You know what's the problem? Heterdoxy. Heterodoxy caused your family's woes. Pure and simple.
You know what the fix is? Orthodox bishops with some steel in their spines being appointed.
Yup! Orthodoxy! That *magic pill* that cures all ills!
(from Wikipedia) --
Heterodoxy includes "any opinions or doctrines at variance with an official or orthodox position".[1] As an adjective, heterodox is used to describe a subject as "characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards" (status quo). The noun heterodoxy is synonymous with unorthodoxy and heresy, while the adjective heterodox is synonymous with dissident and heretical.
Man, I tell ya! I thought I heard it all when I listen to people decry heresy and dissent, but this is the first time I heard it now being accused of being THE source and cause of all the child abuses and related crap that goes on. But get us all some orthodox priests with 'steel in their spine' (Father Rambo? ) to keep us all ((cough))like minded((cough)), ... and problem solved!
But seriously MarkO, that one really made my day. Thanks for the belly laugh!
In this day and age of the 'Net, if someone wanted to make it 'official' in leaving the Catholic Church, couldn't the Church leadership give an online version where you can fill out a form, and send it in by secure server, and all that?
Yup! Orthodoxy! That *magic pill* that cures all ills!
(from Wikipedia) --
Man, I tell ya! I thought I heard it all when I listen to people decry heresy and dissent, but this is the first time I heard it now being accused of being THE source and cause of all the child abuses and related crap that goes on. But get us all some orthodox priests with 'steel in their spine' (Father Rambo? ) to keep us all ((cough))like minded((cough)), ... and problem solved!
But seriously MarkO, that one really made my day. Thanks for the belly laugh!
Garth, seriously, consider it for a second.
Whether you agree with it or not, you understand that Catholic doctrine states that homosexuality is 'gravely disordered,' right?
You do understand that 80% of the reported victims were male, right?
You also understand that more than 3/4 of the reported victims were over the age of 11, right?
Orthodoxy: The word orthodoxy, from the Greek ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching'), is typically used to refer to the correct theological or doctrinal observance of religion, as determined by some overseeing body.
Had the bishops and the seminaries under their control been orthodox in the screening of seminary candidates, they would have, at least attempted to screen out individuals suffering from the 'grave disorder' of homosexuality. Had the seminary rectors been orthodox in their administration of discipline, they would have booted individuals acting on that 'grave disorder' out of the seminary when it came to light that such things were going on. (Not that it went on in all seminaries, but enough of them). And had the bishops/ directors of religious institutes been orthodox in their management of priests within their dioceses, they'd have recognized that a priest, once he's displayed that 'grave disorder' in action, particularly if manifested to a young boy, shouldn't ever be put in a position of having a 'near occasion of sin' again.
Would that have gotten rid of ALL the problem? Frankly, no. But let's say that, through the candidate screening process and through eight years of seminary training, they identified and eliminated (from training...) 75-80% of homosexual men trying to enter the priesthood. It would figure, then, that the number of perpetrators of the actual abuse would be similarly reduced. And thus, the number of victims would likewise be reduced. (BTW, no I am not asserting there would be a 1:1 relationship here, but there can be no doubt that it would be reduced).
Likewise, had the bishops, once appraised of an incident of abuse, acted in an orthodox manner, the serial abusers (a small percentage of all the priests accused of abuse) would have likewise not been returned to a situation where they'd have the 'near occasion of sin.' Would that have gotten rid of serial abusers? No. But it would have prevented the problem of a priest being identified, shipped off to treatment, and then returned to parish ministry.
All told, would the abuse problem be gone? Of course not. But, chances are it wouldn't have been nearly the problem that it became.
As to the steel in the spine...that addresses the ability and willingness to go in and clean up a lot of messes that exist.
But, within that scope, it's far more likely for a heterosexual man to molest girls than a homosexual man.
Common sense, so far, right?
Then why is it so incorrect to say that it's far more likely for a homosexual man to molest boys than a heterosexual one?
Because child molestation has nothing to do with sexual orientation, no matter what gender the perpetrator or victum is. Many child molestors have no adult sexual orientation, they focus on children, whether boys, girls, or both. Their attraction is based on age not gender, so it would be incorrect to label them gay, straight, or bi. If you want to label them, maybe pedophile would be a better choice?
Sometimes, too, people will sexually assult children for different motives than sexual release, like intimidation, revenge, whatever. But this does not mean the perpetrator is gay, straight or bi.
Because child molestation has nothing to do with sexual orientation, no matter what gender the perpetrator or victum is. Many child molestors have no adult sexual orientation, they focus on children, whether boys, girls, or both. Their attraction is based on age not gender, so it would be incorrect to label them gay, straight, or bi. If you want to label them, maybe pedophile would be a better choice?
Sometimes, too, people will sexually assult children for different motives than sexual release, like intimidation, revenge, whatever. But this does not mean the perpetrator is gay, straight or bi.
Bull.
Pure and simple.
If the majority of children abused were 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 you might have a point.
But the majority (over 80%) of the children abused were boys.
And the majority (over 75%) of the boys abused were over 11 or older.
If your theory held ANY water whatsoever, the average age of the victims would be far younger and the distribution would be far closer to 50/50.
There are pedophiles...but the problem here is one of predatory homosexuals, pure and simple.
why don't the damn priests have affairs with ushers or deacons or each other ?????
why rape CHILDREN ??????
And why does a tape series like "Girls Gone Wild" (featuring young girls barely legal) sell so well?
And why are 12-16 year old girls especially desired for prostitutes? (Keep in mind, pedophiles would want babies and little children: 5-6 year olds)
And why do female teachers seem to be taking a liking to middle-school boys?
Again, it isn't pedophilia...pedophilia is a distinct disease from liking young pre-teens and teens.
But if you can figure out the above, I'd say that you might be able to figure out why some priests want to prey on 10-17 year old (mostly) boys (mostly).
where are you getting your definition of pedophilia with regard to babies and 5 and 6 year olds ?
The International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition (published by the World Health Organization) identifies pedophilia (F65.4) as, A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age
On the other hand, ephebophilia has been defined as a sexual preference in which an adult is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to pubescent adolescents.
(The WHO also defines adolescence as between 10 and 19 years)
Here's the difference: pedophiles are, by defnition, mentally ill. Ephebophiles are just plain pervs.
1350
1300 x
1250 xx
1200 xx x
1150 xx x xx
1100 xx xx xx
1050 xx xx xx x
1000 xx xx xx xx
950 xx xx xx xx
900 x xx xx xx xx
850 xx xx xx xx xx
800 xx xx xx xx xx
750 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
700 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
650 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
600 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx x
550 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
500 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
450 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
400 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
350 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
300 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
250 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
200 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
150 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
100 x xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
50 xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
<50 x x x xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Above is a chart showing the age of first incident for all cases of reported abuse. Source. There are pedophiles involved, no doubt, but you can see for yourself where the problem lies.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
21
15
8
32
Popular Days
Feb 17
45
Feb 19
32
Feb 16
26
Feb 18
25
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 21 posts
ChattyKathy 15 posts
Abigail 8 posts
markomalley 32 posts
Popular Days
Feb 17 2007
45 posts
Feb 19 2007
32 posts
Feb 16 2007
26 posts
Feb 18 2007
25 posts
Posted Images
GarthP2000
(from Wikipedia) --
Man, I tell ya! I thought I heard it all when I listen to people decry heresy and dissent, but this is the first time I heard it now being accused of being THE source and cause of all the child abuses and related crap that goes on. But get us all some orthodox priests with 'steel in their spine' (Father Rambo?
) to keep us all ((cough))like minded((cough)), ... and problem solved! 
But seriously MarkO, that one really made my day. Thanks for the belly laugh!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I just thought of something, MarkO.
In this day and age of the 'Net, if someone wanted to make it 'official' in leaving the Catholic Church, couldn't the Church leadership give an online version where you can fill out a form, and send it in by secure server, and all that?
Just a thought. ..... Carry on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Garth, seriously, consider it for a second.
Whether you agree with it or not, you understand that Catholic doctrine states that homosexuality is 'gravely disordered,' right?
You do understand that 80% of the reported victims were male, right?
You also understand that more than 3/4 of the reported victims were over the age of 11, right?
Orthodoxy: The word orthodoxy, from the Greek ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching'), is typically used to refer to the correct theological or doctrinal observance of religion, as determined by some overseeing body.
Had the bishops and the seminaries under their control been orthodox in the screening of seminary candidates, they would have, at least attempted to screen out individuals suffering from the 'grave disorder' of homosexuality. Had the seminary rectors been orthodox in their administration of discipline, they would have booted individuals acting on that 'grave disorder' out of the seminary when it came to light that such things were going on. (Not that it went on in all seminaries, but enough of them). And had the bishops/ directors of religious institutes been orthodox in their management of priests within their dioceses, they'd have recognized that a priest, once he's displayed that 'grave disorder' in action, particularly if manifested to a young boy, shouldn't ever be put in a position of having a 'near occasion of sin' again.
Would that have gotten rid of ALL the problem? Frankly, no. But let's say that, through the candidate screening process and through eight years of seminary training, they identified and eliminated (from training...) 75-80% of homosexual men trying to enter the priesthood. It would figure, then, that the number of perpetrators of the actual abuse would be similarly reduced. And thus, the number of victims would likewise be reduced. (BTW, no I am not asserting there would be a 1:1 relationship here, but there can be no doubt that it would be reduced).
Likewise, had the bishops, once appraised of an incident of abuse, acted in an orthodox manner, the serial abusers (a small percentage of all the priests accused of abuse) would have likewise not been returned to a situation where they'd have the 'near occasion of sin.' Would that have gotten rid of serial abusers? No. But it would have prevented the problem of a priest being identified, shipped off to treatment, and then returned to parish ministry.
All told, would the abuse problem be gone? Of course not. But, chances are it wouldn't have been nearly the problem that it became.
As to the steel in the spine...that addresses the ability and willingness to go in and clean up a lot of messes that exist.
Not Father Rambo...Bishop Rambo...
(Or maybe Monty Python's rendition)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
If this isn't solid proof that Catholics have better taste in entertainment than Calvinists, I don't know what does.
Thanks for the laugh MarkO.
Cynic, ..... do NOT quit your day job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
VeganXTC
Mark said:
Because child molestation has nothing to do with sexual orientation, no matter what gender the perpetrator or victum is. Many child molestors have no adult sexual orientation, they focus on children, whether boys, girls, or both. Their attraction is based on age not gender, so it would be incorrect to label them gay, straight, or bi. If you want to label them, maybe pedophile would be a better choice?
Sometimes, too, people will sexually assult children for different motives than sexual release, like intimidation, revenge, whatever. But this does not mean the perpetrator is gay, straight or bi.
Edited by VeganXTCLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Bull.
Pure and simple.
If the majority of children abused were 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 you might have a point.
But the majority (over 80%) of the children abused were boys.
And the majority (over 75%) of the boys abused were over 11 or older.
If your theory held ANY water whatsoever, the average age of the victims would be far younger and the distribution would be far closer to 50/50.
There are pedophiles...but the problem here is one of predatory homosexuals, pure and simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
bull pure and simple ?
wow
why don't the damn priests have affairs with ushers or deacons or each other ?????
why rape CHILDREN ??????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
And why does a tape series like "Girls Gone Wild" (featuring young girls barely legal) sell so well?
And why are 12-16 year old girls especially desired for prostitutes? (Keep in mind, pedophiles would want babies and little children: 5-6 year olds)
And why do female teachers seem to be taking a liking to middle-school boys?
Again, it isn't pedophilia...pedophilia is a distinct disease from liking young pre-teens and teens.
But if you can figure out the above, I'd say that you might be able to figure out why some priests want to prey on 10-17 year old (mostly) boys (mostly).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
where are you getting your definition of pedophilia with regard to babies and 5 and 6 year olds ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
wtf is this thread doing in the doctrinal section
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Wasn't my idea! I think it should go in 'soap opera'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
whatsamatta markey ? do you don't like the responses ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I know, Mark.
But why go on about this sick sexual crime stuff?
You don't need to defend anything unless you are defensive about it.
Then yes, soap opera time, for sure.
All these stats are argumental and you know it.
The true stats will never be public knowledge.
You started the thread with good intentions I believe.
Instruction on the instuctions of the Catholic Church.
I do believe there are many good people in EVERY religion.
Unfortunately there are also bad ones......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
so sick sexual crimes belong in soap opera ? is that what you both are saying ?
i don't get it
you can be so intelligent and not smart at all
okay should i start a thread on priests ? i don't think so
roman catholic nonsense can only be discussed in a certain place or certain manner ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
The International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition (published by the World Health Organization) identifies pedophilia (F65.4) as, A sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age
On the other hand, ephebophilia has been defined as a sexual preference in which an adult is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to pubescent adolescents.
(The WHO also defines adolescence as between 10 and 19 years)
Here's the difference: pedophiles are, by defnition, mentally ill. Ephebophiles are just plain pervs.
Above is a chart showing the age of first incident for all cases of reported abuse. Source. There are pedophiles involved, no doubt, but you can see for yourself where the problem lies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
or the open forum excathedra
i don't care where it's discussed
it's dis custing for sure
doctrinal section????
i don't think so
here i'll end it as far as doctrinal
sexual crime is a crime against God also
PERIOD
someone want to argue about it
knock yourselves out
i'm done doctrinally with it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
(The chart didn't turn out as well as I wanted, but I hope the point gets across)
Clay,
She keeps bringing it up.
Anytime something Catholic is mentioned.
Can't discuss a point of doctrine or a current event without her coming up mentioning priests buggering boys.
I suppose I could ignore her, but I know she's got some real hurt inside from the issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
it started in open, cman. thanks
thanks for digging up a source, mark
come on
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
a discussion takes more then one person Mark
you are a smart guy
stick to the point of the thread
don't get side tracked
excathedra, you are smart too
what's the relevence here?
start a doctrinal, open or soap thread on Catholics illegal sex crimes
start your 'discussion' where ever you want
i just get tired of things getting side tracked
that's all
the good comments get missed
the thread becomes ignored
end of anything that might of been good
posted this next thing after i saw your post exc
it just added it on...
sorry exc, i didn't know it started in open....
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
it didn't have the moved sign on it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
If you look up in 'open,' the placemark for the thread is still there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Always a pleasure...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.