What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Randy Carson]

CL-

The distinction is a technical one and has to do with the age of the boys who were molested.

While it is true (everyone listening?) that young, pre-pubescent boys AND girls were molested by priests, it appears that a majority of the victims were actually young teens (post-puberty). What this means is that the priests were not necessarily pedophiles but aggressive homosexuals preying on other males (who were much younger) than the priests.

According to one website:

• The vast majority of abuse by priests who victimize persons under the age of 18 has taken the form of ephebophilia -- involving post-pubertal youths who are often 16 or 17 years of age.
  
• Yet most of the public has the impression that most of the abuse is pedophilia-- involving young, pre-pubertal children.
  

Thanks for clarifying. I see what you're saying about the age. I don't think though, homosexuality in and of itself was the cause of abuse. I think people can be abusive regardless of their orientation. Are you saying gay men are generally more likely to abuse than straight men?

No. They may be equally abusive. Heck, for all I know, straight men are more abusive.

But what I have said is that the data suggests that this was not pedophilia...and for the most part, it was not heterosexual (little girls or women). It is predominantly the raping of innocent young men by older homosexuals.

Now, between this and my Ask a Catholic thread, I think this topic really HAS been covered adequately. If not, there's Google for those non-Catholics who still have questions.

Let's get back to your OP. Agreed?