The myth about pedophile priests

Hatemonger love to toss about the phrase "pedophile priests" as a way to marginalize anything any Catholic has to say. The truth is that most of the reported (but unproven) cases involve homosexuals, not pedophiles. Pedophelia is sexual desire for a pre-pubescent child.

If I, as a man, see a 16 year old girl who looks like she's 21 and hot - and lets be honest, there are lots of them out there - and I want to have sex with her (not knowing she is under age), am I a pedophile? No, I'm just a normal guy with normal drives. Likewise, if a man desires sex with a 16 year old boy, he is not a pedophile, he is a homosexual.

Statistics: Most proven molestation cases in the Church are homosexual in nature, because they invlolve boys in their teens. That is NOT pedophelia. Here are some stats. Note that ages 12 thru 16 are where the real numbers are (and note the gender numbers too):




Source: http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/


So, why has the media never reported this? Simple: The media promotes homsexuality, so they could never admit that homosexuality is the problem lest they reveal themselves for the liars and hypocrites they are. But pedophelia, well, that is sure to arouse anger, so that was the slant, because the media hates the Church: Every perversion they endorse we reject, so we are their mortal ebemy.


Now, having addressed that, here is another fact: The vast majority of molestations take place in the home among family members. If these people wo attack tthe Church really cared abot the kids, they would be just as vocal about that. But they are not. They never go where the numbers are, which proves that their real hidden agenda is to attack the Church, not to help the kids.

Next time you hear some idiot flinging around the phrase "pedophile priest" you will know you are listening to a person who is ignorant of the facts, who really does not care about the kids, and who has an anti-Catholic agenda.

 

Homosexuality is a sin, anyway isn't it - according to Catholicism?
That reflects pretty badly, regardless... (In terms of hypocrisy of officials.)

Are we also sure that also of the underagers abused 'looked like adults'?

 

JESUS why are you people such liars?

12-16 is where the REAL numbers are? There were more 11 year olds and nearly THE SAME number of 10 year olds as there were 16 year olds.

Big drop off around age 15 eh? Didn't notice that? You didn't mention it? Another false witness? I so hope your God is real and is listening to this.

Hint: If you're going to lie, don't post stats in the exact same post that contradict your lie.

Unlike the Bible, people actually read posts on this forum.

 

The liars and the pedophiles and the gays will all burn in the same hell at the same temperature, it makes no difference. Your post is worthless unless you plan on sending it to Satan along with your resume.

 

No, it is the act that is the sin, not the disposiition. Its sort of like alcoholism: Drunkeness is a sin, but simply being an alcohholic is not a sin. An alcoholic who stays sober is all good. This was the basic thinking behind allowing homosexuals into the priesthood. If they obey their vows to remain cellebate, then there is no sin, correct? Unfortunateley, what sounds good in theory did not work out so well in reality.

I did not say that this applied to ALL cases. The numbers do indicate that there were some pedohiles too. I was talking about the great majority of cases.

As for their looks, I threw that in to my hypothetical scenario just too make the point that if I had a desire for a good looking 16 year old girl, that does not make me a pedophile. It makes me a dirty old man and still an unethical man, but not a pedophile.

Keep talking. You do a better job of demonstrating what a jerk you are then I ever could.

 

But dude... gays want to stick their dongs in other mens' butts! That's a little different from alcoholism, right? We all enjoy a drink from time to time and no one is immune to the potentially harmful side effects of alcohol... but BRO. If a dude wants to touch and feel on another dude, that's WAY different from anything I've ever experienced. I just have to assume they are very different from me. I've done all kinds of disgusting things to women that would make you Christians break down and cry if I even mentioned them. And though I've always wanted to push the envelope to make it ever more perverted... ever more debaucherous... you know, other mens' wives, women twice my age, women half my age, friend's mom, wife's sister in law... whatever disgusting thing I could think of, I wanted to do it... except that I've never given any thought at all to touching a man in such a way... heck it even makes me a little sick considering it.

I think gays have to be totally different from me and I'm one heck of a sexual deviant. It's not just evil that drives them to do that. I am overflowing with evil. And I've never been so gross as to touch a man. Gay is just the way they turned out. You can't blame them for that and if they wanna go sticking their weiners in other men, eh what the hell?

You folks must be bisexual if you think a man can just up and decide to fondle another man. Straight people can't do that.

 

Haven't we heard "It's a dis-ease" for what is essentially bad behavior, long enough???...

'Paedophilia not criminal condition' says Durban cardinal
15 March 2013 - The Catholic Archbishop of Durban, Wilfrid Fox Napier, has described paedophilia as a psychological "illness, not a criminal condition".

 

Am I reading this right? The chart says 83% of molestation starts before age 16, but "Most proven molestation cases" are "NOT pedophelia [sic]"?

 

No

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG86r2dx5yo

 

Totally agree! And pedophilia involving young boys may be presented as more outrageous, because of people's homophobia, but pedophilia involving girls is just less reported.

I was 11 years old when a priest molested me (a little girl). And that was 51 years ago!

 

What means "molested me"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKRj-T4l-e8

 

No I think he makes a good point, just very badly. Regardless the onus should always have been on the priest having these urges to go to their superiors and be asked to be moved to circumstances where the opportunity to act on desires is removed or at least reduced. When this really started becoming an issue people genuinely thought pedophilic behavior could be controlled or even cured. Today we know (so far) this is not the case.

 

well, as the bishops managed to hide so many of the bast-rds, we cant trust your stats. Canadian indian reserves were a cesspool for these pigs and those kids were far from 16 pal!

 

Don't tell me you want the most sordid details? No, he didn't "rape" me. . . .that is all I am ready to state.

 

Your analysis of the data you have generously posted is horribly agenda driven. To try to use this information to prove that pedophilia is not the problem takes an extreme myopia that won't help you confront the reality of the situation.
Your data tells us that almost 3/4 of the victims are age 15 or less and almost half are 12 or under. A casual glance at the data shows your conclusions to be ridiculously flawed, and the only reason possible is a defensive agenda driven need to deflect responsibility.
The fact is these priests are not in a wildly greater number proportional to all priests than is found in any organization that provides the access and opportunity with children.
What has put the Catholic church in such a bad light isn't the presence of pedophiles, but rather the systemic protection of them by the church. Offending priests have often simply been moved to a new venue to continue their predations. Punishment has not been forthcoming, and the cover-up has been widespread and reached to the upper echelons of the church governing structure.
It has been the church itself that has committed the most egregious crime, and the victims were the most helpless that can be imagined.
"How you treated the least of these is how you treated me."
By this benchmark, the church itself has found itself in direct conflict with the most fundamental teaching of Jesus.

 

What does it matter if a child is 7 or 17?

We are talking about a child being sexually mistreated, and to make it worse (if indeed it can get worse)...the abuse is perpetrated by someone who claims to be, and is trusted to be a protector and savior of that child,

It is bad enough to even consider how disgusting this is...but when someone tries to justify, defend, or in any way pretend it is acceptable, they become nothing short of an accomplice in my mind.

As I do not want to blow up the word filter....I will leave it at that.

 

very good post

 

I'm not enculturated in the english speaking world. Whatever. But what means "priest" in this context?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx7vOb7GNBg

 

In case someone feels a sexual attraction to a child in the age of seven years then this person has a brain defect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byGI1mDi3no

 

Obviously not much to the "priest" himself!

But it was an older (at least in my 11 year old eyes, since he had a little white hair, bold on top, and he had wrinkles on his face) ORDAINED priest in the roman Catholic Church.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously not much to the "priest" himself!

But it was an older (at least in my 11 year old eyes, since he had a little white hair, bold on top, and he had wrinkles on his face) ORDAINED priest in the roman Catholic Church.

 

Ya , saw that on the news, made me laugh. Perhaps we should be more lenient on serial killers because they have a "psychological condition". The Cardinal talks about a couple Priests he knows becoming pedophiles because of abuse they suffered as a child... ironically many serial killers homicidal tendencies are linked to childhood abuse to. So I guess if one is sick in the head then they should not be held accountable. Believe me, for 5 years I was a civilian facilitator at a State Prison, and I am here to tell you every person in our prison system is messed up in the head to one degree or another. You don't walk into a bar and kill a couple people for the chump change in the till if you are playing with a full deck.

 

Name of this priest please

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-rTXXUYLm4

 

How Dare You!

That comment is the bane of word filters.

 

I'm not able to translate this into my own language. It makes no sense. Can you express what you like to say with this words in another way?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qqib2eDweE