take it more seriously.
Mark Proska, what percentage of priests are gay? If the percentage of gay priests matches the percentage of male victims of sex abuse, then the problem is not homosexuality but sexuality.
Are heterosexual priests less likely to have sex with minors than homosexual priests? The Vatican seem to think that the answer is yes, and that homosexual priests pose a higher risk. But they have done no statistical study to back this presupposition. (Sipe was forced out of the priesthood, I believe).
Eric Stoltz, thou dost protest too much methinks.
Benedict has talked about sublimated erotic love of beauty quoting the Phaedrus — these issues engage him at a more humane level than the hang-’em-high brigade.
Fr. O’Leary: you’re on thin ice.
I just noticed that there is no contradiction between what Bertone said and what Benedict said. Benedict said that he would not now address homosexuality which is a different thing from abuse of minors, but he did not say there is no connection (in the case of male minors). It was the wishful thinking of his readers that made him seem to say that there is no connection. Prepare for a follow-up document in which Benedict will clarify the connections he sees between sexually active gays and sexual activity with minors. He has already connected the child abuse with sexual permissiveness in society in general.
We are all on thin ice when it comes to deciphering papal thinking on these issues.
A clue to papal sensibility is the list of his favorite writers given in an interview with a German magazine. Storm, Hesse (Peter Kamerzind and Steppenwolf), Goethe, Kafka, Mann and Annette Kolb.
No, you’re on thin ice when it comes to judging Eric for protesting too much.
I think Eric is not able to answer the statistical remark of Mark and is resorting to rather sophomoric vehemence instead.
I think the Pope’s fave authors would generally be in the gay-friendly category and compose a warm and humane ensemble.
One point I noticed recently about Benedict’s notorious Homosexualitatis Problema of 1985 is that it drops the language of “unnatural” in regard to homsexuality.
(Is there any way you could group your musings into fewer posts, Fr. O’Leary?)
Yes, let’s look at the statistics. Allow me to quote myself.
This is what the John Jay Study says:
I’ve written this before, but in the face of claims like Mark’s, it bears repeating: 51 percent of victims were between 11 and 14. Do we know whether most of those kids were postpubescent? The DSM-IV defines pedophilia as involving sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child–13 or younger. People who want to define the abuse crisis as a gay problem group the victims in the direction of postpubescence. When you group the victims in the other direction, you see that 73 percent of victims were 14 or younger.
Other facts about the data set complicate the claim that the abuse scandal is a gay problem: More than one-third of accused priests “were also recognized as having other behavioral of psychological problems–including 17 percent with known substance-abuse problems.” And, more important, 149 priests were allegedly responsible for abusing 2,960 victims–that’s 3.5 percent of all accused priests accounting for 26 percent of all allegations. How can we draw firm conclusions from that kind of data?
And, don’t forget, Fr. O’Leary and Mark, John Jay’s researchers told the USCCB that they have no evidence that homosexuality is a predictor of sexual abuse by priests: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=5470
Eric–
Your last post was out of line. I had tried to engage you in a rational and dispassionate argument, and for some reason you resorted to the bully boy tactics of accusing me of saying things I did not say, and making hyperbolic, ad hominem attacks. If you don’t wish to discuss the questions I have raised, then don’t, but you addressed me first in this thread. I’m sure you can understand that in blog land the conversation doesn’t stop just because you are uncomfortable with where it may be going.
Fr. O’Leary,
It’s not that I am unable to answer Mark’s “statistics,” such as they are. The answer is simple: if I every Friday I go out and get drunk on beer and then drive and kill people, the answer is not to have me switch to wine.
Mark is spreading libel, pure and simple. He has insinuated that I am a child molester because I am gay. Due to the fact that for more than 40 years that falsehood has been repudiated, yet Mark feels free to splash it on these pages nonetheless, it is highly unlikely he is open to any rational argument. If Mark had come here to explain how the Jews are out to control the world and then cited as his authority “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” do you think a simple link to an article debunking that vitriol would suffice?
This is the “death panels” approach; just keep repeating any fabricated charge and when people will not engage you on it, you say they won’t “debate the issues.”
Mark’s position is not only pure falsehood, but it is also a cause for people being killed or committing suicide every day. It should not be treated as polite discussion because it is a violent and malicious attack.
No, Mark, your post was out of line.
Fr. O’Leary–
You are correct in that if the percentage of priests that are homosexual matches the percentage of the victims that were male, there would be no statistical discrepancy. I could be wrong, but I believe the percentage of same sex abuse was virtually 100%. I don’t know the percentage of priests that were homosexual, but I have to believe it’s much less than 100%.
Grant–I don’t see how your post in any way addresses the questions raised in mine.
“The reason your harping on gays is tedious is that it is quite frankly libelous; pure calumny. The fact that you feel free to continue to insinuate that gay people are by nature child molesters…It is demonstrably false, long ago disproved ”
Ironically, the Burger Court would not find that libelous (418 U.S. 323) even if your straw man was real. Interestingly, adding additional irony, given that it is apparently demonstrably false, the Rehnquist Court would also disagree with you (485 U.S. 46).
MAT: Slander is not only a term used in secular law. It is also used in moral theology, and that’s how I was using it. Sorry, I should have been clearer!
Re: A clue to papal sensibility is the list of his favorite writers
No a clue to papal sensibility is the concrete actions taken in times of crisis.
On the issue of homosexuality, the issue is not that at all but is how to handle sexual misconduct (and any other kind of misconduct) wherever and however it arises.
Sr. Mary Macondald tabled a report on the problem of sexual abuse of women religious by priests in Africa. The response was that many bishops felt that she was being disloyal! Sisters followed appropriate channels of redress and guess what…..
The solution is that women religious and lay people MUST be empowered to head important Vatican congregations and be involved in the administration of the affairs of the Church. If we even grant Pope Benedict’s defenders their excuse that he is not a good manager or administrator but is a gifted intellectual, etc. etc. Then let this gifted intellectual work in a place that will maximize his talents. Allow those who ARE talented in the area of administration and organization the opportunity to act on those gifts for the Church.
We should never forget that Mary Magdalen was the first to proclaim the gospel and the first to whom the resurrected Jesus appeared to. Surely that is significant.
Speaking of thin ice; the ice almost left the Lake Wabigoon today. What “ice” is left only looks thick but is actually composed of long thin shards which barely hang together or put another way, bump into them and they shatter and scatter apart.
Rather than “thin ice”, I think that Bertone and his supporters like Mark and Joseph who appear to think they are on thick ice are really just delusional. Sorry guys but your positions are a defamation of gays. Forget the statistical arguments. Put yourself into the position of how a guy man receives your words and perhaps then you will feel those shards of ice separate and experience the cold 32.1 degree water into which you have just plunged.
Mark, you didn’t raise questions. I don’t think you really grasp what you’re pronouncing on. The claim that the sexual-abuse crisis is essentially a “gay problem” rests on the assumption that the abuse itself was mostly the result of gay sexual desire. What complicates that theory is the data you think you understand. That is, the younger the victim the less classically “sexual” the offense. Pedophiles–that is, people who like prepubescents (defined, as I mentioned, by the DSM-IV) tend not to care about the sex of their victims. Access often determines their victims. Take Kiesle, for example, who was convicted of molesting both boys and, later, after he was dismissed from the priesthood, girls. You think it’s as simple as male on male equals gay. It’s not.
I could be wrong, but I believe the percentage of same sex abuse was virtually 100%.
Mark,
You are wrong. If you read Grant’s message above (April 12th, 2010 at 9:01 pm), you’ll see he quotes from the John Jay study as follows, “Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female.”
It is a mistake, also pointed out by the John Jay researchers, to assume that homosexual acts are only performed by “homosexuals.” Any sex between two males is homosexual sex, but that does not mean the men who engage in it are homosexuals.
To reprieve a prior thread: Dig, baby, dig, just keep digging that hole.
I thank Bertone for making it easier to understand the depth of ignorance among high Vatican officials. Otherwise more might be blinded by the vestments and deference. It is very helpful when the truth of someone’s position is made manifest.
Thank you, George D: The man’s silence is deafening. And, Grant, for this thread and the JJ clarification, again.
Obviously this is a very impassioned discussion that touches close to home for many posters and as a former seminarian, a hetero-sexual male with homosexual friends (some of whom remain in the seminary) and as a person who has some first-hand experience with clerical sexual abuse (not myself as victim thankfully) I feel compelled to add some information.
I was very glad to hear the John Jay report quoted as evidence to argue against any correlation between homosexuality and pedaphilia. It is precisely that sort of information that should inform any discussion on the issue.
Now I don’t claim to be a psychologist or have any special insight into the workings of the human mind, but I believe that pedaphilia, like any mental disorder is much more complex than a simple three-way light-switch (attracted to men, women, children). I am unaware of any causal relationship between homosexuality and pedaphilia or ephebophilia. That is not to say there is not connection, but in order to make a connection we need to be able to pin-point the root causes of homosexuality: genetic, sociological, or development (including prenatal hormonal development). If statistics do suggest a correlation, it may be a shared cause, assuming that there is more than one cause determining sexuality and sexual preference in humanoids. As far as I am concerned, we are far from such a point in psychology and it is presumptuous to impose an ideological framework prematurely on the discussion.
Cardinal Bertone seems to imply that he has read some psychological reports suggesting a connection/causal relation/correlation and those reports should be taken seriously if they infact do suggest such. We should not, or rather cannot, shy away from certain issues because they are not politically expedient or politically correct.
In defense of Cardinal Bertone, I believe one of the posters confused him with Cardinal Trujillo concerning AIDS and contraception.
I am reminded of my seminary days when we visited the local Cistercian monastery: before speaking ask yourself three questions: 1) Is it true 2) Is it necessary 3) Is it charitable.
Few issues hit as close to home as sexuality and the discussion should advance for the purpose of seeking Truth, with charity for all concerned, out of the necessity born by this terrible chapter in Church history.
“Cardinal Bertone seems to imply that he has read some psychological reports suggesting a connection/causal relation/correlation and those reports should be taken seriously if they in fact do suggest such.”
Adam:
That’s quite generous of you. All Bertone said was that “someone recently told him.” For all we know, that could have been Mark!
(Thud. Reminder: do not use humor in comments!)
Cardinal Bertone seems to imply that he has read some psychological reports suggesting a connection/causal relation/correlation and those reports should be taken seriously if they infact do suggest such. We should not, or rather cannot, shy away from certain issues because they are not politically expedient or politically correct.
Adam,
I certainly agree that we should not ignore reliable data, but Cardinal Bertone gave no data and cited no studies. For quite some time now, mental health professionals have been saying that it is a myth that gay people are child molesters. If Bertone has some reliable new studies, let him cite them. But until then, it seems reasonable to me to presume he is repeating an old myth rather than a new scientific finding. Does one really expect the Vatican Secretary of State to have inside information on a matter like this?
“I have recently been told that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia” — he is not citing a scientific report, just talking through his hat.
David is right. If Bertone has The Holy Grail of Homophobia, a valid scientific study actually linking gay people to pederasty, a conclusion refuted by dozens of other studies, then its author must have taken great pains to keep it secret to this point. Of course that would also mean it was not peer-reviewed.
“Mark is spreading libel, pure and simple. He has insinuated that I am a child molester because I am gay.”
Did he say that gays are usually child molestors? That would indeed be defamation, but I don’t think he said that.
Did he even say that statistically there are a higher proportion of gays who have had sex with minors than there are of straights?
I think he was commenting specifically on the fact that 80% of clerical sex offenses concern young males.
What do you make of Sipe’s claim that 9% of American priests have had sex with a minor?
Mark’s 100% claim shows ignorance of the basics and a willingness to suppose that gays are the only molestors in town.
I agree that homosexuality is not a predictor of sexual abuse in priests or in anyone else. But startling statistics of priests showing sexual interest in male, not female, teenagers (postpubescent) are a clear indicator of the gaying of the priesthood.
Father O’Leary,
Mark cited numbers (skewed, if I remember correctly, due to a subset of predators who each had multiple victims) and referred to a need to act on the “full implications of that finding,” stating that “It would be no less a tragedy if the Vatican’s critics would now sacrifice our children on the altar of political correctness.”
To my ears, this sounded like Mark was saying that “political correctness,” i.e., not defaming gays, would be sacrificing children. I’s certainly possible I am wrong, but these are the coded words agents of intolerance use constantly. If Mark inadvertently used such terminology without realizing its import, than I stand corrected.
To put it another way, imagine a situation I am sure you have encountered as a priest: Someone makes a remark that they wouldn’t trust their child to be safe around any Catholic priest. How would you take that as a good and faithful priest, as a person? Did they actually state that all priests are child molesters? No. Do you feel such a remark would be a constructive contribution to solving the crisis that deserves rational discussion?
Mark’s original comment actually presupposes that gays are no more likely than straights to be sexual abusers: “If, say, 2% of the population has homosexual desires, then one would think that 2% of the priestly abuse would have been man on man. Instead, the percentage was larger—much larger—than that.”
I read him as arguing that the reason the percentage is larger is that the percentage of gays in the priesthood is much larger that the average. (I’d guess gays are 10% of the average male population, 60% of the clerical population.)
But now I think he did intend to insinuate that gays are far more likely to be child abusers, for he added: “It would be no less a tragedy if the Vatican’s critics would now sacrifice our children on the altar of political correctness.”
If the clergy were thoroughly heterosexualized would this radically diminish incidents of pedophilia or of sexual impropriety with minors? I think it would have no effect on pedophilia. The issue of minors is very liable to being affected by ideological and legal culture; I think gays are as capable as straights in refraining from such activity.
The “multiple victims” is an angle I had not thought of. If 80% of victims are male that does not mean 80% of perpetrators chose male victims. 20% of perpetrators could have molested all the male victims. The other 80% of the perpetrators could have molested only the female victims.
In fact this makes a lot of sense: say 5 promiscuous gay priests molest 80 boys. Meanwhile 20 straight priests molest 20 girls. 80% of the victims are male but only 20% of the perpetrators are gay.
But this would support Mark Proska’s viewpoint: it would mean that gay priests are liable to do quantitively more damage than heterosexuals if they begin to molest minors.
Fr. O’Leary,
Personally, I think sexual orientation is a red herring. Gay men by definition are attracted to other men because they are men. The Village People represented stereotypical objects of gay desire, and none of them were children. I know hundreds of gay men, and none of them are attracted to children.
These tangents that focus on sexuality miss the point, in my opinion. The problem is not that priests engaged in some sort of disordered sexual activity, be it heterosexual or homosexual. The problem is that many of these men were either malformed sexually or sociopaths. Consider the case of Fr. Maciel. He raped dozens of young men. Yet he also engaged in deceptive and bigamous relationships with three women, with whom he fathered children. This is classic sociopath behavior. Recall that Jim Jones also controlled his followers — male and female — with sexual violence. For the sociopath, it’s about power expressed through sexual violence; the gender of the victim is immaterial.
I might point out that if gay men were attracted to children, the gyms of Chelsea and West Hollywood would be empty.
Of course pedophilia is a very minority matter whether you are gay or straight, and because of the terrific secrecy imposed on pedophiles one never hears of their proclivities. I have met two men who spoke of their attraction to little boys — one of them was married and a father, so perhaps he does not count as gay. Neither of them was violent or a sociopath.
Now on the quite different question of ephebophilia, I suggest you trawl the internet. You will find thousands of confessions of attraction to teenagers and of people recalling how as teenagers they were attracted to adults. This is a minority interest too, and most gay men shun it. But I see no reason to talk of sociopaths or power expressed through sexual violence. See the very revealing combox discussion here:
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/04/quote-of-day-bernando-alvarez.html
In making all priests who offend with minors into Fr Maciels, you are demonizing them. Recall that not so long ago our society agreed to regard all homosexuals as pathological and all practicing homosexuals as sociopaths.
Vian has a good defense here: http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2010/04/anti-church-campaign-seen-in-scandal.html
Fr Schall is a master of spin: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2010/schall_hatredofchurch_apr2010.asp
Some truth in the following:
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/04/the-real-scandal.html#tp
Those who want Benedict to speak up will probably be disappointed when he does speak. His speech to the Irish feel dismally flat.
The Latin letter refused the priest a dispensation from celibacy. Expulsion from the ministry was a different matter. If dispensations from celibacy were automatically granted to sex offenders, people might commit sex offenses as a quick way to get the dispensation. So Ratzinger was actually punishing the priest. Such is the argument of http://paparatzinger3-blograffaella.blogspot.com/2010/04/la-traduzione-che-associated-press-ha.html
Fr. O Leary,
Yes there is a scientific basis, well proven, that males are attracted to young females, and females are attracted to powerful males. It is all about the best chance of your genes being passed on.
There are also well proven studies about the psychological effects of powerful men, using their power to satisfy sexual urges without regard to the effect on those upon whom they prey.
The interesting part of your link to me, is that part of the quote where the Bishop says “and if you are careless they will even provoke you.”
I think it is telling that he used the word provoke, rather than tempt. We can maybe understand temptation, bur provocation sounds like blaming the victim.
If the Bishop is quoted correctly, I would be doubting his suitability for his post.
http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2010/04/vatican-sex-crimes-pope-benedicts.html
Damning video, but why is it called “Pope Benedict’s obstruction of justice”?
Of course the Spanish bishop is a dolt. But it was the combox confessions that I thought were worth reading.
from the link provided by Father O’Leary to the address by Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor of L’Osservatore Romano:
“The content of the blogosphere is similar to the sometimes heated conversations people would have in a bar or on a commuter train, but because they are online, they end up having a much wider influence.”
A development with which Consalvi did not have to contend!
Fr. O’Leary: You’re bigfooting this thread. About one-third of the comments are yours. Please find a way to group your musings and links into fewer posts.
On the substance of your comments: Your anecdotal redoubt again fails to convince. You’ve spoken to this or that kind of person therefore you know what all of that kind of person is really like. Sociopaths need not be violent. They need not act on their sociopathic tendencies. But when adults have sex with children–when pedophiles act on their darker urges–that is by definition violent. That doesn’t mean they don’t have sociopathic tendencies. Pedophiles tend to be good liars. They also tend not to grasp the truth of their transgressive impulses. Look at Murphy in Wisconsin–he felt no remorse for his crimes. Kiesle bragged about the number of kids he molested.
No one is making Maciel out to be the typical priest or priest-abuser. He is somewhat typical of sociopathic child molesters. Somewhat because few child molesters have the kind of support system for their criminal pathology that Maciel enjoyed.
(Incidentally, I’m not going to allow this thread to become a space where anyone can advance the argument that sex between adults and boys and girls is just fine and even beneficial to the younger party.)
What causes pedophilia within the Catholic church?
- celibacy? But I am told that denominations with married clergy have just as many problems
- homosexuality? But I am told that denominations with married (hence heterosexual) clergy have just as many problems
- the absence of women in positions of responsibility? But I am told that denominations with women among the clergy have just as many problems
- excessive reverence for priests? But I am told that teachers have just as many problems as clergy
- secularism? But I have the impression that more traditional societies such as Ireland actually have more problems than more secular environments such as France
- loss of devotional practices in worship? But traditional orders such as the LC have more problems than groups with less emphasis on rituals such as the Jesuits
- misinterpretation of Vatican II? But I am told that there were plenty of problems before Vatican II
- centralization of power in Rome? But I am told that things are actually better now that Rome is more in control
- secrecy? This could be tested by comparing the track record of dioceses in the US according to their policies, that differed significantly from one another between 1985 and 2002.
- lack of accountability and of consequences for guilty parties? Hard to test.
-mafia-style mutual support between offenders, bribery and corruption? A shocking idea, but it needs to be tested.
- lack of holiness? Impossible to test and difficult to correct (how can you require people to be more holy?)
Priests — and random bloggers — are not competent to make pronouncements on this topic. It mostly brings out their prejudices. It’s not a question of faith, but purely a question requiring scientific studies for which psychiatrists, statisticians and psychologists have something to bring. Yes, there has been one study, the John Jay study. It was restricted to the US and did not make a definitive conclusion on, say homosexuality, that needs to be studied in much more depth — it’s much more difficult to prove that there is no link, than to prove that there is a link. More research is needed.
This is one place where the Vatican could take some action. It’s fine having a Vatican Observatory for astronomical research, but in this day and age, I think that it would be more important to create a Vatican center for research on human sexuality and pedophilia.
“The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.”
The NYT article with comments from a psychologist who treated priests was illuminating on some points related to these statistics. First, he truly believes that pedophilia, is an orientation like hetero or homosexuality, in that it seemed almost impossible to reorient a pedophile’s sexual desire in another direction. Pedophilia is absolutely not the same thing as either homosexual or heterosexual orientation. It focuses its desire precisely on immature genital development, cannot grasp that normal childhood affection is not sexual in nature, and “access” is the most important predictor of the sex of the victim.
He further noted that, transgressive by today’s standards or not, hetero or homo normative behavior does not exclude desire for postpubescent teenagers. So it is quite feasible that the 27% or so of over 14 year old victims reflect normal sexual desires of men — homo and hetero — that crossed a line. Without the requirement of celibacy, these desires could likely be redirected to more suitable sexual partners.
For those victims 14 and under, a few might be postpubescent and fall within the same pattern. We have no idea. But most do not. Looking at these two groups as part of the same problem is a mistake. Labeling the problem a “gay problem” is an even bigger mistake, because, drum roll, pedophiles are unlikely to present themselves as homosexual in orientation, are unlikely to be in adult homosexual relationships, and, therefore, exiling homosexuals out of the priesthood is unlikely to prevent pedophiles from joining.
The 27% problem appears to consist mostly of basically normal sexual desire being misdirected to inappropriate persons.
Much if not most of the rest of the 73% problem is pathologic desire that is virtually impossible to address by treatment, and certainly, can probably never be addressed if the person is allowed continued access to vulnerable victims.
27.3% were 15-17
Up until quite recently, the age of consent in Canada was 14. (It is now 16.) Fifteen is the age of consent in Denmark, France, the Czech Republic, Greece, Greenland, Iceland, Romania, and (interestingly) Poland. In the United States, the age of consent is 16 in 31 states, 17 in 8 states, and 18 in 12 states.
Grant and Barbara, thank you for keeping us grounded in fact here.
Mr Gallicho, I think a mature person can agree that pedophile acting out and sex with minors are wrong without needing to demonize the perpetrators. Dr Lothstein has a more seasoned outlook on all of this; I recommend that you read his NYT article carefully.
May I ask for some summation and perspective? After all of the news stories and research and dueling statements, attacks upon and defenses of the Pope and the Vatican, what are we to conclude?
May I suggest this, very tentatively, in the spirit of hoping to draw forth reasoned conclusions from others, and acknowledging that many folks at dotcom have learned more and thought more deeply about this issue than I have?
* The Holy Father, as with nearly all bishops from 25 years ago, did not act as energetically as we could wish to remove abusers and predators from the church.
* There is still ignorance and offensive views to be found in the church with regard to homosexuals, some of it at the highest levels of the Vatican. There is still way too much regard for the public reputation of the church and not nearly enough for victims. There is too much blaming others and not enough introspection.
* We hope, given the experience of the last 20 years, that the bishops and the Holy See have amended their ways and will treat these cases with more urgency and dispatch. In the case of the American bishops, we are starting to see evidence that this is so, but this is no time for them to relax their vigilance; in the case of the Holy See, the Holy Father has done a number of laudable things, but overall, Rome’s determination to permanently change its ways has yet to be demonstrated to the rest of the world.
Are those reasonable conclusions? Could some of them be pushed farther? Are there other things we’ve learned?
Deacon Eric Stoltz, as a Catholic in San Antonio who has been blessed by the leadership of Archbishop Gomez since 2005, you should be aware that there is no way he is going to tolerate openly avowed homosexual deacons in his archdiocese when he takes over in Los Angeles. I’m sure you are already considering this fact, and I am not making any statement here in regard to your situation. I just want to make sure no one is advising you wrongly, giving you any indication that Archbishop Gomez will be anything other than strictly orthodox to Catholic teaching on homosexuality. He is a wise servant of God and will undoubtedly find a pastoral means of acting in the matter, but act he will.
“as a Catholic in San Antonio who has been blessed by the leadership of Archbishop Gomez since 2005, you should be aware”
Poor syntax, you are not a Catholic in San Antonio, of course. Clarify as “I am a San Antonio Catholic wishing to charitably share with you my knowledge of Archbishop Gomez and his orthodoxy.”
Are those reasonable conclusions? Could some of them be pushed farther? Are there other things we’ve learned?
Jim,
It seems like a pretty good summary to me. It seems to me what the fuss is all about is that while the Church acknowledges it handled sex abuse by priests poorly in the past, and has taken significant steps to improve its policies and processes, it nevertheless gets extremely upset at the implication that any specific incident (especially involving the former pope) is open to criticism. For an organization that has at least to some extent acknowledged its shortcomings, it is very defensive when someone else points them out.
The John Jay article noting that access was a greater determinant in choosing Young boys over girls is crucial. For the most part there was never much suspicion with a priest taking boys on a trip while hardly ever were young girls allowed to go on a trip with a priest. Where girls show up in pedophilia cases are in the confines of the rectory where a parent would assume that others were around to make the atmosphere safer. Which we know now it was not always safe.
Jim
I am sorry that facts serve as “offensive views” but the facts are the facts.
Look at the Jay report. The younger the victim, the more likely the victim was a girl. Post pubescent boys were more than three times more likely to be abused than girls.
In sexual abuse cases against minors in the US generally, about 75% of the victims are girls. In the Church crisis in the US 80% were boys. Boys were almost four times more likely to be molested than girls. And access can’t be the answer to this disparity. It holds all the way through the 90′s.
This is not a suggestion that gay equals pedophile, but these are facts that bear some examination. It is amazing to me that those screaming loudest about accountability and taking effective action completely ignore these extremely important and dramatic facts.
The bishops are not the only ones with blinders on.
Bill,
Access explains a 200% more likelihood of abuse for boys?
Lost also in all this is the fact that some of the most notoreous cases – the Shanley case in Boston comes to mind – involved priests who later openly admitted homosexual orientation.
Sean,
And yet, as has been noted over and over again, the John Jay researchers have said that priests with a homosexual orientation are no more likely to abuse young people than priests with a heterosexual orientation. Everyone likes to quote their statistics, but many people don’t want to listen to what the researchers say. I know some believe it defies common sense to say a heterosexual person can perform a homosexual act, but I find the evidence convincing. (I also know men whom I would not hesitate to classify as gay who have had sexual relationships with women.)
No one, by the way, ever seems to raise the issue of bisexuality, or to consider that all people don’t fit into three very distinct groups: pedophile, heterosexual, homosexual.
How would we classify Fr. Maciel? Was he a homosexual with wives and children? Or was he a heterosexual who sexually abused seminarians? He doesn’t seem to have been a pedophile.
Jim,
An apt summary, well done. I would only add the need to understand the scientific causes of the problem and take measures to prevent it in the future.
Bill,
“Access explains a 200% more likelihood of abuse for boys?” Yes.
Paul Flanagan:
I trust your not-so-veiled threat has made you feel superior. If so, then you have already received your reward.
Oops, that bill comment was meant for Sean!
Access explains a 200% more likelihood of abuse for boys?
Sean,
I hope this doesn’t run afoul of Grant’s guidelines, but doesn’t the fact that pederasty, practiced by otherwise heterosexual men with young teenage boys who themselves went on to be heterosexual men, has flourished at various times and in various cultures not indicate that limiting ourselves to arguing about homosexuals is taking a very narrow view of human sexuality?
The phenomenon of dividing people up into two sexual orientations is pretty recent, and some would say it is artificial. Certainly it would seem misguided to look back on pederasty among the Greeks and try to decide if it involved gay/homosexual people or straight/heterosexual people. That would be anachronistic at best.
I am not going to argue that pederasty is good, and of course in American culture it would be disasterous, but it does not seem to be utterly foreign to human nature. To the best of my knowledge, there is no analogy involving older women and younger women, or older men and younger women. Not that sexual relationships never form, but I don’t think a female equivalent of pederasty has ever been institutionalized.
Joseph:
I think a mature person can agree that pedophile acting out and sex with minors are wrong without needing to demonize the perpetrators.
I think mature people understand fully where you are coming from.
“I trust your not-so-veiled threat has made you feel superior. If so, then you have already received your reward”
Your perception of a charitable notice as a “threat” reinforces the initial concern I had, leading me to advise you of a situation in the future which may adversely affect you. Again: I have seen some people trying to convince themselves and others that Archbishop Gomez will not be aggressively enforcing orthodox teachings in Los Angeles. This is a grave misunderstanding of Archbishop Gomez, please do not allow yourself to be misinformed.
No more comment from me on this matter.
This is the worst thread I have yet seen on the commonweal blog. Enough nastiness that I’d be happier if it was entirely erased.
Claire, if only erasing it would solve the problem!
Claire @ 7:27 am said: “ — denominations with married (hence heterosexual) clergy —“
That is an assumption that one cannot automatically make. I know a significant number of lesbians and gay men who had been married and who have parented their natural children. I know a Methodist minister who was married twice and sired 2 children. He remained gay all of his life and his second wife (with whom he had no children) was fully aware of that fact.
People marry for a lot of reasons, some of them even valid. But don’t assume that married = heterosexual by any means.
David,
As for the Jay “conclusions” I will only say they can’t conclude otherwise. We now live in a society where certain “truths” are treated as scientific certainty and may not be questioned lest the questioner be ostracized as a bigot or irrational.
First, let me say that I am not talking about pedophilia. The statistics and my own experience has shown me that orientation has nothing to do with that. But when I read all this evidence that says post-pubescent boys were the single most vulnerable group by enourmous factors exceeding their likelihood in any other situation. This isn’t Ancient Greece, it isn’t a 19th Century Sailing Ship, it isn’t prison – it’s 20th-21st century America. So why is orientation irrelavant? Was it ever even considered an issue, or do we just conclude it is irrelevant because that’s the “right” thing to do?
Eric,
If access is the answer, how do we explain that among young children the numbers are not so disparate?
“I am sorry that facts serve as “offensive views” but the facts are the facts. ”
Sean – I agree that facts are facts. But here is the Bertone quote that started this conversation: “Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia.”
The problem is that Cardinal Bertone didn’t provide any facts to support that statement, Nor do I see that the John Jay statistics support it, at least not unequivocally.
How else are we to think about the Bertone statement except as an unfair tarring of homosexuals? Consider that priests are now unfairly tarred because a relative few of them are abusive.
“If access is the answer, how do we explain that among young children the numbers are not so disparate?”
Simple. A vast number of the victims were altar servers, and girls were not allowed to serve at the altar in the past. In other activities, priests often took charge of the boys, nuns took charge of the girls.
Perhaps Tarcisio Bertone was referring to studies such as this one:
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/concerns/A000010060.cfm
“Deacon Eric Stoltz, as a Catholic in San Antonio who has been blessed by the leadership of Archbishop Gomez since 2005, you should be aware that there is no way he is going to tolerate openly avowed homosexual deacons in his archdiocese when he takes over in Los Angeles. ”
Paul Flanagan, this is a distressing note on many levels. Have there been any actual instances of deacons being removed from ministry in San Antonio because they are homosexual? (I’d be extremely upset to learn that is the case).
If there haven’t been, then why do you assume that Archbishop Gomez would do this?
There are something like 14,000 “permanent” deacons in the US. If they are representative of the male population, then there are hundreds of homosexual deacons. Why would it be ‘orthodox’ to remove them from ministry?
“Simple. A vast number of the victims were altar servers, and girls were not allowed to serve at the altar in the past. In other activities, priests often took charge of the boys, nuns took charge of the girls.”
I do think this is a reasonable explanation. Beyond altar service, there was also a tradition in parishes in the US, now mostly disappeared, of dividing by sex, e.g. there were boys clubs and girls clubs (sodalities), men’s groups and women’s groups, etc. In Chicago when I was a college student in the early ’80′s, quite a few of the Catholic high schools were still boys-only or girls-only.
“This is the worst thread I have yet seen on the commonweal blog. Enough nastiness that I’d be happier if it was entirely erased.”
Very nasty indeed, Claire.
But a completely accurate summary of the divided mind of American Catholics on these issues right now. And of where some Catholics are willing to go, when it comes to attacking, demonizing, and using their gay brothers and sisters in nasty political games.
And of the nastiness that any of us who are gay and continue to have anything at all to do with the church put up with on an ongoing basis from these brothers and sisters who feel perfectly free to vent the nastiness.
In the name of the Lord, of course. And in the name of charity and loving, charitable advice designed to woo us to the Lord, you understand.
As for the Jay “conclusions” I will only say they can’t conclude otherwise. We now live in a society where certain “truths” are treated as scientific certainty and may not be questioned lest the questioner be ostracized as a bigot or irrational.
Sean,
So the USCCB paid a very large amount of money to a research group that can’t tell them the truth? You seem to have a closed mind on this topic. Anything the researchers produce that supports your view you are willing to quote. You are perfectly happy to use their statistics. But if they say something you don’t like, they are being politically correct.
This isn’t Ancient Greece, it isn’t a 19th Century Sailing Ship, it isn’t prison – it’s 20th-21st century America.
Bringing up pederasty at other times and in other cultures is purely an observation of my own, but I am not backing away from it. It seems to me that the lives of celibate Catholic priests are not typical of other 21st-century Americans. Priests live in a subculture, and that subculture has unique features.
Why, by the way, do you think there are so many homosexual priests in a Church that so vehemently condemns homosexuality? That seems to me as puzzling a question as many of the others involved. I think becoming a priest must be arduous enough so that it can’t be a matter of frivolous gay people saying to themselves, “I want to be a priest to meet other hot guys!” It is difficult for me to imagine anyone making it through the seminary and being ordained who didn’t have a significant commitment to being a good priest (and I include there both homosexuals and pedophiles). If you want to meet men or spend time with children, they are a lot of easier ways to do it than becoming a priest.
Another complication: the effects of the closet. Since gay men are, in theory, barred from ordination, then gay priests who are sexually abstinent are still stigmatized for homosexuality. When the Vatican doc. about ordaining gays was released back in, was it 2005? I thought that the silly insinuations of the document (e.g., that gay men cannot fulfill the fatherly role of priests as straight men can, that they are by definition “affectively immature,” etc.,) might lead gay priests to say “hey, wait! I’m gay, I follow the rules, and I do a good job!” I also thought that straight priests might speak up for their gay confreres. Nope. With very few exceptions, the silence was deafening. Part of the reason that people can still blame gays for sex abuse is that gay priests stay safe and quiet in the closet, and straight priests don’t speak up either, often for fear of being thought to be gay themselves.
After all, if you’ve been labelled “objectively disordered,” told that if you love someone deeply (and sexually,) that you’d be committing a grave and intrinsically evil act, and if you are a public representative of a church that asks you to teach these things about yourself and others like you, it’s not very conducive to personal openness. Not to mention the possibility of reprisals like those mentioned in the thread above. And yet by all accounts the percentage of gay men in the priesthood is several times higher than the percentage of gay men in the population generally. How dark, scary and painful that closet must be! Yet so many still choose it.
Perhaps Tarcisio Bertone was referring to studies such as this one
Nancy,
That is not a study. It’s an article. And its thesis is that child abuse contributes to some people growing up to be homosexual, not that homosexuals are more likely to abuse young people than heterosexuals.
Way up there somewhere:
“I think he was commenting specifically on the fact that 80% of clerical sex offenses concern young males.”
The Jay Study only dealt with minors. Nothing was ever commissioned to investigate priests sexually misbehaving with adults. Let’s be clear that the institutional church has yet to come to grips with predation on men and women, usually the emotionally vulnerable.
People eager to pin the blame on homosexuality have stumbled on their first scapegoat (or transplanted it) and are satisfied with personal fiat.
The only model that explains both sexual predation and the episcopal cover-up is addiction. Clergy sex addicts prey on the weak and vulnerable, the people who are available to them. Bishops have been been groomed — like many parents. And the behavior of some defenders is also part of the addiction disease: it seems a little too shrill, a little too self-serving, a little too aligned with one’s own soapbox issues.
Here’s a decent article in Newsweek headed Mean Men:
The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.
(Another example of anti-Catholicism in the media!)
This thread is petering out. Or maybe saltpetering out. I agree with Claire. A dispiriting thread by any estimation. The only truly worthy and original comment on it was made by David Gibson.
David Gibson for pope!
David, you are correct. I meant to say perhaps Tarcisio Bertone was referring to studies such as the ones referred to in this article that show a relationship between homosexuality and sexual abuse, including childhood sexual abuse.
Sean:
You wrote, “As for the Jay ‘conclusions’ I will only say they can’t conclude otherwise.”
Do you really want to stand by that statement?
“Why, by the way, do you think there are so many homosexual priests in a Church that so vehemently condemns homosexuality? ”
David – do you really think it does (vehemently condemn homosexuality, I mean)? Yes, I know about the Catechism and Vatican documents, but I have no delusion that hardly anyone reads them. Granted, I live in Chicago, but I’ve never, ever heard the words “gay” or “homosexual” uttered from the pulpit. The ministries I’m aware of in the local church around here are supportive of homosexuals.
I really think the Vatican and the church on the ground are of two different minds on homosexuality.
“Paul Flanagan”: I thought you were done commenting here. That would be my preference. Your threat, however pathetically couched as charity, is most unwelcome. I know what you’re doing. Stop.
“(Another example of anti-Catholicism in the media!)”
Absolutely! I don’t even need to read the article – the fact that it’s in Newsweek tells me everything I need to know!
(the above is tongue-in-cheeck)
I really think the Vatican and the church on the ground are of two different minds on homosexuality.
Jim,
You may very will be right on that. When I talk about what “the Church” teaches on homosexuality, I am referring to official pronouncements, such as statements from the CDF or the USCCB.
David N., I also meant to say that this does not change the fact that Tarcisio Bertone failed to mention what that relationship was, leaving all those with a homosexual inclination suspect NOR does it change the fact that The Church should not accept into Religious and Diocesan Life, any Person who does not recognize or denies God’s intention for Sexual Love within the Holy Sacrament of Marriage between a Man and Woman, united as Husband and Wife.
Before the thread peters out – over 100 posts, many from Fr. O’Leary, this is the first time I saw it.
So:
Bertone is another curialist undermining the Church’s efforts in this regard with poor defensiveness.
I see John Allen has a chummy piece on Vian at NCR today pushing the media is at fault.
The problem of pedophilia is a problem rooted in stunted maturity psychologically – it’s not a “homsexual’ problem. Whether it’s a child, or a teenager, or an adult, of either sex, sex abuse is about the misuse of power/control – though it’s most horrid with young children, even if it also can scar others for life -even adults!
The continuing defenses from Rome only complicate (as we’ve said several times) the perception that has lead to an admitted “crisis”.
I think it underscores the problem of the Roman curuial system.
Part 2 of Jason Berry on Maiel shows how venality in that system can cause enormous damage spilling over even yet.
And as to BXVI, whether you think he has shown poor judgement in the past ( I think so), whether “he’s got it” or not (didn’t his press secretary say today the Holy Father doesn’t need to coment on such matters?), the bottom line is how much you think the buck stops at his position and what the requiorements of that mean?
A few further notes heere from me as one individual:
I find Mr. Flanagan’s posts to be ugly and his sole preoccupation to be his idea of “orthodoxy”, which lends little adult understanding to the discussion. From previous discusions here, having Abp. Chaput as a mentor, by the way, might not be the greatest recommendation.
I’m sorry Bill Dehaas has disappeared from our threads after his dustup with Grant -doesn’t speak well for the blog, I think Bill usually cointributed lots of documentation valuable to the discusion at hand., which, I must say I agree with Rita, seem to be lacking in many posts here.
It is Christ Who instituted the Sacrament of Marriage. Archbishop Chaput is a great mentor because he has “the courage to be Catholic”.
To get into the FBI, CIA, etc. (even as an intern), an applicant must take a polygraph test. The same with many corporations. Those agencies and corporations also test employees periodically — every five years, or so.
Priests are given the most intimate access imaginable to people’s secrets — in the confessional. Why aren’t prospective seminarians required to prove their emotional, mental, and moral stability with polygraph testing, just as if they were going into law enforcement? Why aren’t priests and bishops polygraphed periodically to prove they really believe what they’re preaching and practicing what they’re preaching?
According to the John Jay Report 80% of the abuse cases in the United States were about homosexual predation of adolescent boys. According to Sandro Magister, the Vatican report over the past 50 years shows the global number to be 60% homosexual, 30% heterosexual and 10% pedophilia (though this was not broken down further). If this were an election, homosexual predation would win in a landslide. No, its not about homosexuality at all! It is about something else.
Eggloff, you’re almost there: it’s about predation. Another word for that is abuse. Abuse is not the same thing as homosexual orientation. To paraphrase the pope.
True, Mollie, but this crisis was largely,in the US almost exclusively, about adult homosexuals preying on young boys.
Thanks, Mollie – you beat me to it. For profound personality problems, it’s easy to scapegoat homosexulaity in this.
Nancy ,we already discussed Archbishop Chaput’s wonderful defense of marriage in the Boulder Catholic school incident.
I wanted to add another point.
It’s got to be six or sever years ago, but when agroup I was in discussed peter’s “Apeople Adrift,” there was fairly large consensus that things would go backward in our church until they fully sddressed the issue of women and their role.
Fo rwhatever you think of her satirocriticisms. Dowd has clearly focused on that issue again as part of this (old boys’ network) problem and a number of women (and men) I know see that as ringing true.
At any rate, how governance and power are carried out at the institution supposed to represent Christ on earth will sit at the heart of this and if injustice occurred, as it surely did, how it was dealt with.
I’m tired of this thread too, but ,I’ll tell you, I’m tired because of all the excuses and simpleminded defenses that continue to emanate instead of really dealing with the problem.
According to the John Jay Report 80% of the abuse cases in the United States were about homosexual predation of adolescent boys.
Eggloff,
If you want to site the John Jay Report and say you disagree with the John Jay Researchers, that’s fine. But if you quote the John Jay Report to support your conclusion that “this crisis was largely,in the US almost exclusively, about adult homosexuals preying on young boys,” then you at least have to say you disagree with the John Jay researchers, who do not draw your conclusion. Their conclusion is that homosexual priests are no more likely to abuse than heterosexual priests and that just because a priest commits a homosexual act does not mean he is homosexual (gay). If you want to maintain that is baloney and just cite their figures, then go ahead. But please don’t use the John Jay Report to “prove” you are right.
What the researchers say may be difficult for some people to believe, but it is not difficult to understand, so please understand it and deal with it instead of pretending it doesn’t exist.
Gerelyn – interesting question about testing. Personally, I’ve never taken a polygraph, but when I was in my aspirancy (discernment) year for the permanent diaconate, they had me take several psychological exams, and also conducted a criminal background check. I’ve had several other criminal background checks since then. But there is no continuing testing, at least nobody has tested me.
I’ve heard that there is no test that can reliably identify someone who sexually abuses. Whether there are other red flags that would pop up on some of these exams, I don’t know, but maybe Bill DeHaas or someone else knowledgeable about psychology could comment.
Agree that nothing can/will go forward until the Church’s treatment of women is addressed.
Someone (Commonweal?) should speak/write plainly about the real reasons women cannot be ordained and priests cannot marry. The primitive taboos that continue to be honored by men of the 21st century need to be dragged into the open.
Geleyn – meant to add – I don’t know how long this testing regimen has been in place, but suspect it is of recent vintage. For abuse cases from the ’70′s and ’80′s – it’s just too late now. That is what is so heartbreaking about these cases. The damage is done, and there is just no way to roll it back.
Hi, Jim:
I don’t know if a sociopath/psychopath can beat a lie detector test. I think there are people who underestimate the ability of FBI polygraph experts and the accuracy of their tests. I do think it’s possible/easy to beat an MMPI-type test.
(I’ve always thought it would be great to have a t.v. show, To Tell the Truth, or Truth or Consequences, in which priests/bishops/ministers/rabbis/imams/et al. from various religions were wired up and questioned.)
Jim, I remember distinctly when the idea of testing applicants for religious orders came up. (Not sure about seminaries.) Around 1959/1960/1961.
Surely you do not assume that lie detector tests are the equivalent of a psychological evaluation.
“There is still ignorance and offensive views to be found in the church with regard to homosexuals, some of it at the highest levels of the Vatican.”
I suspect that there are more than a few absolutely fearful, self-hating deeply closeted homosexual clerics in high places (they are NOT “gay” as that word implies self acceptance) who will do and say anything to protect what they think to be their deep cover.
Many Catholic (and other) LBGT people have been raised in all-pervasive environments that teach them to be self-hating because of who they are. Once that self-hatred is ingrained, it is quite difficult to overcome, particularly among those raised in strong “religious” environments. There is no reason not to believe that more than a few of these people have made it into, and up within the ranks of, an all-male celibate priesthood.
Jimmy Mac, you are absolutely correct. Some of the most virulent persecutors of gays have turned out to be self-loathing closeted homosexuals who are trying to “prove” to the world that they are not what they most fear.
“Surely you do not assume that lie detector tests are the equivalent of a psychological evaluation.”
———
I think s polygraph test would be much better than a “psychological evaluation” for screening applicants to seminaries.
As many posters have pointed out, bishops distrust[ed] psychology/psychiatry for various reasons.
The psychologist described in the NYT the other day mentioned the fact that he was given priests to treat without full disclosure from their bishops of their issues/symptoms/histories. And then the bishops ignored his recommendations after the treatment.
The head of the Paracletes warned Pope Paul VI in 1963 that pedophilia cannot be treated/cured. He, too, was ignored.
A polygraph exam, administered by a neutral examiner, could provide a useful look at the attitude and history of a candidate for the seminary.
Thanks, Grant, for the citation that 81% of the abuse was male on male. That is indeed less than virtually 100%, but still, if I have my math right, greater than even “4 out of 5 dentists surveyed”, so we’re dealing with a substantial majority, which was my point. I don’t know if there are reliable estimates of the percentage of clergy with predominantly same-sex attractions, but I think we can all agree the percentage ranges from much less to much, much less than 81%. So, for whatever reasons, the clergy who were attracted to females were much more successful at resisting these temptations than the clergy who were attracted to males. If we truly want to reduce the abuse, we need to understand that, and learn from it–even if what we learn may be painful to some. I don’t find the availability rationale (prisons, foxholes, etc) persuasive–God knows the clergy have ready access to females.
Apparently the word “child” may have some precise meaning when it comes to sexual abuse and its causes/treatment. If so, fine. But any fair reading would allow that the every day use of the term child encompasses a wide range of ages. You tell the mother and father of the seventh grade boy that *technically* there was no child abuse, and you’ll get the physical response you richly deserve.
There have been some most unfortunate and downright ugly accusations made on this thread, but I realize discussion of this topic may be painful for some people, and so will not respond as I otherwise might (I will say that I am disappointed that, among others, the penultimate sentence of a 9:12 pm comment was allowed to stand). Let’s try to avoid the name-calling and imputing only the worst of intentions to those who may hold a different point of view. Unless we deal with the issue, and the facts, head on and in a logical and thoughtful manner, we’re no better than those in the hierarchy who may have closed their eyes to problems, trying, in their mind, to serve the greater good.
We are Men and Women, Husbands and Wives, Sons and Daughters, Brothers and Sisters, called to live our Lives, from The Beginning, in Holy relationships and friendships in communion with God, in a complementary relationship of Love because we are made in the Image of Love, God, Who Is The Blessed Trinity.
“Let Us Make Man In Our Image.”-The Blessed Trinity
George D., “where I am coming from” is typical of the macho-locker-room insinuation that cannot help this debate. If you want to demonize pedophiles, do it on your own responsibility.
Yes, what a creepy threat from Paul Flanagan. Is this to be the style of the new Opus Dei regime in LA.
Vian was right: blogs are just pubtalk.
David,
In the first instance they were statisticians, counting the cases and toting up numbers. In the second instance, they went beyond their competence. It is like asking an expert in the cookery to draw conclusions about homosexuality.
H/T to a contributor to comments on America dealing with this subject:
Pedophilia and Homosexuality
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:10:37 PM
James Martin, S.J.
“Homosexuality and Pedophilia: The False Link”
http://www.psychologytoday.com/print/1800
Mark, good statement — but what about the suggestion that the 81% figure is skewed because of multiple offenders (i.e. gay offenders do so with more boys per offender)? Also how do you factor in the access argument? And how does bisexuality figure in this?
I think the whole debate reveals our still great ignorance about sexuality. Is there a single authoritative book on bisexuality for example? No wonder bishops are confused.
Again, Jimmy, the issue was not pedophilia. in terms of sheer numbers, that was a relatively minor problem. The problem was adult homosexuals preying on adolescent boys. i know folks on the left really want to change the subject to pedophilia or to the bishops (led astray by misplaced loyalties, lawyers and following phony science). The problem was a lack of fidelity to the teachings of the Church, particularly with regard to sexual morality. I sense, given the theme of this thread and others like it, if this crowd was still running things, the problems would persist.
Someone pointed out that the access argument does not work, since the disparity actually tends to disappear at the pedophile level — that is, though pedophiles have much less access to girls than to boys. we do not find that here is so great a preponderance of boy victims there as there is at the ephebophile level. This point was misinterpreted by Eric Stoltz and Jim Pauwel above.
I would think an understanding of what pedophilia is and how it differs from abuse of post-pubescent children would be essential to having an informed opinion about the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church.
The job of a statistician goes way beyond “counting cases and toting up numbers”. In fact, drawing meaningful inferences from that data is perhaps the most important part of their job. That’s why it requires an advanced degree. (For a rough comparison, a cook’s job does not stop after he has shopped for ingredients: then he has to use them in proper ways to cook an edible meal.)
A statistician deals every day with data that has problems with multiplicity or outliers in the distribution. They are very aware of such problems.
I hesitate to point this out, but notice the wording of the John Jay researcher: “We do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now”. They word their conclusions as carefully as canon lawyers, and in this instance they did not way “We find that there is no connection” but “We do not find that there is a connection”. For me and, I suspect, for all scientists, the difference is obvious.
In the first instance they were statisticians, counting the cases and toting up numbers. In the second instance, they went beyond their competence.
Eggloff,
What makes you say that? To say that homosexual priests are no more likely to abuse than heterosexual priests would require knowing which priests were homosexual and which were heterosexual, which might be somewhat iffy. But otherwise, it is just a matter of counting.
The principle investigator is Karen Terry, who would seem to have some knowledge of what she is talking about. This is how she is described on the USCCB website:
Yesterday, I posted a strange little bit about the ice on Lake Wabigoon, in Northwestern Ontario. Well today the ice is gone, about one month earlier than normal BTW.
I was tempted at the time to add “Life expectancy at that temperature is very short” but I thought it too hurtful so I left it out.
Unfortunately, as both Claire and Rita have already have pointed out this has been one of the least edifying of threads. I found myself repeatedly angry over the too “intellectual” arguments on the meaning of statistics and Jay Report.
In my opinion for the little it is worth, Paul Flanagan’s comment to Eric re: Gomez was the deepest of all. He and others like him seem to have forgotten that homosexuals, bisexuals, transvestites etc etc are all of us made in the image of God. We are all members of the Body.
I just wanted to scream as a father would yell at his son or daughter …stop! We are all One! This isn’t even arguable. You can’t say a homosexual isn’t equally human, just as you can’t say a person of color is not equally human. Do you get it? Because that is in effect is what some here are arguing. And it has got to stop!
And please don’t give me any ifs and buts or maybes. No excuses! We are all of us male and female to varying degrees both physically and psychologically. It is time this Church, especially this Church understood this fact and its implications and started treating all of its members with the dignity that being One in Body with Christ really, really means.
Fr. O’Leary, you say, “Vian was right: blogs are just pubtalk.”
Well, since you and I seem to meet in this particular pub right now, and you obviously have no qualms about participating in the pubtalk, may I draw up a chair and share a pint with you and talk over some of these issues amidst the pub’s hubbub?
:-)
“Let Us Make Man In Our Image.”-The Blessed Trinity
Is this a really deep observation about the relationship of God the Father — the Creator — to the other persons of the Trinity? Or is it, um, not so deep? Can we attribute the words of Jesus to the Trinity, too?
The complementary nature of Man and Woman is a Gift that should be Respected because we are made in the Image of Love.
John Borst, “homosexuality” refers to sexual attraction or preference, not to personhood. Those who refuse to condone homosexual sexual acts because they do not Respect the Dignity of the Human Person are not discriminating against a Person, they are discriminating against demeaning sexual acts.
Eggloff said, “Again, Jimmy, the issue was not pedophilia. in terms of sheer numbers, that was a relatively minor problem.”
At the risk of being considered boringly repetitious here is the data from the John Jay study(page 70, Table 4.3.2):
Table 4.3.2 VICTIM’S AGE AT FIRST INSTANCE OF ABUSE
Age Pct CumPct
1 0.04% 0.04%
2 0.12% 0.17%
3 0.25% 0.41%
4 0.46% 0.87%
5 0.92% 1.79%
6 1.76% 3.55%
7 2.46% 6.01%
8 4.12% 10.13%
9 4.04% 14.17%
10 8.40% 22.57%
11 9.99% 32.56%
12 14.77% 47.33%
13 12.74% 60.07%
14 13.26% 73.34%
15 11.63% 84.97%
16 8.59% 93.56%
17 6.44% 100.00%
What is the definition of a “relatively minor” percentage?
Sorry about the formatting–the table didn’t come through quite right.
Thank you, Gerald. Eggloff hasn’t done his homework.
60.7 percent of the victims at first age of abuse were molested by pedophiles, as defined by the DSM-IV.
Nancy, your definition of Homosexuality is unacceptable. That is not how the CCC defines it. In 2357 it is defined as a man or a woman who experiences a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. Further in 2358 it is not a chosen condition.
A person can be in the above state and commit no “demeaning sexual acts” and they still are homosexual in their condition. It is not sinful to have a same sex attraction or preference in and of itself.
Which is exactly what the problem is in this discussion. Personhood for a homosexual = demeaning sexual act and is implicitly understood in your statements and that is what makes you and people like you out and out bigots when it comes to people with a same sex attraction. That is why I am hollering stop.
That is also what secular society is finally hollering, loud and clear and the bigots who want to maintain the status quote of homosexuality = demeaning sexual act both inside and outside religion use religion to justify their prejudice.
Do you not think that their is a complementary relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? Do you not think a man who loves another man or a woman who loves another woman are not exchanging a gift so that they too should be respected for the dignity that they bestow on one another as human persons. Are you saying that their love is not made in the Image of Love. All love is made in God’s Image or do you reject that possibility.
There is no connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, according to this: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2010/04/13/the-curious-incident-at-the-american-spectator/
40% of the clerical offenses are with older children (14 up), and Andrew Sullivan connects these with closeted, self-hating gays (forgetting that a percentage of that 40% concerns female teenages). He seems over anxious to make an ideological point here, giving a mirror image of Bertone et al. who want to typecast the predators as immoral, reckless gays, or of the Spanish bishop who wants to typecast them as weak men led astray by naughty teenagers. Perhaps priests misbehaving with older minors are the same as anyone else so misbehaving, both quantitively and qualitatively?
Again we must recall the multiple offenders problem. That 40% of the offenses are pedophile ones does not mean that 40% of the offenders are pedophiles. The percentage could be lower if pedophiles are multiple offenders to a greater degree than ephebophiles or it could be higher in the reverse case. Also it may be that offenses with older minors are more likely to escape detection. Statistics are never going to bring total clarity.
Bill, the format of these things is somewhat unconducive to pub or club atmosphere, but please keep up the effort to create it.
Sean –
Look at it this way:
In the olden days, men who were insecure about there sexual identity and wanted to avoid being considered misfits by many people were often attracted to the priesthood where the celibacy requirement gave them a different sort reason not to be married. This probably led, even in the olden days, to there being proportionately more gay men in the priesthood than in the wider population.
If this was indeed the case, then all other things being equal, there would have been more immature homosexuals in the priesthood, and thus more temptation to man-boy sex, and proportionatley more acting out of these urges. Add to that the greater availability of boys than of girls and it figures that there have likely been many more gay perps *in the priesthood* than in the wider population.
This does not in anyway imply that gays are *generally* more likely than heteros to be abusers. It only states that because there have likely been proportionately more gays in the priesthood than in the general population there have likely been more gay abusers in the priesthood than in the general population.
” and it figures that there have likely been many more gay perps *in the priesthood* than in the wider population.”
Oops — should have been ‘… there have likely been PROPORTIONATELY more gay perps in the priesthood than there are gay perps in the wider population,”
Ann, what you say is obvious (though I don’t think gays became priests to conceal gayness; the attraction of priestly fraternity melded with sublimated homosexuality).
I’ll be reading the Symposium with students this semester — time to reconsider the riddles of Greek homosexual culture.
I think much homosexual interaction in classical Athens was pseudo-homosexuality much as in 1950s America much heterosexual behavior was pseudo-heterosexual, gays passing as straight. It is hard to see an application to the present issue.
In all the mess of this scandal, the Vatican has made one point that, I think, needs a great deal more attention: Other institutions/organizations have also been severely deficient in defending the children, and this needs the attention of the whole country. It is not an excuse. But it is a fact.
So here, for your consideration is the first report I have even seen in my local paper of the failing of the Boy Scouts of America to protect its charges. Go to:
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/04/oregon_jury_finds_boy_scouts_n.html
The report is nauseatingly familiar. And, of course, there are the public schools.
Ann,
Here’s another one.
USA Swimming Exec Apologizes After ABC News Sex Abuse Investigation
Will Set Up Sex Abuse Hotline for Swimmers
“Bill, the format of these things is somewhat unconducive to pub or club atmosphere, but please keep up the effort to create it.”
Thanks, Joseph. I’ll keep doing my best.
But seriously, I do wonder why you’d characterize blogging as “pubtalk,” while doing so on a blog.
And while continuing to talk on that very same blog.
That does strike me as slightly inconsistent. It reminds me, in fact, of an incident that happened in my first-grade class. After we had said our morning prayer, a little girl stood up to report that another girl in class had had her eyes open during the prayer.
She was very surprised when the teacher punished her for reporting her classmate’s offense, and did not punish the offender–whom she had seen by keeping her own eyes open as we prayed.
I think, all things considered, I have a higher opinion than you do of blogs and what the conversations on them can accomplish, in a church dominated by but not identical to its clerical caste.
At the very least, they give those of us who try to see beyond the confines of the clerical club a chance to sit in the pub and talk awhile.
John, here is what CCC,2358 states (in relationship to the sin of adultery)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Wanting my beloved ones to know The Truth, does not make me a bigot. Sexual Love and sex are not the same for Sexual Love is not possessive nor does it serve to manipulate.
Nancy, since we are not likely to convince each other of anything, cheers & have another brew.
Ann:
Other institutions/organizations have also been severely deficient in defending the children, and this needs the attention of the whole country. It is not an excuse. But it is a fact.
Couldn’t agree more. I have had a lot of personal and professional experience in this area and I am convinced of the truth of what Simone Weil once said about the existential gravity of sins of the flesh tied as they are to human relationships, power, psychological development, and community. So, yes certainly this occurs with more frequency than we are prepared to admit.
I agree that there needs to be a wider conversation about ethics. Every human activity should be circumscribed within an ethical framework. Levinas discussed how ethics is the first philosophy, the response to the face of the other who silently says one thing : “Do not kill”.
When children are involved, Jesus was quite correct in his very strongly worded admonition which is mentioned in the Times editorial that Fr. Imbelli posted. At that age, the neuro-pathways to the brain are being developed and once they become fixed it is very difficult to undo them. A Vancouver safe injection site notes that of the hardcore women drug addicts that attend the clinic, 100% have experienced childhood physical and sexual trauma.
I see the current scandal in the Church more akin to incest when it is discovered in the family. The same emotions, the same shame, the same anger, the same sorrow, the same feeling of being lost. The subtle marginalization of the victims, the tacit support of the abusers.
I just think Rome should approach it like that and not this kind of bureaucratic jargon, faux canonical procedures and process, blaming gays or promiscuous culture or whatever. I do strongly feel that the lack of women in senior leadership at the Vatican is a big, big problem and is contributing to the kind of tin ear and discordant notes being sung from Rome.
“I see the current scandal in the Church more akin to incest when it is discovered in the family. The same emotions, the same shame, the same anger, the same sorrow, the same feeling of being lost. The subtle marginalization of the victims, the tacit support of the abusers.
I just think Rome should approach it like that and not this kind of bureaucratic jargon, faux canonical procedures and process, blaming gays or promiscuous culture or whatever. I do strongly feel that the lack of women in senior leadership at the Vatican is a big, big problem and is contributing to the kind of tin ear and discordant notes being sung from Rome.”
I haven’t had time yet to fully digest the comments expressed in this thread, but the thoughts quoted above from George D jumped out at me as very perceptive. It’s long past time for our “family” to deal with this problem candidly, as painful as that will certainly be.
Grant,
From page 68 of the John Jay report:
• The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small
percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.
Note that…SMALL PERCENTAGE….
Agree that speaking candidly would help. In English, not in Greek.
Pedophilia? Love of children? (A person who loves children doesn’t rape them.)
Ephebophilia? Love of high school students? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
And I’ve seen the word “relationship” used, too, as if the victim bears some responsibility.
Eggloff: I’m looking at page 68 now. I see the table “LOCATION OF ABUSE.” What are you looking at? I don’t know that the John Jay researchers were able to ascertain whether the victims had gone through puberty when they were first abused.
And by the way, we are all commenting on some preliminary comment from a full study that will not be released until teh end of this year. Let’s see what it says within the context of the whole report at that time. On the face of it is seems absurd. On the one hand 80% of the cases were of homosexual assaults on adolescent boys but somehow we are not supposed to conclude this has a darn thing to do with homosexuality.
Grant,
4.2, about half way down.
Eggloff: in the US the black population is responsible for more than 30% of rapes even though they only form 12% of the population. So… How easy it is to infer false conclusions just from looking at raw data!
Eggloff: I have no idea what you’re referring to. Can you be more specific? Which report are you referring to? Page number, section number.Never mind. I found it. It’s on page 56. I will follow up with them because I don’t see how they can make that claim given their own data.Claire,
The proper conclusion, i would think, would be that the black population has a rape problem. The black crime problem is the reason that no less than Jesse Jackson once said if he heard footsteps behind him at night he would be relieved to know they were not the footsteps of young black men. What you do with this is you avoid certain neighborhoods at certain times.
With regard to the homosexual predation problem is that you avoid putting certain kinds of homosexuals in the priesthood or in the care of boys.
George D, thanks for what strike me as some insightful comments.
“The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.”
Just want to comment that this sentence, lifted from the John Jay report and cited by Eggloff, actually combines two different yardsticks. The half before the comma talks about the ages of *victims*. The second half talks about the small percentage of *abusers*.
Somewhere in all these discussions there surfaced a statistic (hope I have these numbers right – this is from memory) that approx. 150 priests are responsible for approx. 25,000 abuse cases. That may account at least in part for the disconnect in this discussion.
Eggloff–
My guess is that the John Jay researchers are hiding from the issue by using the locution: *identify* as homosexuals. They are, apparently, reluctant to deal with the issue head on. I would further guess they are doing so for the reason Sean notes in his 12:47 pm post of 13 April. If you can’t call something by its rightful name, you can’t solve the problem.:-(
George D, brilliant observation. It bears repeating, again.
Mark,
I think you and Sean are likely correct. There is a terrible fear on the left to call this what it really is. They say they are afraid of the Church scapegoating homosexuals. I believe it is more than that. I suspect they believe there is nothing wrong with homosexual activity and if they were truly honest would also say there is also nothing wrong with a 30 year old priest, say, being sexual involved with a 17 year old boy, as long as it was consensual and not part of an abuse of power.
There is a terrific piece in the American Spectator by Dan Oliver (former head of the FTC during Reagan) in which he explores why in all its reporting on the Hullermann case the Times never not once not a single time reports that he is a homosexual. Oliver suggests reasons for this. Here is his terrific piece:
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/13/the-curious-incident-at-the-ne
“Eggloff,” who exactly do you think you are fooling with your conjecture about what “the left” fears and believes?
My guess is that the John Jay researchers are hiding from the issue by using the locution: *identify* as homosexuals. They are, apparently, reluctant to deal with the issue head on. I would further guess they are doing so for the reason Sean notes in his 12:47 pm post of 13 April.
Mark,
Before you make accusations against the John Jay researchers, please consider the fact that this is not as simple an issue as you seem to think it is. How do you decide who is “really” a homosexual? Consider a man who would never dream of having sex with another male, is incarcerated and has homosexual sex in prison, and then gets out and never looks at a man sexually again. Is he a homosexual? Consider a man who marries a woman and has kids, and after five or ten years comes to the realization that he is sexually interested in men, gets divorced, and from then on has sex only with men. Was he a homosexual all along? What test could have been used to tell him what he didn’t know himself. What about the Senator Craig types — married men with children who have furtive sex in places like public restrooms? Are they homosexual or heterosexual?
You seem to be taking the same attitude toward homosexuality as is taken toward race in America. People born to two black parents are black. People born to a black parent and a white parent are black as well. If you have “negro blood,” then your black. Likewise, any male who has sex with another male, even once, is a homosexual, no matter other behavior he may exhibit.
If you can’t call something by its rightful name, you can’t solve the problem.:-(
But people with “deeply seated homosexual tendencies” are already barred from the priesthood. Suppose the John Jay researchers are really just fibbing to the bishops. Do you think the Vatican is going to change its mind and open the priesthood to homosexual men again?
You and others seem to want to take a very “common sense” (I would say crude) approach. Compile some statistics, observe that 80% of the abuse victims are boys, declare “The problem is gay priests,” ban gay men from the priesthood and — voilà — problem solved!
Dividing up people as homosexual and heterosexual is a relatively modern phenomenon, and while it can be useful, it is also by no means an adequate description of human sexuality.
I suspect they believe there is nothing wrong with homosexual activity and if they were truly honest would also say there is also nothing wrong with a 30 year old priest, say, being sexual involved with a 17 year old boy, as long as it was consensual and not part of an abuse of power.
There is nothing wrong with homosexual activity, in my opinion (as a leftist). As to a 30-year-old priest being sexually involved with a 17-year-old boy, a 17-year-old has reached the age of consent in most states, so there would be nothing illegal about a 30-year-old man and a 17-year-old boy having a consensual relationship. However, I think few people would be totally comfortable with a relationship between a 17-year-old and a 30-year-old, no matter whether they were two males, a male and a female, or two females. In any case, I think almost anyone (including those of us on the left) would say that if a priest makes a vow, he should keep it. So my presumption would be against a 30-year-old priest having a relationship with a 17-year-old boy.
“As to a 30-year-old priest being sexually involved with a 17-year-old boy, a 17-year-old has reached the age of consent in most states, so there would be nothing illegal about a 30-year-old man and a 17-year-old boy having a consensual relationship. However, I think few people would be totally comfortable with a relationship between a 17-year-old and a 30-year-old, no matter whether they were two males, a male and a female, or two females. In any case, I think almost anyone (including those of us on the left) would say that if a priest makes a vow, he should keep it. So my presumption would be against a 30-year-old priest having a relationship with a 17-year-old boy.”
The relationship would be abusive, in the same way that a 30 year old teacher having a relationship with a 17 year old student – of either sex – would be abusive. it isn’t a relationship of mutually consenting equals. The priest, like the teacher, is in a position of trust and authority. It is always an abuse of that position to have sex with someone under your authority. For a priest who has that person under his pastoral care, it is particularly abusive. That would be so even if the other person were also 30 years old. For the other person to be a minor just makes it even worse.
It’s a line that can never, ever be crossed under any circumstances. And it’s the priest, or the teacher, who “owns” the line. If the 17 year old is the one who initiates it – doesn’t matter.
“But people with “deeply seated homosexual tendencies” are already barred from the priesthood.”
Sorry to quibble, but this isn’t precisely true. In fact it seems to be commonly thought that a large percentage of priests have “deeply seated homosexual tendencies”.
“You and others seem to want to take a very “common sense” (I would say crude) approach. Compile some statistics, observe that 80% of the abuse victims are boys, declare “The problem is gay priests,” ban gay men from the priesthood and — voilà — problem solved! ”
This is my opinion: blaming it on homosexuality is like blaming it on celibacy. Both hypotheses pre-existed the John Jay study, both have an ideological following, and the study (from what we’ve seen of it) supports neither.
Jim,
It would be much like a 30-year-old doctor and a 17-year-old patient. It wouldn’t be illegal, but it would be against professional ethics for the doctor.
As I recall, the list of abuse cases someone reproduced from the John Jay report did not go above age 17. Presumably this is because an 18-year-old has reached the age of consent in any state in the US. This doesn’t mean it would be right for a priest — or a member of the clergy from any denomination, including those that don’t require celibacy — to have a relationship with an 18-year-old of either sex. But it would be an ethical issue, not a legal one.
Jim,
Actually the John Jay Study supports the homosexual theory in spades, given that overwhelmingly the cases involved homosexual men preying on young men.
Mollie, who am i too…? I am just a little grape picker in the vineyard of the truth.
Mollie…oh yes, i used to be on the political left….
is that what you are looking for? or is your comment more along the lines of “HOW DARE YOU!”
“As I recall, the list of abuse cases someone reproduced from the John Jay report did not go above age 17. ”
Right. The problem of clergy soliciting sex or entering into sexual relationships with other adults elicits a collective yawn, even though probably it is much more common than the sexual abuse of children.
“Actually the John Jay Study supports the homosexual theory in spades, given that overwhelmingly the cases involved homosexual men preying on young men. ”
Eggloff – what, precisely, is the theory that is supported? I’m not trying to cross-examine you; I’d really like to see it stated in a sentence or two.
All I glean from the data we’ve seen is, ‘Some abusers also happened to be homosexuals. Others weren’t.’
Jim,
Most abusers were homosexuals. A few weren’t.
Show your math, Eggloff. You’re just repeating yourself. You quote a stray sentence the original John Jay Report (one I find curiously unsupported by their own data), while ignoring the fact that more than 60 percent of the victims were thirteen or younger–the cutoff age for what the DSM-IV defines as victims of pedophilia.
Grant,
You would have to ask the authors of the study why there seems to be a discrepancy between their charts and their verbiage. You call it a “stray sentence.” Does that mean it just wandered in from off the street? Certainly, that is not how you edit Commonweal. I assume it is not how they edited their report. Once more:
From page 68 of the John Jay report:
• The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small
percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.
Claire, your comment is very well-taken.
You say,”Eggloff: in the US the black population is responsible for more than 30% of rapes even though they only form 12% of the population. So… How easy it is to infer false conclusions just from looking at raw data!”
I can remember that when I was taught rhetoric in high school, the teacher made a compelling point about how statistical data can be shifted around to “prove” a correlation that is simply not there.
I recall her example precisely: during a certain time frame in the history of New England, consumption of rum went up by such and such percent. During the same time frame, the percentage of ministers in churches in New England went up by precisely the same percent.
But she cautioned us against trying to argue — without much other compelling evidence — that the consumption of rum was climbing in New England during this time frame due to the ordination of more ministers.
Your comment seems valuable to me for another reason, something I’ve just noted on Fr. Jim Martin’s thread at America discussing Cardinal Bertone’s remarks. Causative connections that appear obvious and plausible at certain points in history — due to prejudice and not good empirical data — end up looking, when the prejudice is unmasked, not only absurd but vicious.
I wonder why those who are so convinced that homosexuality = pedophilia = explanation of clerical sexual abuse don’t think for a moment about how shamefully obvious it once was to many people (including people of faith) that Jewish people = enemies of the church = usurers. Or African-American males = rapists.
People of good will have rightly discarded the latter two defamatory statements, though there are certainly segments of many societies (and churches) that still trade in these ugly slanders.
The same will soon happen, I believe, with the homosexuality = pedophilia equation, and when it does, I think we’ll wonder, many of us, why we expended so much energy in promoting that slander. And how we can atone for having done so, just as we now seek to atone for promoting antisemitic and racist memes.
Now you’re being arch, Eggloff. I mean that the sentence is not supported by the data first cited in this thread by Gerald Brazier. You can keep citing that sentence, whoever you are, and I will keep asking you to respond to the data. You seem unable or unwilling to grasp the difference between homosexuals, homosexual sex, and pedophilia. Which is fine. But you should stop pretending like your conclusions are those of John Jay–especially when you know they have explicitly rejected a causative link between homosexuality and sexual abuse.
The proper conclusion, i would think, would be that the black population has a rape problem.
Eggloff,
But suppose that if you correct for other factors, such as socioeconomic status (or any number of other things), the rate of rape is the same for black men as for white men. Then you have determined that blacks do not have a “rape problem,” and that the issue isn’t race, it’s poverty. I suggest you leave social science to the social scientists.
Eggloff
Today the catholic bishop of England and Wales released a statement:
The consensus among researchers ( as John Jay College that you misrepresent) is that the sexual abuse of children is not a question of sexual ‘orientation’, whether heterosexual or homosexual, but of a disordered attraction or ‘fixation’.
http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/catholic_church/media_centre/press_releases/press_releases_2010/statement_from_the_general_secretary_of_the_catholic_bishops_conference_of_england_and_wales
Mary, thanks for that link. There is nothing in the statement to explain why it is being made at this particular time. Perhaps it is a repudiation of the Bertone quote found in the original post for this topic. Isn’t the Pope visiting England soon?
“Most abusers were homosexuals. A few weren’t.”
I haven’t seen data to support that. What I have seen would be something like this: ‘Most victims were male. A significant minority were female.’
Jim
Austen Ivereigh on America blog linked the statement as a repudation of Bertone.
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2755
The Pope is going to visit England in September and England Bishops want to show that their viewpoints are a long way away from the Vatican Curia.
Although I don’t quite see how the “raw numbers” supplied above match the conclusion that “most” victims were postpubescent, it could be that the difference in these various “conclusory statements” is intended to convey a finding that “most” perpetrators preyed on postpubescent victims, and that a lesser raw number of perpetrators were responsible for most of the prepubescent abuse.
Nonetheless, we are challenged to explain why, if this distinction between post and pre-pubescent abuse is so meaningful to the Church’s response, the bishops themselves did not seem to act differently based on the age of the victim. I would agree that the two are different in nature given the pathology of pedophilia, but that doesn’t seem to have been the view in Rome.
I agree with Bill Collier — George D’s comment is a highly perceptive one. Thanks, George.
(Perhaps this terrible mess will be the beginning of a healing of the rupture between the liberals and conservatives? I think it has certainly shown both sides that we all have the good of the Church at heart.)
From a May 2005 article in Homiletic and Pastoral Review. They cite many more studies than these few, including from the granddaddy of them all, Kinsey:
*A recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior said that “The best
epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer
men; in contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus,
the rate of homosexual attraction is 6-20 times higher among pedophiles” [Ray
Blanchard, et al. "Fraternal Birth Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles." Archives
of Sexual Behavior, Volume 29, Number 5 (2000), pages 463 to 478].
*Another 2000 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “… all but 9 of the 48
homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories” for sexual activity.
These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old [A. Zebulon, Z.A. Silverthorne
and Vernon L. Quinsey. "Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and
Heterosexual Men and Women." Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2000 [Volume
29, Number 1], pages 67 to 76].
*Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “Pedophilia
appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically
infrequent phenomenon. The first of these is homosexuality … Recent surveys
estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the
neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among
pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%” [Ray Blanchard, et al. "Pedophiles: Mental
Retardation, Maternal Age, and Sexual Orientation." Archives of Sexual Behavior,
Volume 28, Number 2, pages 111 to 127.
A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that "... the proportion of sex
offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than
the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men ...
the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with
heterosexuality" [Kurt Freund, Robin Watson and Douglas Rienzo. "Heterosexuality,
Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference." Journal of Sex Research, February 1989
[Volume 26, Number 1], pages 107 to 117].
*A 1988 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior that examined the traits of 229
convicted child molesters found that “eighty-six percent of offenders against [child]
males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual” [W.D. Erickson, N.H.
Walbek, and R.K. Seely, Department of Psychiatry, St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center,
Minnesota 55101. "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters." Archives of Sexual Behavior,
February 1988 [Volume 17, Number 1], pages 77 to 86.
Thank you Eggloff.
Yes, those studies seem to indicate that homosexuality and pedophilia are not independent.
But, of course, this does not mean that one causes the other. For example, here is a possible explanation (just throwing around some ideas): maybe people who are discriminated in society more often are maladjusted and tend to develop deviant behavior. Homosexuals are a frequent target of discrimination. The discrimination causes a disproportionate number of them to develop the deviant behavior of pedophilia.
That would be a possible explanation.
Claire–
If I ever run into trouble with the law and am guilty as sin, I want you as my defense attorney.
Here’s something I just posted over at America:
Here’s the first diagnostic criterion from the DSM IV for pedophilia: ”A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).”
Puberty lasts several years. According to Wikipedia, ”Although there is a wide range of normal ages, girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10, boys at age 12. Girls usually complete puberty by ages 15–17, while boys usually complete puberty by ages 17 or 18.”
So if a child molester is to be considered a pedophile, does that mean his only victims will be children who have not even begun puberty? What about children early in puberty, or halfway through puberty? The other category we hear about for child molesters is Ephebophilia, ”which is the sexual preference of adults for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19” (according to Wikipedia), which is not a psychiatric term and so there are no diagnostic criteria from the DSM IV.
So there is a fight over where the cutoff should be to consider an abused child to be a victim of a pedophile, and I don’t think anyone here is qualified to say what the correct answer is.
This, of course, does not mean that homosexuals are pedophiles. It means that from 25-40% of pedophiles are attracted to boys. The 2-4% of men attracted to other men are gay. The men attracted to children are all pedophiles of which 25-40% are attracted to boys.
Of course, we don’t know what the results for heterosexual men were, but here is an abstract of the study itself.
This was a study about people looking at pictures!
*Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomenon. The first of these is homosexuality … Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%”
As in the first study, this does not say homosexual men are pedophiles. It says that 30 to 40 percent of pedophiles are attracted to boys.
I will check out the others later, but these do not support your case.
Having five sons and being a long time grammer school coach there is a huge difference in how fast boys physically mature. Some mature at 13+ others not to 16-17. And we all know that so why doesn’t Eggloff go away. My guess is that less mature boys are more easily abused at whatever age. Does not anyone here know that priests are around grammer school kids. HS kids don’t hang around the church much.. ask the confirmation ministry..
The point here is that to say, as some of you here say and as the Bishops conference in Wales said, that there is no empirical evidence of a link between homosexuality and pedophila is simply false. It is a meme of the left. There are many more studies that can be cited. You just have to get your head out of the ideological sand.
By the way, to cite the American Psychiatric Association is, well, not entirely without problems. They had a huge role in the evolving sex abuse crisis in the Church. it was them after all who told the bishops that sex abusers could be treated and reassigned. I do believe that even now they say pedophiles can be successfully treated.
The point here is that to say, as some of you here say and as the Bishops conference in Wales said, that there is no empirical evidence of a link between homosexuality and pedophila is simply false.
Eggloff,
You just don’t “get it.” In these discussions, when we say someone is a heterosexual, we mean he or she is an adult person attracted to adults of the opposite sex. When we say someone is a homosexual, we mean he or she is an adult person attracted to adults of the same sex. When we say someone is a pedophile, we mean he or she is attracted to pre-pubescent children of the same sex, the opposite sex, or both. You are arguing that because some male pedophiles are attracted to boys, they are homosexuals, and there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia. You are mistaken. A male pedophile who prefers boys is not a homosexual. He’s a male pedophile who prefers boys.
Almost all pedophiles are males. Most of the victims of pedophiles are girls. (The figure I have found is that two-thirds are girls.) Consequently, most acts of pedophilia are heterosexual. However, no one would say there is a link between heterosexuality and pedophilia.
So you are going to have to explain why — when the majority of acts of pedophilia involve men sexually abusing girls — you don’t claim there is a link between heterosexuality and pedophilia. But when a minority of acts of pedophilia involve men sexually abusing boys, you claim there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
If you want pre-pubescent children to be safe from sex abuse by priests, you don’t need to exclude either heterosexuals or homosexuals from the priesthood. You need to exclude pedophiles.
Nancy made this unfounded allegation: ” — homosexual sexual acts (because they) do not Respect the Dignity of the Human Person —”
It’s up to her to defend that statement without using Capitalized Mumbo Jumbo. What I do and don’t do with my partner is as respectful of the dignity of that human person as anything that anyone of heterosexual orientation does.
Clearly there are those on this blog who profess to be Catholic and claim there is nothing wrong with homosexual sexual acts. Perhaps someone can explain why those who are among the group of those who profess to be Catholic but condone homosexual sexual acts are not lying from the start?
Nancy –
Please consider the possibility that someone who thinks you are wrong is not lying. I often disagree with you, but I never think you’re lying, I just think you are mistaken. Unless you have some reason besides disagreement with someone to think they are lying, don’t say that. It’s a sin to call someone a liar without more than disagreement.
Perhaps someone can explain why those who are among the group of those who profess to be Catholic but condone homosexual sexual acts are not lying from the start?
Nancy,
Wouldn’t the charitable assumption, even from one who takes the position that homosexual acts must be condemned, be that those who profess to be Catholic and condone homosexual acts are mistaken? Or that they have given the matter sufficient reflection and that they are in dissent? Why would you accuse them of lying? It makes you sound angry and self-righteous.
I didn’t see Ann’s message of 11:29, which went up while I was writing my own.
David
“In these discussions, when we say someone is a heterosexual, we mean he or she is an adult person attracted to adults of the opposite sex. When we say someone is a homosexual, we mean he or she is an adult person attracted to adults of the same sex. When we say someone is a pedophile, we mean he or she is attracted to pre-pubescent children of the same sex, the opposite sex, or both. .. A male pedophile who prefers boys is not a homosexual. He’s a male pedophile who prefers boys.”
Not only in this discussions: John Jay state this, England Bishops state this, the huge majority of researchers states this , Eggloff refuses to get it.
“In these discussions, when we say someone is a heterosexual, we mean he or she is an adult person attracted to adults of the opposite sex. When we say someone is a homosexual, we mean he or she is an adult person attracted to adults of the same sex. When we say someone is a pedophile, we mean he or she is attracted to pre-pubescent children of the same sex, the opposite sex, or both. .. A male pedophile who prefers boys is not a homosexual. He’s a male pedophile who prefers boys.”
Egloff’s point (it seems) is that these are not mutually exclusive categories. There are adult persons who are attracted to adults of the same sex (AP…SS) who are also attracted to minors (e.g., Shanley) and AP…OS who are also attracted to minors (e.g., Maciel.)
Unanswered questions are:
1. Are AP…SS more likely than AP…OS to be attracted to minors?
2. Are AP…SS more likely to be attracted to SS minors than AP…OS?
3. Are AP…SS more likely to be attracted to SS minors who are post-pubescent than AP…OS?
4. If one parish is more or less aware that their pastor is having illicit relations with a woman (or several women) and another parish is more or less aware that their pastor is having illicit relations with a man (or several men), should the people in one be more concerned about their childrens’ safety than than the other? Should the people of one be more concerned about their male childrens’ safety? If so, which should be more concerned? (Clearly, this is the most important question for most parents.)
Egloff’s point (it seems) is that these are not mutually exclusive categories. There are adult persons who are attracted to adults of the same sex (AP…SS) who are also attracted to minors (e.g., Shanley) and AP…OS who are also attracted to minors (e.g., Maciel.)
Felapton,
While urging people to keep in mind that I got my degree in psychiatry from Google University, I’ll give my thoughts on this. A pedophile is someone with a psychiatric disorder who strongly desires sex, or has sex, with prepubescent children. Here is the first diagnostic criterion from the DSM IV: ”A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).” Such a person has a psychiatric disorder, and if he or she actually has sex with prepubescent children (instead of just having fantasies and urges), that person requires treatment and perhaps incarceration. There is no “link” between pedophilia and homosexuality, as Eggloff keeps insisting.
I think one of the confusions in this thread is that prepubescent has been interpreted by the people on “my side” of the debate to apply to pubescent children. That is the way I was thinking of it myself. So I think the one point about which Eggloff is correct is the quote from the John Jay Report, “The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.” I think the DSM IV does not define pedophilia as sex with children under 13. I think it means what it says about prepubescent, and a prepubescent child has not even begun to enter puberty. You can’t define prepubescent by age. I found this in Wikipedia:
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has objected to Dr. Blanchard being a part of the DSM-V team, although the quarrel is with gender identity issues, not with homosexuality or pedophilia or hebephilia.
So I think when we talk about the abuse that has taken place by priests, we are talking about a small number of pedophiles, and a much larger number of hebephiles and ephebophiles.
The “pro-gay” side, which I am on, wants to get gay priests off the hook, and it looked like one of the ways to do it was to classify most of the abusers as pedophiles. It appears to me that this isn’t correct. What “my side” has going for it is that the John Jay researchers, who appear from the quote Eggloff has given us (which I haven’t checked, from a report I haven’t read) to also regard pedophilia as a minor issue in the whole matter, say two very important things. First, just because a priest has sex with an underage (but pubescent or postpubescent) boy does not make him a homosexual. Second, they have found no reason to believe homosexual priests abuse at a rate greater than heterosexual priests. Eggloff is citing the statistics in the report, and I think he has interpreted them correctly. Most of the rest of us are citing the researchers’ findings, which I find credible and Eggloff and other “conservatives” do not, because they think the researchers dare not speak the truth and are being “politically correct.”
So I think Eggloff is correct on an important point, but I think he’s very wrong about the “big picture.” He is willing to use the John Jay Report for statistics, but he doesn’t trust the researchers to be honest about homosexuality.
One important point, it seems to me, is that the Church has already barred homosexuals from ordination. In my opinion, that is unwarranted and unfair. But for those who believe homosexuality is/was the problem in the sex-abuse scandal, the issue is somewhat academic. If their argument is correct, the thing to do would be to bar homosexuals from the priesthood. But since that has already been done, and for all practical purposes they have won the argument, continuing to argue the issue seems to me to be more about trying to put gay people in a bad light than about solving the abuse crisis and protecting children.
With the current sexual abuse crisis, don’t we have more important things to worry about right now? Child abuse by clergy happens, happened, within the church as everywhere. But our bishops were spectacularly wrong in dealing with it. How did that happen? That’s the question to focus on.
Could this gaffe by Bertone be a diversion tactic?
David,
I know you want to define the categories so that you can protect your favored class, in tihs case homosexuals. Fine. Understood.
About the sheer numbers. There are more heterosexual everything than homosexuals. There are more cheese eaters, more Camaro drivers, more loafer wearers, more murderers. Why? Because heterosexuals are 97% of the population ( I suspect you were among those at one time who affirmed the homosexual population was 10%….another homo-meme fallen). There are probably more heterosexuals who have had homosexual experiences than homosexuals who are committed to that lifestyle. So, if there are more heterosexual EVERYTHING than homosexual, then it stands to reason there are MORE pedophiles, too. What you want to look for is the tendency. You and others claims there is NO connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. I have shown there is plenty and not from Family Research Council either. You choose to ignore it. Fine. Bertone “gets it.” So do I.
That is not to say that homosexuality is the only warning marker. So is use of pornography. So is alcohol abuse, drug use. So is theological dissent. I suspect that each of these to various degrees were present in each of the cases of priestly sexual abuse.
I guess this discussion makes it clear that we still aren’t asking the right questions, at least much of the time:
Question:
“4. If one parish is more or less aware that their pastor is having illicit relations with a woman (or several women) and another parish is more or less aware that their pastor is having illicit relations with a man (or several men), should the people in one be more concerned about their childrens’ safety than than the other? Should the people of one be more concerned about their male childrens’ safety? If so, which should be more concerned? (Clearly, this is the most important question for most parents.)”
Answer:
Neither. All parishes and parents should be concerned all the time about their children’s safety, and should implement effective prevention and training geared to making the environment safe for their children no matter who works there. The only really valid predictor of child sexual abuse is evidence of past abuse. That’s why criminal prosecutions are so important, because people can be tracked more easily through criminal background checks. But for any individual abuser, there is always a first time, or more likely, the first time he is actually caught. For that reason alone, organizations that educate and care for or provide services to children need to implement sound practices at all times. It’s not that there is a high likelihood of abuse, it’s that there really is no sure way to identify who that abuser is likely to be. Moreover, since most people are willing to accept a risk of abuse that is so low it borders on remote, even a calculus of more or less likely (e.g., of the kind being advocated by Eggloff) is useless as a screening tool. Men are much more likely to abuse than women, but we don’t ban all men from jobs related to children because even if more likely, the number is so small that it would be unfair and burdensome to adopt that kind of approach, especially when ENOUGH women also abuse that we still have to take precautions anyway.
As an aside, any adult who is having an adult sexual relationship is probably on average much less likely to be at risk of having a sexual relationship with a child of any age.
David, how can you suggest that I should not be angry with those who know that they are dissenters to The Truth of Love and continue to manipulate and misrepresent our Catholic Faith? It is uncharitable to not call such dissension what it is, a lie from the start.
That lie includes establishing a separate personhood based upon sexual preference based upon lust, which we all know is demeaning. We are Men and Women, Husbands and Wives, Mothers and Fathers, Sons and Daughters, Brothers and Sisters, who are called to an orientation towards God, Who Is Love.
Barbara,
There are a couple of questions here. One is how to prevent sexual abuse by priests of others. Your analysis is fine as far as it goes. The best predictor of future abuse is past abuse. Ok, but that leaves a lot of people exposed. The other very good predictor of future abuse is past abuse experienced by the priest himself. One of the chief causes of homosexuality is childhood sexual abuse by an adult male, and one of the chief indicators of future abuse is just such childhood sexual abuse.
Your analysis addresses criminality but not how the Church should make decisions about who should enter the priesthood. I believe the Church has wisely decided that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies or those who self-identify as part of the gay subculture or those who are unwilling to address the psychological scars that lead to homosexual behavior are to be excluded. The reason for this is that going in they lack a commitment to the fidelity that is required of them. it also so happens that such men turned out to be sexual abusers of young men.
We are Men and Women,
yes (except for Children)
Husbands and Wives,
no, that does not cover everyone. It is not nice to forget those who are not married.
Mothers and Fathers,
no, that does not cover everyone. It is not nice to forget those who do not have children.
Sons and Daughters,
yes
Brothers and Sisters,
that depends of what you mean.
This reminds me of a homily where the priest said “all of us are called, whether our vocation is to be husband or wife or priest or religious”. What about the rest of us? I am sure that he didn’t mean to offend single lay people, but it shows a mindset closed to other possibilities.
Claire,
Just think, though, how far the Church has come with the statement of that priest. Used to be vocation was left only for the ordained or the religious. That it is now considered for the married state shows remarkable progress in slightly more than half a century, though these ideas were floated early last century.
Look, Eggloff, I can understand your analysis up until the last sentence, but the main point of objection is: Whether or not you think that it makes theological sense to exclude homosexuals from the priesthood or not, the question really should be divorced from the “it so happened” because it so “happened” that some of the men who would not be excluded were also abusers. Abuse is not the main reason for your view, and the factual predicate for your conclusion related to incidence of abuse is incredibly thin, particularly in a “subpopulation” made up of celibate men (i.e., there are real questions about whether studies of the general population should be applied to priests, or how they should be applied), and you unfairly demonize too many people. I have never looked at the scandal as an opportunity to remake the church because I understand this difference.
It depends on how you define homosexual.
If it is someone who is of the homosexual subculture and is not willing to separate, then absolutely not.
If it is someone who has lived deeply in that culture and wants to separate, then probably not.
If it is someone who had a few homosexual experiences but wants to go through psychological healing of the thing that caused that behavior, then maybe.
If it is someone who had homosexual fantasies and never acted upon them and they have LONG passed, then likely.
it depends.
David Nickol + all,
Thanks for info, will read soon, boss nearby, got to keep job, recession.
DSM-* is from the AMA or APA, isn’t that right? Cardinal Bertone probably won’t find it very convincing. Rather the opposite, I should think. Is there an Italian (European) DSM? What does it say?
It is uncharitable to not call such dissension what it is, a lie from the start.
Nancy,
Could you give us a list of the liars, please?
Thanks.
One of the chief causes of homosexuality is childhood sexual abuse by an adult male
Eggloff,
This is nonsense.
You see, Eggloff, I am not fixated on the various gradations of homosexuality, if those exist. I am fixated on keeping kids safe. I have set up risk management programs for day care settings. You don’t need to know the ins and outs of sexual proclivities to keep children safe. To the extent those proclivities are relevant for other purpose, those purposes are distinct from keeping children safe and there is a real chance that focusing on those proclivities can actually get in the way of keeping children safe, by giving people a very false sense of security.
As for Nancy — It sounds like Nancy has confused herself with the truth she claims to defend, hence her “anger” at dissenters, who will likely be surprised to find that their beliefs are personal to her at all.
You and others claims there is NO connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.
Eggloff,
Yes, I claim there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. However, if you pay attention to what I am saying, I also claim that pedophilia is not the issue here. Note that I have said that I believe you have correctly interpreted the quote you pulled from the John Jay Report. (“The majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent, with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.”) You are insisting that there is a “link” between homosexuality and pedophilia. I am pointing out that I think it is correct to say that only a small percentage of priests were pedophiles. An extended discussion about your (incorrect) contention that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophilia is basically irrelevant to a discussion of the abuse crisis. It is not about pedophilia. Priests who are pedophiles are very rare. They do not belong in the priesthood, but they only account for a small fraction of the problem. In your zeal to prove me wrong, you can’t even tell when I am agreeing with you.
There is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia, but that doesn’t get gay priests off the hook regarding the abuse crisis, because the priests who molest most of the boys are not pedophiles. The question is whether or not they are homosexuals. The question is whether non-pedophile homosexuals are more likely to be abusers than non-pedophile heterosexuals. The John Jay Researchers say no, and you don’t believe them. Fine. But your argument that there is a link between homosexuality and pedophhilia, besides being incorrect, is irrelevant. Only a small number of abusing priests were pedophiles.
You and Bertone are making an unwarranted charge, but perhaps more important than the fact that it is not true is that it is not relevant.
DAvid,
I went down that rat-hole because of the claims being made here by others that there is no connection. You have rejected the studies i have cited that there is, as expected. there are more of them, but you will reject them, too, even though they are from journals and organizations you would likely find credible on other issues.
I also agree with you that this is not about pedophilia. it is about homosexual predation of adolescent boys. When Grant is all hopped up on the pedophilia connection, i would have been grateful for a little help from you (smiley face emoticon).
Barbara,
I do hope you have not set up risk management systems for my children, though unlikely since my children are not in day-care settings. What you are not involved in, and which concerns me even more than risk management systems in daycare settings, is the formation for the priesthood and who is suitable. I think the Church finally has her head screwed on properly in that regard.
Felapton
There isn’t an Italian DSM, we use the American DSM and also The International Classification of Diseases, published by the World Health Organization (WHO)
That’s the point Eggloff, your issues have nothing to do with child abuse. Child abuse is a nice distraction that can be used to support your real goal. I am not criticizing you for having a goal or pursuing it, but for pretending that it is motivated even in part by the protection of children. The settings I have worked with are church nurseries, you know, the places where people can leave their young children for a few hours when they come to church. Yes, we worry about abuse there too.
Barbara,
There are two issues and both are connecgted. One is preventing sexual abuse by priests. You do this by making sure the people you invite into the priesthood are less likely to abuse. Sadly, there is a high correlation between hypersexuality (as soon to be defined by the DSM), and abuse. Homosexuals are hyper sexual. Moreover, the homosexual culture celebrates the older male introducing the younger male into the lifestyle. it is a potent and dangerous combination that the Church is finally recognizing.
I also agree with you that this is not about pedophilia.
Eggloff,
Agreed.
it is about homosexual predation of adolescent boys.
I disagree, but I acknowledge that it’s not totally clear at this point. The John Jay researchers say there is no reason to come to that conclusion, and I don’t believe they are lying. However, I agree that it has yet to be explained fully why so many of the victims were boys aged 11-14. I don’t know enough about the issue of “access” to accept it as the explanation.
When Grant is all hopped up on the pedophilia connection, i would have been grateful for a little help from you (smiley face emoticon).
I only came to the conclusion yesterday, after a lot of Googling, that that prepubescent must apply to children who have not even begun puberty. (It might have applied to children who had not completed puberty. But now I don’t think so.) All the talk of prepubescent and postpubescent obscured the fact that there is a large category in between — pubescent.
Egloff –
The figures show that both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to abuse teen-agers boys, so homosexuality is not *the* cause of abuse of those kids. So, If you want to eliminate all/most of the abuse of male teenagers you’ll have to eliminate all/most men priests.
So are you for women’s ordination?
Homosexuals are hyper sexual.
Eggloff,
Where do you get this stuff?
David,
Are you not aware of the rampant and widespread use of pornography among homosexuals? And the multiples upon multiples of sex partners? According to a soon to be approved category in the Diagnostic Manual, this is called hypersexuality.
Ann,
The figures actually show that 80% of the cases were of male on male behavior.
Had Jesus named a female Bishop, of course! But he didn’t.
Jesus didn’t name any bishops. I am so glad I am no longer Catholic.
“The figures actually show that 80% of the cases were of male on male behavior.”
Eggloff —
Exactly. So the only way to removed 80% of the abuse is to remove at least 80 percent of the (male) priests. AND we don’t know just who they are.
Barbara,
I am sorry to hear that you are no longer Catholic. Why, then, do you continue to post here – a Catholic forum?
Eggloff
“Are you not aware of the rampant and widespread use of pornography among homosexuals? And the multiples upon multiples of sex partners?”
And of course you think that this doesn’t exist widely too, among heterosexual.
Maybe you think that Tiger Woods is homosexual, don’t you?
Claire, just as a Parent is either a Father or a Mother, a Child is either a Son or a Daughter.
Ann, it is not a sin to say someone who professes to be Catholic but denies The Truth is lying. Just as that which is true cannot be a lie, speaking the truth cannot be a sin, if lying is a sin, to begin with.
Are you not aware of the rampant and widespread use of pornography among homosexuals? And the multiples upon multiples of sex partners? According to a soon to be approved category in the Diagnostic Manual, this is called hypersexuality.
Eggloff,
I am gay, so I know a lot more about the gay community than you do!
Here is the draft of the entry for hypersexuality from the DSM V,
Note that for the diagnosis to be made, four of the five numbered items must apply under item A, and both items B and C must apply as well. Without that being the case, there is no diagnosis of hypersexuality disorder.
You have a totally stereotypical view of what gay people are like, but say a gay man has five different sex partners a week, and spends two hours a day watching porn. If he is not distressed by his own behavior, and if it is not interfering with his job or his other obligations, he cannot be diagnosed as having hypersexual disorder.
Hypersexuality disorder is not about having a lot of sex and looking at a lot of porn. It is about wanting to control your sexual behavior, not being able to, and wanting to get control of your life back.
You are spreading a lot of misinformation. Where are you getting it from?
Mary,
The likelihood of porn use is much higher in the homosexual world than the heterosexual world. The likelihood of dozens and hundreds of sex partners is much higher in the homosexual world than the heterosexual world. Do both porn use and promiscuity exist in the heterosexual world? Yes. Do they exist at much higher levels in the homosexual world. Also, yes. They are epidemic in the homosexual world. Hypersexuality is a serious problem in the homosexual world.
David,
Is pornography a part of the homosexual life that you have observed? Is promiscuity?
No doubt there are varying degrees and kinds of sexual disorders. Deceitful and manipulative men with serious sexual disorders who had no respect for the priesthood or the people they are called to serve, committed heinous crimes. What the John Jay study fails to do is provide information as to the contributing factors in the various Parishes that enabled these deceitful men to commit their heinous crimes nor does the study tell us who was responsible for those Parishes where Children were not adequately protected and why they failed in their responsibility to keep these Children safe.
Is pornography a part of the homosexual life that you have observed? Is promiscuity?
Eggloff,
We were talking about your claim that ‘hypersexuality is a serious problem in the homosexual world.” I don’t know, nor have I ever known, a gay man who would fit the diagnosis I posted above. You are the one that brought in the term hypersexual and referred to the DSM V. I have given you the text. You were wrong. Now you are fishing for ammunition you can use against gay people. It seems you very much want to do an extended criticism of gay people based on research you don’t seem to understand and ideas someone has put in your head against gay people.
Cite some evidence that “hypersexuality (as defined in the draft of the DSM V) is a serious problem in the homosexual world or drop it. Your purpose seems to be to say as many negative things you can about gay people without citing any evidence. What are you trying to prove? And why?
that enabled these deceitful men to commit their heinous crimes
Nancy,
Don’t you think it’s possible for a good person to slip and do a bad thing? Don’t you think someone might be tempted once and do something he regrets, confesses, and is determined never to do again? Is every priest who ever touched a young person a deceitful man who committed a heinous crime?
It is important not to speculate, make generalizations, and stereotype behaviors as typical of a certain group, for many reasons, the most important of which is that it does not solve the issue. It is hurtful for those who fall into any of these groups, it breeds mistrust and interferes with unity. Unity is what we need if we are to fight this, and how can we work together when we are too busy pointing fingers? According to the CCC, homosexuals are to be treated with compassion and every effort must be made to ensure that no unjust discrimination befalls them. Eggloff, I’ve been reading your posts which to me sound very discriminatory of homosexuals. Your accusations and assumptions are not backed by any relevant data, and therefore the comments are unjust, unnecessary and very hurtful. Pornography and promiscuity are prevalent in society at large (which several of us I am quite sure are guilty of from time to time), and that is where reconciliation comes in. He who is without sin cast the first stone.
Harsh judgment leaves no room for hope. I would like to see more rehabilitative programs initiated. How many of these men were victimized and then, out of their brokenness and woundedness, further victimized. How can we break the cycle of abuse? How can we heal the wounds? Shame seems to be one of the biggest obstacles to resolving the issue. How difficult it must be to discover that you have urges that you feel helpless to fight, and then how further difficult it must be to have to admit it to another person. Is there a way for us all to let go of judgment and work towards healing?
Amiga, your 4:24 comment is exemplary – thank you!
Regarding your 4:29 comment: I’m not sure if you’re aware, but medical/psychological rehabilitation was tried for these abusers for many years, and in far too many cases it failed. Many priests came out of rehab, were admitted back into ministry, and abused again.
That is not to say that treatment ofr abusers has no place – perhaps it does – but we need to separate out these four strands from one another:
* medical/psychological treatment – perhaps it could help an abuser
* active ministry – a cleric (or layperson) found guilty of child sexual abuse must not be re-admitted to active ministry, regardless of whether he goes through therapy or not.
* legal consequences – abusers must be exposed to the full legal consequences of their actions. (And be accorded the same rights and protections as anyone else accused of a crime).
* sin and forgiveness – Even those these sins are extremely serious, and even though by committing them, the cleric shows himself unsuitable for clerical duties and identity, we must never lose hope that forgiveness and reconciliation may be possible.
David,
It appears that you are agreeing that porn and promiscuity are a part of the homosexual lifestyle but that regret is not and therefore the diagnosis of hypersexuality would not attain. Ok. I can certainly buy that.
Amiga,
I have actually offered several studies on the connection between homosexuality and pedophila. I could offer more. As to the empirical evidence that the priest sexual abuse problem was homosexual in nature, there is plenty of that in the John Jay Report. I dont know how i have been unjustly discriminatory.
I wonder if more proactive measures could be taken to stop it all before it even starts? More “preventative” care. More open discussion. More damage control and healing programs for survivors of abuse. Awareness for everyone involved. I am a firm believer in accountability, open communication, education, and establishment of healthy boundaries for everyone.
Dale O’Leary has written that the surest way to prevent homosexuality in boys is rough house play with Dad that Mom visibly and audibly disapproves of, particularly tossing Jr. into the air and catching him.
Eggloff,
I have seen your posts which make reference to the studies. I have read the conclusions you have drawn based on those references. It seems to me that you are trying to “connect the dots” but don’t seem to be following any sort of logical venue. It makes me wonder what you have against homosexuals, as you seem to be building some sort of case against them. The word scapegoat comes to mind.
When I attended the mandatory training required in our diocese in order to work with children, they informed us that the typical child sexual abuser was not homosexual, contrary to popular belief. That is a myth. The typical child sexual abuser is actually a heterosexual male, married with children. Does that scare you? Does that hit too close to home for you?
We are not talking about preventing homosexuality, we are talking about preventing child sexual abuse before it starts!
“You have a totally stereotypical view of what gay people are like, but say a gay man has five different sex partners a week, and spends two hours a day watching porn. If he is not distressed by his own behavior, and if it is not interfering with his job or his other obligations, he cannot be diagnosed as having hypersexual disorder.”
David–
Granting for the sake of argument that what you say is technically true, I don’t think that train of thought takes you where you want to go. Any person who exhibits that behavior has a disorder that we’re obliged to try to help him overcome, whether he admits it or not. If it doesn’t meet the clinical definition, it’s the criteria for the diagnosis that is flawed.
Any person who exhibits that behavior has a disorder that we’re obliged to try to help him overcome, whether he admits it or not. If it doesn’t meet the clinical definition, it’s the criteria for the diagnosis that is flawed.
Mark,
I think we have to let psychiatrists determine what psychiatric disorders are. If someone leading that kind of life is happy and productive, why would he go see a psychiatrist? Can you imagine an ad for a psychiatrist — “Are you happy? Do you have lots of sex partners? Do you enjoy porn? Are you successful and doing well in your career? Come pay me $250 an hour, and I’ll convince you you need to change!”
You know the old joke:
Q. How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. Only one, but it has to really want to change.
Note the argument being made here. Eggloff says a certain kind of behavior will be defined in the DSM V as hypersexual disorder. I point out the draft text of the DSM V diagnostic criteria, and clearly it doesn’t even apply to an extreme, hypothetical case that I make up just to prove a point. Then your answer is, “Well, if it doesn’t meet the diagnostic criteria in the DSM V, then the DSM V will be wrong!”
If I predict the sun will not rise tomorrow, and it does, I can say, “Well, it wasn’t supposed to. So I’m not wrong.” But that doesn’t make me right. Many people (including psychiatrists) might be appalled at the kind of life I described, but that does not make it a psychiatric disorder.
“Ann, it is not a sin to say someone who professes to be Catholic but denies The Truth is lying. Just as that which is true cannot be a lie, speaking the truth cannot be a sin, if lying is a sin, to begin with.”
Nancy –
You seem to be confusing “what is true” (facts) and statements about what is true. You don’t seem to have noticed that the word “true” is ambiguous — it can refer both to what is true (the facts, “the truth”) and to *statements* about what is true, e.g., “A bachelor is an unmarried man” is a true statement.)
People make mistakes, dear Nancy, and the expression of a mistake is *not* a lie. A mistake is 1) actually thinking that what is so, is not so, or 2) thinking that what is not so, is so.. Yes, the expression of a mistake is false, but that doesn’t turn the expression of a mistake into a lie.
A lie is *deliberately* saying the *opposite* of what one actually thinks in order fool someone else into thinking that, that is actually what one believes.
So unless you have some evidence that someone is *deliberately* saying something counter to what the person actually thinks, and that the person is deliberately trying to fool you, you are *not* justified in calling the person a liar, because the person might simply be mistaken. Or — get this –*you* might be mistaken about the truth.
In fact, it is a sin to call someone a liar without evidence that the person is deliberately saying something to fool you. Doing so is the sin of slander. And that’s the truth about lying.
\
Ooops — not quite the truth. “Doing so is the sin of slander” should be “Doing so is an instance of the sin of slander”.
See how easy it is to be mistaken?
Amiga,
You were misinformed. In fact, the John Jay Study shows the typical abuser (80%) of young men and children were homosexuals. One does tire of repeating what was in the data.
Amiga,
It is not surprising you were misinformed, however.
Ann, with all due respect, you are mistaken.
In fact, the John Jay Study shows the typical abuser (80%) of young men and children were homosexuals. One does tire of repeating what was in the data.
Eggloff,
I challenge you to point out where the report says that.
Just as that which is true cannot be a lie, speaking the truth cannot be a sin, if lying is a sin, to begin with.
Nancy,
Of course speaking the truth can be a sin.
David,
Come on now. Look it up. 80% of the “interactions” were male on male. You may want to claim that male on male sexual activity is not homosexual and good on ya fer tryin’ it. Still, the numbers are right there.
Anyway, I think this is now getting a little tedious. it got tedious a while ago, didn’t it. I know. I know. I played my part in that, too! So, i will sign off on this thread. Best to all….
“Ann, with all due respect, you are mistaken.
Nancy –
With all due respect, what is your evidence for saying that? I notice you do not appeal to the Catechism.
eggloff
“You may want to claim that male on male sexual activity is not homosexual ”
Is it homosexual activity, but homosexuality activity can be perfomed by people don’t homosexual. And if this acticivity is male on children male IS NOT homosexuality activity, but pedophilia.It is not surprising you were misinformed.
Come on now. Look it up. 80% of the “interactions” were male on male. You may want to claim that male on male sexual activity is not homosexual and good on ya fer tryin’ it. Still, the numbers are right there.
Eggloff,
First, male-on-male sexual activity is homosexual. Homos in Greek means “same,” and homosexuality means “same sex.” That does not mean that males who engage in homosexual activity are “homosexual persons” or gay men. What’s important is not what I want to say, but rather what the John Jay Report does not say, and what the John Jay researchers do say. The report contains no statistics on the sexual orientation of abusing priests. And the John Jay researchers explicitly caution against making the very assumption that you make:
Furthermore, you said the following: “In fact, the John Jay Study shows the typical abuser (80%) of young men and children were homosexuals. One does tire of repeating what was in the data.” But the data you are talking about is the percentage of boys (81%) and girls (19%) who were victims, when the gender of the victims was known. What you should be looking at is Table 3.5.3, which shows that 157 (3.6%) of the priests were accused of molesting both boys and girls, 991 (22.6%) were accused of molesting girls only, and for 429 (9.8%) of the priests, the gender of the young people they were accused of molesting was unknown. That leaves 2,805 (64%) priests accused of molesting boys only.
So even if we go by your assumption — which the researchers deny — that those who abuse boys are homosexuals, the percentage is 64%, which is quite different from 81%.
David, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “no one is bound to reveal the truth to someone who does not have the right to know it…unless there is a grave and proportionate reason for divulging the information.” (i.e. no gossiping) (CCC,no.2489)
This means that no gossiping is part of the truth about telling the truth.
“That does not mean that males who engage in homosexual activity are “homosexual persons” or gay men.” This is true because homosexual activity is not a person, to begin with. Those who engage in homosexual activity are either Men or Women engaging in homosexual activity.
Nancy, this is a section of the Catechism that can be used as an excuse for the cover-up of crimes. It’s the Catechism’s equivalent of Cardinal Castrillon in the Vatican: it’s dangerous and should be removed.
I propose rewording it as: “no one is bound to hide the truth from someone who has the right to know it…unless there is a grave and proportionate reason for not divulging the information.”
“This is a section of the Catechism that can be used as an excuse for the cover-up of crimes.”
You are mistaken Claire. In order to use this section of the Catechism as an excuse for the cover-up of crimes, you would have to manipulate the meaning of this section in the Catechism, to begin with.
Eggloff -
Is pornography a part of the heterosexual life that you have observed? Is promiscuity?
It sure is from what I have seen.
So?
Very late here, but I see the Bishop of Scotland has called Bertone’s comments “stupid” and urged his fellow bishop to stand up and correct remarks that are wrong to the point of telling someone (even a vatican bigwig, Iguess?) rthat what they said was “stupid.
Sean, et al. go debate the Bishop of Scotland – this thread was both interminable and repetitive, especially by those seeking to defend the Bertone veiw!
michael kors outlet…
When dry, tear and burn up the edges slightly to give it that an antique come to feel….