A study shows a high correlation between homosexual priests, clerical abuse
Posted on Tuesday, November 06, 2018
Catholic World News
November 02, 2018, at Catholic Culture.
A new study from the Ruth Institute has demonstrated a high correlation between the proportion of homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood and the incidence of sexual abuse by the clergy.
The study conducted by Father Paul Sullins, a Catholic University sociologist, found that the percentage of homosexual men in the priesthood has risen sharply. The study also found a disturbing increase in the number of sexual-misconduct reports lodged against priests since 2010, “amidst signs of complacency by Church leaders.” The incidence of new charges (as opposed to charges involving alleged misconduct in past years) is now nearly as high as in the 1970s.
An earlier study by the John Jay College, commissioned by the US bishops’ conference, had denied a connection between homosexuality and clerical abuse. But the John Jay study had not examined the change in the number of homosexuals entering the priesthood. Father Sullins, using data from the same report, shows a very strong statistical correlation between a rise in the proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood and the number of abuse charges.
The rise in the proportion of homosexual priests has been striking, the Ruth Institute study found. In the 1950s, the homosexual presence within the American Catholic priesthood was estimated to be roughly twice that of the overall population; by the 1980s, it was eight times the level of the overall population. To buttress this estimate, the study notes that the number of young priests who reported encountering a homosexual subculture in the seminary doubled between the 1960s and 1980s.
Father Sullins estimates that if the proportion of homosexual priests had remained that the level of the 1950s, the surge in abuse might not have occurred and “at least 12,000 fewer children, mostly boys, would have suffered abuse.” In an interview with the National Catholic Register, the priest-sociologist acknowledged that his report will be criticized as hostile to homosexuals. But he said: “I would say that if it’s a choice between being called homophobic and allowing more young boys to be abused, I would choose to be at risk for being called homophobic.”
LINK TO REPORT
LINK TO REPORT
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/priest-sociologist-examines-data-on-clergy-sex-abuse
PAT SAYS:
This is a VERY uncomfortable read, especially for gay men and priests.
Is this report based on genuine academic research - or is it the product of a right-wing institute that is homophobic?
Surely we have always held that there is NO CONNECTION between homosexuality and pedophilia.
We have held that a homosexual man or woman is a man or woman that is attracted to adult members of their own sex.
We have also believed, have we not, that a pedophile is a man or a woman who is attracted to underage children of whatever sex?
Professionals like psychiatrists have told us that while pedophilia is a sexual disorder homosexuality is a perfectly normal sexual orientation.
Is the Father Sullins report homophobia dressed up as academia?
Or is it a serious report that we have to address and debate.
In my opinion, Father Sullins is a right-wing Catholic homophobe who tries to hide his homophobia behind his suspect sociology
In my opinion, Father Sullins is a right-wing Catholic homophobe who tries to hide his homophobia behind his suspect sociology
Also:
Remember the expression:
"THERE ARE LIES, DAMN LIES AND STATISTICS"
It is contemporary Catholic priesthood which is aberrant not homosexuality, though, given the Church’s teaching on this and most other areas of sexuality is perverse to say the least, it is understandable that certain Catholic males are drawn to the world of clerical queerdom. As if bang on cue a ludricous account of a trip to Rome appears in the Catholic Herald by Matthew Schmitz. Mathew is thrilled by the booming sales of clerical tat in Gammarelli’s, and displays the riches of lace and watered silk for today’s modern Cardinal. He is greatly heartened by young priests who are determined to demonstrate their fidelity to truth by refusing to give communion to adulterous heterosexuals. I am sure they are, and rest my case.
ReplyDeleteNumbers don't lie. In math we trust.
ReplyDeleteBishop Pat,
ReplyDeleteYou may be interested in this upcoming site
Red Hat Report
I supply the news link
https://www.economist.com/international/2018/11/08/clerical-sexual-abuse-scandals-strengthen-the-popes-conservative-critics
Greetings from Sydney
So why bother printing it?
ReplyDeleteWhat will the gays and lesbians to whom you have ministered think of this? Are they all now to be seen as potential abusers and pedophiles? Do they lack "conjugality", defined as the conjunction of the proper sex organs?
DeleteThere is a very strong connection between homosexuality and pederasty. The DSM 5 states that male men who are attracted to post pubescent boys are invariably of homosexual orientation. You are using the usual media trick in using the incorrect term, paedophilia. As you are aware, the vast majority of clerical sexual abuse victims, 81%, were male and the vast majority of these were post pubescent males. Please see the John Jay Report:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report
Well known homosexualist and senator, David Norris, openly supports pederasty:
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-why-is-norris-now-credible-when-his-view-on-pederasty-is-unchanged-26777130.html
There are also ephebophilic heterosexuals. I'm sure most grown men, at one point or another, have had at least a fleeting fantasy about adolescent girls in school uniform.
DeleteDon't delude yourself, 01:23, sexual attraction isn't as anthropologically correct as you appear to imagine.
In the secular world c. 66% of paedophilic abuse is against females. In the clerical world, 81% of cases of abuse is against teenage boys. We are talking about clerical abuse here MC. Don't try to conflate two separate issues; and please try to refrain from ad hominen insults and try to look at cold hard facts.
DeleteSo you are sure then MC that most heterosexual men have had a "fleeting fantasy about adolescent girls in school uniform"?
DeletePlease present some evidence and facts to corroborate your hypothesis.
10:17, I wasn't trying to conflate anything, but I was challenging the implicit assumption in 01:23's post, that sexual attraction to adolescents is characteristic of homosexuality alone. It most certainly is not.
DeleteAny heterosexual male who denies finding sexually attractive, for example, sixteen-year-old females is a barefaced liar. He won't, of course, normally admit to such an attraction for fear of breaching a social taboo and of being labelled a sexual deviant ('a pervert').
Sexual attraction is determinded through biology, not through religious, legal, or social norms. These may set (or attempt to set) boundaries on what sexual behaviours are acceptable, but the urge to these is entirely natural.
We need to have an open and honest discussion about this aspect of human nature rather than continue living in denial of it.
10:22, as you might expect, evidence for this is largely anecdotal. Men will not admit to such attraction, because it is socially taboo.
Delete“Magna Carta” composite at 09:52 - hmmmm. One of the multiple personalities you author is obviously an ephebophile with a “thing” for slim, blue-eyed, blonde boys. Or maybe it’s the “creator”/“controller” of the “composite” himself?
DeleteMC, please assess and comment on the blog instead of employing red herrings and unproven hypotheses.
DeleteIt appears to me time and time again that you either deliberately or naturally misapprehend blog subject matter and comments in that many of your responses are completely irrelevant and biased.
I've looked through my copy of the DSM-5 and there is nothing in there coming anywhere near the claim "that male men who are attracted to post pubescent boys are invariably of homosexual orientation." The DSM-5 simply does not say that.
DeleteI did comment on the blog, 13:49, a number of times now.
DeleteStop being childish and address my points.
You have not read DSM-5 13:49 and are a liar.
Delete@16:43 - Here's the entire entry on Pedophilic Disorder from the DSM-5. Am I still a liar? (post 1/3)
Delete(p. 697) Pedophilic Disorder 302.2 (F65.4)
Diagnostic Criteria:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The individual has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The individual is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual
relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.
Specify whether:
Exclusive type (attracted only to children)
Nonexclusive type
(p. 698) Specify if:
Sexually attracted to males
Sexually attracted to females
Sexually attracted to both
Specify if:
Limited to incest
Diagnostic Features
The diagnostic criteria for pedophilic disorder are intended to apply both to individuals who freely disclose this paraphilia and to individuals who deny any sexual attraction to prepubertal children (generally age 13 years or younger), despite substantial objective evidence to the contrary. Examples of disclosing this paraphilia include candidly acknowledging an intense sexual interest in children and indicating that sexual interest in children is greater than or equal to sexual interest in physically mature individuals. If individuals also complain that their sexual attractions or preferences for children are causing psychosocial difficulties, they may be diagnosed
with pedophilic disorder. However, if they report an absence of feelings of guilt,
shame, or anxiety about these impulses and are not functionally limited by their paraphilic impulses (according to self-report, objective assessment, or both), and their self-reported and legally recorded histories indicate that they have never acted on their impulses, then these individuals have a pedophilic sexual interest but not pedophilic disorder. Examples of individuals who deny attraction to children include individuals who are known to have sexually approached multiple children on separate occasions but who deny any urges or fantasies about sexual behavior involving children, and who may further claim that the known episodes of physical contact were all unintentional and nonsexual. Other individuals may acknowledge past episodes of sexual behavior involving children but deny any significant or sustained sexual interest in children. Since these individuals may deny experiences impulses or fantasies involving children, they may also deny feeling subjectively distressed. Such individuals may still be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder despite the absence of self-reported distress, provided that there is evidence of recurrent behaviors persisting for 6 months (Criterion A) and evidence that the individual has acted on sexual urges or experienced
interpersonal difficulties as a consequence of the disorder (Criterion B). Presence of multiple victims, as discussed above, is sufficient but not necessary for diagnosis; that is, the individual can still meet Criterion A by merely acknowledging intense or preferential sexual interest in children.
The Criterion A clause, indicating that the signs or symptoms of pedophilia have persisted for 6 months or longer, is intended to ensure that the sexual attraction to children is not merely transient. However, the diagnosis may be made if there is clinical evidence of sustained persistence of the sexual attraction to children even if the 6-month duration cannot be precisely determined.
Associated Features Supporting Diagnosis
The extensive use of pornography depicting prepubescent children is a useful diagnostic indicator of pedophilic disorder. This is a specific instance of the general case that individuals are likely to choose the kind of pornography that corresponds to their sexual interests.
(Post 2/3)
DeletePrevalence
The population prevalence of pedophilic disorder is unknown. The highest possible prevalence for pedophilic disorder in the male population is approximately 3%–5%. The population prevalence of pedophilic disorder in females is even more uncertain, but it is likely a small fraction of the prevalence in males.
(p. 699)
Development and Course
Adult males with pedophilic disorder may indicate that they become aware of strong or preferential sexual interest in children around the time of puberty—the same time frame in which males who later prefer physically mature partners became aware of their sexual interest in women or men. Attempting to diagnose pedophilic disorder at the age at which it first manifests is problematic because of the difficulty during adolescent development in differentiating it from age-appropriate sexual interest in peers or from sexual curiosity. Hence, Criterion C requires for diagnosis a minimum age of 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Pedophilia per se appears to be a lifelong condition. Pedophilic disorder, however,
necessarily includes other elements that may change over time with or without treatment: subjective distress (e.g., guilt, shame, intense sexual frustration, or feelings of isolation) or psychosocial impairment, or the propensity to act out sexually with children, or both. Therefore, the course of pedophilic disorder may fluctuate, increase, or decrease with age.
Adults with pedophilic disorder may report an awareness of sexual interest in children
that preceded engaging in sexual behavior involving children or self-identification as a pedophile. Advanced age is as likely to similarly diminish the frequency of sexual behavior involving children as it does other paraphilically motivated and normophilic sexual behavior.
Risk and Prognostic Factors
Temperamental. There appears to be an interaction between pedophilia and antisociality, such that males with both traits are more likely to act out sexually with children. Thus, antisocial personality disorder may be considered a risk factor for pedophilic disorder in males with pedophilia.
Environmental. Adult males with pedophilia often report that they were sexually abused as children. It is unclear, however, whether this correlation reflects a causal influence of childhood sexual abuse on adult pedophilia.
Genetic and physiological. Since pedophilia is a necessary condition for pedophilic disorder, any factor that increases the probability of pedophilia also increases the risk of pedophilic disorder. There is some evidence that neurodevelopmental perturbation in utero increases the probability of development of a pedophilic interest.
Gender-Related Diagnostic Issues
Psychophysiological laboratory measures of sexual interest, which are sometimes useful in diagnosing pedophilic disorder in males, are not necessarily useful in diagnosing this disorder in females, even when an identical procedure (e.g., viewing time) or analogous procedures (e.g., penile plethysmography and vaginal photoplethysmography) are available.
Diagnostic Markers
Psychophysiological measures of sexual interest may sometimes be useful when an individual’s history suggests the possible presence of pedophilic disorder but the individual denies strong or preferential attraction to children. The most thoroughly researched and longest used of such measures is penile plethysmography, although the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis may vary from one site to another. Viewing time, using photographs of nude or minimally clothed persons as visual stimuli, is also used to diagnose pedophilic disorder, especially in combination with self-report measures. Mental health professionals in the United States, however, should be aware that possession of such visual stimuli, even for diagnostic purposes, may violate American law regarding possession of child pornography and leave the mental health professional susceptible to criminal prosecution.
(post 3/3)
Delete(p. 700)
Differential Diagnosis
Many of the conditions that could be differential diagnoses for pedophilic disorder also sometimes occur as comorbid diagnoses. It is therefore generally necessary to evaluate the evidence for pedophilic disorder and other possible conditions as separate questions. Antisocial personality disorder. This disorder increases the likelihood that a person who is primarily attracted to the mature physique will approach a child, on one or a few occasions, on the basis of relative availability. The individual often shows other signs of this personality disorder, such as recurrent law-breaking. Alcohol and substance use disorders. The disinhibiting effects of intoxication may also increase the likelihood that a person who is primarily attracted to the mature physique will sexually approach a child. Obsessive-compulsive disorder. There are occasional individuals who complain about ego-dystonic thoughts and worries about possible attraction to children. Clinical interviewing usually reveals an absence of sexual thoughts about children during high states of sexual arousal (e.g., approaching orgasm during masturbation) and sometimes additional ego-dystonic, intrusive sexual ideas (e.g., concerns about homosexuality).
Comorbidity
Psychiatric comorbidity of pedophilic disorder includes substance use disorders; depressive, bipolar, and anxiety disorders; antisocial personality disorder; and other paraphilic disorders. However, findings on comorbid disorders are largely among individuals convicted for sexual offenses involving children (almost all males) and may not be generalizable to other individuals with pedophilic disorder (e.g., individuals who have never approached a child sexually but who qualify for the diagnosis of pedophilic disorder on the basis of subjective distress).
Post pubescent you idiot not paedophilic. Learn to read first before you start trying to quote the DSM - 5.
DeleteEphebophilia/post-pubescent abuse isn't listed in the DSM-5. Pedophilic disorder is the only comparable disorder listed, which is why I quoted it in full. I think we can safely say that it's you that hasn't read the DSM-5 as you don't seem to know what's in it. By the way, homosexuality is only mentioned a handful of times within the DSM-5, and none of them relate in any way to the original claim that the DSM-5 linked homosexuality with post-pubescent sexual abuse. I suggest you check your sources next time you claim something.
DeleteNone of these so-called 'studies' explains (or even attempts to explain) why so many allegedly homosexual men (How is their orientation determined in the absence of personal admissions? By how much they mince, or sibilate?) are attracted to Roman Catholic priesthood now rather than in the past.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a consensus nowadays that these men have liturgical preference for baroque ritual and dress. Surely, then, there would have been greater numbers of homosexual clergy BEFORE the Second Vatican Council than now, when these features were commonplace rather than the exception.
It is my opinion that the percentage of homosexual priests was as great (perhaps greater) before the Second Vatican Council. I know that this goes against the grain of Richard Sipes research, but appropriately so, since homosexual opportunism in the Church in this period was obviously, and demonstrably, higher. However, so, too, was the ability to maintain secrecy by an autoritarian church in an age without the intrusive character of social media.
Bishop Pat, did the priest in the video address an audience of statisticians, or non-statisticians?
ReplyDeleteI was trained in statistical mathematics, and I know that anyone else could not understand the jargon he is using.
Yeah right, pull the other one about being trained in statistical mathematics. You can't even manage basic arithmetic you clown.
DeleteOh really, Fr “Magna Carta”/Caca? Which one of your imaginary personalities was that then? And where did he train in your fictional world? LOL
DeleteIf there is one topic we cannot trust the church on it is sex. Even church academics are slanted by the dysfunctional base formation.
ReplyDeleteThe priesthood always attracted abusers for some reason, the priesthood is attracting more gay people now therefore more clerical abusers are gay. The problem isn't a person's sexual orientation the problem lies within the church which appears to attract sexual deviants and condone their behaviour.
ReplyDeleteThe truth of todays blog is revolting however it will set someone free to roam altars down in cork
ReplyDeleteWhat is termed “pedophilia” is often actually ephebophilia (from the Greek word ‘ephebe’ for a young ‘cadet’).
ReplyDeleteIt may be unpalatable and uncomfortable for some to hear but the vast majority of clerical sexual abusers have targeted teenage boys and young men.
In the homosexual world, men who are attracted to adolescent boys - and males who look young - are called “chicken hawks” - a telling phrase.
There is also another term - “twink” - used in “gay” parlance to denote a “desirable” young male of specific looks - ie “boyishly handsome”/youthful, etc.
Such gravely disordered lusts are tragically at the heart of the scandals which have so grievously harmed the priesthood and the Church.
Among Catholic clerics, this type of deviant behaviour is a grotesque abuse of power, authority and position. It is a disgraceful betrayal of trust. It is mortally sinful and profoundly immoral.
Fr Sullins’ research, therefore, cannot be lightly dismissed as it is supported by other research such as the John Jay Report.
There can be no place in the priesthood for those who would use the sacred trust placed in them, by God and His people, to prey upon young males - in parishes, schools, seminaries, or any place whatsoever.
We need integrated and holy priests, regardless of their sexual orientation. The devastating falsehood abroad is that men are unable to, don’t need to, or should not have to, control their sexual desires.
The damage is being done by predatory men who should never have been ordained. These men have no intention (or perhaps they are incapable) of controlling and regulating their desires according to God’s standards required of every Christian.
The suffering and harm, caused by these predators in priestly and episcopal garb, is integral to this terrible crisis in the Church. It is a desolating sacrilege that they have perpetrated against the Body of Christ.
11:34, it may be uncomfortable for EVERYone of us (whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual) to accept that sexual attraction to adolescents (or young adults) is a commonplace of ALL sexual orientations. But social taboo (and the consequences for breacing it) prevent people from being honest and open about their sexual attractions. Sexual attraction is natural; it is social, legal, or religious norms that label acting upon such attractions, even if consensual, as deviant behaviour.
DeleteTo single out homosexuals, as you have done, is not only dishonest, but unjust.
The John Jay report makes clear the link between sexuak abuse by Roman Catholic priests and the greater opportunities for with adolescents rather than any causal connection to homosexuality itself.
Dear MC, in case you haven't noticed - we are discussing the CLERICAL sex abuse crisis AND NOT sexual attractions in general.
DeleteMC, So males attracted to other males constitutes no causal connection to homosexuality? Let's be completely clear about this: no heterosexual male would ever sexually abuse a male whether he be a minor, teenager or a young adult.
DeleteFr Sullins has correctly pointed out the wrong conclusions formed by the John Jay Report.
@13:13, climb down of your bloody high horse, for crying out loud! We are considering here the context of the clerical sexual abuse crisis in the Church.
DeleteNothing at all “dishonest” or “unjust” about 11:34’s perfectly reasonable comments, in view of the sexual abuse of mainly young males, by clerical predators.
I really believe that you, sir(s), are absolutely addicted to your own contrariness and hubris. You would argue that a black crow was white wouldn’t you? Fool.
In addition to the commonplace nature of attraction to adolescents on the part of adults is the reverse attraction, which David Norris drew to our attention. For a while it looked as if the age barrier was not a big deal (and it was in this period that clerical seduction of minors reached its apex) but there was a fired clampdown from the Law and gays, including gay clergy, wised up about the dangers of "jail bait." We need to stop the demonizing.
Delete14.39 and others: you are excusing the rape of young men and boys by priests as natural? Seriously? You are saying that they were asking for it? That the only reason not to do it is because you might get into trouble with the law?! You lot are SERIOUSLY disturbed. There is pure evil at play here.
DeleteWill you clarify 14.39 that you are approving of male adult rape of young men, save for it being presently illegal?
13:53, 'sexual attractions in general' are indeed relevant to the subject-matter today, because they rightly contextualise the sexual phenomenon under discussion (largely, ephebophilia among Roman Catholic clergy) to human nature itself, not to a sexual orientation.
DeleteEphebophilia cuts across the sexual spectrum: it affects ALL sexual orientations. Therefore, to single out homosexuality as the exclusive locus of this is faux psychology.
14:01, read my post again, more carefully this time. It is not I, but the John Jay report that makes no causal connection between the sexual abuse of adolescents by priests and homosexuality as an orientation.
DeleteYou are very sure of sexual categories, aren't you? A heterosexual male, for example, is just that: heterosexual. Always. Can you really be sure? Freud himself believed that every person was naturally bisexual, a conclusion that was not, at the time, socially acceptable. It still isn't, largely, I suspect, because people are too self-preserving to be honest about their sexual attractions.
The rigid, sexual classification (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual...and never the twain shall meet) is a social construct, not a natural one, reinforced by biblical and religious mores.
15:45, if you are alluding to me, then know that I excused no such thing. I was speaking of sexual attraction, not of sexual abuse.
DeleteMark my words. The next thing that the insatiable Homolobby will be pushing to legalize is pederasty. Irish society is fixed on a downward spiral that will terminate in disaster unless people wake up to what is happening. The Irish church is dead and sterile just like Dante's depiction of unrepentant homosexuals suffering in a dry barren desert in Hell. In order to determine the cause of the destruction of the Faith in Ireland just work back from the effects.
DeleteAh, 17:04! But just what are the effects? Your answer will differ from mine, and both will differ from the next fellow's.
DeleteEach person's response, like your transparent homophobic one, will be ideologically driven, and truth will be overlooked in a zeal to show vindictiveness to those perceived responsible.
Mark your words? I might, if they meant something.
The effects are spiritually dead active homosexual priests obstinately committing a sin which cries out to Heaven for vengeance. Hence why the Irish church is currently experiencing such a state of sterility, acedia and lack of missionary zeal. Of course, MC, you can not recognise this malaise because you are as spiritually blind as these perverted clerics.
DeleteMagna darling, why was it you insisted on calling your pet rat 'Kinsey'?
DeleteMommie Dearest, I've often wondered that. Perhaps it was my precocious intuition which had my thoughts rhyme with those of the good doctor.
DeleteThis, and the devilment in me to stir you-know-what. 😆
Does anybody know of any document issued by the Vatican or episcopate anywhere in the Catholic world outlining a pastoral approach and or response to victims of clerical CSA?
ReplyDeleteThe priesthood attracted more abusers because they knew they had a better chance of getting away with it. Equating homosexuality with abuse is pure and utter claptrap.
ReplyDeleteKeep telling yourself that gorgeous
Delete17.04 I think they tried to set one up in the
ReplyDeleteUK in the 1970s. I think it was called Paedophile Information Exchange.They claimed that sex between children and adults was good. The liberals dithered.I think it was brought to a head when a group of working class grannies in based the meeting and told them what they thought of them.
Pat Mullaney in the Roost pub a few drinks in her offering you a fair dig up the Graf noon tomorrow
ReplyDeleteD ya know this story has been around the block many times in one way or another. I'm sure many sensible people believe that abuse is linked to sexual orientation is for
ReplyDeletethe most part rubbish. Hi com'ere hi. Much of the stuff on here is about wrongdoing in the church. I see a fair bit of social awareness on here in one way or another. Should the blog not regroup to a movement which tackles injustice in general. Go beyond the church hi and compare and contrast how other groups deal with bullying and unfair advantage of one sort or tother. Join with other activists in the hope that all will come to see the face of Christ. It appears th odd wan on here mite b sufferin from poor I sight