Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Sept 9, 2014 5:53:04 GMT -5
I thought the Olive Garden was abortion. Yes, yes it is.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 9, 2014 6:08:54 GMT -5
It may not be abortion but calling it an Italian restaurant is a crime ...
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Sept 15, 2014 12:11:04 GMT -5
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Sept 15, 2014 19:55:19 GMT -5
9/14 Nathanhm: From your most recent posts –
Your claim: “…but outside of the Catholic League, no one else is making that argument. In fact I can’t find a single Catholic official on record making that argument” [/b] I googled: “did majority of catholic priest scandal incidents involve homosexuals and postpubescent males.” Within seconds, I was provided with pages and pages of material including a multitude of sources expressing the same point made by the Catholic League.
Your demand: “…provide me with some examples where the Church has agreed with any of these viewpoints.”
A few minutes turned up numerous examples. Here are two rather prominent ones.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone Earlier this month Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's secretary of state, rejected any relationship between abuse and celibacy, linking it instead to homosexuality. The article noted “… research shows that most US victims were teenage boys…”
The United Conference of Catholic Bishops authorized a report. Here is what Fr Regis Scanlon O.F.M. Cap wrote about that report “It pointed to the predator issue by identifying the overwhelming victim demographic as young men and male teens. Here are the statistics, in Part 4.2 of the study: “four out of five (80%) alleged victims were male,” and “the majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent (87.4%), with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.” This statistic paints a vivid picture: the sex abuse crisis was the overwhelming work of a very small number of clergy targeting young males as their victims. This fact suggests one reform that has yet to be addressed: the Church must screen out clergy candidates with same-sex attractions.”
Nathanhm A REQUEST: Please do the basic research before posting your claims. Thank you.
Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61 [/font]
|
|
nathanhm
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,041
|
Post by nathanhm on Sept 16, 2014 6:55:54 GMT -5
9/14 Nathanhm: From your most recent posts –
Your claim: “…but outside of the Catholic League, no one else is making that argument. In fact I can’t find a single Catholic official on record making that argument”
[/b] I googled: “did majority of catholic priest scandal incidents involve homosexuals and postpubescent males.” Within seconds, I was provided with pages and pages of material including a multitude of sources expressing the same point made by the Catholic League. Your demand: “…provide me with some examples where the Church has agreed with any of these viewpoints.”
A few minutes turned up numerous examples. Here are two rather prominent ones. Cardinal Tarcisio BertoneEarlier this month Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's secretary of state, rejected any relationship between abuse and celibacy, linking it instead to homosexuality. The article noted “… research shows that most US victims were teenage boys…” The United Conference of Catholic Bishops authorized a report. Here is what Fr Regis Scanlon O.F.M. Cap wrote about that report “It pointed to the predator issue by identifying the overwhelming victim demographic as young men and male teens. Here are the statistics, in Part 4.2 of the study: “four out of five (80%) alleged victims were male,” and “the majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent (87.4%), with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.” This statistic paints a vivid picture: the sex abuse crisis was the overwhelming work of a very small number of clergy targeting young males as their victims. This fact suggests one reform that has yet to be addressed: the Church must screen out clergy candidates with same-sex attractions.”
Nathanhm A REQUEST: Please do the basic research before posting your claims. Thank you. Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61 [/font][/quote] Wow that's your evidence..... Let's see what's missing from these two great counterpoints. Hmmm links and dates. Why are there no links, Mr. Research? Is it because your John Jay report was published in 2004, years before the full extent of the scandal was even known and the church was still in massive denial? In fact a John Jay later report in 2011 discounted homosexuality and Fr. Scanlon was critical of it for disagreeing with the previous report. Here is a link for those interested in his response: www.hprweb.com/2012/08/clergy-sexual-abuse-questions-remain/Now what about our beloved Cardinal Bertone, who made these comments in 2010 and hasn't repeated them since Francis took over. This is the same guy who basically got fired from his job by Pope Francis, and is under investigation for stealing $20M from the Church. I believe it's what you lawyers would say isn't a credible witness. So is that all you got? Maybe find some quotes from the 90s or a defrocked Priest to bolster this stance. Since Francis took over the only person spouting this nonsense is Dohahue. Not to mention unless you're also accusing Church leadership of being secretly gay, they covered for these criminals for decades. And since you think of gays as people willing to commit horrific crimes against minors, and the church is obviously anti-gay, why did leadership cover for these people who clearly didn't respect Catholic doctrine while serving as it's stewards?
|
|
hoyaloya
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 156
|
Post by hoyaloya on Oct 5, 2014 16:21:29 GMT -5
Nathanhm Will try to respond to your contentions as I understand them.
You ask: “Why are there no links, Mr. Research?”
Because I gave you something better. I identified the subject matter I googled: “did majority of Catholic priest scandal incidents involve homosexuals and post pubescent males.” That led to a multitude of links; apparently you chose not to pursue that.
Remember what you claimed: “… outside of the Catholic league no one else is making that argument. In fact, I can’t find a single Catholic official on record making that argument.”
I supplied several references including two named Catholic officials. You do not deny that they made precisely that argument. Rather you attack one as lacking credibility. And you acknowledge that Father Scanlon is still “making that argument.” Yet you refuse to acknowledge your claim was wrong.
You do correctly state that a later study of the Jay report “discounted” the homosexual role. However, that later study did NOT contest the original figures. Father Scanlon pointed out: [from your link]
…The fault is not with the original John Jay data. It pointed to the predator issue by identifying the overwhelming victim demographic as young men and male teens. Here are the statistics, in Part 4.2 of the study: “four out of five (80%) alleged victims were male,” and “the majority of alleged victims were post-pubescent (87.4%), with only a small percentage of priests receiving allegations of abusing young children.” This statistic paints a vivid picture: the sex abuse crisis was the overwhelming work of a very small number of clergy targeting young males as their victims. In 2004, the National Review Board stated that while the sex abuse crisis had no single cause, “an understanding of the crisis is not possible” without reference to “the presence of homosexually oriented priests.” The board cited the data: “eighty percent of the abuse at issue was of a homosexual nature.”…
Dr. Paul McHugh, a former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital and a member of the National Review Board, put it more strongly. Quoted in an August 25, 2006 National Catholic Register editorial, he observed that the John Jay study had revealed a crisis of “homosexual predation on American Catholic youth.” But that warning soon disappeared from the public perception. The John Jay conclusions began to be explained as an “environment” problem…had access to boys” rather than because they had “a homosexual identity” or a “homosexual orientation.”
But “access to boys” avoids one glaring issue: the data reveals that a very small contingent of clergy did most of the sexual exploiting, and they overwhelmingly chose same-sex victims. …the John Jay report issued in 2011, concluded that perhaps the real causes are the result of “certain vulnerabilities” accompanied by “opportunities to abuse,” as in “access to boys.” Significantly, this second John Jay report was challenged by a top psychiatrist who treats sexually abusive priests. Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons told the Catholic News Agency on May 20, 2011, that “he is ‘very critical’ of the latest findings because they avoid discussing important causal factors in clerical sex abuse cases, namely homosexuality.”
Of course, anything critical of homosexuality offends modern standards, even the standards of some within the Church. But those are not the standards of the Catholic Church, and her teaching. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, says in his recent book, “Light of the World,” that one of the “disturbing problems” in the Church today is that “homosexuality exists in monasteries and among the clergy.” He goes on to say that “homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation.” The Pope’s statements are backed by the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (#2358), and other documents which declare that homosexual behavior is “objectively disordered.” The question is: will objective data, like the John Jay study, be interpreted by Church standards, or by other standards? The data overwhelmingly identifies the main victims of the sex abuse crisis as young men. Furthermore, what critics call “access to boys” is a natural consequence of Church life, and the male priesthood. Therefore, true reform should not be to question “access to boys,” but to reconsider, with compassion and wisdom, whether clergy roles are appropriate for any man who finds “access to boys” a sexual temptation.
Thus, the link you supplied further refutes your claim that: “…outside of the Catholic league no one else is making that argument.”
Indeed, your link provided even more testimony and not, as you suggest, “quotes from the 90s or a defrocked priest.” Included was a statement by Deacon Jason Miller, a Catholic therapist with a Ph.D. in psychology:
“The majority of the identified victims did not meet DSM-IV criteria for pedophilia-i.e., prepubescent. So objectively speaking, this wasn’t pedophilia. And the fact that it was overwhelmingly male to male, objectively adds to the scenario.”
Finally, I note that apparently you are now modifying your claim: “Since Francis took over the only person spouting this nonsense is Dohahue [sic]”
Not so. Here is a post-Francis quote from Father Dwight Longenecker: “It’s really quite simple: over 80% of the cases of abuse were by men who were sexually attracted to teenaged boys.”
Nathanhm, our dialog has run its course. I wish you happiness.
Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61
[/a]
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Oct 7, 2014 8:13:09 GMT -5
Hoyaloya, what I just don't understand is why it matters whether it was technically pedophilia or not. This strikes me as a distinction without a difference: the fact is that priests sexually abused underage minors. Whether the boys were 10 or 15, and whether they were 12 but hadn't hit puberty yet or 12 and had hit puberty, shouldn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Oct 10, 2014 21:15:27 GMT -5
Nathanhm, our dialog has run its course. I wish you happiness.
Richard M. Coleman Georgetown AB ’57; LL.M. ‘61
This is the most pathetic, haughty post that I've ever seen on this board.
|
|