Not for Kids

As a priest, we are required to follow certain "safe environment" procedures. We are assigned regular training to make sure we know how to handle various situations, and help us to know how to report it when someone "crosses the line" with a minor. Every Bishop in these USA has implemented measures to "protect children" in his diocese. [As an aside, these measures do more to "protect Bishops" from lawsuits than to "protect children" from predators!]

What is interesting about these safety measures, is that they do not fit with the actual situation in which we find ourselves. Looking back over the last thirty years, we have piles of statistics to consider. If we look at all the numbers, what are the actual events that we refer to as the "scandals"? Sadly, they have very little to do with abusing children.

The vast majority of confirmed cases where a Catholic clergyman was sexually abusive, were not with "children" per se. Furthermore, they were not with females. Yup, you get the point. These "child abuse scandals" are not really about children. The large majority (about 95% of the cases) are referring to a clergyman who had relations with an adolescent male. That is correct. We are speaking about sodomy, and not pedophilia. When a male is abusive with an adolescent of the same sex it is called ephebophilia, not pedophilia; it is a type of sodomy. Pedophiles most often go after the opposite sex.

The title of this post does not refer to those for whom it is appropriate reading material. It refers to the fact that it is "not for kids" that the problem of the priest scandals exist; teenage males are not "children" as we normally use the term. I am not just splitting hairs here, but am pointing out that things are not being represented properly. I find it stunning that virtually no one is reporting this. It appears as though they are afraid of being attacked by the sodomites (or, maybe worse, the lavender mafia in the Church does not want the word to get out about what they are doing).

This being the case (and the numbers do not lie), why are we spending so much time and effort on "protecting children" from pedophiles (which is not a bad thing to do -- do not get me wrong, we should protect them!) and so little time on "protecting men" from sodomites? That is, after all, what happened in these cases and the agreement years ago was to make sure that we worked to prevent those same things from happening again, but we are not doing so. We are working to prevent a problem which virtually does not exist. The sin of sodomy destroys true masculinity (and femininity), and the acceptance of it does the same thing (even for those who do not fall into this grave sin). Do you want to avoid the "sex abuse scandals" from happening again? Then eradicate sodomites from the priesthood (and it will help prevent a host of other problems as well).

I do not want to ignore the dangers of predators coming after children, but they are not in as much danger as are the men who are being emasculated by the wicked temptations of sodomy. Can you imagine what it would look like if an entire diocese put as much money and effort into teaching men to be men and women to be women, and eradicating sodomy, as they currently do to protect children (who were almost never at risk)? The world would hate us, and we would likely get attacked far more than we are already; but we would be faithful to Jesus Christ.