Pedophiles should be in prison for life or dead. Their recidivism rate is extremely high and they claim many victims, often ruining them for life. The Pope and the Catholic church are rightly under fire again for more pedophilia cover-ups.
People in leadership who hide pedophiles should be in jail as well, and fired from their jobs at a minimum.
While much sexual abuse involves straight males and young girls, the Catholic church’s issues do not follow that pattern:
In a statement, read out by Arhbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi at a meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on 22 September 2009, the Holy See stated that the majority of Catholic clergy who had committed acts of sexual abuse against under 18 year olds should not be viewed as paedophiles, but as homosexuals who are attracted to sex with adolescent males. The statement said that rather than paedophilia, “it would be more correct to speak of ephebophilia; being 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.”
The move angered many gay rights organisations, who claimed it was an attempt by the Vatican to redefine the Church’s past problems with paedophilia as problems with homosexuality.
Play all the word games you like, but that fact is that the majority of the abuse involved adult males having sex with young males. This shows the danger of political correctness.
This is not just a Catholic problem, of course. Abuse occurs all over.
And as the Hillbuzz gang points out, the MSM never tells the masses about Islamic pedophilia:
First of all, before we say anything negative about the Catholic Church, we would like to point out the simple fact the MSM does not, ever, report on the millions of young boys who are raped on a daily basis in the Middle East, in the name of Islam, by Muslims who consider sex with young boys to be their right. All of us here studied Islam in college, and no study of Islam is complete without a look at what Muslim men do to young boys. “Women are for children, boys are for pleasure” is a very common phrase in Islam. Harems of young boys have things done to them no priest has ever done, in any country. But, in terms of calling Islam out on its many sins, the MSM issues just the sound of crickets.
They also had some interesting anecdotes about suspected gay kids being pushed into the priesthood.
0 thoughts on “Unconscionable”
“Their recidivism rate is extremely high”
That’s because Pedophilia cannot be cured.
I did extensive research on Pedophilia several years ago. The reason Pedophiles need to be locked up for life is because they don’t see what they do as wrong. Thus, they can never be trusted not to molest again. In their twisted minds, by molesting children, they think they are showing love for the child when they sexually molest them. They cannot differentiate between sex and love.
Homosexuals suffer from the same delusion. Can’t distinguish between sex and love. Most pedophiles are homosexual. I don’t care what the gay lobby tries to tell us.
And you were doing so well until the last paragraph… Homosexuality is no more about sex than heterosexuality.
Free tip: Think first, then type. Or don’t type. Either was is good.
acts of sexual abuse against under 18 year olds should not be viewed as paedophiles, but as homosexuals who are attracted to sex with adolescent males. Unbelievable. Reason enough to stop being a Catholic.
by Muslims who consider sex with young boys to be their right.
we really need a reference from the Koran on this one
pedophiles should be simply castrated and their arms removed… my 2 cents (hope the google crawler doesn’t match my name, address, photo, and politcal views, and evil thoughts) LOL …
Eh… the proper term for homosexual attraction to post-pubescent males under the age of 18 is ephebophilia. I’m not sure why properly calling something by its name (some 80% of the abuse in America was against males over 14 but under 18) is a reason to not be Catholic…?
Pedophelia is defined by the attraction to pre-pubescent children.
It’s also worth noting that one of the reasons there hasn’t been more of a scandal in Europe is that the age of consent is far lower in many European countries. Spain is at the outrageous 13, while many other European countries are in the 14-16 range.
More of a scandal? On the LCB scale of scandals, where is this one?
I’m speaking in terms of raw number of sexual abuse complaints and persons seemingly involved.
What in America is a tremendous scandal, in Spain or Germany is a perfectly legal activity.
Sinead O’Connor and Christopher Hitchens… I’m glad the great intellects of our time are on the case.
It’s interesting to note, if you do a bit of digging, just how much the MSM is selectively reporting on facts to make Pope Benedict look bad.
Odd, that this happens across the entire MSM right after the Catholic Bishops in America oppose ObamaCare.
I also find it interesting that the secularist will take the attitude of “The abuser got away with their crimes.” If they are dead, they haven’t gotten away with their crimes. They’ve gone before the Just Judge, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, and have received an eternal judgment. ETERNAL.
Finally, Rembert Weakland (former Bp. of Milwaukee) is often being used as an insturment to attack Pope Benedict on this issue. The man is not exactly a reliable source of information, considering he was caught giving $500,000 of church funds to one of his gay-sex partners as hush money.
Typical of the Catholic propaganda surrounding this issue. “Braying Billy” Donohue even went so far as to equate child abuse by clergy to sexual harassment in the workplace, which presumably is not a problem in his twisted view (certain amount of irony there if you consider the nature of the industrial schools, the laundries etc)
Has anyone here read the Murphy or Ryan reports from Ireland? I suggest you do before jumping to your own conclusions about what the Catholic Church was or wasn’t doing.
What is “unconscionable” is for you to have the nerve to make this just about gay priests, and to shift the blame from the Church itself. Unconscionable, but not surprising. Cover ups, running from responsibility, and hiding behind diplomatic status must be written into Canon Law somewhere.
I have read both the Murphy and Ryan reports. They are indeed troubling, and the information contained therein ranges from the mundane to the serious.
I’d be glad to discuss the multitude of issues related to those reports if you wish. What we’re talking about specifically in this circumstance, however, is the specific issue of sexual abuse. And that sexual abuse has taken a certain form. Why is pointing out what form that abuse was, that it was primarily homosexual activity, somehow unconscionable?
How can a problem be addressed and resolved unless we acknowledge what the problem is and what it consisted of in the past?
“Why is pointing out what form that abuse was, that it was primarily homosexual activity, somehow unconscionable?”
Not sure who you’re reponding to — I think it makes sense to point out the specific activity, the perpetrators and those who covered it up.
Sent from my iPhone
The problem is an institution with a non-transparent, top-down hierachy, that has capitalised on human fear (reinforcing it where necessary) for two thousand years, setting itself up as authoritative over every aspect of its subjects lives. It has grown rich and powerful as a result, wealth and power that must now be maintained at all costs, hence the cover-ups, excuses, propaganda and deciding to be a country instead of a chuch when it’s convenient (for example when you don’t wish to co-operate with an independent Irish investigative commission, just say you never got an official diplomatic request from the Irish government, the same government that’s also being investigated by the same commission). Has the Catholic Church in Ireland fired anyone? Has it committed any of its vast resources to personal or even collective reparation (even symbolic)? No, but we had a letter from Mr Ratzinger. A letter. A piece of paper with some ink on it, which promises neither promises nor admits anything. It’s supposed to make everyone feel special because it’s a letter from THE POPE, who represents GOD HIMSELF. Bollocks, I say.
You state elsewhere that you are willing to deliver heavy criticism when it’s due, but I’ve never seen you criticise the Catholic Church, apart from something once about the way some priests are dressed. Are you really so faithful to this human institution that you are prepared to defend it against your own conscience?
1) The Church does not capitalize on human fear
2) The Church does not set itself up as authorative over every aspect of tis subjects lives
3) The Church is not particularly wealthy. The main form of wealth that the Church possesses in most places is the property which the physical structures themselves are built upon. And in some European countries those were nationalized long ago.
4) You are asserting a cause for what has taken place without facts to support your assertation
5) The Holy See is a sovereign country recognized as such diplomaticly. If you have specific issues with persons not being forthcoming in regards to the irish governmental investigation, name those issues and persons instead of making blanket accusations. The Holy See has only a handful of citizens.
6) You are correct in pointing out that the Bishops of Ireland have done quite poorly, and been complicit in some situations. Which is why they have been resigning with greater frequency, and why they are in the process of being replaced by Rome.
7) Unfortunatly in our modern times many persons will claim untrue things in order to obtain money. The process for a person obtaining some form of reparations is a legal one, to be conducted in the courts of the respective country.
8) Have you read Pope Benedict’s letter? It sounds like you have not.
9) I have not criticized the Church heavily in these forums because this is not primarily a Catholic forum and the issue does not often come up.
10) You presume what it is you seek to prove, namely that the Church is a human institution
11) You presume to know my conscience, which you do not. I am 100% faithful to the Church, and will defend her to the greatest of lengths precisely because there is no conflict in my own conscience.
Racing Boo, it sounds rather like you’re more interested in using those who have been abused as a tool to attack the Church, which you would attack regardless of any abuse.
Besides the many problems with your post, I have real and significant qualms with your attempt to use victims of sexual abuse for such a purpose.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m glad to discuss the multitude of issues faced by the Church at great length, but I would ask that you restrain your anti-Christian rhetoric so as to not include baseless accusations of ‘fear mongering’ ‘controlling people’s lives’ and so on.
I would strongly encourage you to read this article:
I believe you to be an honest man. We have had a number of good discussions, and you have shown yourself to be honest and forthright. and that when made aware of relevent facts and information you change and modify your opinions based on the new information. As it stands, there is no credible evidence linking Pope Benedict to the terrible events that have unfortunatly taken place. I hope that reading the above article will help you to better understand the facts as they stand.
For me, this is not about Benedict. It’s not about attacking the Church for attack’s sake, and, as you put it, using victims of abuse to that end. This is about the Catholic Church’s hold over one country with which I’m by now quite familiar, and the inevitable abuse of that power which resulted.
I have read the letter. Benedict writes as though he is one of the victims. He blames secularism. He writes with the feigned surprise of a random bystander who’s just witnessed a serious car crash, and is horrified by what he sees. And he misses what I think was a brilliant opportunity to restore some faith in the Church.
Leaving aside the rather obvious fact that hellfire and damnation are drummed into children who are too young to know any better, I think you also need to take off the Catholic spectacles occasionally. This article written by a respected political commentator, explains things a lot better than I ever could.
I’ve been to the Vatican. A few days before that I was in another very similar place; the palace of Versailles. I think my brother commented at the time, “no wonder the peasants revolted” The church owns 713 schools, 473 houses and 100 community centres in Dublin alone. In 1979 in the midst of appalling poverty they spent £2.5 million on the Pope’s visit.
It was widely reported at the time, and is hardly a conspiracy theory. This was one of many articles written about it.
Sure, lets make this personal. Let’s make it all about me and my agenda. Let’s make it all about me personally attacking Benedict. Let’s make it about everything except the real issue – what to do with the corpse of Catholicism in Ireland.
What, precisely, would you have preferred Pope Benedict to say?
What, precisely, is it that you wish done?
It seems that your wish before this scandal is the same as your wish after this scandal, namely that the Catholic Church stop being both Catholic and the Church.
Is this about the ‘grip of power’, is this about the victims, is this about the abuse, or is this about the ‘corpse of Catholicism in Ireland’? Or is this about buildings that are hundreds of years old in Rome? Is it that the Church was/is too much like modern society, or not enough like modern society?
What, precisely, is your complaint.
An acknowledgement that the Church and it’s leadership style is the problem, not secularism, gays, Vatican 2 or modern culture.
For the Catholic Church to return a large part of its assets to both the communities who parted with them in the past, and abuse victims, as a gesture of remorse and reconciliation.
That would win back trust and respect, both things which have to be earned, not demanded for free.
You may find rereading the letter in question helpful, as you seem to be misunderstanding where ‘blame’ is being laid.
You are presuming what has not been proven, namely, that “the Church and it’s leadership style is the problem.” That has not been demonstrated in any fashion. In any system persons who conspire to cover up some activity or another are going to be able to achieve their nefarious ends. When those persons are in positions of power, unfortunatly, they are often able to achieve those ends.
That does not mean the Church itself, or her leadership structure, are at fault any more than Republican-Democracy (which we have in the States) is responsible for sexual abuse that occurs in public schools here (public schools almost always have blanket immunity from civil lawsuits in America).
As for closing down Church schools (presumably to turn them over to the state, which we all know that merely by being secular prevents children from being preyed upon in its schools), seizing the homes owned by various dioceses (which are most likely being lived in), shuttering parishes (and where shall the people worship?)… what will have actually been accomplished? How will ‘trust and respect’ have been re-established by such activity?
The heart of the Church’s message is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Crucified and Risen. The only respect the Church is worthy of is the respect of one who brings and shares that Gospel with the world.
No amount of such activities will satisfy the non-believer, since there is no authentic trust to be placed in an institution that preaches a false gospel of made up fairy tales and similarily no respect.
So far you’re saying that what you want done is for the Church to admit that she herself is the problem (and not sinful persons engaging in sinful activities), and to atone for it by giving up her ministries and closing her doors. How is this any different from the secularists demands before this particular scandal emerged?
The problem here isn’t the Church herself, it’s those persons that failed (often in spectacular fashion) to follow the Church’s teachings in an authentic way.
Business as usual, then, I suppose. We’ll see how that works out.
How is this “business as usual”?
As further reading regarding the substance of the facts in this particular situation, I would recommend this absolutely masterful article:
So much for the pope being “inerrant” eh? Oh, wait, that only counts for his teaching from the bench, and not his other decisions. This is not poor leadership, but debauched!
The Pope is not inerrant, he is infallible. And you are correct, it only relates to what he ‘teaches from the bench’ on matters of faith and morals, and not his other decisions.
But as for poor leadership and/or debauched leadership, what precisely has the man done that is either poor or debauched? The reason the media is in overdrive-attack mode trying to link Pope Benedict to these allegations is precisely because the link does not exist (or if it does, has not been made by the media).
I am more than willing to deliver heavy criticism when it is due, but I just don’t think it is due in this particular instance.
How is the pope infallible?
How? By virtue of a special charism provided to the See of Peter from the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus in Sacred Scripture.
This short article gives a solid introduction to the topic:
I had not ever heard of the Middle East abuse of young boys. Thanks for bringing that to the forefront, at least for me. It just shows me how little I know about what really goes on in the world and how much of it is being stifled. I agree that pedophilia is not curable, atleast medically or with counselling. I will not, however, agree that God can’t help such people. Nothing is impossible with God. On the other hand, if someone did anything to my son like that…it would not go down well for them.
Sexual abuse of boys is one of the dirty little secrets of the Muslim world. The Jawa Report has run a few articles on this, having a gleeful time when Al Qaeda has had to release videos reminding its members that they’re not supposed to rape young boys.
Sounds like a sensible video. Perhaps it could be recommended viewing for the Catholic priesthood.
Note sure if you saw this from the Washington Times:
Senate Democrats voted almost unanimously Wednesday night to ensure the right of rapists and child molesters to have guaranteed access to government-subsidized Viagra under the president’s health care plan.
I saw the plans for that about a week ago. That’s just politics on the Republican side. They know the Dems don’t want to re-vote on anything, so the Republicans are trying to force embarrassing votes like that to use in the next campaign.
From what I’ve seen and heard of that culture, men treat all people around them like sex objects – truly, like objects for their pleasure and use. This is a family blog, so I won’t get into it here (unless it’s okay with Neil), but it’s really weird. Because of that, I don’t have trouble believing Hillbuzz on this one, and also find it to be a really troubling statement.
Maybe I’m an incurable romantic, but it seems like the beauty of the way that humans are formed is that love and pleasure creates new human life. Westerners seem to get this (although modern trends have tried to undermine it), but that idea seems to be completely absent from the Islamic tradition.
On that note, it’s important (IMHO) to recognise that priest abuse is a departure from Catholic teachings – not a small departure, but a complete departure. That does not make it any easier on the abuse victims, but those of us who are not abuse victims can be dispassionate enough to see this.
Thanks, Roxanne, your candid comments are alway welcomed.
Sent from my iPhone
The candid comments about the culture are thus (and you can certainly remove them if they aren’t appropriate for your blog!):
Before he shot up Fort Hood, Hasam (sp?) went to a strip club. By all accounts, this was a frequent activity of his, and is also rather common for other Middle Eastern men. In fact, the employees of such establishments have said that men from that cultural tradition are grossly overrepresented amongst their clientele.
Obviously, that has nothing to do with love and everything to do with objectifying other human beings for one’s own pleasure.
The overly strict dress codes – which mandate that women remove themselves from men’s sight, rather than asking men and women to be partners in chastity – reinforce the idea of women as sex objects.
From what I’ve heard, lingerie stores are everywhere in those countries – and their lingerie makes Victoria’s Secret look like it was designed by prudes (e.g. feathers, flashing lights, etc.). As a woman, I find it hard to imagine maintaining my self-respect and an equal position in a marriage if that were going on… but, as with the veils and burqas, it’s obviously not about women being treated like human beings, but about our bodies existing solely for men’s pleasure.
That’s interesting, I didn’t know Israelis were particularly into that. Perhaps it’s a man thing more than a Middle Eastern thing.
I’m sure that the “employees of such establishments” are well qualified to guess the cultural tradition of their clientele. Every dark dude looks the same, after all, right?