Saturday, May 30, 2009

Scapegoating Homosexuality?

I don't think so.
I read a post on a gay-activist's blog making the claim that "survivors" of Catholic clerical sexual abuse insist that there is no connection between the sexual molestation they experienced and homosexuality. He writes: "I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: No organization of clergy sex abuse survivors places blame on homosexuality. They are capable of making the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual abuse; between homosexuality and pedophilia. It’s time the hierarchical Church made - and boldly announced - these distinctions as well."
The writer quotes an Irish "survivor" as he objected to a statement made by an Irish priest, Father John Owen, of the Archdiocese of Cardiff, when he revealed that the “majority of pedophilia [in the Church’s clergy sex abuse scandal] had been perpetrated by homosexuals.”
Colm O’Gorman, a so-called survivor of clerical sexual abuse, "described Owen’s comments as 'ill-informed, ignorant, corrupt and dishonest.' He said: 'The church has created a link between homosexual sex and priests who rape and sodomize children. It scapegoats someone else and creates a side issue." - Wild Reed Blogspot
All of the men I know who had been sexually molested in puberty or adolescence, regardless of their sexual orientation as adults, identify the perpetrators of the sexual abuse they suffered as homosexual men.
The blog author insists, "no organization of clergy sexual abuse survivors places blame on homosexuality." Well of course not - not all homosexuals are into sex with under aged boys, but if you ask the individuals who were abused by same-sex perpetrators, I assure you most, if not all will tell you the abuse was homosexual in nature, and the men who did it were homosexuals.
As a man who had been sexually abused in my youth by multiple adult males, my own experience contradicts the premise that men who have sex with pre-teen and/or teenage boys are pedophiles and not homosexuals. It is a ludicrous idea. Pederasty, not pedophilia describes this type of sexual deviancy, and the perpetrators are surely homosexually inclined - to put it politely. Some may have been married to women, in a relationship with a man, or simply promiscuous - but there is no doubt they were gay and predatory.
I am in no way saying all homosexuals are pederasts, or that men who have been molested turn out to be gay or end up molesting boys or girls. That is not the case. What I am saying is that sexual predators who direct their attentions toward adolescent boys are gay, or at least bisexual - which happens to be the 'B' in LGBT. Therefore it is predominately a homosexual problem. Homosexual activists are misinformed.
I don't care what law enforcement or the court system labels it, or what psychologists call it, or even what a politically correct diocesan council calls it. Male on male sex is homosexual behavior.
Men who have been sexually abused by homosexuals in their youth are indeed "capable of making the distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia. It’s time gay activists made - and boldly announced - these distinctions as well."


  1. michael r.7:01 AM

    Pope Benedict (on his flight to the USA) wisely drew a very clear distinction between the problem of pedophilia and homosexuality. “I would not speak at this moment about homosexuality, but pedophilia, which is another thing. And we would absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry.” He still hasn't specifically addressed the issue of homosexuality. I'm not sure why you, Terry, do so with such frequency. Your conclusions don't seem to support the distinctions drawn by the Holy Father. There are many good, holy priests who have homosexual orientations. There have always been such men in orders, and there have been many such women in the consecrated religious life.

    The best arguments I've seen for not excluding homosexuals from the religious life were offered by Fr. John Harvey a few years ago:

    "The unspoken premise behind the opinion that men with same-sex attractions are not suitable candidates for the priesthood is the presumption that a person with same-sex attractions can not control his desires and develop a life of interior chastity. Yet, the Church expects all of her members to strive for interior chastity, and for the unmarried, chastity is expressed through a celibate lifestyle, either as a single lay person or a vowed religious. If we truly believe that unmarried lay people with same-sex attractions are capable of living lives of chaste celibacy, why should we automatically assume that a young man with same-sex attractions who wants to enter the seminary is incapable of the chaste celibacy which is required of him?"

    "I believe that we need more research into this question before we come to any conclusions. Hopefully, those in ecclesiastical authority will consult priests, psychologists and psychiatrists who have worked with persons with same-sex attractions. I also hope that they be willing to talk to homosexual priests themselves. I hope this writing will be of some help to the Church."

    "Years ago, at the Catholic University of America, I saw a sign on the wall of a Professor of Physics. He was an authority on sonar, but he was also a very brilliant teacher. On the wall, was a picture of a bumblebee. Under the bumblebee, I read the following: “According to the laws of aero-dynamics, a creature shaped like the bumble bee is not able to fly. But the bumble bee flies.”

  2. Thanks Michael, I do remember what the Holy Father said - he indeed made that distinction, and has yet to address the homosexual issue. I hope he does. If I am in error concerning what the Holy Father or even Fr. Harvey says, I would abjure what I have said.

    Of course there were pedophiles involved in the scandals, some were homosexual, some exploited little girls, I am not denying that. But there is clear evidence the same-sex abuse on pubescent and adolescent boys was homosexual abuse and not pedophilia - in this country and Ireland. That is the point I'm making on this post, contradicting Wild Reed's assertion that the distinction is so well defined. It is not.

    Concerning admittance to Holy orders, which I did not mention in this post, homosexual experience would not necessarily prevent a man from entering religious life or seminary, leading to ordination.

    In fact I know a man who will be entering seminary this fall who had led an active homosexual lifestyle. He renounced that lifestyle about 4 or 5 years ago, accepted the teaching of the Church regarding homosexuality, became a member/leader in Courage, proved himself by the observance of chastity, and now lives a devout life. In such situations, a person with homosexual inclination may indeed be ordained or admitted to religious life. Therefore it seems to me my opinion accords exactly with Fr. Harvey's, a priest I know BTW. I have always maintained that admittance to Holy Orders or monastic life for such persons needs to be discerned with the help of the appropriate superiors. That said, I accept and support the rule concerning men with deep seated homosexuality that they be barred from ordination.

    One reason why I write about the issue so frequently is that homosexual activists challenge every aspect of Church teaching on these issues, and it becomes especially virulent around this time of year with gay pride month approaching, Rainbow Sash demonstrations on Pentecost, and so on. And as you know, there is a huge push to legalize same sex marriage and pass the hate crimes legislation, which will have repercussions upon religious freedom.
    Additionally, activists - including their parents and friends - consider homosexuality as normative behavior and believe the Church ought to affirm that notion. Their propaganda is widespread, as you know, therefore all I am offering on my personal blog - sometimes at great cost to my own privacy - is a counter point of view, based upon my education and experience.

    As for priests who are already ordained and who have homosexual tendencies, I can only speak for those whom I know and I agree many are very good, faithful and devout priests - faithful to the magisterium. As far as I know they live faithful celibate lives. Those who contradict Church teaching however are in error. I have met and know such priests, although I could never recommend them to another person seeking counsel.

    Long answer, but I always appreciate your comments Michael, I want to give a proper answer since you always show such respect. Thanks.

  3. Terry,

    Thanks for your thoughtful post. I know someone very well who was sexually abused in junior seminary by the older boys, not the priests. It is impossible to see the perpetrators as paedophiles, their motives were homoerotic in origin. The young men probably never saw themselves as homosexual. But the crime has far more to do with LGBT sexuality than pederasty.

  4. michael r.: If we truly believe that unmarried lay people with same-sex attractions are capable of living lives of chaste celibacy, why should we automatically assume that a young man with same-sex attractions who wants to enter the seminary is incapable of the chaste celibacy which is required of him?"The most important functions of society are procreation and the raising properly of the next generation of children.

    The Catholic Church has been highly negligent in the past in allowing a tiny minority its ministers and priests to abuse those children in the mistaken belief that all people behave properly. We forgot that all people are sinners too.

    The Church is attempting to rectify its neglect of its children in the past by not exposing them to the danger of possible abuse by adults in the future.

    Unfortunately it is not known exactly who might be an abuser. But it is known that that some homosexuals are likely to be abusers. Until science comes up with an accurate predictor as to who may be an abuser, the Church is siding on the side of safety, rather than experiment with its children as it learns about these things.

    Unfortunately, society (and the Church) also has no predictor as to how to raise a child properly. But society has gone pell mell into experimentation with little knowledge of the potential results by encouraging broken families with no-fault divorce laws and by allowing homosexual adoptions.

    Right now divorces among Americans exceed 60 percent of all marriages. Even worse, illegitimate births are occurring at the same rate. Our families are being destroyed by our social experimentation. And so are our children, the parents of the next generation.

    With the advent of these practices our schools have become full of children with attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, bullying, autism and learning difficulties. And after spending billions of dollars in trying to get children to graduate, the dropout rate is as high as it every was.

    There is no doubt in the minds of thinking individuals that families composed of one mother and one father are what works.

  5. The biggest problem with abuse is that the abused tend to perpetuate the cycle, whether it's physical or sexual abuse.

    The second biggest problem is the focus on priests; there are so many others out there who have access to children and are able to abuse them.

    Ray, I see families turning a blind eye and not educating their kids that people shouldn't touch them as a bigger problem; so often the adults refuse to believe the child's report of inappropriate behavior. They can't imagine that a trusted adult would betray that trust.

  6. Nan:

    I don't disagree with what you say. I was just defending the Church's position on homosexual priests.

    Unfortunately modern society does a terrible job of educating children about sex. Mostly because most adults are self taught about it themselves and aren't at all comfortable about talking to their children about it.

    It probably worked much better when we all were peasants living in one room houses, raising farm animals.

    Unfortunately, when sex education gets delegated to the state, immediately special interests without moral codes come to the fore that want to teach children to do everything.

    I really don't know much about it, but from what little I do know, Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body may very well be the proper basis for a sex education system, for children, for teens, for young adults and for old adults.

  7. Well I get what you're saying, and I agree. I disagree with Michael that you talk about it "too much." Some things need to be addressed, and it seems that no one else is doing it. You're addressing these issues in a kind but straightforward way, and I respect you for it.

  8. Seeker, thanks very much.

  9. If an adult male has sex with a pre-adult girl do you label him a "heterosexual" or a "pedophile"?

  10. Kevin - Pre-adult? Heterosexual. Pre-pubescent? Heterosexual pedophile.


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.