Question of the Bishops and Catholicism

[joe]

The fact is Os, the vast majority of the cases wherein a Priest in the Catholic Church has engaged in illicit sexual activity with a minor have been cases of homosexual, not heterosexual molestation.

Very true.

Pete said

BTW, Osi, if you re-read you original post, you might notice that you made no distinction among "leaders" who ignored and perpetuated molestation, leaders who took steps to stop and prevent molestation, and leaders who didn't face the issue. Your denouncement of hypocrisy was unqualified.

This is one reason the assertion was made about "all". Osi was speaking very vague in his opening points, but not vague enough to who he was pointing fingers.

Btw, if the reports in LA are true, I am disgusted with Archbishop Mahoney. He is supportive of the "zero tolerance" that is in place now for future molestations (1 1/2 yr old document at this time), yet he has been accused of having knowledge of a priest in his diocese who escaped from Canadian authorities. Since he is in the USA, Canada is not worried about him.

Mahoney denies knowledge, but it seems there is evidence the priest has been on the payroll. The reason I mention this is that Mahoney is against the Church' stance of withholding communion from pro-choice / abortion Catholic politicians. So, he can't be one of the leaders Osi is criticizing. I just wonder why Osi is being so critical, but can't name names.

[Osiris]

Typical PC response to any suggestion that there might be a relationship between sexually predatory priests and homosexuality. Suggest that the person bringing up the point is calling all homosexuals pedophiles.

Sure Rachel, go ahead and couch everything as simply being "pc". That is a typical response deserving of no further examination.

The fact is Os, the vast majority of the cases wherein a Priest in the Catholic Church has engaged in illicit sexual activity with a minor have been cases of homosexual, not heterosexual molestation...(snip)... I have read that statement written by people who's research I trust and myself have noticed over the years that it is true.

Haven't seen anything that showed this to be true, so I will go and research it, since no one seems to want to back their claims up.

Of course all homosexuals aren't sexual predators. I'm sure that only a tiny percentage are.

Thanks for making that clear. Too often, this is not said, and it is often claimed that male homosexuals are far more into pedophilia, simply because the vicitm may also be a male child. But studies have shown, that in some cases, this is true, but that it is also not. Most often, it was found that the victim was chosen not based upon gender, but because of availability.

And just how did he do that Os? Provide notarized documents of affirmation from his past sexual partners? The fact is, nobody knows if he was heterosexual, bisexual or gay.

It is done by psychological examinations. You say that "nobody knows", but that precludes all the essential studies that have gone into delving why these people have sex with children, and how they choose their victims. It usually is stated by the perpetrator themselves, and the rest will come out of various sessions.

Would you feel comfortable if your just-budding daughter went camping with a group of like young ladies with only an unchaperoned adult male?

No I wouldn't, but that has never been the case either.

jt, you are wrong! Orientation is not a prerequisite to the establishment of available victims. Not in a 100% of the cases. Look it up. There are loads of facts, comprised over decades of studies on this.

Joe, please to show these studies that back up your statement that the homosexuals are the major offenders in this issue with the church.

I just wonder why Osi is being so critical, but can't name names.

The critique is generalized lamer. You demanded the names of those offenders who you stated I was pointing at. Because you couldn't see the central point, that they were not the focus, but the ones who were the religious leaders were.

The reason I mention this is that Mahoney is against the Church' stance of withholding communion from pro-choice / abortion Catholic politicians. So, he can't be one of the leaders Osi is criticizing.

Attempting to politicize this Joe? I could care less what any might do on any other issue, as compared to their having failed to really be honest, and protect the children. If MaHoney is one of these, then he is one of those I refer to. Whatever else he is into, is not a part of any consideration.

[joe]

Attempting to politicize this Joe?

I didn't start the thread.

If MaHoney is one of these, then he is one of those I refer to.

That's impossible. Mahoney is guilty of one, but not both. Baed on your scenario, you need them guilty of both. That would be hypocrisy.

Because you couldn't see the central point, that they were not the focus, but the ones who were the religious leaders were.

I gave you Mahoney's name. He is a leader, yet he is not guilty of your formula. Can you name one leader who is guilty of both scenarios?

Joe, please to show these studies that back up your statement that the homosexuals are the major offenders in this issue with the church.

Osi, I have provided that to you before. Most studies I have read were internal and is one reason the Church is looking at their approach to ordaining homosexual priests. In the mainstream, they don't want to admit the majority of priests involved were homosexual, because that would receive a public criticism from the homosexual community.

[joe]

Osi,
I am not interested in a full blown (no pun intended) discussion about the sex abuse in the Catholic Church. I have provided this article to you before, but will post it again. This one does not specifically talk about the number of priests who are homosexual commiting sex crimes, but it does mention almost 3/4 of homosexual adult males have had sex with teenage males.

In 1961, Pope John XXIII through the guidance of the Holy Spirit approved a ban on ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood that is still in effect but has been obviously ignored in the United States. The document titled, "Instruction on the Choice and Formation of Candidates To The State of Perfection and To Holy Orders" was approved on January 23, 1961 by Pope John XXIII and issued formally on February 2, 1961 by the Sacred Congregation of Religious. The document stated, "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers." John XXIII wrote this ban because he knew homosexuality is an inclination, which is objectively disordered. It has the a proclivity to unnatural and immoral thoughts and actions. Considering the predicament the Catholic Church in America finds itself in; he was was obviously correct.

The fact is that 95% of the sex abuse crimes committed by priests do not involve prepubescent children or females but teenage boys. That, by definition, is not pedophila but pederasty or commonly called homosexual abuse. Numerous studies have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that male homosexuals are three times more likely to engage in sexual misconduct with minors than heterosexuals. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found that although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of 32 to 1, homosexuals are responsible for one third of the sex offenses against minors in any given year. Two homosexual scientists, Karla Jay and Allen Young, conducted a comprehensive study on the homosexual lifestyle in 1973, titled, "The Gay Report". Jay and Young found that 73% of the adult homosexual males they surveyed had at some time had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger.

All those who struggle with the inclination of homosexuality and seek redemption through Christ are welcome in the Catholic Church, but the "fail-safe" policy that Pope John XXIII maintained must be carried out to protect the innocent and the integrity of the priesthood. If the Boy Scouts of America can have the courage to stand up and reject homosexuals as scoutmasters, then the Church in United States must follow Blessed John XXIII instructionÂ’s and say, NO to ordaining homosexuals.

In regards to those in the priesthood. The below analysis was done on three of the most publicized diocese.

When the Archdiocese of Boston reportedly released the names of 80 priests who had sexually molested minors over the last 50 years, people asked, ""How can there be so many priests who abuse children? There are only about 800 priests in the archdiocese, so this represents 10 percent of our entire presbyterate!" But the numbers were misleading. On March 15 the official publication of the archdiocese, The Pilot, said the number of substantial allegations was approximately 60, and it is important to note that this number represents the total number of accused priests over 50 years. The editorial estimated that there were probably about 3,000 priests who served in the archdiocese during these 50 years, so the ratio is about 2 percent.

Similarly, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia recently went over its records since 1950. There were 2,154 priests who served during this time frame, and there were "credible allegations" against 35. This is about 1.6 percent. Likewise, the Archdiocese of Chicago reviewed its records. In the past 40 years, out of 2,200 priests who served, about 40, or 1.8 percent, had received credible allegations of abuse.

Keep in mind, Osi, when they mention 2% ratio or 80 in Boston, it has been reported that about 60-65 were homosexual and that goes along with cultural norms. This is the reason I agree with Rachel.

If you have information that contradicts the numbers of homosexuals involved, please provide it.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Osiris

But studies have shown, that in some cases, this is true, but that it is also not.

There's a definitive statement! Has anybody claimed that all homosexuals are molesters?

Originally Posted by Osiris

Most often, it was found that the victim was chosen not based upon gender, but because of availability.

Let's see Osi, what did I say?:

Originally Posted by JTDC

Heterosexuals are segregated according to their sex. Therefore the opportunity is less.

Isn't that essentially the same thing?

Originally Posted by Osiris

You say that "nobody knows", but that precludes all the essential studies that have gone into delving why these people have sex with children, and how they choose their victims. It usually is stated by the perpetrator themselves, and the rest will come out of various sessions.

If, Osi, anybody knows, why can't we not put a fixed, accurate number on what percentage of the population is homosexual? Since some people, even well know people, keep their homosexuality secret, how can you base something on "It usually is stated by the perpetrator themselves" as a reliable fact?

Originally Posted by Osiris

No I wouldn't, but that has never been the case either.

I love that one. Since it hasn't happened to you (yet), we should not be concerned. :wink:

Originally Posted by Osiris

jt, you are wrong! Orientation is not a prerequisite to the establishment of available victims.

Not sure what you are saying I'm wrong about. :? The definition speaks quite clearly about it. Neither I nor the definition I posted says anything about "prerequisite". Are you trying to change the subject? :wink: :wink:

Originally Posted by Osiris

Not in a 100% of the cases.

Here we go trying to indicate that someone claimed it was an "absolute".

Originally Posted by Osiris

Joe, please to show these studies that back up your statement that the homosexuals are the major offenders in this issue with the church.

So, Osi, your claiming that an equal number of girls were molested by these priests? By definition they would be "bisexual". You are going out of your way to protect homosexuality with being associated with any molest. Talk about an agenda.

[jtdc]

Joe, not to get too much into a tangent, I have heard that, in general society, then number of molests is far greater than what there is record of, as many do not report the crimes. And, of course with children, some crimes are never revealed. I know from those I know that the percentage is far higher than what official statistics report.

What you have posted, I presume, is what is known. But since church leaders hid such crimes, is it not possible that the percentage is considerably higher than what is reported? I don't know that any investigator is going to get much information if it was never written down. They would be depending on the integrity if persons who were defending themselves to supply facts.

The reason I am super critical of the church is I expect them to be above the norm. So if you quote "they mention 2% ratio or 80 in Boston, it has been reported that about 60-65 were homosexual and that goes along with cultural norms", I do not see the "norm" as vindication. The only "acceptable" number is zero.

[WBR]

I have heard that, in general society, then number of molests is far greater than what there is record of, as many do not report the crimes.

I'm sure that's true, particularly with boys. I know that when I was a boy, I wouldn't have wanted to step forward with anything like that.

I doubt it's true with the Church at this time.
Molestation by a priest has turned into a cash cow.
There are probably more accusations now than actual molestations.

[joe]

Jt,
I think Wbr makes a good point about the accusations. When the Dallas priest, Kos, was finally convicted, I heard there were over 20 accusations. I can't say all of them were officially reported, but I think eight went to trial and seven received monetary payments or something like that.

I'm not convinced the numbers will be much greater than 2%, although that is higher than I originally believed. We have learned quite a bit during the past two years and even how legalities don't cross over internationally. That's another concern. I agree with you that we may never know.

I don't want to come across as saying any of the statistics is acceptable, but often when comparisons are made, we need some sort of basis. The numbers are there and to be analyzed as needed. I was priimarily using them as a counter piece to Osi and the defending of homosexuals.

I would hope the Church or any religious organization would be above the norm, but unfortunately, I don't believe that is the case. The wheat and chaff will coexist together and if there is chaff protecting other chaff, that is a problem within itself. I don't know how you cure that without not trusting anyone.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Joe

I would hope the Church or any religious organization would be above the norm, but unfortunately, I don't believe that is the case. The wheat and chaff will coexist together and if there is chaff protecting other chaff, that is a problem within itself. I don't know how you cure that without not trusting anyone.

I think it is a paradox. Whether it is Scoutmasters or priests, when you have a narrow specialized group, that can become a target of those interested in the group you deal with. Religious organizations generally do not address the seedy side of life as they endeavor to not practice it. But that can leave them vulnerable to the tactics used by those who would abuse such privilege.

The church has gone through rapid change in the past couple of years. Unfortunately, as you posted, the church leaders in this country did not heed the warning given by Pope John XXIII. Now that they begin to realize that he was right, who is obligated to pay the price for the damage done by their blindness?

I commented about the bankruptcy. That seems to be a way for the leaders to get off the hook. In my opinion a non-profit organization should not have such an option. I view reorganization bankruptcy (I think it is chapter 13) as to not apply to nonprofit organizations, A business generates profits. Given the chance to get back on its feet, it can again be profitable. A nonprofit organization by it very nature will never be profitable. An organization such as a church is member supported. Individual members are generally protected from liabilities of that organization. However, if they want it to survive, it is up to them to support it and pay it liabilities. If they do not value it that much, then like a business in chapter 11 bankruptcy (?) it should be dissolved.

That was behind my comment about the Vatican and money. If the world wide church values having a Boston Archdiocese, then the Vatican must help it financially. Otherwise, if that Boston Archdiocese decides to bankrupt rather than paying its debts, the Vatican will no longer be represented in the Boston area.

It is not that I want that to happen. It is that with that hammer (choice) hanging over their head, perhaps the church leaders would not have, and will not in the future, look the other way when bad things happen.

[aammondd]

jtdc

There should be some sort of legal bankrupcy for non-profits in order to protect the membership from administration corruption. We are not just talking religious orgs here. Many insurance companies are non profit.

Non-profit legislation as a whole needs serious reform.

This is a whole can of worms.


As far as the Catholic church is concerned I would hate to try and audit thier books.

[joe]

As far as the Catholic church is concerned I would hate to try and audit thier books.

It's not that hard. It's organized at the Diocesan level. I managed a Catholic Church and it wasn't different than any other big business goes in regards to financial.

[aammondd]

I was primarily refering to the fact that the Church owns alot of expensive and sacred artifacts which it has leveraged from time to time for cash.

The handling of this is inventory of assets is probably quite challenging.

[rachel]

Too often, this is not said, and it is often claimed that male homosexuals are far more into pedophilia, simply because the vicitm may also be a male child.

Os, deny it if you want, but there is a much more general acceptance of adult-child sex in the gay community than in the straight. Now of course, most gays would be horrified at the thought of a man raping a 5 year old. But an older man seducing a teenage youth is much more acceptable. Many gays will tell you that this is the way they began their sexual lives...which is one of the reasons I tend to be skeptical of the "purely genetic" school of thought when it comes to homosexuality. There are far, far too many gay men and women who were initiated by adults, whether gently or violently.

Most often, it was found that the victim was chosen not based upon gender, but because of availability.

Not having come across any such definitive statements in studies I've read, I can't take your word for that. However, even if we assume that statement to be true...were the studies designed to compare and contrast predation by homosexuals to that by heterosexuals or did they simply take a pool of predators and ask them questions?

To whom did the questioners go for answers? To the predators, who might have their own reasons for not admitting they were gay? "Oh no, I'm not gay, it's just that I was surrounded by boys!"

It is done by psychological examinations. You say that "nobody knows", but that precludes all the essential studies that have gone into delving why these people have sex with children, and how they choose their victims. It usually is stated by the perpetrator themselves, and the rest will come out of various sessions.

Studies are only as good as the people who produced them, and only as valid as their agendas. So without the studies you bring forward in argument, I cannot answer that. I might just as well say to you that studies have shown that homosexuals with a taste for children gravitate towards the priesthood and the boy scouts so they will have more opportunity to molest.

Knowing how manipulative and adept at hiding these worms are, I haven't much confidence in statements they make or things that "come out" of therapy sessions.

Would you feel comfortable if your just-budding daughter went camping with a group of like young ladies with only an unchaperoned adult male?


No I wouldn't, but that has never been the case either.

And why wouldn't you be comfortable with it Os? Why would a heterosexual male be more likely to be a danger to your just-budding daughter than a homosexual male to your peach-fuzz chinned son? Surely you aren't suggesting that heterosexual males molest children more than homosexual males do?

Joe:In the mainstream, they don't want to admit the majority of priests involved were homosexual, because that would receive a public criticism from the homosexual community.

Bingo! And worse than that, the homosexual activists and the PC Police have us all so cowed that the question isn't even asked, let alone answered. Nobody even asks if the priest that just stole that child's innocence was gay because they know darn well that by even asking the question they're risking villification.

[Osiris]

Mahoney denies knowledge, but it seems there is evidence the priest has been on the payroll.

He denies it, but the evidence supports that he is wrong. So what did he do about alleged pedophiles?

There's a definitive statement! Has anybody claimed that all homosexuals are molesters?

Look back, and see implicating statements that skirt the outright claims.

If, Osi, anybody knows, why can't we not put a fixed, accurate number on what percentage of the population is homosexual? Since some people, even well know people, keep their homosexuality secret, how can you base something on "It usually is stated by the perpetrator themselves" as a reliable fact?

In discussions of general population, what you state is true. However in discussions of pedophile offenders, they often get serious interviews by professionals, and that gets entered into the criminal data files. There are also those who sincerely regret their crimes, and have stepped forward to issue their own testimony to educate parents about the matter. Percentages say one thing, but data compiled over the decades, offers a more succinct view.

Osiris wrote

Joe, please to show these studies that back up your statement that the homosexuals are the major offenders in this issue with the church.

jt responds

So, Osi, your claiming that an equal number of girls were molested by these priests? By definition they would be "bisexual". You are going out of your way to protect homosexuality with being associated with any molest. Talk about an agenda.

Despite your question about female victims, that was not in any claim I made anywhere. Where did you arrive with that one? I asked, what were the studies that shows homosexuals as being the major offenders. Meaning that the designation must have some sort of study, or whatever to support the contention that the majority were homosexuals by orientation.

Rachel,

Many gays will tell you that this is the way they began their sexual lives...which is one of the reasons I tend to be skeptical of the "purely genetic" school of thought when it comes to homosexuality. There are far, far too many gay men and women who were initiated by adults, whether gently or violently.

As did many heterosexual youths. I can look back, and say for sure, that there is no way that I, as a adolecent, would be a willing partner to a homosexual relationship. And there was an adult, who did try at one time, with a friend of mine, who ran from the house, and told us the incident. Obviously, he was not going to be an initiate either. To be initiated, one has to be willing. And to be willing, one would almost have to be a homosexual anyway. My opinion.

were the studies designed to compare and contrast predation by homosexuals to that by heterosexuals or did they simply take a pool of predators and ask them questions?

It has been a long while since I reviewed such material. I will see if I can find something that relates to your question. Best I can say now, is from memory. That the perpetrator would undergo a series of interviews, mostly keeping their identity secret, and the questions were matter of factly put forward. I have a pretty busy schedule this weekend, but will see what I can locate on this aspect.

And why wouldn't you be comfortable with it Os? Why would a heterosexual male be more likely to be a danger to your just-budding daughter than a homosexual male to your peach-fuzz chinned son? Surely you aren't suggesting that heterosexual males molest children more than homosexual males do?

Going from what we have in today's society Rachel, I responded to the question with a suspicion, not born of fact, but of possibilities. As some have shown, the penchant for "going for the gold", or in otherwords, making a case of victimhood where no case in truth exists, being that a lone male with several youth of either gender, could be made into a scapegoat for financial reward. Joe mentioned "percentages". It is stated generally, that the percentage of homosexuals hovers around 2 to 10%. Of that group, a certain percentage could be pedophiles. In concern to the percentage of heterosexuals, that pedophile percentage is expected to be higher accordingly. A male, or female adult, alone with children, takes a risk that none should have to.

Bingo! And worse than that, the homosexual activists and the PC Police have us all so cowed that the question isn't even asked, let alone answered. Nobody even asks if the priest that just stole that child's innocence was gay because they know darn well that by even asking the question they're risking villification.

Do we know for a fact, that none has been asked? Where would we find that information, on being asked or not? I ask in seriousness, because I would ask.

[joe]

He (Mahoney) denies it, but the evidence supports that he is wrong. So what did he do about alleged pedophiles?

I don't know, but that wasn't why I mentioned it.

[jtdc]

Despite your question about female victims, that was not in any claim I made anywhere. Where did you arrive with that one?

And you will note that I did not use quote marks (") around the statement. I wrote it as an antithesis to your defense of homosexuality claiming that the ratio of molesting homosexual priests is no different than molesting heterosexual priests (or any body else. However there isn't that many incidence of girls being molested by these priests.

[rachel]

To be initiated, one has to be willing. And to be willing, one would almost have to be a homosexual anyway. My opinion.

When one is young, inexperienced, and troubled, coming perhaps from an abusive home, feeling unloved/unwanted one can be convinced to do any number of things that a normal, relatively happy child could not.

Any number of women, who were sexually molested as children will tell you that they were manipulated into thinking they were willing partners. These are often the most damaging cases of molestation that occur. Not only are their bodies violated by adult men that they mistakenly trusted, but their minds and wills are violated as well.

Do you seriously believe that a child's damaged and needy psyche would be any more proof against a manipulative, sly predator who just happened to be of the same sex?

Those same girls, growing to womanhood often find ways to repeat the experience in order to try and control it. It's a fairly common reaction to being molested. The damaged woman will seek out relationships that mirror in some way the "relationship" with her abuser. Check out studies on prostitution Os, a majority of prostitutes were products of abusive sexual relationships, many of them experienced before adulthood. Most of these women would deny hotly that their bad experience has any influence over their life choices. Is it so odd to assume that the same, fairly common psychological warping could push a child abused by a same sex abuser likely produces similar behavior?

Of that group, a certain percentage could be pedophiles. In concern to the percentage of heterosexuals, that pedophile percentage is expected to be higher accordingly.

The percentage of pedophiles is expected to be higher in a population of heterosexuals than in a population of homosexuals? Expected by whom?

Do we know for a fact, that none has been asked? Where would we find that information, on being asked or not? I ask in seriousness, because I would ask.

When was the last time you read about a Priest molesting a child of the same sex where the question was asked? See, it's not politically correct to investigate what percentage of these molestors are gay. Perhaps there are studies that were done somewhere, but you can bet the results of those studies will not be widely reported unless the answer the study supplied says what the homosexual activists want it to say.

[Osiris]

I don't know, but that wasn't why I mentioned it.

I know, it was the only straw you could grasp.

I wrote it as an antithesis to your defense of homosexuality claiming that the ratio of molesting homosexual priests is no different than molesting heterosexual priests (or any body else.

It is less the defense of homosexuality, than it is a a charge made against pedophiles and those who allowed them to escape justice. The percentages are an issue of general, as they would/might be in the case of this particular note. That being those who are pedophiles from either orientation.

However there isn't that many incidence of girls being molested by these priests.

You continue with the idea, that heterosexuals would not engage in same sex pedophilia. But you fly into the eye of the facts born out in studies. And in case you doubt it, one can also look at the incidence of same gender situations as in the prison systems.

When one is young, inexperienced, and troubled, coming perhaps from an abusive home, feeling unloved/unwanted one can be convinced to do any number of things that a normal, relatively happy child could not.

Maybe, but not in the overall. Are you going to tell me that the majority follow this description? In the paragraph after the first, that is also very true. But in the cases of pedophilia, it is often the case of the threat of physical harm to either the individual child, and/or their family.

Many studies show many things. All of them will reflect the manipulation of the abuser to have lasting affects. But it does not also show that a male child, as a victim of pedophilia, will choose to become homosexual.

Osiris wrote -

Of that group, a certain percentage could be pedophiles. In concern to the percentage of heterosexuals, that pedophile percentage is expected to be higher accordingly.

Rachel repsonds with -

The percentage of pedophiles is expected to be higher in a population of heterosexuals than in a population of homosexuals? Expected by whom?

It is natural Rachel. There is a smaller number of the population that is homosexual than those of heterosexual. As I said, somewhere between 2 to 10% are homosexual, and that leaves the remainder to be majority heterosexual. And that from those numbers in the general populations, comes all the rest.

When was the last time you read about a Priest molesting a child of the same sex where the question was asked? See, it's not politically correct to investigate what percentage of these molestors are gay. Perhaps there are studies that were done somewhere, but you can bet the results of those studies will not be widely reported unless the answer the study supplied says what the homosexual activists want it to say.

You can say what you want about the "pc"ness of the media, that means little. If the question was/is asked through the mass media, the response would mean little overall. It is through the investigative arm of the professionals, that the truth can be learned. If the media were to report the results of that study, that would be another thing. But to report that the perpetrator was asked about their orientation, by the media, and the answer was whatever, wouldn't carry the same gravity.

The studies I remember might be either in the ANA, AMA, the CDC, or even in crime reports of the FBI. I don't remember it has been a long time since I read them. And I don't care who might object to the results of those, as long as the studies were conducted properly.

Doing a quick search I found the following. It might help...Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Here is one from USA Today, that is more tuned to this discussion. Is homosexuality to blame for church scandal?

These are not the studies I earlier referred to, but they will do for now.

[joe]

I know, it was the only straw you could grasp.

Osi, go back and read why I mentioned it. In a nutshell, it shows your failed attempt to vaguely point fingers at inconsistent Catholic hierarchy. Mahoney is probably guilty of one, but he is not guilty of refusing communion. That is the entire point of this threads existence. One you chose to politicize, but tried to brush off on me.

[joe]

Osi,
I have read just about every article I could get my hands on and the USA Today was debunked on a television news program shortly after it came out by William Donahue of the Catholic League. The mainstream media does not want to admit homosexuals are more likely to molest children and teens. They would hear an uproar from the infamous minor population. Instead, it's easier to attack the Catholic Church for it's expectations in regards to the priesthood and celibacy, because it is considered abnormal. However, if the primary issue is about celibacy and only men are permitted in the priesthood, then why aren't we hearing from more abused girls in the Church? Ding ding ding ding ding ding