See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. - James 5:7

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Boys Beware


The Catholic League says the ongoing Church abuse scandal is a homosexual crisis.
.
President Bill Donohoe singles out The New York Times for allegedly getting the story wrong saying, "The Times continues to editorialize about the pedophilia crisis while all along it's been a homosexual crisis." - Source
.
That pretty much sums it up.  I know, Donohoe can be abrasive and annoying when he speaks - I didn't see the Larry King interview last night because I don't have cable - but I'm sure he was at his best.  I actually kind of like the guy - he's so outrageous and flamboyant when he speaks, he cracks me up, but he's usually right on - although in some cases one might say he over-reacts to issues.  Anyway - I think he called a spade a spade in this case.  Unfortunately it just isn't a PC thing to say out loud.  (Mind you, I only read the blip I linked to above, not the NYT ad, nor did I see him on Larry King.)
.
If people are really honest with themselves, they will understand that going after boys who have reached the age of puberty and older is gay - there is no getting around it.  If a priest went after a 7th or 8th grade boy - that is not paedophilia - middle-school aged boys have all the equipment ready to use...  Some (at times I think most) gay men have some form of arrested development emotionally and sexually - stuck in adolescence that is - I'm not saying all homosexuals are after young men of course.  I know, I know - no one wants to admit such a thing in our highly sexualized culture; popular culture in particular is fixated upon narcissistic adolescent behavior and sexual appetites.  In other words, popular culture is 'gay'.  My opinion of course. 
.
That said, last night I posted a video entitled Boys Beware - it is an educational film that would have been shown in a high school Health class in the late 1950's and early '60's.  Today such a film cries out for satire and indeed it was posted as such on YouTube to make fun of old fashioned morality.  At the time, things were very different.  Obviously the film was shot before the American Psychological Association changed the rules so to speak and declared homosexuality was no longer a neurosis - after much pressure by homosexual activists of course.  Likewise, homosexual acts were still considered criminal.  And to be sure, public sex (in a restroom or a theater) was not only a crime, but a shameful act.  In those days society rarely even uttered the word homosexual.
.
Keep these things in mind if you watch the video here:  Boys Beware.  The film doesn't say or prove that all homosexual men were attracted to boys - 'chicken' in the gay parlance of the day - although fact is, some guys were, and others might have taken advantage of a situation given the opportunity.  As we all know, kids today are taught about alternative lifestyles in school, sexual morality is no longer repressed, while middle and high school kids are encouraged to come out in public shools.  
.
I'm not attacking homosexuals here - I'm just saying...  I was never molested by women but by homosexual men.  Hence I think Donohoe makes a valid point:  The vast majority of the cases involving sexual abuse of minors in the Church was by and large a homosexual issue.
.
[Oh!  Oh!  And I'm not saying all priests with homosexual issues were/are predators or molestors or gay either.]
.
All rightey then.

31 comments:

  1. Good post.

    My niece is 15 and I can barely read her facebook updates anymore. It's gay this and gay that and lesbian blahblahblah. I don't think these kids actually "accept" SSA as legitimate if they are constantly making fun of their actions and calling them names that allude to the actions they take sexually.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sex with a 12 or 13 year old is still pedophilia, sorry to say.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't argue with that Thom, but I found this on Wiki, not that Wikipedia is the final authority on the matter, just pointing it out:

    The words "pedophile" and "pedophilia" are frequently misused to refer to situations in which an older person has sexual relations with a person who is below the legal age of consent, but is pubescent or post-pubescent . The terms "hebephilia" or "ephebophilia" may be more accurate in these cases,[16] but even then may be erroneously used to refer to the actus reus itself, rather than the correct meaning, which is a preference for that age group on the part of the older individual.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It looks like that Wiki edit was partially pulled from the DSM-IV-TR.

    The DSM-IV-TR goes on to say:

    "Individuals with Pedophilia generally report an attraction to children of a particular age range. Some individuals prefer males, others females, and some are aroused by both males and females. Those attracted to females usually prefer 8- to 10-year olds, whereas those attracted to makes usually prefer slightly older children.

    ...

    Some individuals with Pedophilia are sexually attracted only to children (Exclusive Type), whereas others are sometimes attracted to adults (Non-exclusive Type)."

    [DSM-IV-TR, 302.2 Pedophilia, p. 571.]

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous1:07 PM

    The novel Lolita comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For what it's worth, "Boys Beware" reminds me of a film they showed to us in first or second grade (circa '65-66) about not getting into cars with strangers; not accepting candy, gifts, etc. And staying clear of anyone who we did not know. There had been a rash of abductions, rapes and killings of children in our area and this was the way to scare the snot out of all of us (I would not even get into a car, in the pouring rain, walking home from school, with a Mom and a bunch of kids because of my fear of strangers!).
    Portraying all "homosexuals" as predators is not accurate, at all.
    But I have to say; what this film shows is the "grooming" of a young man, by a predator, which has been documented as the 'modus operandi' of most sex offenders...including the priests that have been convicted of this horrific crime.
    Maybe this film is a bit "over the top"...but there's a lot of truth in this.
    It's complex, this whole same-sex attraction issue; but teaching young people to stay clear of adult males who are "too" interested in them automatically does not seem to me to be something like "anti-gay propaganda" (as this film was listed at YouTube).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maria1:57 PM

    Terry:

    I am so with you on this. I LOVE Donohue for all the reasons you enumerated. Say what you want, the man does not misconstrue the facts. I read all of the original documents posted on-line at the Times with regard to the molester in question, the deceased Fr. Murphy who sexually abused the deaf vitims. The social work assessment, in particular, clearly states that the victim profile was MALE, POST-PUBESCENT. NB-if you read the docs you WILL need a strong stomach.

    I love Donohue because he says what no one else has the courage to say: this is, by and large, though not exclusivly, the problem is centered in placing homosexual priests in close proximity to potential victims. (Saw the King interview). The John Jay study confirmed this. We are where we are because people--and clerics are not excluded-- will not even name homosexuality as sinful in the public arena. Why? To do so is to invite persecution and people do not want to endure the rejection. This is why Hardson SJ says that we should pray to be relieved of a sesire for human respect. It stands in the way of our defense of the Faith. God love Donohue. He defends our Holy Mother like a rabid dog. I will take him any day of the week. Oh, he also said he would have liked to have had the privlege of knocking Murphys' teeth out. Thanks, Mr Donahue.

    Sorry to go on but I just feel compelled to do so on this topic.BTW I am a trained psychotherapist and clinical social worker and have spent many years working with victims.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maria, check out what the John Jay people reported to the USCCB plenary session. (Hint: Donahue is wrong.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. *USCCB plenary session in November 2009

    ReplyDelete
  10. Maria3:16 PM

    Thom--I have. Here you are:

    -- An overwhelming majority of the victims, 81 percent, were males. The most vulnerable were boys aged 11 to 14.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You missed the part where they spoke about homosexual priests; they drew the distinction, which is recognized by your profession, based on research, between homosexuality and pedophilia.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Maria3:45 PM

    Thom--You don't want to know what my profession subscribes to. Honestly. They subscribe to all manner of sin, unfortunately. People draw conclusions from their own hypotheses.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maria and Thom: If I might interject here;
    any crossing of boundaries, whether heterosexual or homosexual by a priest/counselor/doctor/any professional is WRONG. Period.
    Pedophilia, from my very simple understanding has to do with pre-pubescent children (Fr. Groeschel as my source; he found less than 1% of priests he has worked with over some forty years as a psychologist to be authentic pedophiles); the attraction to teenage and young males is called ebophelia; and it is a homosexual attraction. This is what I understand is the greatest majority of abuse cases; young teens/young adults who were seduced into sexual activity because of their maturity...not because they were children/that is something altogether different.
    But this is a certain class of same-sex attraction; not all those who are attracted to their own sex find teens/young adults attractive.
    It is the predatory nature of the activity of these priests that is the problem here; no one, no one should have to put up with this nonsense; women, included. And there is enough documentation on that, as well.
    Priests must embrace celibate chastity; respect the people they are charged to care for as spiritual fathers; deal with their sexual problems in an appropriate way (spiritual direction, counseling, confession).
    But to seduce the young and vulnerable is just a crime against all that is good and holy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Father, I posted from the DSM-IV. While I respect Fr. Groeschel and personal experience, I must defer to science on this.

    ReplyDelete
  15. VATICAN CITY, MARCH 24, 2010 (Zenit.org).- There is no opposition between faith and science, says Benedict XVI, who proposed the example of St. Albert the Great to illustrate this truth.

    The Pope considered this 13th century saint today during the general audience in St. Peter’s Square. “He still has much to teach us,” the Pontiff said of him.

    “St. Albert shows that between faith and science there is no opposition, notwithstanding some episodes of misunderstanding recorded in history,” Benedict XVI proposed. “[...] St. Albert the Great reminds us that between science and faith there is friendship, and that the men of science can undertake, through their vocation to the study of nature, a genuine and fascinating journey of sanctity.”

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thom: If we may disagree on certain aspects, I do believe we agree that predatory sexual assault on minors is wrong, period.
    Whether by adult males on males or females; adult females on females or males.
    And the "untold story" here...if I may digress, is that women religious have been accused, charged and convicted of sexual assault...just check bishopaccountality.org.
    It's all there.
    This is not to say that priests who have offended are "off the hook"...but this is a much more serious and universal problem than what might meet the eye.

    ReplyDelete
  17. On that we can agree, Father, very adamantly.

    ReplyDelete
  18. michael r.4:21 PM

    Interesting film, with a fine soundtrack. I love the June Cleaver look-alike doing the lawn-work in her heels!

    This does remind me of some of the things we were exposed to as children in the early 60's, as Fr. suggests. (Nazareth Priest and I must be of similar age.) Most of it is common sense stuff, and the kids in this film didn't have a lot of common sense. I never heard of any kid in the 50's or 60's hopping into strangers cars like that. But my dad was a police officer, who worked with juveniles, so I probably got an extra dose of these kinds of warnings. I distinctly remember being told to avoid several single adult men. I never really knew why, other than that one of them was an "artist". Anyway, isn't it sad that they used such a broad brush to treat homosexuals as sick predators back then?

    ReplyDelete
  19. And for my next post, I'll do something on Medugorje...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yipee!
    I'll be waiting for that:<)!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Maria5:38 PM

    Terry--ROFLMAO. Simple, supernatural dilemmas, huh?

    ReplyDelete
  22. paula7:43 PM

    Really Terry I want UFO stuff back ... did ya know paintings from the middle ages have images of UFO's?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Austringer8:42 PM

    Terry, I watched the video, and I have to say that it reminded me of the "Virtus" training I had to go through when I started working for our church. Well, not so politically incorrect, I have to say at once!! But the Virtus training featured some an interview with a convicted pedophile who outlined his approach -- and yes, it was just as depicted in "Boys Beware": getting to know the kid; giving them lots of praise; etc. Youngsters who looked a bit lost -- children of divorce, for instance -- were quickly identified by the predators.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Austringer8:45 PM

    Sorry, I should have been more clear -- the Virtus program was very politically correct, the "Boys Beware" politically incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Austsringer: I had to go through a similar program in order to teach in a seminary (along with seminarians)...the same thing; only in this particular film, it was a teenage male predator (son of a deacon, no less) who used to take little girls into the bathroom BY HIMSELF (!) and then proceeded to molest them...I and thought to myself, "Who is minding the store, for heaven's sake"? That would have set off alarm bells immediately...I'm not a suspicious person, by nature, in fact, sometimes rather oblivious/naive...I really try to give people the benefit of the doubt...but THAT would sent me into the damned bathroom within five seconds, and that kid woulda had his a** kicked out of the program, as well as the police called, if something, in fact had happened.
    It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out...good grief, I'm no genius, but WTH?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Austringer10:11 PM

    Father, the alarm bells may not have gone off because the teenage boy was the son of a deacon. There is a kind of clericalism that goes above and beyond the "benefit of the doubt". We respect and love our clergy, of course, and respect and love our deacons as well (though their pedestal probably isn't as high..). But sometimes this means a refusal to acknowledge problems, or even the suggestion of problems. This probably extends to the family of a deacon to some extent: we might be suspicious of Joe Average teenager, but...the son of a deacon??? It would be like casting aspersions onto the deacon himself, a kind of personal reproach.

    Just my guess...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Austringer: I do see your point; but living in the "clerical" world for over thirty years...I immediately see the "red flags"...I know too much, way too much.
    If a teenage male is going into the girls' bathroom with a little girl, THAT is a sign of trouble.
    Maybe a dad could do that; it happens sometimes here at our Oratory and it's not a problem.
    But I tell our religious members here: DO NOT be alone with a child, ever...EVER...have the door open, have someone else with you, be careful. I have taken to meeting with adults for spiritual direction in a public place with windows; I'm not paranoid, just wanting to be careful; my Brother here knows when I have spiritual direction appointments and where I will be...I have to be careful, even if it seems to be paranoid.
    I don't think that is being hysterical; it's just the times we live in.
    I don't want to give the impression that I do not give appropriate signs of affection or touching in public; I think that whole thing is sick...people wonder what is wrong with a priest if you don't react "naturally" with children, with people; it's the "being alone" thing that we have to watch, very carefully, even if it's innocent.
    Sad state of things, to be sure.
    But the perverts and idiots who made all of us "overly careful" have not helped us one bit.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Father, I am so sorry for the difficulties that you good priests suffer for the sins of others. It is a shame that you have to be so constantly vigilant and careful, even in spiritual direction, but it would appear to be a necessary precaution. My own priest has hidden cameras in his office so that no one can claim that he touched them or any such thing.

    I wasn't thinking so much of the clergy giving the deacon's son the extra benefit of the doubt, but rather the parishioners and regular staff. I can believe (though obviously cannot know with certainty) that if some staff members were noticing the deacon's son's behavior, they may have felt that to bring it to anyone's attention would have been akin to criticizing the deacon, a sign of disloyalty.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It is possible to have loving affection for teachers, friends and relations who are homosexual, and still confront the truth of this crisis. It is essential that we confront this - or we perpetuate the injustice.

    I share the concerns of Terry, Maria and The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue - who are recognizing the conclusions of the 2004 Report of the Nat'l Review Board. That board, including Leon Panetta and Robert Bennett, looked at the facts of the John Jay study (81% of cases are men preying on male teens and boys) and concluded that the abuse crisis is "characterized by homosexual behavior."

    No doubt, the recent visitors commenting on the report at the USCCB intend to supress and undermine the conclusion of the National Review Board. My wife and I were required to go through the Virtus program in Washington DC in 2005 – within a year of the 2004 Report – when the topic was very hot. It was quite clear to many of the parents in the 'class' that the Virtus program was designed to deflect attention away from the central conclusion of the 2004 Review Board report. Trainors constantly beat the drum that "most abuse is not by homosexuals," in an attempt to intimidate parents from focusing on the particularities of our Church crisis. Time after time, parents stood up and protested that the program was ignoring the central issue in the Church crisis (homosexual men abusing boys and teenage males). The Virtus 'trainors' kept evading the central concern and droned on that "most abuse is not by homosexuals." Virtus was simply a re-education camp designed to thwart the logical conclusions drawn by Panetta, Bennett, Anne Burke et al.

    In the particular crisis of the Church, which is a homosexual abuse crisis, justice requires that we focus our concern primarily on protecting the particular minors at risk (boys and teen males) from the primary predators - male homosexual predators, with due attention to other forms of abuse. Vigilance, respect for all, and restraint are necessary, and possible.
    It is our duty to confront this - lest we perpetuate the injustice.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Austringer10:10 AM

    Chris B, that was my impression of the Virtus program as well. I would be interested in the opinions of others who have gone through that same program.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Chris B. - Thanks for your comment - It is extremely un-PC to say so, but the abuse problem was definitely a homosexual problem. Programs such as Virtus definitely seek to neutralize the issue and avoid discriminating against homosexual persons. You are correct that these matters need to be identified since I believe there is a subtle movement/push by 'anonymous' elements within the Church for something of a compromise as regards the teaching on homosexuality.

    Once again - thanks for sharing your experience.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.