Monday, April 12, 2010

Incomplete Analysis of Gay Scout or Gay Priest Issue = "Lying"

Years ago, when The Philadelphia Inquirer first began to rail against priests molesting young men and boys, Inquirer articles would persistently call the priests "pedophiles." One would always see the word "pedophiles" 10 or 20 times in any given article -- but never, ever the word "homosexuals."

Finally, the Inquirer began to (a) criticize the Catholic Church for "pedophile priests," AT THE SAME TIME it (b) criticized the Catholic Church for adopting a policy of banning "homosexuals" from the seminary.

I thought, "That's it! I'm sick of this!"

I e-mailed the writer of an article criticizing "pedophile priests," telling him that pedophiles prefer female victims 9-to-1, whereas the guilty priests clearly preferred male victims 9-to-1, which made it 9 x 9 or 81 times more likely that the average priest WASN'T a "pedophile," but simply "gay" -- a homosexual. I cited him two on-line investigations verifying that the priest who was the subject of the writer's most recent article was "doing" an ADULT male while he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what that is called? That is called 'homosexual.'" I then pointed-out ANOTHER prominent case where investigation showed that the priest offender was "doing" ADULT males WHILE he "did" juvenile males, and I said, "Do you know what you'll find if you investigate every priest? You'll find that virtually ALL of them are simply homosexual.

"So," I continued, "When the Inquirer runs articles CRITICIZING the Church for banning homosexuals from the seminaries, and then CRITICIZES the existence of 'pedophile priests,' it is really telling the Catholic Church to go 'north' and 'south' at the same time."

The Inquirer article writer responded, "Gee! Good point! I never thought of that!," and then he continued calling offender priests "pedophiles" without ever mentioning the word "homosexuals" or "homosexual conduct" in future articles.

The Court system is in on the contradiction, too, in the case of Boy Scouts of America.

Both the media and the courts also go after the Boy Scouts from both ends of the issue.

Suppose the Scouts were to announce a policy of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts in the same tents at night during camping trips.

The country would justifiably go wild. People would ask, in anger, "Have they flipped? Are they crazy?"

Simple question: Why isn't knowingly putting a gay boy or a gay Scout leader in the same tent with another male THE EXACT SAME THING?

There's good evidence that putting gays in tents with other males is even worse than mixing boys and girls in tents. Various studies have found that male homosexuals are enormously promiscuous. A 2004 University of Chicago study recorded a promiscuity problem that was so bad that "chaste" was defined as "15 partners or less." Only 12.3% of those questioned had had 15 partners or less. 60% had had more than 30 partners. More than 40% had had more than 60 partners. Sex with 60 people of the same gender.

One psychologist proposed that male-male sex involved "two grazers," whereas male-female sex involved "one grazer and one person seeking a stable relationship."

The media and the courts, after they support lawsuits against the Boy Scouts for "bias against gays," support lawsuits for sexual molestation of boys and young men in the Scouts, the same way they go after the Church on this.

The American media, and the courts, need to get their policies straight.

Even this morning, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article criticizing the Boy Scouts for feeding into bias against homosexuals, but, as usual, says nothing -- not a single word -- about the problem of mixing heterosexuals and promiscuity-prone effeminate males in the same tents.

Right now, when the media and the courts refuse to talk about male homosexual promiscuity, and support infusion of homosexuals into the position of priest or Scout leaders or Scouts, in effect they are lying, lying, lying, lying, lying.

Stop the lying.


  1. Well, I have to step in here. Don't know if I'm objecting to what you are saying or are not saying.

    I already stated in a prior posting that the celibacy vow acts as a filter/intensifier for aberant behavior.

    You are living in a society that now pretty much says its OK to be 'gay'.

    You belong to a church that said (past tense)'Gay, thats ok, you can still be a priest'

    Pedophile = someone who wants to do it with a child. Granted, someone who is 16, or even 15, you would think wouldn't quite qualify, but by definition, they do, and folks are using that qualification. But there are lots of 10 year olds exposed to the same behavior too).

    Next, I think the alter boy was the main morsel out there. IT presents a crime of opportunity. I think the priests would most easily find/arrange to be alone with an alter boy. This stock has been, of course, primarily male until lat 1990s (perhaps a bit before that). The 'scandal' was hidden for many decades. One would wonder at which would be the victim of choice if, lets say, our church for the past 100 years chose to have only alter girls as alter servers. Wow, I wish they went that direction, this whole situation wouldn't have come up. or at least, the priests would have to find their victims through other means, and we know that the alter girls would go largely untouched.

    I'm not buying it.

    Alter boys. Boys in boys schools staffed by priests . . . even in co-ed schools where priests handled the boys, nuns for the girls.
    The boys were the BIGGEST opportunity.

    I think the stats will be slanted in that direction.

    But, to repeat myself, what if things were different.

    I hear you on the 60 partners thing. But,
    to develop a taste for children (up to 16 lets say) is a bit more on the 'aberant' behavior problem rather than just homosexuality.

    The Aberent crowd is the crowd I was speaking of in prior post response on same topic (different post). The priests just kept the
    priests coming in to fill their 100 positions. 75 heterosexual men (no aberant behavior problem) 20 gay men (no aberant behavior other than being gay, as I am sure you include them in the aberant column) and those who are REALLY aberant, and are doing these deeds. What ever group they belong to (gay or heterosexual) they do the group they might claim to belong a great dishonor.

    IT is aberant behavior.

    Because this is a crime of opportunity, and, because the overwhelming opportunity was young males, pre-teen/tween,13 - 15 year old) that is the victim that is going to be consumed

    The statistics that are our there are warped by this fact.

    I truly don't know if the crime stats would suddenly drop to nothing if indeed we did have ONLY altergirls ages 7 to 15, and priests only handled the girls schools. I'm placing my bets, that the numbers would be about the same, and the crowd committing the crime would be 80% the same.

  2. Hi, Tom.

    I'll talk about your comments at length, but over time.

    I saw one study of the same group counted by the Bishops.

    83% of the victims were "pubescent" -- they had sex characteristics such as crotch and armpit hair, and adult sweat, normally avoided by those classified as "pedophiles" by psychologists.

    And 90% of the victims were male, Tom.

    The wrongdoers are gay, Tom.

    Do you know why the Church decided to ban gays from the priesthood beginning about a decade ago? In one article I read that they have an "airtight" source -- the confessional.

    Without "breaking the seal" by naming names, pastors could report to their bishops, who could report to the pope, that the wrongdoers are almost all "gay." It's simple.

    Additionally, they have another unimpeachable source: The wrongdoers' psychologists. Many of the priest offenders were ordered to attend psychological counseling as part of the follow-up process, with reports going to the local bishops.

    The reports all said the same thing, except in rare cases: Gay.

    Believe it or not, I was asked to investigate 2 priests who did 3 sexual assaults.

    Both priests were gay.

    They're gay, Tom.

    In my discussions with the Chancellor, he agreed -- about one-third of priests are gay (there's your "filtering") but the wrongdoers are almost all from that group.

    It's a gay problem.

  3. Here's a case in the Camden Diocese that does involve a "victim of convenience," but it also involve a gay priest who "did" the kid, BEGINNING AT 15 YEARS OF AGE UNTIL THE KID WAS A 27 YEAR OLD MAN...

    'Stephen Palo said he cannot erase the image of his first sexual experience from his memory:

    'Awakening from a sound sleep in the bedroom of his Blackwood home, 12-year- old Stephen Palo looks down and finds his parish priest massaging his genitals. Soon the priest begins oral sex.

    '"I pushed away," Palo, now 31, said in a recent interview. "I pulled the covers up to my neck. I felt like I was in the corner of the wall, apart from myself, just looking at it."

    'Thus began what Palo said was a 15-year relationship of routine sexual contact between Palo, an altar boy, and the Rev. Joseph Shannon, who directed the altar boy group at St. Anthony of Padua Roman Catholic Church in Camden.'

  4. Here's another one...

    'Among those coping with the aftermath of Shanley's abuse is Austin, who said he first met Shanley in 1968 at the St. Francis rectory to talk about his breakup with his first gay lover. Shanley made ''peculiar'' inquiries, Austin said, about his genitalia and the details of his homosexual experiences.

    '''Even as emotionally distraught as I was, I remember thinking that they were very strange questions,'' Austin said. ''But he was a priest, and I thought it was something he needed to know. Otherwise, why would he ask? I know how stupidly naive that must sound, but it's true.''

    'Austin said Shanley offered him ''access to his body'' to help heal the hurt of his breakup, and told him he would shoulder the ''moral responsibility'' of the offer. The next day, Shanley drove Austin to the cabin in Canton, where Austin said Shanley molested him.

    'After that first episode, ''I basically became Paul's sex slave,'' Austin said. ''When he wanted me to service him, he'd call me up and tell me he was going to come pick me up.''

    'As the relationship continued, Austin said he grew more confused and distraught. He broke off contact with Shanley when he was 26, but fell into a depression he says he continues to battle.'

    No doubt about it -- gay.

    Every time an organization researches one of the priest wrongdoers' relationships carefully, they start bumping into adult males.

  5. The German priest, Fr. Peter Hullermann, whom Ratzinger sent to a Munich parish without restriction before Ratzinger became pope, was seeing a psychiatrist who asked Ratzinger to give Ft. Hullermann a job like teaching theology to GIRLS. I.e., he was so gay that he was unsafe around males.


  6. If you dig, Tom, you'll find them doing adults, too, nearly every single time.

  7. OK, here we go. I thought I covered most of these bases.

    The focus of pedophilia is sexual activity with a child. Many courts interpret this reference to age to mean children under the age of 18. Most mental health professionals, however, confine the definition of pedophilia to sexual activity with prepubescent children, who are generally age 13 or younger. The term ephebophilia, derived from the Greek word for "youth," is sometimes used to describe sexual interest in young people in the first stages of puberty.
    (above from

    My main point is this part 'Many courts interpret this reference to age to mean children under the age of 18'

    And this part, which is in the mix, another aberant disorder that is just getting lumped in
    'The term ephebophilia, derived from the Greek word for "youth," is sometimes used to describe sexual interest in young people in the first stages of puberty.'

    Thats how they are getting away with the use of the term pedophilia.

    The above is why I put in my qualifying statement: Granted, someone who is 16, or even 15, you would think wouldn't quite qualify

    My main line of thinking is that the qualifications, celibacy, left a void. They wanted priests in numbers and the standard heterosexual stock didn't fill the population in the same ratios as they exists in general population.

    Now, lets set asside the gay thing for just a moment. I take it back. Lets not. Can a gay man suffer from one of these two disorders?

    If some gay man wants to take up relations with a 15 year old boy getting his hair, sweat yada yada yada, can we not term that ephebophilia?

    Or has the presence of 'gay' disorder override that. Perhaps its a contributing factor. Perhaps ephebophilia in heterosexual male is not present or acted on except in .001 percent and due to the structure of the 'sexual disorder' of homosexuality, ephebophilia occurs in 5 percent of the gay population. Its still ephebophilia and pedophilia ( by the stretched out use of the term by the courts and news agencies).

    The people filling these positions and then committing these acts are sharks!. They may not have planned things out this way, but once the door was open, they were sharks.

    I'm telling you, I brought up the 'crimes of opportunity' subject and the thought of, what if that crime of opportunity really was different over the past 75 years, the church completely left its senses and made sure all these male priests were taking care of 10 to 16 year old girls.


    Just a totally different class of shark, looking for a different kind of meal.

    If you grow a lawn and you go to a field to get some supplemental soil, and in that field are many dandelions, why act so surprised when dandelions pop up in your field of grass?

    My point being, the church didn't totally loose their senses and put the priests in charge of the girls. But they did loose their senses and filled in the missing 25 slots with something out of balance with the general population ratios.

    They went to the field and got dandelion soil. And the dandelions sprouted like mad in the 1950s . . . 80s.

  8. SHARKS!!!

    Just a totally different class of shark, looking for a different kind of meal.

    If you grow a lawn and you go to a field to get some supplemental soil, and in that field are many dandelions, why act so surprised when dandelions pop up in your field of grass?

    My point being, the church didn't totally loose their senses and put the priests in charge of the girls. But they did loose their senses and filled in the missing 25 slots with something out of balance with the general population ratios.

    They went to the field and got dandelion soil. And the dandelions sprouted like mad in the 1950s . . . 80s.

    Sharks!! lots of sharks. BUT the type of shark was defined by the type of blood it smelled, the type of victim that was made available. The kind of opportunity defined by the church that made the crime of opportunity available.

    Its easy to yell GAY GAY GAY.

    AND,darn it, on top of that, that really is the way it really played out.

    BUT, it could have gone several ways. This is just the most likely. As I've said, they haven't totally lost their minds and gone a different direction (priests/girls).

    So, there we have it. Like it or not, courts/news outlets class this all under pedophilia. Like it or not, celibacy acted as a magnifier/concentrator of aberrants.
    Like it or not, the country that you live in says its OK to be gay. Like it or not, the church you partake in said that its OK to be gay, just don't act on it, and you can even be a priest, just don't act on those urges, and here are your alterboys or the boys in the boarding school or whatever . . . and don't act on those urges . . . The kind of aberrant behavior is men seeking boys prepubescent or more commonly, pubescent. With their celibacy, thats the kind of soil they gathered, so the dandelions grew.

    But I just dont want to say its a gay problem, the end. Or thats the BIGGEST factor.

    Lets say they succeed in keeping the gay population out of the priesthood and over the next 30 years, the embedded base has the gay population die off with age so the priesthood is without homosexuals.

    Should the church loose their senses and construct some other matter just like this, the sharks of a different breed will show up, a different variety of dandelion will sprout . . .

    Its too easy to yell GAY GAY GAY.

    It WAS GAY. But this whole thing is just a cockeyed tower the hierarchy built, and they were not watching as they built it.

    Ill stop for now due to the hour.

    FYI, you've come up with some good examples of gay gay gay issues. Alice was aware of a case where the priest was defrocked. She knew the priest a bit. He was always hanging around the girls. Got himself in trouble that way.
    14 year olds.

    He could probably pay for it. Could probably find some lonely heart. BUT no, he made it a habit of lurking around the 14 year olds (no, Im not claiming this was representative of the majority of situations). this was not 'opportunity' for him, was easily spotted and shot down. Is this a heterosexual problem? Ban the heterosexuals. I think there are more of these cases, but the female is less likely to come forward for cash. Oh, they'd get branded with a nasty term, and they are more selective and are much more willing to turn down the possible payday for just keeping their good name. But the cases are out there. And its heterosexual. Ban the heterosexuals from the priesthood? (yes, I'm being absurd to make a point) Was this priest disordered in seeking out the sexual companionship of 14 15 year olds?


    But we cannot use that term on the gay?

    Also, the wifey said I could never convert you on this subject.

  9. I said to her , 'you're right'
    But I told her, sometimes we don't do these things to win the other over. When two lawyers battle a case out, do you think the one lawyer is trying to win the other lawyer's heart over, for the other lawyer to say 'you are right, my client is in the wrong . . .'. Quickly she said 'no' and got the point.

  10. I guess we find out if someone holds the letters implicating JPII.

    Thats a pot of gold at some reporter's rainbow, to hold out till JPII inevitably gets sainthood and only THEN do they release letters implicating him.

    this is just for those who don't believe some folks and organizations time the release of this information (around Easter time, Christmas time . . .)

    Perhaps not though, perhaps Poland wouldn't put up with such behavior as easily as other cultures do.

    We'll see

  11. In the Philadelphia DA's Office, years ago, the prevailing theory among the psychiatrists rendering reports on sex abusers of young girls is that they, too, were gay.

    The thought was that they tried to "do" young girls to get away from mature female characteristics, because they were attracted to more-male-like bodies.

  12. The important thing, in all of this, is that the liberal media lies to itself about the problem. There is prevailing notion in the media that sexual deprivation of men bound by the vow of celibacy "turns them gay," and that, by and large, the same men "become straight" again if the Church would just let them have a nice juicy woman to have sex with.

    This is not true at all.

    Did you know that the problem among married Protestant clergy is statistically identical to that of the Church? They only get sued about half as much because the suing parties lack an adequate lawsuit target half of the time, because Protestant congregations tend to come and go. (This is why even nastily anti-Catholic Protestant churches are very quiet on the subject of "the Catholic problem." They are aware that it's not really a "Catholic problem" at all.)

    The main filtering effect is not the celibacy rule, although some filtering does occur because of the celibacy rule.

    The main filtering effect is the ghettoization of the churches by our screen-dominated culture.

    Just as cities were ghettoized by the arrival of the car culture, permitting whites who could afford cars to leave urban areas behind to minoriries, the screen culture, selling "cheap niceness" in the form of secular humanism, gives people a kind of false religious outlet and temptation to leave the church and church buildings behind. And they are doing so.

    And the effeminate are taking-over the left-behind buildings and congregations.

    The liberal media hails women and gays, including sexually-active gays, in the parsonage and behind the podium, as a wonderful breakthrough, as a fantastic advance in social equality.

    It is exactly the opposite. The effeminate are being left-behind in church ghettoes being abandoned by those who are "not sexually wierd."

  13. Christianity and Judaism are ailing, and dying, too fast already due to the ghettoization of churches and synagogues by "the screen culture." The liberal media (which, ironically, is also suffering from some ghettoization due to the coming of "the screen culture") makes the problem worse by "selling papers" by feeding-into people's prejudices by analyzing the problem improperly -- by pretending that there is some kind of strong distinction between priests starved for sex by celibacy ("Men gotta have nookie," right ladies?) and gays preying upon masculine and un-female young bodies.

    The ultimate force not recognized by the liberal media is this: Gays are not the equal-and-opposite of heterosexuals.

    Homosexuality is a dysfunction.

    Homosexual males lack sexual self control (or philosophical CONCERN about sexual self-control) much, much more than heterosexual males, as a group.

    The next time one of the networks celebrates a major city which "goes gay" by giving marriage licenses to gays, don't look at the two smiling gay guys holding hands for the camera.

    Look at who is standing in line BEHIND the gay guys.

    WOMEN holding hands.

    Nationally, Lesbians seeking marriage licenses outnumber gay guys seekling marriage licenses 6-to-1.


    Gay men are dysfunctionally promiscuous.

    They can't keep their pants on.

    Oddly, ultimately, the ones who are most at fault for the tragedy of the sex cases are US. We, the Christians, are slowly leaving our churches in favor of secular humanism, generating the main driving force -- ghettoization of the churches, so that they are being left behind to the effeminate.

    And inside of the same ghettoization phenomenon is this amazing legal structure called "the lawsuits" strongly resembling a billion-dollar prostitution ring in which the johns get paid, instead of the prostitutes.

    The bishops are the pimps, the priests are the prostitutes, the male laity (and a few females) are the johns, and church assets donated by the other lay people are the money.

    The pimp-bishops carefully and quietly shift the priest-prostitutes around, to maximize access to the lay-people-johns.

    Not advertized in the lawsuits is that the lay-people-johns are usually paid TWICE for giving access of their bodies to the priest-prostitue -- once when they are young, for "putting-out" to the priest-prostitute, and a second time when they are older, in the lawsuit.

    In effect, it has become an industry gutting and killing the ghettoized churches even faster, very much like red-light districts killing ghettoized cities.

    That is a brutal, brutal analysis.

    But it works.

  14. pete said: The pimp-bishops carefully and quietly shift the priest-prostitutes around, to maximize access to the lay-people-johns.

    Whats your take on this. Why'd they do it (the bishops). I have my thoughts on why. I just want to hear your take MINUS the emotionally charged talk. Lay it out. Why?

    Whats my take?
    The Pastors didn't want to deal with it. Ugly subject. How do you tell parishoners? Do y ou ask for folks to question their 10, 12, 15 year old kids about it. What if more is uncovered.
    There is probably some form of punishment for having such things going on under your watch.

    That being said, the transfer is arranged. Go get caught under someone else's watch, some other parish, some other dioceses. Just get away from me.

    Next level, dioceses admin level. Same thing. Who want to go to the work of exposing this. Who wants to say to bishop 'we HAVE to go public. its the right thing to do. Moral . . . Take this guy out and shoot him. Defrock him. Get him as far away from anything we call Catholic as you possibly can'
    So, who on this admin level wants to say that, open up the Dioceses to really ugly publicity, open the church up for law suits . . .

    Bishops don't want the law suits, bad publicity. PRobably its frowned upon to reduce priest headcount at a time of need for priests.
    Did I say the didn't want the law suits at the bishop level. Money, money . . .
    Um, did I forget to say bad publicity (collections down this week? - ka-ching $$$)

    So, why not just quietly defrock the guy, get rid of him.

    What, thats an admission of guilt? Was this some CYA activity in keeping them around?
    Defrock = 'yeah he did it, come one, come all, if this guy touched you, get your $$$ piece of the Catholic $$$ Church . . .

    OR did they not know what they were dealing with, fealt that these fellows repented and changed their way.

    How they could think that, sitting in a confessional, I don't know. As they listen to
    the same voice month after month repeat the same thing.

    Faddah, its been one month since my last confession. This month I did this this and that
    (next month)
    Faddah, its been one month since my last confession. This month I did the same this this and that
    (next month)
    Faddah, its been one month since my last confession. This month I did the same this this and that

    HAbitual sin. They knew these guys were going to do it again. But don't do it here. Don't go public. Oh my gosh, I have this stick of dynomite, fuse is lit, its going to go off, but it hasn't gone off today, I'll enjoy today and deny that this is happening . . .
    They knew this stick of dynomiet was going to go off. But why bring it on by defrocking and going public, lawsuits in the 70s, 80s, 90s.
    It worked to a degree. They didn't have to deal with it BIG time in the media till the 2000s. Yep, it grew with time. But they lived good for those 30 years they didn't adress it


    Pete, join in, this cardinal needs support. He said IT. I think the major news outlet let him say it for the sake of watching him be fed to the sharks.

    I don't know if you knew thsi was coming and thats what fired up this topic.

    Lets see what happens to this cardinal.