The Pope Arrives In Canada

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>Actually, I was just trying to put words in your head since

>there seems to be a large vacuum in there.

 

Vacuums are well know for their ability to suck - so I guess I'll take that as a compliment.

 

>More importantly, heterosexual sexual pedophiles will molest

>boys and girls. Homosexual pedophiles will molest boys and

>girls.

 

Then surely that would make them bisexuals. I a man molests a young male for sexual gratification and can also get the same satisfaction from molesting a young female, how can you argue that he is hetro?

 

>What I don't understand is why you are being so deliberately

>think about this.

 

I assume you mean "thick" instead of "think". I'm not beieng deliberately anything - I just don't believe your premise.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>So much thunder in your little buns!

 

Wow - that's a cute and so original expression!

 

>Look, I am a lawyer in our two countries,

 

Oh well I guess that explains it then. You're a LAWYER IN OUR TWO COUNTRIES, so what ever you say must be the only correct response. A thousand pardons, sir.

 

>(It's not the best analogy since the homeless guy would probably not have a car, but I try to work with your irrationality.)

 

Thank you so much for trying to work with my irrationality, not to mention my severe limitations. But - just in case you have never heard, due to you assuming the ostrich position - many homeless people happen to LIVE in their cars, so I will defend my analogy. They don't all live in boxes under a bridge, believe it or not!

 

Thunderbuns

[ad rian]

>Oh well I guess that explains it then. You're a LAWYER IN

>OUR TWO COUNTRIES, so what ever you say must be the only

>correct response. A thousand pardons, sir.

 

Your pardons are accepted!

 

Your Liege.

[BewareofNick]

>Then surely that would make them bisexuals. I a man molests

>a young male for sexual gratification and can also get the

>same satisfaction from molesting a young female, how can you

>argue that he is hetro?

>

>>What I don't understand is why you are being so deliberately

>>think about this.

>

>I assume you mean "thick" instead of "think". I'm not beieng

>deliberately anything - I just don't believe your premise.

>

>Thunderbuns

 

 

http://hrc.grassroots.com/family/soandchildabusefact/

 

FACT SHEET ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND CHILD ABUSE

 

Studies show that there is no connection to homosexuality and child sexual abuse.

Dr. Carole Jenny reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in only 2 of the 269 cases in which an adult molester could be identified, less than 1percent of the cases. (Jenny et al., 1994).

 

Groth and Birnbaum (1978) found that none of the 175 adult males in their sample – all of whom were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child – had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation.

 

In one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:

 

“Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

 

The heterosexual partner of a relative is more likely to sexually abuse children than someone who is gay.

 

A 1994 study found that “a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is 100 times greater than by someone who might be identified as a homosexual. (Carole Jenny et al., Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?; 94 Pediatrics 41; July 1994; study of 269 sexually abused children when an adult offender was identified.)

 

A sexual abuser who molests a child of the same sex is usually not considered homosexual.

 

Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, “The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women” (p. 259).

 

“It is meaningless to speak of fixated molesters in these terms – as heterosexual or homosexuals - they are attracted to children, not to men or women. (Groth & Birnbaum, 1978).

 

** Note: The term “fixated molesters” refers to adults exclusively attracted to children.

 

The experts agree that there is no link to homosexuality and child abuse.

 

The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America all have policy statements stating there is no correlation between homosexuality and child abuse.

 

When asked about this question, the American Psychiatric Association wrote to the Senate stating: “While we are all concerned by the issue of sexual abuse, there is no credible evidence that lesbians and gay men are more likely to commit such offenses than others. Gay men and lesbians do not pose any particular threat to youth and should not be singled out or discriminated against in any manner.

 

SOURCES

 

Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-44

 

Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181

 

Groth, A. N., & Gary, T. S. (1982). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation. In A.M. Scacco (Ed.), Male rape: A casebook of sexual aggressions (pp. 143-152). New York: AMS Press.

 

Freund, K., Watson, R., & Rienzo, D. (1989). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. The Journal of Sex Research, 26 (1), 107-117.

 

Carole Jenny et al. Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?; 94 Pediatrics 41; July 1994; study of 269 sexually abused children when an adult offender was identified.

 

McConaghy, N. (1998). Pedophilia: A review of the evidence. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 32(2), 252-265.

 

Groth, A.N., & Birnbaum, H.J. (1978). Adult sexual orientation and attraction to underage persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7 (3), 175-181.

 

Klassen, A. D., Williams, C. J., & Levitt, E. E. (1989). Sex and morality in the U.S.: An empirical enquiry under the auspices of the Kinsey Institute. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

 

Herek, G.M., Public Opinion Quarterly, 2002.

 

Nebraska Psychological Association; Minutes of the Nebraska Psychological Association; Oct. 19, 1984

 

Lincoln Star; “Sociology Group Criticizes Work of Paul Cameron”; “Sept. 10, 1985

 

K. Freund and R.J. Watson) The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, J. of Sex & Marital Therapy 4; 1992)

 

It's not a premise, Thunderthighs, it's documented fact.

[BewareofNick]

>>It is possible to portray priests in movies in ways that no other >religious leaders are.

>

>It is still POSSIBLE to portray other clergy the same way.

>But it may be that as Hollywood is largely controled by

>Jews, they conspire to give rabbis a clean bill of health.

>

>Thunderbuns

 

I cannot believe you actually wrote that. Where's Ethan when you need him? Thunderbuns, I thought it was bad enough that you regard homosexuals and pedophiles as one and the same, but now you are an anti-Semite too?

 

Prejudice is an ugly thing.

 

For shame.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>>It is possible to portray priests in movies in ways that no other >religious leaders are.

>>

>>It is still POSSIBLE to portray other clergy the same way.

>>But it may be that as Hollywood is largely controled by

>>Jews, they conspire to give rabbis a clean bill of health.

>>

>>Thunderbuns

>

>I cannot believe you actually wrote that. Where's Ethan

>when you need him? Thunderbuns, I thought it was bad enough

>that you regard homosexuals and pedophiles as one and the

>same, but now you are an anti-Semite too?

 

I'm not anti-Semite at all. If you can't recognize sarcasm when you hear it then perhaps I should have made it clearer. I was simply apeing the same type of logic that seems to propel Ad rian. As for Ethan - I don't know where he is but I'm sure he is just as hysterical as ever.

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>>Oh well I guess that explains it then. You're a LAWYER IN

>>OUR TWO COUNTRIES, so what ever you say must be the only

>>correct response. A thousand pardons, sir.

>

>Your pardons are accepted!

>

>Your Liege.

 

And may I add, I hope your understanding of the law is superior to you understanding of the Catholic abuse issue. Otherwise, you may starve to death.

 

Thunderbuns

[ad rian]

>I cannot believe you actually wrote that. Where's Ethan

>when you need him? Thunderbuns, I thought it was bad enough

>that you regard homosexuals and pedophiles as one and the

>same, but now you are an anti-Semite too?

>

>Prejudice is an ugly thing.

 

Where is the prejudice in asking why Hollywood movies don't portray Hasidic rabbis as child molesters? That is a fair question, for which a cursory review of the credits in most movies might give rise at least to a rebuttable presumption of a logical response. It fascinates me that it is so acceptable to denigrate catholics but not jews in modern day America.

[BewareofNick]

>>I cannot believe you actually wrote that. Where's Ethan

>>when you need him? Thunderbuns, I thought it was bad enough

>>that you regard homosexuals and pedophiles as one and the

>>same, but now you are an anti-Semite too?

>>

>>Prejudice is an ugly thing.

>

>Where is the prejudice in asking why Hollywood movies don't

>portray Hasidic rabbis as child molesters? That is a fair

>question, for which a cursory review of the credits in most

>movies might give rise at least to a rebuttable presumption

>of a logical response. It fascinates me that it is so

>acceptable to denigrate catholics but not jews in modern day

>America.

 

Seig heil to you too, ad rian.

 

Let's see, the Jews had that little thing about being driven from their homeland a few centuries ago. Then that Holocaust thing. Sounds like enough bullshit for any race.

 

As for denigrating Catholics, that's in your imagonation. SOME Catholic priests choose to molest children. They have been protected by their higher-ups over the centuries. What's denigrating about pointing out the truth?

 

I imagine you're still upset about that Kevin Smith movie, Dogma? It was an awesome movie, especially Alannis Morissette as God.

[ad rian]

>Seig heil to you too, ad rian.

>

>Let's see, the Jews had that little thing about being driven

>from their homeland a few centuries ago. Then that

>Holocaust thing. Sounds like enough bullshit for any race.

>

>As for denigrating Catholics, that's in your imagonation.

>SOME Catholic priests choose to molest children. They have

>been protected by their higher-ups over the centuries.

>What's denigrating about pointing out the truth?

 

 

My only point here has been that abuse occurs in other denominations too and at the same rate, and that also requires attention. This colloquy is a good example of what I mean. Despite posting links to articles from Jewish sources about sexual abuse in that denomination, you, Deej and a few other hyper-sensitive self-righteous bigots get upset because reality does not conform so neatly to your simplistic world view. Do you deny that sexual abuse occurs in other denominations, including jews? If not, then let's just address ALL abuse, and not engage in catholic bashing. Catholic bashing is no more pretty than gay bashing!

[taylorky]

hey guys enough already.we know that one fool here is an anti-catholic & anti-jewish buffoon!!no matter what any of the reasonable rational sane people say;this clown will always be a fool.so please let it go.let this idiot talk to himself.the nice jewish hillbilly (my opinion on the nice part) from kentucky; :* :* :* :* :*

[Rick Munroe]

Jews don't just control Hollywood. We control all the media and all the money in the world. We also have little horns on our heads (that's the reason I have faceless pics).

[BewareofNick]

par'a'noi'a (pàr´e-noi´e) noun :

 

A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution or grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>hey guys enough already.we know that one fool here is an

>anti-catholic & anti-jewish buffoon!!no matter what any of

>the reasonable rational sane people say;this clown will

>always be a fool.so please let it go.let this idiot talk to

>himself.the nice jewish hillbilly (my opinion on the nice

>part) from kentucky; :* :* :* :* :*

 

That's it guys - The Jewish hillbilly from Kentucky has spoken, so it's time to end the discussion before he has to admit that he could possibly be wrong.

 

Y'all hear now!

 

Thunderbuns

[ad rian]

>par'a'noi'a (pàr´e-noi´e) noun :

>

>A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of

>persecution or grandeur, often strenuously defended with

>apparent logic and reason.

 

Where is the paranoia in asking for a little equal time in the coverage of sexual abuse within various religious orders? Why do you resist that notion so assiduously despite anecdotal and statistical evidence that the pattern of abuse in the RC church is no greater than in any others? I guess it is so much easier to believe that if you stop abusive priests the issue will go away. Well, continue to stick your head in the sand or anywhere else it feels comfortable for you, but I have always found that when people cannot defend their positions logically, they turn to name-calling. It kind of reminds me of the definition below:

 

de-fen-sive (di fen'siv) adj.

1. serving or done for the purpose of resisting attack.

2. of or pertaining to defense.

3. sensitive to the threat of criticism or injury to one's ego.

n.

4. a position or attitude of defense: on the defensive about one's mistakes.

[ad rian]

Given the degree of vituperation that I have received here, I thought I would share one of the private emails I have received on this subject. It is really pathetic that these attitudes are used to silence other M4M members from participating here:

 

"This is a short thank-you note for daring to enter the anti-catholic jousts. When I saw the thread go up about the Pope's visit to Canada, I instantly decided that I wouldn't open it, no matter what. It's not worth the cost to my serenity to speak to anti-catholic bigotry on this board. So I don't know what you were brave and gutsy enough to attempt there; but I do know that having entered the lists volunatarily many times myself, you can't have come out the other side without some bumps and bruises.

 

Over a year ago in conversation about M4M with my Jesuit spiritual director, I got the idea, which I still have, that part of my participation ought to include my being as forthright about my religious beliefs as I am about everything else. And so I not only responded to certain threads (which can be translated as "took the bait"), I initiated some that I thought and still think should be of concern to any thinking gay man. After all, Catholics aren't the only ones whose churches make it difficult to be a "practicing" member of each group. And Christians don't comprise the only moral entities that have institutionalized homophobia. Hello? Ever heard of Islam, of Orthodox Judaism?

 

But after a while I decided that I wasn't getting anywhere by being "out" as a Catholic on M4M. So I've gone underground. I still post AS A BELIEVING CHRISTIAN IN THE CATHOLIC TRADITION. But I just don't call attention to the brand-name of what I have to say. That seems to have worked as regards the message. As regards bigotry, I think I may have learned that bigots are bigots because they like to be bigots. It takes genuine conversion, not rational argument, for a bigot to give it up. And that, to me, can only be an act of grace. Of course, it's usually the case that grace uses human beings as a medium. If that's the case with you, I want to tell you how grateful I am and how deeply I support you. I don't think it's my particular gift to speak on this board as a Catholic per se. But I do hope that what I say resonates with what Catholics believe about the meaning of human life, whether they've got their sexual theology screwed on or not.

 

Many, many thanks again. I always enjoy reading your posts, but until this morning I had no idea that you and I were on a team even more unpopular than fagdom!"

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>Given the degree of vituperation that I have received here,

>I thought I would share one of the private emails I have

>received on this subject. It is really pathetic that these

>attitudes are used to silence other M4M members from

>participating here:

 

Thanks for sharing this with us. It is interesting to note how it reflects your own viewpoint - but I guess that accounts for your reason for posting it. Sort of like the blind leading the blind.

 

Your comment, "It is really pathetic that these attitudes are used to silence other M4M members from participating here", I find to be very strange. I think that as this thread has generated well over 60 replies with opinions being expressed on all sides of the issue, indicates just the opposite.

 

There will always be those who can't cope with an opinion that differs from theirs. As well, there are people who are so insecure that they feel they must always strive to be liked and accepted

and therefor will not say what they really think for fear of rejection. Too blame the more outspoken posters for the reticence of others is unrealistic.

 

Thunderbuns

[ad rian]

>Thanks for sharing this with us. It is interesting to note

>how it reflects your own viewpoint - but I guess that

>accounts for your reason for posting it. Sort of like the

>blind leading the blind.

 

No, I posted it as a representative of the supportive emails that I received directly for the position that I have tried to advance here. Fortunately or unfortunately, I guess all of the negative responses were posted directly to the thread. You and others can think what you will of RC priests, that is your right, but the refusal to even grant that the problem exists in other denominations, and to vilify any who attempt to demonstrate that, is not dialogue but demagoguery. I quite like most of your posts so I am curious why this issue has led you to abandon your usual balanced perspective.

[Guest Chazzz69]

>>Thanks for sharing this with us. It is interesting to note

>>how it reflects your own viewpoint - but I guess that

>>accounts for your reason for posting it. Sort of like the

>>blind leading the blind.

>

>No, I posted it as a representative of the supportive emails

>that I received directly for the position that I have tried

>to advance here. Fortunately or unfortunately, I guess all

>of the negative responses were posted directly to the

>thread. You and others can think what you will of RC

>priests, that is your right, but the refusal to even grant

>that the problem exists in other denominations, and to

>vilify any who attempt to demonstrate that, is not dialogue

>but demagoguery. I quite like most of your posts so I am

>curious why this issue has led you to abandon your usual

>balanced perspective.

 

 

Ad rian, I learned a very long time ago that you can't argue with ignorance.

 

Taking pot shots at the Roman Catholic Church has been in existance for centuries. She has weathered many things much worse in her more than two thousand year history than this current scandal. Each time she has emerged stronger, the same will be true this time around.

 

Chazzz69

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>You and others can think what you will of RC

>priests, that is your right, but the refusal to even grant

>that the problem exists in other denominations, and to

>vilify any who attempt to demonstrate that, is not dialogue

>but demagoguery.

 

Please read all of the posts carefully. I don't think you will find that members are refusing to believe that it occurs in other religions.

 

You have been sidetracked from the point I was originally trying to make. It has nothing to do with which religion has the most molesters - you make it sound like a contest! The point I was trying to make - and I can't really believe that you are so obtuse as to not get it - is that until the Pope firmly and unambiguosly states that he endorses a zero tollerance policy towards molesters in his church, he has no credibility in the eyes of a great percentage of the world.

 

Forget other religions. He doesn't control them. But he does control the world's population of Catholics. And he can apologise from now till doom's day, but all his apologising can't negate the fact that he MUST endorse zero tolerance if his church is to ride out this storm.

 

>I quite like most of your posts so I am

>curious why this issue has led you to abandon your usual

>balanced perspective.

 

Many on this board will tell you that they don't think my perspectives are balanced at all. I often see things as black or white, neglecting to conceed that there is always room for the "grey" side of the issue. If that's a failing in me - so be it. Let the first "perfect" member cast his stones.

 

Thunderbuns

[ad rian]

>Please read all of the posts carefully. I don't think you

>will find that members are refusing to believe that it

>occurs in other religions.

 

Well, it seems that some deny it, some say ignore it, and others say even if it is true, it s not on a moral par. That is precisely why I stepped into the breach, as I often do on this Board, to retrn a bit of logic and balance to the debates.

 

>You have been sidetracked from the point I was originally

>trying to make. It has nothing to do with which religion has

>the most molesters - you make it sound like a contest! The

>point I was trying to make - and I can't really believe that

>you are so obtuse as to not get it - is that until the Pope

>firmly and unambiguosly states that he endorses a zero

>tollerance policy towards molesters in his church, he has no

>credibility in the eyes of a great percentage of the world.

 

In my view the goal is to end all abuse. To do so, one achieves nothing by centring on the RC church to the exclusion of others. That is my only point. The witch hunt is counter-productive because other abusers in other denominations are ignored.

 

>Forget other religions. He doesn't control them. But he does

>control the world's population of Catholics. And he can

>apologise from now till doom's day, but all his apologising

>can't negate the fact that he MUST endorse zero tolerance if

>his church is to ride out this storm.

 

First, what do you mean he controls the world;s populations of Catholics? I thought that line of thinking went out of fashion with Kennedy's election in 1960, or if not then after the Second Vatican Council. Second, what exactly does zero tolerance mean. Fire all those accused? Fire only those where abuse has been "proven"? What will the standard of proof be? A balnce of probabilities? Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Will we have a mechanism to compensate those who are falsely accused? You see, once you get past the slogans, the complexities of the issue rise to the surface.

[Rick Munroe]

>She has weathered many things much

>worse in her more than two thousand year history than this

>current scandal. Each time she has emerged stronger, the

>same will be true this time around.

 

Hmmm...the Catholic Church is a woman? Then how come there aren't female priests?

[CT Dick]

>Second, what exactly does

>zero tolerance mean. Fire all those accused? Fire only

>those where abuse has been "proven"? What will the standard

>of proof be? A balnce of probabilities? Proof beyond a

>reasonable doubt? Will we have a mechanism to compensate

>those who are falsely accused? You see, once you get past

>the slogans, the complexities of the issue rise to the

>surface.

 

Not to worry. The RCC has always been able to work this one out. Zero tolerance means the same standard they have always used toward the laity.

 

(How often has the church come to the defense of a divorced woman who found herself in an abusive relationship but couldn't afford a canon lawyer? SHE know how well the church can define zero tolerance.) :-)

 

Dick

[trilingual]

Weighing in for the Jewish camp in this little mud-sling, let me also point out that issues of sexual abuse certainly come up from time to time in the rabbinate. The Jewish community certainly isn't immune, any more than any other. Cases of abuse involving young boys tend to be unusual, however. The rabbinate, unlike the the Catholic priesthood, does not involve vows of celibacy and chastity. In fact, rabbis traditionally have been encouraged to marry and have families. Therefore, the rabbinate hasn't been the kind of refuge for young men confused about their sexuality that the Catholic priesthood has been.

 

Cases of sexual impropriety in the Jewish community probably don't become as notorious as they do among Catholics because a) we are less numerous; b) our clergy aren't supposed to be sexually abstinent, so their falls from grace may seem somewhat less shocking; and c) Judaism is organized on a congregational, not hierarchical, basis, so when something happens it usually is an issue within an individual congregation and doesn't achieve widespread publicity. However, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, child molestation does happen. The recent case at Temple Emanu-El in New York, which is one of the best known Reform congregations in the country, made headlines in New York and caused consternation throughout the Jewish community. There have been other cases of impoprieties in Orthodox teaching communities.

 

Most cases of sexual abuse in the Jewish clergy seem to involve extra-marital relationships or abuse of the rabbi-congregant relationship. Not that long ago a young, dynamic and enormously popular rabbi at Temple Emanuel here in San Francisco was ousted because it turned out that he had been seducing female congregants who had been coming to him for counseling. Temple Emanuel is one of the leading houses of worship in San Francisco, of any "brand," and the scandal made all the local papers. It was also transmitted nationwide, instantly, by the "Tell-a-Yenta" network. As in any community, these kinds of things leave deep wounds. People really loved and believed in this rabbi, who was otherwise an enormously gifted and charismatic leader who was rebuilding a congregation that had been declining for years under a long-time "old school" rabbi who had finally retired. It was a long time before the community recovered from the shock and pain of what had happened. Needless to say, the rabbi's brilliantly promising career was ruined.

 

So there are a few examples for those of you who are under the illusion that the Jews are somehow "holier than thou." I haven't the foggiest idea where anybody got that idea, because we're not. We certainly don't compare in "holier than thou-ness" to a certain large organization based in Rome with an infallible misogynistic leader who pontificates on just about everything. . . Judaism teaches that all righteous people (and not just Jews) will be granted God's favor in the afterlife. Unlike Catholicism, Judaism does not view itself as being the one true religion, except for Jews, who have entered into a covenantal relationship with God to follow certain precepts. As an old Jewish expression about other religions goes: there are many mountaintops, but they all reach for the stars.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

We certainly don't compare in "holier than thou-ness" to a certain large organization based in Rome with an infallible misogynistic leader who pontificates on just about everything.

 

Now there's a word I didn't know. Upon checking the dictionary I found:

 

misosynistic - a hatred of women.

 

Who said you can't learn nutin on this here board?

 

 

Thunderbuns