July 30, 2002
On Priests and Pederasty
I'm hearing news reports that U.S. Catholic leadership, by way of addressing the sex abuse crisis in its ranks, now supports research into the causes of such abuse.
Of course it could take many years and millions of dollars to unravel the mystery of what causes a large group of homosexual men forbidden from having sex to prey on post-pubescent boys. It's a real poser. Inadequate Head Start funding, perhaps? Insufficient social acceptance of the transgendered lifestyle? We'll leave it to the Academy to point the way.
I'm afraid I've violated a cardinal rule (but hey, who hasn't?), this one of the mainstream media, which is that polite people don't mention what has become screamingly obvious to everyone, to wit, that the vast majority of sex abuse cases in the Catholic fold appear to be catalyzed by homosexual priests. This is extremely uncomfortable, and surely causes quite a conflict for the liberal intellectual, who is torn between the competing desires to 1) assault the hierarchical, hopelessly hidebound Church; and 2) not contribute to the canard that homosexual men are especially attracted to youths. What a quandary. The solution, of course, is to frame the problem in the Church as one of pedophilia rather than pederasty.
It appears, however, that this is indeed a problem of homosexual men preying on boys in their young teens. I say "appears" because, while the overwhelming majority of allegations are coming from young men, there has been little reliable research into this problem, in part because the Church has until recent months steadfastly opposed addressing it. I'm sure someone sufficiently versed in academic sophistry will emerge to counter that women, by virtue of our oppressive patriarchal society, are less likely to report abuse by a priest, and hence that the data are skewed. Having spent plenty of time around fiery Catholic women, I have a hard time buying the wallflower argument. I'll wager dollars to doughnuts that, if the research is completed by someone reliable and willing to consider this hypothesis, the predominance of homosexual abuse holds. (In fact, a few brave souls claim to have done so, though I can't vouch for their work -- see here and here.)
Unfortunately, the Catholic leadership seems intent on not asking the question, as Newsmax writer Fred Martinez notes in his article on the willful ignorance of priests and press. Instead, they call for research, and effectively hand over the investigation to the likes of Mary Jo Bane, President Clinton's former assistant secretary of Health and Human Services, who has emerged as a "lay church leader" representing the hard left of the Catholic body. Bane's previous work involved heavy contributions to the fraudulent body of academic research into welfare, which, until recently, steadfastly censored any notion that strings-free handouts contribute to illegitimacy.
It's ironic, isn't it, that calling for academic research into something has become a proven way to insure that truth never emerges? And in the meantime, homosexual men will increasingly become, through the Boy Scouts and Big Brothers/Big Sisters -- and with the deliberate ignorance of a populace afraid of being called homophobic (the main symptom of which, as John O'Sullivan has noted, is being accused of it) -- mentors to young men. What joy -- unbridled access to impressionable boys, without the fussy constraints of the collar.
Of course I don't mean to suggest that every homosexual man is inclined to pederasty. In this age of doing everything for The Children, however, one would think that the trends emerging from the Catholic Church, which has already experimented in giving homosexuals authority over boys, might give us pause before re-enacting such an experiment. Isn't "if it only saves one child, it's worth it" the battle cry of the Left, after all? I suppose a few boys must be sacrificed, however, in order to prove that we are not, in fact, on the verge of stitching pink triangles on shirtsleeves. Such is the price of progressiveness.
Posted by Woodlief on July 30, 2002 at 09:42 AM
Before I comment, I want to clarify... Are you suggesting that the sexual preference of priests be taken into account before they are placed in a position of authority over young boys? Or just that someone ought to mention that most of these pedophiles are (by definition) homosexual?
Yes to the first, especially given the Church's putative allegiance to its Bible, and some uncomfortable language in that book about this very topic.
A qualified yes to the second, which I would modify to read "most of these offenders appear to be pederasts" -- there being a considerable difference between someone who preys on small children of either gender, and someone who preys on pubescent and post-pubescent boys.
All together now... PEDOPHILIA/PEDERASTRY AND HOMOSEXUALITY ARE NOT THE SAME. THEY ARE DIFFERENT.
One is a crime, the other is not. Where is your research that shows more than a spurious correlation between the two?
I am heterosexual. Does that mean that I am automatically prone to molesting your 12-year old daughter? If not, then why is it different if I am homosexual and you have a son?
Could the intellectual liberals still be taking their cues from the Clinton "play"book - what goes on behind closed doors is private and does not influence public behavior?
Okay, if it is against religous doctorine to allow homosexual men to become priests, I can understand that. But to not allow an individual homosexual man to become a priest for the sole reason that he has the potential of molesting a child is very different. We rightly judge people on the basis of their actions, not their potentials. We all have the potential to do terrible things.
Disconnect,
You are right, more research would be helpful. Good luck trying to find an unbiased researcher, unfortunately. Absent systematic sampling, we are left with small, admittedly biased samples. The dominance of homosexual pederasts in the Catholic clergy, for example. Granted, if 50% of priests are homosexual, then the large numbers of molested boys may actually break down into a very small molestation rate among homosexuals, thus substantiating your insistence that the two are not correlated.
Another example can be found in the growing attempt to mainstream pederasty, which is discussed by, among others, Mary Eberstadt here. If the overwhelming majority of homosexuals found the notion of sex with 12 year-old boys as revolting as (I pray) the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals find the notion of sex with 12 year-old girls, said notion wouldn't be finding a growing place in the Gay/Lesbian Literature shelf of the local Barnes and Noble, I think.
In the second half of your post you ask a very good question:
"I am heterosexual. Does that mean that I am automatically prone to molesting your 12-year old daughter? If not, then why is it different if I am homosexual and you have a son?"
In other words, why do I assume that one has a higher probability than the other? Actually, I don't. I wouldn't want you to be the leader of my daughter's Girl Scout Troop, nor would I want you to be the Big Brother to her Little Sister. I think your question, in fact, highlights precisely what is wrong with the move to install homosexuals in positions of authority in these organizations.
"Actually, I don't. I wouldn't want you to be the leader of my daughter's Girl Scout Troop, nor would I want you to be the Big Brother to her Little Sister. I think your question, in fact, highlights precisely what is wrong with the move to install homosexuals in positions of authority in these organizations."
Does this also apply to teachers? It is awful to imagine a world where we can't trust our children to the care of adults of the opposite sex, who we know and oftentimes trust, because they may be unable to resist sexual urges toward the children. It seems you would be unable to allow your children any close mentoring relationship with an adult of the opposite sex, if you follow this line of thinking.
Amy,
You are using the language of principle, but I suspect you mean to make a probabilistic statement. To grip one's purse more tightly when the person approaching on a darkened sidewalk is a glaring young black man rather than a little old black woman is, it seems, to make a judgment, based on potential, and informed by some rough assessment of statistical realities.
But I get your point, which is that to assume even a significant minority of homosexuals are pederasts, and to thereby forbid them employment in professions where they will interact with youths, is hardly just behavior.
What strikes me as a Sand in the Gears-ish kind of thing to point out is that most people seem intent on assuming, in the face of some fairly damning evidence, that a) the portion of homosexuals attracted to post-pubescent boys is no greater than the portion of heterosexual men attracted to post-pubescent girls; and b) the corresponding probabilities of acting on said attraction are roughly equal as well.
Almost none of the homosexuals I've known fairly well, I want to point out, have ever given me any reason to doubt the politically correct assumptions elucidated above. I know that personal network samples, however, are woefully unreliable. Thus I'm intrigued by the question, and by our unwillingness to ask it, though I am grieved at the thought that by asking it I may hurt someone I care about.
Thus, I almost didn't post the essay at all. That, I decided, would have been decidedly un-Sand in the Gears-ish.
Amy (I posted my last response, and there you were again),
You have teased out my position, which is thoroughly probabilistic. I do not favor leaving my pubescent or post-pubescent children in unsupervised, one-on-one settings with adults who may find them sexually attractive. I wouldn't include a school in this, because, while it's possible for a teacher to get a child alone, it's much more difficult than in a Big Brother/Big Sister relationship, or on a Boy Scout camping trip. It's not a question of principle for me, simply one of odds.
I think the point about probability puts the dilemma best. Anyone insisting that a priests' sexual orientation be given no weight when deciding on his assignment is asking the parents of a parish to make a mighty big bet, using their children as the ante.
Hey Tony, You speak of "fairly damning evidence" that gays are more likely to molest than straights. What's the evidence of which you speak? Not Mary Eberstadt, I trust. And if you're a probablist here, what are the probablities? If there is a difference, is the difference significant? (And, hey, shouldn't lesbians be encouraged to run Boy Scout troops. No chance of molestation, and they'd sure be good at it!)
You say, "If the overwhelming majority of homosexuals found the notion of sex with 12 year-old boys as revolting as (I pray) the overwhelming majority of heterosexuals find the notion of sex with 12 year-old girls, said notion wouldn't be finding a growing place in the Gay/Lesbian Literature shelf of the local Barnes and Noble, I think."
Tony, this is just shoddy reasoning, which is beneath you. You imply, without grounds, that heterosexual pederast literature is not gaining shelf space at the same rate or faster. Second, your reasoning here implies that shelf space is responsive to demand. But if so, then when there was no shelf space devoted to gay pederast lit, then there must have been no demand. But, no. There was always demand. Booksellers are now selling stuff they didn't used to sell because community standards, much to your chagrin, have relaxed. So increase in share of shelf space (if we suppose there is one) need have no relation to a lack of overwhelming revulsion in the gay community.
Your sentiment is clear, Tony, but your argument isn't.
Catholic teaching currently makes it a sin for a priest to have sex, period. (I say "currently" because Catholic Church teaching is a combination of tradition and scripture, and can shift over time depending on revelation as its received from God through the church. Married priests were allowed to perform mass until the 11th century.) It matters not whether priestly sex is heterosexual or homosexual. So to the extent that someone renounces homosexual sex, in keeping with his vows as a priest, that person has honored his commitment to the Church and to Christ. What difference does it make whether that person would've engaged in homosexual or heterosexual world had he not become a priest?
Now, I agree with Tony's point that we shouldn't misidentify what is going on. It appears as though the majority of cases are cases of homosexual sex - priests engaging in sex with teenage boys. So those people should be defrocked. If there was lack of consent, those people should be put in jail for rape. But what did we expect in an all male priesthood? This is nothing new, incidentally.
The point about probability is lost on me. In an all male priesthood with all male altar boys, of course the sex that takes place is going to be overwhelmingly homosexual. That's just because there's a severe imbalance in the male/female ratio.
Having read Mary Eberstadt's, for lack of a better word, screed in the Weekly Standard a while back on homosexual sex, I'm not impressed. But perhaps I'm missing something. Can you recommend an article by her?
Will and DC ask the right questions, and take me to task, fairly, for making assumptions about probabilities. My points are that: 1) we (polite, intellectual society) have largely avoided asking such questions (i.e., what are the relative proportions of homosexuals and heterosexuals attracted to pubescents?); and 2) we have done so despite evidence that, were it present in a more socially acceptable domain (e.g., numerous allegations that white executives were sexually harassing their black secretaries), would spark such questions.
On to specifics: Will, the evidence is what I've already mentioned, namely, considerable numbers of pederasts in the priesthood, and considerable numbers of books sold in mainstream bookstores, written by and catering to homosexuals, which incorporate pederasty. My assumption, of course, is that there is not a significant correspondence in straight literature, but I have not done a comparable textual analysis, and would be very interested to see one that either substantiates or disproves my assumption. I don't think we can rule out Mary Eberstadt because she's, well, Mary Eberstadt (it may have been a screed, DC, but unless we can show that she was simply lying about content, I don't think we can reject what she said because we don't like her attitude).
As to the question of demand and bookshelf space, I'll have to think about that. I assumed that stores sell what people want to buy. This post-capitalist twist leaves me puzzled.
DC has the best point, I think, which is that we can't make assumptions about broader probabilities based on the priesthood, where potential perpetrators and victims are overwhelmingly male. I don't think most of the victims were altar boys, though, plus anyone familiar with the Catholic Church knows that priests have ample access to young girls as well as boys (though your point, DC, is well taken -- it is probably the case that access to boys is freer).
DC has the best point, I think, which is that we can't make assumptions about broader probabilities based on the priesthood, where potential perpetrators and victims are overwhelmingly male. I don't think most of the victims were altar boys, though, plus anyone familiar with the Catholic Church knows that priests have ample access to young girls as well as boys (though your point, DC, is well taken -- it is probably the case that access to boys is freer).
I am familiar, in passing, with the Catholic church, having been baptized and confirmed. I also know that some of the cases have involved altar boys (I was using that as the archetypal, or cliched example), but more have problem involved seminarians. Your point about priests' opportunity to molest girls is only partially valid - a priest is comparatively going to find it more difficult to be alone with a girl, than with a boy, simply because males are more plentiful.
Priestly access to girls is going to be similar to the access a school teacher has to girls (which is why you would be willing to place your children under the supervision of a teacher and, perhaps, not under the supervision of male or female (should such an animal exist) boy scout leader.
The other point I wanted to make: it strikes me that sexuality isn't fixed (people are born with tendencies), and that there are likely some priests who prey on boys because they're just sexually aggressive and boys are easy to get. A more extreme example is prison, where the choices are really limited and homosexual sex is (I take it) a common fixture among people who are otherwise heterosexuals.
DC,
Two excellent points. You and Will are making a good case that we should be skeptical that the anecdotal data emerging from the priesthood is evidence of disparate tendencies among homosexuals and heterosexuals.
I still think it is a bad idea to give adults close, unaccompanied access to pubescents and post-pubescents who are members of the sex they find attractive, however, which is my primary reason for opposing homosexual Scout Leaders and Big Brothers.
Will had a great question, which I ignored earlier, namely, does my reasoning lead me to support lesbian troop leaders for Boy Scouts? If I were a non-Christian, and if said lesbian were both handy with a pocket knife and not inclined to view males as a deficient species, and if the parents of the Scouts supported her, then I would also.
These were men who belonged to an all male authority that has contempt for women in that it does not permit them to be in leadership positions. Men who lied about their sexual orientation to everyone in a society that demanded it. Children were the natural prey of individuals who were so twisted. This cannot equate to an out of the closet gay male. Having said that; there is a segment of the homosexual community that justifies preying on children and that is closeted and maried homosexuals. The people you need to fear are living next door and you don't know they're homosexual.
The answer to child rape is prevention education, not finger pointing or religious prevention education which blames the victim and their parents; but secular prevention education which taught about "acquaintance" rape since 1978. And these truths came out of the feminist movement so often derided on these and other pages on the web.
