It begins with my VIRTUS training back in 2004 or so which was required for anyone employed or volunteering for work in the diocese. The program got points for debunking the tired old saw that celibacy increases the risk for sexual abuse, but when they got around to proclaiming that the idea that most sexual offenders were homosexual was a myth, something didn’t add up. Sure, the claim that only 30% of the cases were by homosexuals seemed to indicate less than a majority, but I and another of my classmates asked the question, “Well, if one percent of the population is committing 30% of the offenses, isn’t that disproportionate?” Obviously, the facilitator had a program to get us through rather than engage in a dispute about the content, so I was content simply to raise the question but otherwise let the matter drop.
Then back when I was still a forum warrior, I recall many making the claim that “paedophilia” had nothing to do with homosexuality. Fair enough I thought, but I asked what was the breakdown of victims of paedophilia between male and female? If homosexuality has nothing to do with it, then statistically it should be 50/50, but tell ya what: I’ll spot you the percentage of males being a higher amount based on things like accessibility, single-sex education and practices, etc. So if it turns out to be more like 70/30 male/female, you can keep your paedophilia peanut butter out of the homosexual chocolate. Any more than that, and I think the question ought to be revisited. I have requested this breakdown several times. I’ve never gotten an answer however in fairness I have never really looked hard for it myself.
Then back in March this year, there was an interview with Msgr. Charles Scicluna, who was the Churchman responsible for handling the approximately 3000 cases of sexual abuse by Church officials. He gave us a breakdown:
We can say that about sixty percent of the cases chiefly involved sexual attraction towards adolescents of the same sex, another thirty percent involved heterosexual relations, and the remaining ten percent were cases of paedophilia in the true sense of the term; that is, based on sexual attraction towards prepubescent children. The cases of priests accused of paedophilia in the true sense have been about three hundred in nine years. Please don’t misunderstand me, these are of course too many, but it must be recognised that the phenomenon is not as widespread as has been believed.
So the majority of the cases were between priest and post-pubescent males. Those who make careers of kicking sand on the Church at every turn were in a dilemma. They could hold on to their dogma that homosexual acts are fine and dandy and dump the numbers involving priest/post-pubescent males but lose much weight in their bat for beating the Church, or they could keep the numbers but have to admit that there is something to the Church’s policy of barring homosexuals to the priesthood. What is a brickbat hurler to do? Well, they can say the numbers of abuse are not really the issue, it is the cover-up. And the stopped clock happens to be right. But it is precisely this selective See No Evil policy towards sexual depravity I have described that has led us to today.
Today being that the US Bishop’s conference is poised to elect Bp. Gerald Kicanas. As Diogenes points out, the interview with the Bishop has that “burying the lead” smell to it:
Finally, after roughly 1,000 words, Bishop Kicanas divulges the information that there were concerns about McCormack’s behavior. There were reports of—can you guess?—consensual homosexual activity, which apparently took place only after McCormack had been drinking. Thus the rector was concerned about the young man’s alcohol consumption.
To paraphrase Dune: Political Correctness is the mind-killer.
UPDATE: Bishop Kicanas has been endorsed by Rainbow Sash Movement. I guess we’ll see if the USCCB is ready to double-down on a losing hand.
Read Full Post »