|
|
|
#1
05-03-2002, 03:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Boy Scouts were right afterall
The Boy Scouts were right afterall
R. Emmett Tyrrell WASHINGTON, D.C.-- If I am accurately perceiving the national controversy over pederasty in the American Roman Catholic Church, I have to conclude that the Boy Scouts of America are vindicated. The only logical conclusion deducible from the media's outrage over revelations of pederasty in the pulpit is that the Boy Scouts' ban against homosexual scout leaders is OK. The vast majority of irregularities reported in the present scandal have been between errant priests and post-pubescent boys. Apparently, the Boy Scouts' wisdom and prudence goes beyond tying knots and putting out forest fires. Maybe now the Boy Scouts will again have access to government facilities and to the largess of such charities as the United Way. It is only a matter of time before the American Catholic Church adopts the same standards for the priesthood that the Boy Scouts have maintained for Scout leaders, despite the criticisms of the politically correct. Soon, if the spirit of reform in the Church continues, every priest in the church will be able to take the Boy Scout oath without winking. Perhaps Scout leaders will soon be admitted to the priesthood, and American intellectuals will begin to speculate on when the Roman Catholic Church will finally select a Boy Scout leader as pope. The last few months' revelations that the Catholic hierarchy covered up for hundreds of priests having sexual relations with perhaps thousands of boys provoked anger all over America. Even liberal forward-lookers are angry, though now they are in the weird position of opposing homosexual priests while favoring homosexual Boy Scout leaders. Embracing such contradiction is for liberals their special art form -- but if it becomes too much a strain, there is a remedy to this contradiction, to wit: Liberals could drop their boycott of the Boy Scouts if the Boy Scouts promise to enlist homosexual priests as Scout leaders. As for the American Catholic Church, its cardinals who recently met in Rome with Pope John Paul II have now adopted a policy for the "dismissal from the clerical state of a priest who has become notorious and is guilty of the serial predatory sexual abuse of minors." That really is not very convincing. For now, Catholic parents intent on religious instruction for their children had best send them to the Boy Scouts, where the young will also learn to identify poison ivy. The church hierarchy bears a heavy responsibility for this scandal -- a scandal that abounds with ironies in a country that is windswept with conflicting notions of sex. Yet the church's teaching on sex, particularly sex in the priesthood, is not ambivalent. The hierarchy has known about certain priests' misbehavior. The errant priests compose a small percentage of the priesthood, but obviously they have acted with an astounding abandon that should have elicited action from the hierarchy years ago. Part of the problem is that the hierarchy is so insulated from normal Americans. In fact, I am not all that clear it is capable of relating to normal Americans. At the expense of sounding crass, let me venture the comparison of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (or any church for that matter) with the faculty of practically any public school system. Both clerics and teachers claim (not without reason) to possess a special expertise. Both claim to be open to the ordinary citizens -- in the case of the church, the faithful; in the case of the teachers, their students' parents. However, in the crunch, both church leaders and teachers follow their own professional interests. Their special expertise inclines them along on that preordained course. Try arguing with a cleric or a teacher about the way either carries out his or her duties. The church's professional interest has been to avoid scandal and to keep as many priests as possible in the parishes. Thus, it has been ignoring a serious problem. The standard it adopted in Rome falls far short of addressing the problem -- "notorious" and "serial" sexual predators are but the worst of a bad lot. Any priest who cannot avoid sexual activity with young men, or for that matter with young women, has already shown himself to be unable to keep his word. Priests vow celibacy. For those who have broken that vow, the church ought to find a suitable monastery or retirement from the clergy. The fact is that many dioceses for many years have been ordaining priests who were unworthy of the calling. I have known morally upright priests who have been objecting to this laxness in the church. Most have been ignored and exiled to remote regions. Now, their warnings have been vindicated. Bring back the vindicated critics, and remember how easily it is for hierarchies to lose touch with their constituents and with their purpose. And take the Boy Scouts' oath without winking. 
|
|
#2
05-03-2002, 11:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I would have to agree they were right, but then I always thought so.
__________________
It is very difficult to post here and not react to TTs lies, CAs hate, the bigotry of Allegra and Princess and the hipocracy of Manu. About to be banned.
|
|
#3
05-03-2002, 04:56 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
being homosexual does not make one a child molester. My thoughts on the Cathloic Priest issue is that they have repressed their sexuality for too long (and probably they chose the priesthood at some level because of their homosexual tendencies) and without other avenues of release have engaged in sex.
Gay Scout leaders don't take an oath of celebacy, they can have sexual relations outside of their duties at scoutleader. I see a major difference in this. Justin
|
|
#4
05-03-2002, 05:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
As a ex-Scout [I quit because I wanted to drink,run around and not be a nerd] I can say bigotry is never right.
The person who wrote this is to my world view a bigot,child abuse has nothing to do with sexual orentation,anyone who says,believes or implies it does is a bigot.
|
|
#5
05-03-2002, 05:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Sorry, thinking homosexuality is immoral is not bigoted. Nor is saying so...nor is excluding gays from a private organization. Child abuse does seem to have some correlation with homosexuality. It is most often an adult male that abuses a male child. That is homosexual pedophilia. Alright? Does that make all homosexuals pedophiles? No, I suppose not. But, I think the Boy Scouts have a responsibility to protect kids from the risk of molestation. I think it is prudent to keep them away from homosexuals. Can you imagine what you'd be saying if homosexuals were allowed to be scout leaders and then one of them molested a boy out in the woods? You'd be criticizing the organization for failing to protect the kid. Right. Also, the Boy Scouts only banned openly homosexual folks from membership. Sexuality of any kind has no place in the Boy Scouts. A heterosexual scout leader who told the boys about how he screwed different women would be kicked out just as fast. Trust me.
__________________
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."
|
|
#6
05-03-2002, 05:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, you knew I was bigot though didn't you? I don't think the bulk of that stuff is pedophilia, but I do think it was homosexual activity. These were teenage boys, young maen pphysically, and I guess if your a homo in close quarters, the temptation is too much.
__________________
It is very difficult to post here and not react to TTs lies, CAs hate, the bigotry of Allegra and Princess and the hipocracy of Manu. About to be banned.
|
|
#7
05-03-2002, 05:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"A Liberal is a person who will give away everything they don't own."
|
|
#8
05-03-2002, 11:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
EVER! when you refer to "abuse" you probably refer to "physical" abuse. which would make it natural that the adult male is the one to "abuse" the male child since the adult male is the more physical of any parenting group (male and female). the female tends to be more emotional. however, what kind of "abuse" are we referring to here? physical? sexual? again, even in sexual cases, the male is generally going to be more domineering because that is how men are in our society. however, that does not mean that women cannot/won't abuse children physically or sexually or emotionally,a nd it does NOT mean that a gay man wants to have sex with every boy around. unrepresented hit the nail on the head: these priests repress EVERY aspect of their sexuality, and it bubbles to the surface in the form of choir boys. if there were large orchestras of choir GIRLS in catholic churches, you would see a severely larger amount of FEMALES being molested. however, it is boys the priests have better access to, and it is boys who are molested. on a side note, my ex girlfriend (now a devoted mother of 3) used to have sex with her parish priest all the way through the age of 16. Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#9
05-03-2002, 11:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#10
05-04-2002, 12:03 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#11
05-04-2002, 12:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well duh, of course it's men abusing boys in the BOY SCOUTS. However, priests have abused women. I'm not sure if you're following the news, but a LOT of women have come out. On the other hand, it's rare that a nun abuses a male or female. Why? Men are recruited at a much younger age than women. I think I've explained this in another thread. If you are repressed at say, 13, you are essentially still a repressed 13 year old even if your body is 40 years old. Not being able to express your sexual emotions and learning how to deal with them is what causes this syndrome. Now, if you're 18 as most of the nuns are when they are recruited, you have had more time to deal with your sexual feelings.
The men are attracted to these boys because essentially, they are a young boy inside. The church has made a move to no longer recruit boys in junior high, and is instead recruiting in high school. I'd rather see them recruit in college, though. A priest was arrested today on charges of sexual molestation in California, and is awaiting extradition to another state. It's about damn time.
__________________
|
|
#12
05-04-2002, 12:57 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
>you seem to forget that when groups of guys get together, they love to talk about cars and women. the second the "narc" is out of the picture, the discussion's about sex. don't be daft.<
daft? a grown man has no business sitting around with a bunch of boys and talking about sex, whether homo or heterosexual. Unless, of course it is a father and a son having a mature discussion about sex. dont be daft. >However, priests have abused women. < Of course, but can you deny that the vast VAAST majority of the sex abuse cases propping up right now in the catholic church are man on boy? >On the other hand, it's rare that a nun abuses a male or female. Why?< Because they are women. women are wound different than men for some reason or a nother. Why are almost all child molestersin general men? why are most serial killers men?
|
|
#13
05-04-2002, 01:10 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
serial killers are almost always single white males. I say we stop these single white males from entering into any private organizations.
Sick serial killing perverts. And as we all know, so long as the BSA's are taking advantage of public finding, they're kinda obliged to follow the rules that the public has set for them. Don't pay for bigotry with my tax dollars, unless it's the good kinda bigotry like killing the elderly. Justin
|
|
#14
05-04-2002, 02:16 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty Pronunciation Key (hm-sksh-l-t, -m-)
n. Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. Sexual activity with another of the same sex. ped·o·phil·i·a Pronunciation Key (pd-fl-, pd-) n. The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children Hey, what do you know? They're not the same thing! If I'm not mistaken, most pedophiles consider themselves heterosexual, so saying that you can have no openly gay scout leaders doesn't really do much. The problem with Catholic priests, having spent 6 years with them in a Catholic school, is that they lead sexually repressed lifestyles and are around almost exclusively young boys. Altar girls are a very new invention, and one that not all churches will allow yet. Furthermore, priests are traditionally used to help young boys rather than young girls (they have nuns for the girls). It's more a matter of convenience that they molest mostly boys - and yes, there are girls who have been molested by priests, too. So take a guy who hasn't had sex in years and years, if ever, and put him around a group of people who he may be able to become close to, on a friendship level, and who he could have a sexual relationship with without, most likely, being found out. It's pretty understandable how it ends up working out in a lot of these cases. How often do you hear about Protestant ministers molesting children? Almost never - they can marry, and they have a much different relationship with the children of their parish. Human beings are sexual creatures. Denying them that sexuality is unnatural, and it's going to cause problems in a lot of cases. These priests may or may not be homosexuals, but I really don't think this is the issue at all. I think the issue is that they are sexually repressed and put into a situation where it's very easy for them to take advantage of children, and it's these things that need to change.
__________________
"I have no regrets. Regret only makes wrinkles." - Sophia Loren
|
|
#15
05-04-2002, 02:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I have a question for you PB. I know you recently had a son. What if in 15 years he discovered that he was gay and told you so. I'm not inferring that he would/will be gay, I'm just very curious what your reaction would be. It's a theoretical situation, so treat it as such. Would you disown him? Still love him but hate his sexuality? Insult him? Change your views? I'm curious . . .
__________________
|
|
#16
05-04-2002, 03:05 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#17
05-04-2002, 10:01 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
>Hey, what do you know? They're not the same thing!
If I'm not mistaken, most pedophiles consider themselves heterosexual, so saying that you can have no openly gay scout leaders doesn't really do much.< This has nothing to do with reality. Children have gender. therefore, if a man is molesting little BOYS, one would have to say that he is indeed a homosexual pedophile. If he is molesting little girls, he would be a hetersexual pediphile. why is it that people freak out when you say "homosexual" and "pedophile" in the same sentance? And who cares if pedophiles consider themselves heterosexual? They can SAY whatever they want, but thier actions speak otherwise.
|
|
#18
05-04-2002, 12:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
most pedophiles who molest little boys have a history of dating women their own age before they go after little boys. there is a whole psychological issue to this that you're not exploring.
|
|
#19
05-04-2002, 01:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
>most pedophiles who molest little boys have a history of dating women their own age before they go after little boys.
there is a whole psychological issue to this that you're not exploring.< If you are actually correct for a change (stranger things have happened I suppose), then perhaps the correct term would be bisexual. I just find it really rather humerous that liberals REFUSE to admit that homsexuals could actually be pedophiles. Why are you people afraid to say those words in the same sentance? Do you think that ONLY heterosexuals are really screwed up enough to be capable of molestation? That someone who ONLY molests young boys is really a closet heterosxual?  Jeff Dhalmer and My Gacey both liked young teenage boys. So where they homosexual or heterosexual?
|
|
#20
05-04-2002, 02:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Obviously there are homosexual pedophiles. AND heterosexual ones.
Meagan's Law: the law that makes community residents aware of sexual offenders that move to their neighborhood. That seems to be named after a female... hmmmm.... Here's the low down... let me spell it out for ya. 1) pedophiles + children = bad. We all seem to agree on that part. 2) All gay men are not pedophiles. Not even the majority. This is a SMALL minority, whose numbers ARE less than heterosexual pedophiles. This is a horrible stereotype that's not based on fact. And is being used as an excuse to justify the removal of a portion of society from the BSA FOR OTHER REASONS, specifically (im)moral objections to the fears of homosexuality being contageous. To exclude an entire group of men for the actions of a SMALL minority is rediculous and unecessary. Especially since these scout leaders obviously have been exposed to the strong and worthwhile morals of the BSA right? 3)Catholic Priests and BSA scout leaders are VERY DIFFERENT positions. When you have an occupation that APPEALS to homosexuals trying to maintain a closeted celebate lifestyle with no opportunity for release you're going to have problems with those repressed feelings popping up. BSA DOES NOT require a vow of chastity to be allowed to be scout leader. Gay men can have fulfilling, sexual relationships OUTSIDE of their duties as scoutleaders, thus theoretically limiting their natural needs to engage in sexual relationships with improper targets. In summation: I do not want pedophiles molesting kids. If all homosexuals were pedophiles then this would be easy. However, openly gay and pedophilia are not coterminus. As MrWrong has pointed out, homoseuxality as a consensual adult sexual inclination and homosexual pedophilia are not going to be from the same origin even if both of them are considered "sexually deviant." I associate pedophilia with rape. Not with consensual sex. RWZ I think you're missing out on what it means to be homosexual vs. what it means to be a child molester. "homosexual pedophilia" is done by "heterosexuals." This may make them "bisexuals" but it still doesn't address the fact that the molester is recognized as heterosexual UP UNTIL HE'S CAUGHT. He could be your child's scout leader, not have any leanings towards consensual homosexual activities, and instead simply wish to molest kids. Yes. It happens. Justin
|
 |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
