The Vatican admits it's had a few bumps and bruises from revelations of child molestation, and worse, by its priests but, hey, doesn't every church? In fact, the Vatican says that, when it comes to kid diddling, some other churches are just as bad, even worse:
In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.
The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.
He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common.
So, if the Vatican admits that Priestly Peds are less than 5% of its clergy and excludes from that calculation garden variety homosexual priests who just like to do adolescent males, defining them as "the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts," what's the bottom line when you lump in the teen diddlers with the really 'little kid' diddlers?
The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.
"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."
Well, unfortunately that last statement invites us to do the math. If the Vatican admits that upwards of 5% of its clergy are peds but, of all its priests committing abuses, 80-90% aren't peds in Rome's eyes but just gay guys who fancy sex with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17 (that's not pedophilia?), then that works out to a whopping 50% overall. And the Vatican is pointing fingers? That's just plain creepy.
In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.
The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.
He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common.
So, if the Vatican admits that Priestly Peds are less than 5% of its clergy and excludes from that calculation garden variety homosexual priests who just like to do adolescent males, defining them as "the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts," what's the bottom line when you lump in the teen diddlers with the really 'little kid' diddlers?
The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.
"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."
Well, unfortunately that last statement invites us to do the math. If the Vatican admits that upwards of 5% of its clergy are peds but, of all its priests committing abuses, 80-90% aren't peds in Rome's eyes but just gay guys who fancy sex with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17 (that's not pedophilia?), then that works out to a whopping 50% overall. And the Vatican is pointing fingers? That's just plain creepy.
3 comments:
When RC priests are ordained, they have a moral, spiritual, psychological and physical obligation to maintain celibacy. Period.
The respect of celibacy is separate from the issue of sexual predation upon children and adolescents, regardless of the gender. It is interesting that the Vatican Taliban chooses to focus on the priests who sexually abuse boys. They claim that's the majority, but I say that female victims are simply less likely to denounce their abusers, given the patriarchal bias of the clergy.
Cases like Charles Sylvestre are only visible when they make headlines; I know of two RC priests who fondled and molested little girls yet none of their victims have filed official complaints.
Statistically it stands up too; there should be more heterosexually-oriented priests than those who aren't as a reflection of tendencies in the general population.
It left me saddened some while back when I watched a homosexual priest address this problem. As he explained it, many young homosexuals were drawn into the priesthood as a means of staying in the closet and in the belief that their faith would give them the strength to remain celebate. Only after they arrive in a position of authority and trust do they lapse.
I really have no difficulty believing that. It is a tragedy and it is a tangential consequence of the celibacy doctrine.
My guess is that a lot of this could be avoided by opening the priesthood to married me - of either orientation. That, of course, would send the Holy See into apoplepsy.
Just in Newfoundland alone the percentage of RC priest molesters would be very high. In the case of Kevin Bennett from the West Coast of Newfoundland....he molested over thirty boys alone and showed many others how to dynamite the rivers to obtain salmon which is illigel. The number molested by my ex-husband's uncle is not known and he is still called Monsignor after being charged and found guilty. The RC Church is always trying to save face. A. Morris
Post a Comment