Left Is Right, Up Is Down, Black Is White
You can't force people to see the obvious
Warning! Harsh Language Alert
Here's some of the article from LifeSiteNews.com; (Emphasis mine)
Interim Report on Catholic Sex-Abuse Says "Homosexual Identity" Not a Predictor of Sex Abuse
BALTIMORE, Maryland, November 20, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Authors of an interim report delivered to the US Catholic bishops on Tuesday told the bishops that their findings did not establish a causal connection between homosexual identity and the sexual abuse of minors. (There is nothing "casual" about it. It was very much contrived.)
Margaret Smith, one of the leading researchers of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at their general assembly in Baltimore that their data so far does not prove homosexuality is a predictor of sexual abuse. (Never mind all those boys and young men with ruptured, bleeding rectums.)
Instead Smith suggested that the sexual victims of priests and male religious - eighty-percent of victims were young men and boys - were selected by their abusers, because they were the most accessible. (And this is different from the almost 2,000 years prior when parents could trust their sons to be around ANY priest? Boys and young men were always "accessable" to priests. But only when faggots were ordained, did shit hit the fan. But no connection there, right? *sarcasm off*
Smith said researchers had not found "a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now. What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse," continued Smith, emphasizing that the research time wanted to differentiate between sexual identity and behavior. (Wha, wha... WHAT!!?? What the hell kind of jerk-around double-talk is THAT?)
However, the way researchers defined "homosexual identity" indicated they did not define "homosexual" as an individual who engages in homosexual acts with a member of the same-sex, but primarily as someone who views himself as homosexual and engages in that behavior. "Even though there was sexual abuse of many boys, that doesn't necessarily mean that the person had a homosexual identity," said Dr. Karen Terry. (OK, so if I kidnap teenaged girls, rape them, then murder them... but don't view myself as one sick son-of-a-bitch in dire need of a .45-caliber lobotomy, then I really don't have anything to worry about, do I? *Hey, who switched the sarcasm back on?*
An earlier John Jay survey requested by the USCCB showed 80-90 percent of abusive priests had sexual relations with adolescent boys (ephebophilia), not prepubescent boys (pedophilia).
Terry told the bishops that their data so far showed that sexual molesters, in general, were individuals suffering from sexual confusion and poor social abilities, but lacked an established pattern of homosexual behavior that would indicate a homosexual identity. (Allow me to be the first to tell this to the learned researchers over at John Jay, when one member of the male of the species places his sexual organ on, near or in another member of the male of the species, that, by definition, is homosexual. Some guy screwing/raping another guy, hardly qualifies as hetero, now does it?)
The John Jay researchers said that their findings did not indicate that homosexuals should be excluded as candidates to the priesthood. (Of course not. That would not only be politically incorrect, but not very feeeeeeeeling, as well. And how much you want to bet that at least a large minority of bishops will agree with this assessment? Much like how many bishops, not all that long ago, protected homo-rapists because they gave us the bullshit excuse of "we were just listening to the experts".)
Nevertheless, the Vatican has made clear that individuals with homosexual tendencies, confusion over their sexual identity, or other forms of social and psychological immaturity are unfit candidates for priesthood and religious life. A 2005 directive explicitly bars homosexuals or those with unresolved homosexual tendencies from admission to the priesthood, and the Vatican's seriousness to eliminating sexual abuse was further highlighted in 2008 when it released guidelines for seminaries on how to do psychological testing to screen candidates with homosexual tendencies, confused sexual identities, and other psychological disorders from the priesthood. (Let's be honest... how often does the USCCB actually listen to Rome?)
You can't force people to see the obvious
Warning! Harsh Language Alert
Here's some of the article from LifeSiteNews.com; (Emphasis mine)
BALTIMORE, Maryland, November 20, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Authors of an interim report delivered to the US Catholic bishops on Tuesday told the bishops that their findings did not establish a causal connection between homosexual identity and the sexual abuse of minors. (There is nothing "casual" about it. It was very much contrived.)
Margaret Smith, one of the leading researchers of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops at their general assembly in Baltimore that their data so far does not prove homosexuality is a predictor of sexual abuse. (Never mind all those boys and young men with ruptured, bleeding rectums.)
Instead Smith suggested that the sexual victims of priests and male religious - eighty-percent of victims were young men and boys - were selected by their abusers, because they were the most accessible. (And this is different from the almost 2,000 years prior when parents could trust their sons to be around ANY priest? Boys and young men were always "accessable" to priests. But only when faggots were ordained, did shit hit the fan. But no connection there, right? *sarcasm off*
Smith said researchers had not found "a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now. What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse," continued Smith, emphasizing that the research time wanted to differentiate between sexual identity and behavior. (Wha, wha... WHAT!!?? What the hell kind of jerk-around double-talk is THAT?)
However, the way researchers defined "homosexual identity" indicated they did not define "homosexual" as an individual who engages in homosexual acts with a member of the same-sex, but primarily as someone who views himself as homosexual and engages in that behavior. "Even though there was sexual abuse of many boys, that doesn't necessarily mean that the person had a homosexual identity," said Dr. Karen Terry. (OK, so if I kidnap teenaged girls, rape them, then murder them... but don't view myself as one sick son-of-a-bitch in dire need of a .45-caliber lobotomy, then I really don't have anything to worry about, do I? *Hey, who switched the sarcasm back on?*
An earlier John Jay survey requested by the USCCB showed 80-90 percent of abusive priests had sexual relations with adolescent boys (ephebophilia), not prepubescent boys (pedophilia).
Terry told the bishops that their data so far showed that sexual molesters, in general, were individuals suffering from sexual confusion and poor social abilities, but lacked an established pattern of homosexual behavior that would indicate a homosexual identity. (Allow me to be the first to tell this to the learned researchers over at John Jay, when one member of the male of the species places his sexual organ on, near or in another member of the male of the species, that, by definition, is homosexual. Some guy screwing/raping another guy, hardly qualifies as hetero, now does it?)
The John Jay researchers said that their findings did not indicate that homosexuals should be excluded as candidates to the priesthood. (Of course not. That would not only be politically incorrect, but not very feeeeeeeeling, as well. And how much you want to bet that at least a large minority of bishops will agree with this assessment? Much like how many bishops, not all that long ago, protected homo-rapists because they gave us the bullshit excuse of "we were just listening to the experts".)
Nevertheless, the Vatican has made clear that individuals with homosexual tendencies, confusion over their sexual identity, or other forms of social and psychological immaturity are unfit candidates for priesthood and religious life. A 2005 directive explicitly bars homosexuals or those with unresolved homosexual tendencies from admission to the priesthood, and the Vatican's seriousness to eliminating sexual abuse was further highlighted in 2008 when it released guidelines for seminaries on how to do psychological testing to screen candidates with homosexual tendencies, confused sexual identities, and other psychological disorders from the priesthood. (Let's be honest... how often does the USCCB actually listen to Rome?)
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
6:09 PM
4 Comments:
Masterful job of bringing to light the absolute idiocy of this report !!!
Over on another Catholic site, there is a constant barage of homosexual hype ... the damn stuff never ends. They either feign being utterly stupid, or they take professional courses in being utterly stupid and then become utterly stupid.
Some of these alleged researchers are so dull minded, one cannot fathom how it could be. I suspect that those funding these kangaroo research projects pick the dullest applicant they can find, whose only talent is being able to misconstrue the obvious, and do it in a consistent manner.
I think that such pretend researchers suffer from dementia of the soul.
A nit to pick:
when X has a causal relationship to Y, then X either partially or fully CAUSES Y. There is very little that is casual about causal relationships.
And I agree that the John Jay research team is being overly politically correct and parsing things far too finely. The aim and drive of the entire GLTBQ+ political movement is to utterly demolish all norms in sexual behavior, so that absolutely anything goes. They may be able to define "homosexual" and/or "homosexuality" in such a way as to exclude nearly all the perpetrators, but they do truth and justice both a grave disservice by doing so.
The researchers were paid by the bishops who did not want to see a report that had the issue of gays as the center focus even if it should have been its conclusion. Want a report from a consultant, you pay them and make sure they know what you want to hear. I am certain this group is looking forward to a long standing relatinship with millions more from the USCCB. Keep in mind it is the same folks that covered for the priests now paying for a report. Suppose there was strong condemnation in the report on the actions of the bishops or calling out the names of the guilty? The whitewashing bishops hired a group to whitewash away the gay issue that was apparent from the first report. By the way, they used the money from those still dumb enough to give that crowd any more money not closely monitored. I am certain they express their profound thanks to all of those fools.
Nobody has really jumped on the fact that the gay lobby has in effect by its call for equalizing pretend marriage with real marriage called for the banishment of real marriage.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home