I'm sick of hearing that "we should let priests be married so they won't commit sɛҳuąƖ abuse" argument.

If it was just sɛҳuąƖ frustration, there wouldn't be such a strong ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ element to it.

I was a (healthy) single guy for *many years*. I never had the temptation to be with a man OR boy. Young women -- that's a different story. That attraction never goes away -- in fact, the saints remind us that most will have an attraction *until death* for the opposite sex. There's no age at which sɛҳuąƖ urges magically go away.

I was also a seminarian for over 3 years. The only time I ever had to "practice custody of the eyes" etc. was when I was around an attractive young woman. I didn't have to avert my eyes from altar boys or any males.

The fact is that the media keeps the facts hidden -- most of this so-called "sɛҳuąƖ abuse" in the Church is man-on-boy.

It has nothing to do with priests being celibate, and everything to do with the crypto-network of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs in the Novus Ordo establishment.

I don't think this is true of Archbishop Dolan.  I think he is just an idiot.

So how would one go about to adequately refute this:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gαys-anatomy/200809/ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity-and-pedophilia-the-false-link

Q: I've heard therapists say that a male adult who sɛҳuąƖly abuses a boy isn't necessarily ‘ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.' This seems confusing: If he isn't ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, then why would he sɛҳuąƖly molest boys, instead of girls?

This is a very good question, and there are several ways to respond to it. First, we need to clarify our definitions. When discussing sɛҳuąƖ abuse and molestation of children, there's often conflict over terminology. One frequently quoted researchers on the topic of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and child molestation, Gregory Herek, a research psychologist at the University of California, defines pedophilia as "a psychosɛҳuąƖ disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sɛҳuąƖ partners, which may or may not be acted upon." He defines child sɛҳuąƖ abuse as "actual sɛҳuąƖ contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent." Not all pedophiles actually molest children, he points out. A pedophile may be attracted to children, but never actually engage in sɛҳuąƖ contact with them. Quite often, pedophiles never develop a sɛҳuąƖ orientation toward other adults.....


I have an idea of what 'I' would say, in response. But what would you say? Thanks!

....Sodomites make up about one point five percent of the population, and a substantially large proportion of them have preyed upon minors at one point in their lives...

Yes!

The buggery enthusiasts are very proud of their factoid that "most child abusers are heterosɛҳuąƖ."

Piercing the factoid: the 1% of the population that is queer, molests about 49% of the known victims.  That means the average pervert is about 50 times more dangerous to children than the average normal person.

The ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖist Dolan's factoid is similarly flawed.  The minuscule fraction of the population that are "Catholic" priests account for an enormously disproportionate percentage of child rape.

Diego-
do you have a source for this, or remember where you read it?

the 1% of the population that is queer, molests about 49% of the known victims.

There are many men who commit incest and molest young girls.  

How is it possible, then, that this happens so rarely in the Novus Ordo and that these priests are almost always chicken hawks?

Only the most insipid political correctness could make anyone believe that these "priests" being married would cure their ills. The truth, as Matthew said, is that there is a pedophile network in the Novus Ordo.  One pedophile becomes head of a seminary, guess what happens?  He admits others who are like him, and blocks out the non-effeminate men.  Goodbye, good men.  Like attracts like.  We all know that gαys use various signs and signals by which they recognize each other, like they flip up the tongues of their shoes or put a flag in their back pocket or whatever.  They know.  

If the problem were celibacy in itself, a much better argument in favor of married priests would be the concubine epidemic in the Middle Ages.  Yet no one made the argument then; at least no one I've heard of.  This was when many priests had live-in female lovers.

Hmmm...  In the Middle Ages, the priests were comitting sin with women...  Now they are ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ pedophiles... Something tells me this isn't about the rigors of celibacy.  If they were heterosɛҳuąƖs struggling with celibacy, they would have female lovers, they wouldn't be preying on boys.

So how would one go about to adequately refute this:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/gαys-anatomy/200809/ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity-and-pedophilia-the-false-link

Q: I've heard therapists say that a male adult who sɛҳuąƖly abuses a boy isn't necessarily ‘ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.' This seems confusing: If he isn't ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, then why would he sɛҳuąƖly molest boys, instead of girls?

This is a very good question, and there are several ways to respond to it. First, we need to clarify our definitions. When discussing sɛҳuąƖ abuse and molestation of children, there's often conflict over terminology. One frequently quoted researchers on the topic of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and child molestation, Gregory Herek, a research psychologist at the University of California, defines pedophilia as "a psychosɛҳuąƖ disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sɛҳuąƖ partners, which may or may not be acted upon." He defines child sɛҳuąƖ abuse as "actual sɛҳuąƖ contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent." Not all pedophiles actually molest children, he points out. A pedophile may be attracted to children, but never actually engage in sɛҳuąƖ contact with them. Quite often, pedophiles never develop a sɛҳuąƖ orientation toward other adults.....


I have an idea of what 'I' would say, in response. But what would you say? Thanks!

Someone who preys on prepubescent children is different from ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs who prey on sɛҳuąƖly mature adolescents and children.

Pedophiles are far rarer than ephebophiles, but don't rule out the deomonic in either case.