Pope rewards pedophile bshop with vacation retreat

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I had a minute and this is what I was speaking of

By Danzig as I thought

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

and


the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.


and

This well known lack of a linkage between homosexuality and child molestation accounts for why relatively little research has directly addressed the issue. Proving something we already know simply isn't a priority.

i believe the main point of that article is that pedophile doesn't equal gay for one...for another, these people are drawn to children. as someone posted above, it makes sense that the predominant victim of a priest is a boy, due to it being mostly young men who are altar servers in churches. of course, when you look at victims such as those in the irish orphanages, the victims were of both sexes, since both were accessible by the priests and nuns.

i would have to think that the priesthood would appeal to people who don't mature sexually-i just can't imagine that a man would willingly give up any hope of intimacy with a woman unless that just plain doesn't cross his mind at all.


the catholic church needs to once again catch up with the times. centuries ago, men were allowed to marry as priests. it was mainly a financial reason that the rules were changed, barring marriage, to begin with. it wasn't due to any mandate from heaven, or from some bible verse-it was money.


edit~

the real shame is that the guy in the article in the beginning of this thread can't be charged because of the statute of limitations. he's a real slimeball, who does like most criminals-attempts to justify his horrible behavior.
dante, were he alive today, would definitely have to expand hell a circle or two.