Opinions and musings on religion, philosophy, science, politics, and life from a conservative Catholic neurosurgeon.
Why Our Commanders Look The Other Way During Child Rape
"The gay rights movement has deep roots in pederasty. "Kettle. Pot. Black. Catholic Church repeatedly covering up the sexual abuse by priests. The Catholic Church actively participating in cultural (and not cultural) genocide. Do you really want to compare atrocities conducted by the gay rights movement and those conducted by the church? I am game if you are.
[Do you really want to compare atrocities conducted by the gay rights movement and those conducted by the church?]*rubs hands*Each molestation of a boy by a Catholic was also a molestation of a boy by a homosexual.Why were 90% of the children molested by priests boys?
When is Tim Cook gonna apologize?
"Why were 90% of the children molested by priests boys?"Why does the priesthood attract pedophiles?
The same reasons it attracted homosexuals. We're fixing that problem.
And why did it take a few centuries? Could it be because they can no longer control the message?
Or since the sexual revolution they could no longer control the homosexuals...
Are you seriously blaming pedophile priests on the sexual revolution? I would dearly love to hear your rationale for this statement. I could really use a good laugh.
William Spearshake: The priesthood does not attract pedophiles. Priests are no more likely to be pedophiles than men generally. http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625The fact that you associate pedophilia with priests tells me that you suffer from a deeply irrational prejudice. You should really have your head checked. Nearly all of the pedophile priests are homosexuals, however. And Dr. Egnor is correct--the long history of homosexuality is intertwined with pedophiles and pederasts, plus enablers and sympathizers. See Harvey Milk, Harry Hay, Oscar Wild, Allen Ginsburg, Alfred Kinsey, Kevin Jennings, David Norris, Gerry Studds, and probably Terrence Bean, though he hasn't been found guilty. Terrence Bean is probably the most influential homosexual bully in America, head of the so-called "Human Rights" Commission (that opposes human rights anywhere and everywhere.) NAMBLA considers themselves a part of the "gay" "rights" movement. The mainstream "gay" "rights" movement doesn't want to be associated with them, though that wasn't always the case. It wasn't until about 1994 that NAMBLA was drummed out of pride parades and only because those narrow-minded people on the religious right kept calling attention to it. Here's a good article to read. I dare you. It's by Benoit Denizet-Lewis. You can't dismiss him as some kind of "homophobe" because he is himself a homosexual. Read it and tell me that he isn't sympathetic to the pedophile movement. He basically lays out the history of NAMBLA, an offshoot of the 70s "gay" "rights" movement that was initially welcomed. Back in those days, "gay""rights" was shorthand for the right to have sex in public washrooms in the right to help oneself to teenaged male hustlers. http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2006/05/boy-crazy/The pedophile rights movement is already afoot. Most people just aren't aware of it. Joey
I love how William Spearshake tries to blame homosexual priests' RELIGION for their sick crimes against children. No, it has nothing to do with their sexuality. It's their religion!Priests don't molest children at a higher rate than men generally. The same cannot be said of male homosexuals. That might explain why some "gay" bookstores stock pedophile material. Or at least they did back when bookstores were a thing. Ever seen any pro-pedo literature at a Catholic bookstore?Joey
Wow! There is so much background about homosexual "rights" movement that's not clearly presented to the general population. Liberal controlled main stream media is filtering news for us.
Joey: "I love how William Spearshake tries to blame homosexual priests' RELIGION for their sick crimes against children. No, it has nothing to do with their sexuality. It's their religion!"Again, where did I say this? The catholic church does not have any more pedophiles than any other religion, or non-religion. But where they differ is their long standing attempts to cover it up. Or do you believe that the priests and the church are above the law?
You clearly said it here:"Why does the priesthood attract pedophiles?"It doesn't. If it did, it would have a disproportionately high number of pedophiles, which it doesn't. The priesthood does not have a disproportionate number of pedophiles or of homosexuals, but the homosexuals seem to be the ones doing all the diddling. Does that bother you?And no, "the Church" didn't cover up sex abuse. Some members did, just like many teachers, coaches, and a whole lot of Planned Parenthood members did today. If you blamed them, you'd be right. NAMBLA was only evicted from the mainstream homosexual movement because the homosexuals believed that society wasn't ready for the their part of the agenda yet. By the way, you sound a whole lot like the Westboro Baptist Church. Here's their anti-Catholic page: https://archive.org/details/WestboroBaptistChurchPriestsRapeBoysIt's called "Priests Rape Boys." You're as vile a bigot as they are. Maybe viler. Joey
By the way, Spearshake: Did you read "Boy Crazy" by Daniel Denizet-Lewis? I think you might learn a thing or two about the birth and development of NAMBLA. It was very much a part of the 70s "gay""rights" movement. The openly homosexual jouranalist (and I use the term loosely) who wrote the article seems to strike a sympathetic tone. Today's homofascists don't want you to remember that NAMBLA is their forsaken child. Joey
Joey: "And no, "the Church" didn't cover up sex abuse. Some members did,"Including the ex Pope. And trying to downplay their behaviour because it is also found amongst coaches, teachers, etc. is reprehensible. Priests have a role in society (if you let them) that far exceeds that of coaches and teachers. They are supposed to me our spiritual and moral leaders. And if you think that the cover up was a small and isolated event, maybe you should look at examples like the residential schools in Canada, or Mount Cashell orphanage, or numerous other institutions where children were left in the care of the church. Don't get me wrong. The church has done, and continues to do, wonderful things. But they must also take responsibility for the many things that they got horribly wrong.
Billy:Sexual abuse of children in schools is much more common and the cover-ups are much more egregious. Could you direct me to any public statement on your part condemning public education for this?All sexual abuse of boys by men is homosexual, by definition. Could you direct me to any public statement on your part condemning the homosexual community for this? It seems that you merely hate the Church, and use sexual abuse of children as a pretext for expressing your hate.
"Sexual abuse of children in schools is much more common and the cover-ups are much more egregious."Could you please provide me some links to this claim. The fact that child abuse by teachers is more common isn't really surprising. There are far more teachers than priests, and they are in contact with children far a much longer period of time. But I would like to hear about the cover-ups that you claim. Keeping in mind that we are not talking about the offender trying to cover it up; we are talking about those in authority over the offender covering it up."Could you direct me to any public statement on your part condemning public education for this?"I will if you can direct me to any public statement on my part condemning religion for this. My condemnation is not for the institution, it is reserved for those in the institution that cover up these crimes. The same applies to public education, childrens' sport, scouting, whatever."All sexual abuse of boys by men is homosexual, by definition. Could you direct me to any public statement on your part condemning the homosexual community for this?"Why should I. Could you point me to any public statement that you have made condemning the heterosexual community for rape?"It seems that you merely hate the Church, and use sexual abuse of children as a pretext for expressing your hate."It appears that you have a serious reading comprehension problem. Where have I ever said that I hate the church? I believe that I even said that the church does, and continues to do very important and laudable work. Criticism of some of the actions of the church is not hatred. I criticize my wife and children on occasion. That does not mean that I hate them.
"Could you please provide me some links to this claim.'No, but there's a website called "Google" that can help you with that.
The Catholic Church attracts homosexuals because its policy of celibacy for priests acts as a screen. There's some suspicion of unmarried males in many societies, who are often suspected to be homosexual, still regarded by many to be a serious defect.Paedophiles are dangerous if they have free access to children. Which certainly applies to priests. However, most homosexuals aren't paedophiles. Paedophile priests tend to have more access to boys than girls. One of Australia's recent paedophile Catholic priests was an equal opportunity abuser, with both girls and boys being his victims.The American military's turning of a blind eye to certain members of its Afghan allies raping children is deplorable. Warning shots to the sternum of the perpetrator (as the linked article suggests) would be a disaster. Many more American soldiers would be shot by their erstwhile allies (with friends like these, who needs enemies?)Obviously the rape should be stopped by anyone who's around. And the perpetrator turned over to the Afghan justice system to be dealt with, assuming that it has one.
Bachfiend, Michael won't respond. He uses the talking point that pedophiles are homosexuals. Which anyone with half a brain knows is not true. But Michael does not have half a brain.
bachfiend: "The Catholic Church attracts homosexuals because its policy of celibacy for priests..."First, as Anonymous said, "Priests are no more likely to be pedophiles than men generally..."Second, celibacy is not the same as chastity:The difference between celibacy and chastity
One thing that there is likely to be no agreement on is whether homosexual men are more likely to exploit minors than heterosexual men. Social scientists are almost uniformly of a political persuasion for which that would be an unacceptable finding, and not a finding that would attract either funding or academic status. Thus, negative studies on the "conservative brain" are touted, and any studies of negative results of same sex parenting are panned as obviously flawed. Certainly there are homosexual men who wouldn't think of exploiting minors, but ultimately the question is whether there is a significantly large minority of homosexual men that would. To even ask the question is politically incorrect, and to answer it "incorrectly" is against the "new normal."The accusation against the Catholic Church is probably due to their having a hierarchy with a high-level government. Another politically correct, and academically popular, belief is that answers are ultimately found by investing more power and authority into those wise enough to make the right policies. Even so, if innocents are hurt by the State's restorative justice policies that is one thing; if innocents are hurt by the Catholic Church's non-punitive solutions for the priesthood, it is completely unacceptable. It is the State, after all, that we can't do without. Government is "the only thing we all belong to." Perhaps the problem has been in Rome. Perhaps Rome has been slow to figure out how to deal with the problem, and the cover-ups may be motivated in ways that are very similar to the current military's cover-ups of sexual misconduct. I don't think it's unthinkable.