Gay Choir Director Sentenced On Child Pornography Charges

There is no way for me to add any better comment on this than what Greg has already done above! Lord have mercy on these people who think that God is doing a New Thing! I pray for the boys and their families who have been abused by these men! May Mr. Tate and those lie him they take heed of the words sin begets sin but that doesn’t mean you must be a slave to it because Jesus offers a different life if one submits to Him and his Word!

It wasn’t just the pictures apparently.

It is not clear when Tate admitted sexually abusing minors, but his defense attorney Francis L. O’Reilly said last month Tate had acknowledged the behavior in treatment.
...
Nevas, who sentenced Russell and will sentence Tate, said he was sickened by Tate’s reported pedophilia, which prosecutors detailed for Nevas in court two months ago.

“I’ve never seen such an extensive history of child abuse as exhibited by Mr. Tate including trips overseas and bringing child prostitutes from New York to his apartment on church grounds,” Nevas said during Russell’s sentencing. “It turns your stomach.”

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-gt-tatefeb17,0,3322792.story

So now all homosexuals are pedophiles, are they?  Without question? 

Absurd.

But in the mandatory Safeguarding God’s Children course they tell us that most pedophiles are heterosexual so that must be true.  Right?  It couldn’t be that there are more gay pedophiles than their proportion of the total population would suggest.  It couldn’t be that the pedophiles who claim to be heterosexual are deluding themselves.  It couldn’t be.  Right?  TEC wouldn’t lie to us about something like this.  Would they? 
Keep repeating “ALL IS WELL.”

Smuggs,

Where did any of us even imply that?

Greg, when you write

I might think there’s some kind of… I don’t know… a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.

without qualifying your remarks in any way, you give the impression that you believe that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

Really?  I didn’t get that impression.

[3] Smuggs,

Perhaps not, but then why do gay organizers tolerate NAMBLA being featured in so many “gay-pride” parades?

Furthermore, since supporters of “normalizing” homosexual behavior have attacked and dismissed Scripture as condeming homosexuality, what argument can you mount against pedophilia?  It’s wrong because…you say so?  Because it’s an abuse of power and/or authority?  That argument could be leveled (in different contexts) at everyone at 815!

Me neither.  The “connection” is obvious and well known.  But it’s hardly absolute.

Smuggs,

you give the impression that you believe that all homosexuals are pedophiles.

Not true. I don’t make that implication; you make that inference. They are not the same thing.

i think i’m somewhat with smuggs on this one. maybe greg didn’t say “all”...but you clearly meant to suggest that by employing any gay person (not just in the church, but in any context) is to potentially put children at risk.

re: safeguarding god’s children. the manual does say that most offenders are heterosexual, but the particular presenter on the day i took it, said that, in fact, we really do not understand the science of attraction, particularly as it relates to pedophilia. thus, the manual and presentation was confusing in this regard. and i wouldn’t doubt an agenda in its assemblage. i certainly don’t doubt that TEC would actively seek to cover up or counter such a “connection” if it were proved. it’s already engaged in that sort of suppression regarding other things…

but, that said…i think you (greg) should probably be more careful in your connections. this is anecdotal evidence, not scientifically established fact (if you do have said “facts”, link to them in every article like this, so that it becomes clear to all). some qualifiers acknowledging that would not necessarily hurt the point you are making. and if you are truly interested in debate (note, i didn’t say “dialogue”...per matt’s instructions ;-p), then your posts should always concise and not play fast and loose with the facts.

lemme qualify…

i know you weren’t saying this connection was “scientific fact” necessarily…but you implied a clarity in your conclusion that is only generally acceptable with scientific studies (and suspect even then).

what i’m saying is…be careful. be significantly above reproach…not just a hair above.

Now that Greg has taken some hits for what some may perceive to be an inference or suggestion, I’d like to get back on target here! It seems to me that if homosexuals want to be just like heterosexuals in every way of life that they can be then they are going to have to buck up to the bar and accept that there are many homosexuals that are preditors of children just like there are in the hetrosexual camp. When one live by and is driven by their sexual desires they are a slave unto it! And that is a sin!

micah,

We have all the facts we need in the RC abuse scandal: Gay priests molested children at a much higher rate than straight priests. The same pattern is evident in society in general. There’s really little in the way of contradictory evidence that for every X number of gays, there is a significantly higher incidence of pedophilia than for the same number of heterosexuals. Warnings about what positions of leadership they are “included” in, and the kinds of people with whom they work closely, must follow from that, or be ignored at the peril of the children they are hired to lead.

Somewhere (and I wish I could remember where) I saw figures on pedophilia—they indicated that there are indeed more heterosexual pedophiliacs than homosexual, but the proportion of homosexual pedophiliacs was far higher than the proportion of homosexually-oriented persons in the general populace.  Males with same-sex attraction are about 2% of the population, but they account for some 30+% of pedophiliacs.

I might think there’s some kind of… I don’t know… a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Thank goodness you have those because if you did not you would make that completely unsupportable and actually quite stupid assumption.

As you no doubt know, a pedophile has a primary or exclusive attraction to prepubescent boys.  That attraction is a paraphilia which is an abberation.  Pedophiles are opportunistic stalkers.  The are neither homosexual nor heterosexual in their disorder because they have abberant urges for prepubescent children.  The sexual interest is toward pre-pubescent youths only. This interest does not extend to the first signs of pubic hair.  There is no cure for this.  These people should be locked up for li9fe with no chance of parole.

Of course those who do assert that pedophilia and homosexuality are linked are the defenders of pedophilia.  The people who make this unsupported assertion believe that pedophilia should be treated as a sexual preference rather than a disorder and thus legalized.  So thank God that you were taught correctly Greg.  I’d hate to see you advocate for pedophilia.

Now pederasty and ephebophelia are quite different.  This attraction has a sexual preference attached.  The ephebophile is attracted to adolescent youth.  They can be cured, but it is certainly not easy and they need to be taken out of society as well.

So thank TEC for making sure that you’re not a supporter of pedophilia

We have all the facts we need in the RC abuse scandal: Gay priests molested children at a much higher rate than straight priests. The same pattern is evident in society in general. There’s really little in the way of contradictory evidence that for every X number of gays, there is a significantly higher incidence of pedophilia than for the same number of heterosexuals. Warnings about what positions of leadership they are “included” in, and the kinds of people with whom they work closely, must follow from that, or be ignored at the peril of the children they are hired to lead.

The “evidence” that you cite has no statistical significance - in other words there is not a causal link.  There certainly is in ephebophile, but not for pedophiles.

There is no cure for this.

In other words, they’re in all likelihood born that way - created that way, one might say.  Brian, the teachings of Episcopalianism as regards how we are to treat a preference with which we are born are very clear.  You must not be keeping up with your organization.

Let’s just use a silly example to make the point:

Let’s say that we did a survey of 100,000 church employees. 90,000 of them were right-handed, and 10,000 were left-handed. (This proportion is about what you actually find, btw).

5% of the right-handers drank WAY too much coffee during the day. But 15% of the left-handers did.

The result is that 4,500 right-handers drink way too much coffee, while only 1,500 left-handers do.

Yes, there are three times as many right-handed coffee-abusers as there are left-handed coffee abusers, but left-handers abuse coffee at three times the rate of right-handers.

Therefore, if you hire a left-hander, chances are three times greater that they will be a coffee-abuser than if you hired a right-hander.

So, if what you want to do is protect the coffee supply and prevent it from being abused, you would do well not to hire left-handers.

Brian, you’re picking semantic nits in order to reach a ridiculous conclusion. If you insist, I’ll use the term “child-molester” instead of “pedophile,” but the point remains.

[#17] Brian from T19
It would be most enlightening to see how you parse out the difference between a “sexual preference” and a “sexual abberation/disorder.”  I trust the distinction has some foundation other than the authentic desire of a legal adult to perform some sex act with another legal adult and/or adults.  There has to be some moral category in there besides legitmate consent.  Could you enlighten us?

carl

greg…i was not aware of those statistics…but for my sake (and for others who ar elike me), it would help for you to include a link to these sort of statistics. i read SF somewhat regularly…certainly not enough to keep up with every statistic ever quoted on it. next time, it would probably help for you to include that sort of fact so that it does not seem as though you are drawing a wild anecdotal conclusion.

that said, i’m not sure brian is picking semantic nits either. if they cannot establish a causal link, statistically, there is a reason for this. perhaps such a link may be established later. i for one am almost as distrustful of “scientific” fact as anecdotal, because it can be tailored or slanted as easily. i can certainly be swayed by it, but, i recognize the way i am implicated in the world as well.

but phil does make a good point regarding brian’s comments.

I don’t see any link between sexual orientation and child abuse in churches.  What may happen is that any institution where there is access to children risks being targeted by abusers.  There was clearly a failure to take proper steps at this church, as in so many to put in place proper checks and child-protection policies.

One keeps hearing about how this or that institution is taking steps - but these horror stories keep coming out.

May I refer you to the following link on SF, which deals with this issue in a clear and succinct manner: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/10408/

One issue the GLBT lobby does seem to forget is that community allows NAMBLA march with them in their parades and has not exercised any discipline to chase that organization from their midst. If that lobby wants more credibility against such charges, they can start in the ranks of those they allow to be apart of their constituency.

The John Jay study is really the definitive place to look at the Roman Catholic sex abuse stats.

From that study:

The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female.

Let’s just say that the results were striking enough for the church to institute some important changes in who is allowed into the priesthood.

Here’s the link to the study:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

I feel like I am watching a shell game.  The statistics cause my eyes to glaze over.  Now if there is a heterosexual molester, do they molest same sex children or only children of their opposite sex?  Don’t we just call that statuatory rape? Or is it like “all Muslims are not terrorist, but all terrorist are Muslims?”  Seems like ther needs to be a supply of stones lying around or at least millstones.  IMHO

From the Safeguarding manual:

Dr. Gene Abel says that of several hundred molesters he has studied, 21 percent of the men who molest boys were exclusively homosexual with adults.  Some were bisexual, but most preferred women as adult sex partners.  “Offenders attracted to boy victims typically report that they are uninterested in or repulsed by adult homosexual relationships”
In fact, most male offenders who perpetrate abuse against boys, find boys attractive because of feminine characteristics and stop being attracted to them when they start to look and act like men.  (Abel, 1988) 

As Sarah has pointed out, the overwhelming majority of the sex abuses in the Roman Catholic Church were on post-pubescent - although underage - boys, making it a homosexual problem.  It is still generally referred to, however, as the ‘pedophile priest scandal’ - one can only imagine this is in order to appease the strident gay lobby.

Somebody is lying:

John 316 posted:

Dr. Gene Abel says ... Some [offenders] were bisexual, but most preferred women as adult sex partners.  “Offenders attracted to boy victims typically report that they are uninterested in or repulsed by adult homosexual relationships”

Brian from T19 claims:

The are neither homosexual nor heterosexual in their disorder because they have abberant urges for prepubescent children.  The sexual interest is toward pre-pubescent youths only.

So which is it?  Is pedophilia a pure “youth-only orientation” as Brian claims?  Or are pedophiles also interested in adult sex, as Dr. Abel claims?

Or is it, as is strangely implied, that the pure “youth-only orientation” only applies to lovers of little boys, and not to lovers of little girls…

Marty,
We’re both right, in fact there are three types of offenders:
The Preferential Offender (prefers children and seeks them out)
The Situational Offender (doesn’t prefer children but offends during certain set of circumstances)
The Sadistic Offender (preys on any available vulnerable person)

John316, your categories confuse me. What you term Sadistic Offender - can you cite some real-life examples? Most of the cases I have heard of showed a clear gender preference, which there doesn’t seem to be a category for in your set.

Sadisic Offenders tend to be the ones that wind up on Fox and CNN.  The kidnap/rape/murder stories that make headlines when they happen. 

Stranger abuse is relatively rare (10%)
Perpetrated by family members (30%)
Perpetrated by others who are known to the child and their families (60%)

OK, then the sadistic offender is one who preys on any vulnerable person - of a *preferred* gender. Yes? With a brother in social work, I hear a lot about family abuse - in most cases it seems to be heterosexual and, particulary in the case of young people, a matter of opportunity.

ANY rape of a child’s (18 and under) body, mind, heart, emotions, and thus, soul—- is a sadistic offence!  Period.

#34—John316, Not exactly.

<u>Male victims</u>
Nonstranger….............1,577,580 50%
Stranger…..................1,495,580 47%
Relationship unknown…....114,720 4%

<u>Female victims</u>
Nonstranger…............. 2,038,910 70%
Stranger….................... 833,840 29%
Relationship unknown….......34,100 1%*
Source: US DOJ: Criminal Victimization, 2006

Other unpleasant statistics “About 44% of rape victims are under age 18, and 80% are under age 30.”

#36 Rose—AMEN!!!!

“ANY rape of a child’s (18 and under) body, mind, heart, emotions, and thus, soul—- is a sadistic offence! Period.” - rose

Right you are rose, but the arousal pattern of “the sadistic offender” is attached more to the pain and suffering of the victim than the specific physical characteristics which is what was being discussed. 
Also at play in pedophilia is the varying age of consent laws which have been much in the news lately.

John316, please give an example of a sadistic offender uninterested in the gender of his/her victim? You say that these are the ones who make the news, but all the ones I’ve read about had a marked gender preference.

Hosea 6:6,
Those statistics and the supporting link are for all violent and property crime, are they not?

oscewicee,
I was referring to Marty the Baptist [31] who said, “Somebody is lying” and then went on to quote me and Brian from T19 highlighting what appeared to be conflicting points.  I simply pointed out that child sex abuse is very complex, and that we were both right in that we had each posted one of three general categories that child sex offenders fall into. 

By listing the third category, Sadistic or Indiscriminant Offender, I didn’t intend to say that the physical attributes of the victim play no part in the attack, but rather the defining characteristic of this category is that the arousal pattern is attached more to the pain that they cause.

A Preferential Offender would prefer a child and spends inordinate amounts of time and money setting up that opportunity.

A Situational Offender takes advantage of a situation when it presents itself, but doesn’t seek out those situations like the Preferential Offender does.

I think some of the confusion over the term “pedophile” comes from the difference between:

(a) the medical/psychiatric definition (one who is attracted to a pre-pubscent child) and

(b)the common use of the term in society and, most especially, in our current laws (one who is attracted to anyone under the age of 18).  Truly, most recent laws define “pedophilia” as attraction to or sexual behavior with any person who has not yet achieved the age of 18.

Typically, those who create these laws, and many who ae invovled in the passing of these laws, do not listen to the experts (medical, psychiatric, etc.), down to and including such simple things as the proper terms and the proper definitions.

John 316, we agreed somewhat, but not completely.  The main point of my post was to illustrate that Brian from T19 was making just the same sort of sweeping generalization that Smuggs accused Greg of making in #3.

Brian’s generalization is a common one, from those who wish to distance homosexuality from it’s connection to child sexual abuse, and that is by saying that in essence, “pedophilia is a separate ‘orientation’ of its own, and pedophiles have no attraction to adults of either gender”. 

We know this to be just as false as the “all homosexuals are pedophiles” fallacy.  (Neverminding that IF, as claimed, pedophila is just another orientation and pedophiles are ‘born that way—can’t change’, then it’s merely a matter of time before they demand their civil rights and TEC starts blessing their relationships).

Greg

Therefore, if you hire a left-hander, chances are three times greater that they will be a coffee-abuser than if you hired a right-hander.

And much like pedophelia and sexual preference, there is no causation.

Brian, you’re picking semantic nits in order to reach a ridiculous conclusion. If you insist, I’ll use the term “child-molester” instead of “pedophile,” but the point remains.

The term is no better because an adult who molests an adolescent is not a pedophile.  Only an adult who molests a prepubescent youth is a pedophile.

#44 - though both appear to qualify for special treatment under the Episcopal Church’s “born that way” rule.

Carl
It would be most enlightening to see how you parse out the difference between a “sexual preference” and a “sexual abberation/disorder.” I trust the distinction has some foundation other than the authentic desire of a legal adult to perform some sex act with another legal adult and/or adults.  There has to be some moral category in there besides legitmate consent.  Could you enlighten us?

One is an abberation and one is not.

Sarah

The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female.

So less than 22% were the victims of pedophile priests.  The rest were the victims of ephebophile priests.

Marty

So which is it?  Is pedophilia a pure “youth-only orientation” as Brian claims?  Or are pedophiles also interested in adult sex, as Dr. Abel claims?

Dr. Abel is correct.  My statement wasn’t a lie, simply not inclusive (I hope you all see the irony;))

Hosea616

#34—John316, Not exactly.

Because you are using an erroneous criteria.

Marty

Brian’s generalization is a common one, from those who wish to distance homosexuality from it’s connection to child sexual abuse, and that is by saying that in essence, “pedophilia is a separate ‘orientation’ of its own, and pedophiles have no attraction to adults of either gender”.

I do not assert that pedophelia is a separate orientation.  Quite the opposite.  Pedophelia is a disorder.

John316—Egads, you are correct, I had looked at the top section of RAINN Stats page, this is where they are defending the “every two minutes” claim. Just above their victim relationship break down which begins with:

“The following information is based on the National Crime Victims Survey, 2005. Data from 2006 is not yet available.”

“73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger — 38% of perpetrators were a friend or acquaintance of the victim, 28% were an intimate and 7% were another relative.” (the source data for that is found here)

“Because of the methodology of the National Crime Victimization Survey, these figures do not include victims 12 or younger. While there are no reliable annual surveys of sexual assaults on children, (PDF, 37KB) the Justice Department has estimated that one of six victims are under age 12.”

The 1992 Child Rape Victims stats: “The older the victim, the less likely that victim and offender were family members and the more likely they were strangers to one another: 4% of victims under 12 said the rapist was a stranger, compared to 33% of victims 18 or older; 6% of imprisoned rapists of females under 12 said the victim was a stranger, compared to 47% of imprisoned rapists of females”

There is a table that I would not be able to recreate here. Also this only for female victims, I do not see a breakdown on male victims under 12 on DOJ’s site (though overall males are ~5 times much less to be a victim of sexual assaults).

Phil

#44 - though both appear to qualify for special treatment under the Episcopal Church’s “born that way” rule.

Someone who is ‘born that way’ is still responsible for their actions.  Certainly there is an element of ‘born that way’ in serial killers, but no one suggests that their behavior is acceptable.  I am aware of no one in TEC who has stated that pedophelia is OK because they are ‘born that way’

[#46] Brian of T19 wrote:

One is an abberation and one is not.

As I suspected.  There is no standard beyond “I approve of this sexual behavior, whereas I do not approve of that sexual behavior.”  As to whether said disapproval is founded upon aesthetics or morals or the current time of day, we do not know.  But of course liberals don’t know either.  And here I hoped to be enlightened.

carl

I am aware of no one in TEC who has stated that pedophelia is OK because they are ‘born that way’ I am aware of no one in TEC who has stated that pedophelia is OK because they are ‘born that way’

Give them time, Brian.  Since “born that way” is the crux of their current argument for GLBTQI orientations being gifts of God, they’ll either have to affirm the same for pedophilia, or give up the argument.

Obviously, Brian, we could have been having this conversation twenty years ago about homosexuality and you could have said the same thing: “no one suggests that their behavior is acceptable.”

Scholars suggest the Blessed Mother could have been fourteen or so when Christ was born.  Societal norms change.

In fact, ECUSA is forced to suggest exactly that this is OK, though, I grant, unwillingly.  Once you do the hard work of eviscerating long-held, shared norms concerning behavior, leaving only cultural whim as a bulwark, the game is lost.  I suppose we’ll find that out; I didn’t expect we’d see the day where it’s commonplace for pre-teens to dress like whores and chit-chat about oral sex.

Brian #46:

I do not assert that pedophelia is a separate orientation.  Quite the opposite.  Pedophelia is a disorder.

It wasn’t very long ago, that homosexuality was not an “orientation”—it was a “disorder”.  But we see how easily these sorts of judgements can change over time.  What you described about pedophilia (an exclusive attraction to children) is no different that how homosexuality (an exclusive attraction to ones own gender) or heterosexuality (exclusive attraction to the opposite gender).  You would not be the first, nor will you be the last, to paint the condition of pedophila in the same logic as that of an “orientation” while still denying that condition the “legitimacy” that comes with the accepted label.

But considering that “age of consent” is nothing more than a social constuct that has changed greatly over time and distance (unlike sex/gender), I think you’re walking on some very thin ice.  Today’s disorder is tomorrows civil rights struggle.

Therefore, if you hire a left-hander, chances are three times greater that they will be a coffee-abuser than if you hired a right-hander.

And much like pedophelia and sexual preference, there is no causation.

Brian - how can you possibly make that assertion - ‘there’s no causation’? How do you know? You don’t know one way or the other whether there’s ‘causation.’

I never ceased to be amazed at the contortions some people will put themselves through to deny the obvious connection between things like homosexuality and child molestation.

Greg—I think the good news in all this is that the contortions show just how very desperate they are for people not to see those connections.

The information just on this thread is devastating—and they know it good and well.

Greg, This is an unfinished story, have there been any reports about how this has affected the congregation and leadership of Christ Church where this happened?
Have background checks and hiring reforms been put in place and have systems been devised to or protect young people from abuse?

Jeepers,

On one side we have “smug I told you so” perspective and on the other the “nitpicking lets complicate the debate with big words” approach. I think both of these are unproductive and reduce the likelihood that we might collectively add to our understanding here.

I, however, think Greg Griffith’s analogy is a useful one to simplify the debate without oversimplifying it.

Therefore, if you hire a left-hander, chances are three 1) times greater that they will be a coffee-abuser than if you hired aright-hander.

So, if what you want to do is protect the coffee supply and prevent it from being abused, you would do well not to hire left-handers.

Greg’s comment reminds me of the t-shirt I saw in a shop window last week. It said, in brown letters, “Guns don’t kill people. People with mustaches kill people”

Greg’s approach, to only hire right-handers, is understandable even though it still involves hiring right-handed coffee abusers and not hiring left-handed non-abusers. But, if we improve the suggestion by keeping all young girls out of church we can be certain that sexual abuse won’t be happening at church. Of course we have to hope that the other right handed coffee abusers don’t find the female coffee that is left at hoem alone on Sunday mornings.

Obviously the right answer is to: not hire any coffee abusers.
Find any coffee abusers that slipped through the net and fire them.

How do we do that?

A gay man in the C of E was awarded £47,000 after he was turned down for a job as a youth worker: 

http://www.pastorblog.com/2007/07/19/would-you-hire-a-gay-youth-pastor/

This was regarded as ‘discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation’.  There were also demands for the Bishop who refused to hire him to be sent for ‘diversity training’, but thankfully this was not imposed.

It is the gay group ‘OutRage’ which is pressing for the age of consent to be reduced to 14, which would obviously let a lot of people off the hook. 

For an example of how sickening this is, have a look at the article entitled ‘I’m 14, I’m gay and I want a boyfriend’ under the ‘Age of Consent’ section here:  http://petertatchell.net/  This child, who has been involved in homosexual abuse from the age of 8, should be taken to a place of safety, but they are using him to bolster up their case for lowering of the age of consent.

One issue the GLBT lobby does seem to forget is that community allows NAMBLA march with them in their parades and has not exercised any discipline to chase that organization from their midst.

Is this true? wikipedia says that in 1994 the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) wroite a position paper condemning Nambla and that the organization today is essentially defunct. Other references suggest that 1994 is the year that Nambla were banned from New York Gay Pride marches

Does anyone know whether this is an accurate description? My fervent hope is that this is true and that the Gay community does indeed have zero tolerance for Nambla.

Enlish Jill - I have met some members of Outrage and they struck me as a sad collection of over-priviliged, Socialist, pathetic nincompoops with a propensity for letting their privates hang out of their pants.

I guess they are the gay equivalent of Rev Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church, the lunatic fringe.

Sadly no, humility (59) (although I cannot disagree with what you said about them!!).  Peter Tatchell is one of the UK’s principal ‘Human Rights’ Campaigners, and is at the forefront of most of the gay activism here.  We are in thrall to the ‘gay rights’ lobby, who are indeed over-privileged.  Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the other principal gay rights organisation, Stonewall, is a Commissioner on the UK’s new Commission for Equality and Human Rights.

#58—I have seen no such outcry, in fact in debate on this very topic on SF one person tried to excuse it as “NABLA is there by default.” As for being defunct - they’re still out there.

Nambla certainly isn’t defunct.  But folks, it is WE who have the ‘problematical personalities’ by opposing ‘intergenerational sex’!!  This is from Nambla’s website:

Wilhelm Stekel, one of the fathers of psychoanalysis, wrote in 1922:
According to my experience, paedophilia constitutes a nearly normal component of the sexual impulse. Nearly everybody may, at times, detect such thoughts in himself. But they will be rejected, disclaimed, and condemned with all the emotionality of moral indignation. Many people of high intellectual standing admitted to me that sinful thoughts had surprised them when they were looking at children. We fail to appreciate the immense degree to which paedophilia is prevalent among women and men.

Nearly 60 years later, Professor Sigusch wrote that adult people who did not desire to have tender sexual relations with a child, to his eyes, were “problematical personalities.”

But our present-day culture doesn’t tolerate this. It has put a big taboo on sex with children. Such feelings have to be suppressed, and the difficulties caused by this repression in their innermost being make individuals so violent in their rejection of pedophiles, so suspiciously emotional, so strongly clinging to their prejudices.

http://www.nambla.org/historical.htm

A few years ago I read a paper on this same site (which I can’t now find, annoyingly) by a very aggrieved member of the organisation telling of how at one time people with (let us say) unnatural sexual proclivities joggled along relatively happily together, and indeed Nambla was well represented on ‘Pride’ marches.  Then the gay rights lobby cottoned on to the fact that the pedophiles were holding them back from their goal of homosexuality being accepted as ‘normal’, so quietly distanced themselves.  This was a very successful move, but you can see why it made Nambla very cross.  They are trying very hard to follow in the gay lobby’s footsteps (they even formed a political party in Holland) but are a little way away yet.

As to the APA, the new criteria they established to further the acceptance of homosexuality as ‘normal’ had to be applied to pedophilia too, as has already been mentioned (as well as some other paraphilias) but they very quickly backpedalled after a public outcry.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whatapa.html

If anyone is interested in the political machinations and lobbyist pressure that was used to get the APA to drop homosexuality from their extremely comprehensive list of disorders in the first place, this paper by Jeffrey Satinover entitled The Trojan Couch charts how powerful lobby groups were so successful in getting a professional organisation to put political expediency over clinical excellence, even against the wishes of the majority of its members, and to the disgust of three of its former presidents.

http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

This successful outcome was one of the key stepping stones for the homosexualist lobby, on which much of their further progress has been built.

Brian from T19 writes:

Someone who is ‘born that way’ is still responsible for their actions.  Certainly there is an element of ‘born that way’ in serial killers, but no one suggests that their behavior is acceptable.  I am aware of no one in TEC who has stated that pedophelia is OK because they are ‘born that way’

Why, Brian, because YOU say so?  I have a male friend who was molested by our gay priest as a young teen.  He was not the only one, and now they have “gender issues”.  And yet we’ve also read here of the man who thinks it’s his constitutional right to molest young boys.  I know adults who were abused as kids whose abusers thought it was their right to do what pleased them.  The only thing “preventing” it is law based on Judea-Christian principles.  How long before those laws are thrown out because it “violates the wall between church and state”?  And where was that in the Constitution?  But even if every one of those laws is thrown out in government, they still apply as Christians.

So, Brian from T19, as we asked you (and multiple other reappraisers/liberals) months ago with you ignoring the question yet again:  Where do YOU draw the line?  And what do YOU do when YOUR line is crossed?  Who gets to make those desicions, and impose discipline when needed? 

Off for the day.

Hosea6:6 and English Jill,

Thank you for the links to Nambla. I also found a page on the site promoting <a/ href=http://www.nambla.org/boys.htm>Boys Speak Out on Man/Boy Love</a>. This appears to be testimonials from boys of their desire to have sex with adult men, such as:
“He Listens to Me, Unlike Most People” by Robert, age 16
“Sex Is Really Beautiful with My Friend” by Dennis, age 13
“Such a Relationship Is Very Beneficial” by Dan, age 19
“Man, What a Feeling!” by Eric, age 14
“Because I Enjoy It (An Interview)” by Theo, age 13
“If It Wasn’t for Mark I’d Probably Be Dead Today” by Carl, age 14
“Loneliness” by Mark, age 13
“Thank God for Boy-Lovers” by Victor, age 14
“For The First Time in My Life I Felt Wanted” by Gabriel, age 16
“He Was Very Special and Kind” by Barry, age 17

Reading the <a/ href=http://www.nambla.org/intro.htm>Introduction to the booklet</a>, it appears to be encouraging adult men to write these as memoirs. I would like to think that is the case, as it is truly disturbing to imagine adult men forcing/ encouraging their victims to write these pieces.

Reading the titles and the ages of the purported authors, I also felt very sad thinking of the older teens as they seemed to have become dependent on a relationship that would end as their bodies physically matured beyond the range to which their “lovers” were attracted.

This has been a wonderful discussion, down a side trail away from the main point of the post.  I don’t care if a person thinks of themselves as gay, Bi or straight.  If an adult person goes after and sexually assaults children, they are vicious predators, living outside the boundaries of civilized behaviour, you know, outlaws.

The church hired a man who was a sexual predator.  What happened to their due-diligence requirment for background search, prior to the hiring those coming in contact with children?  Did it take place at all?  This same church compounded their original mistake by allowing this predator to hire another sexual predator to join him in his target rich environment.  These predators not surprisingly, struck.

So, the perps get jail time, but not nearly long enough.  What happens to their employer?  What happens to the outfit that hired the predators and put them into their happy hunting ground?

Do we see that church repenting of their sins?  Have the clergy of that church, abased themselves in front of the congregation, asking for foregiveness? Has that church made settlement on the victims?

Scotsreb,
Mr. Tate said at his sentencing hearing that the hiring of the child predators happened thirty years ago.  He was choir director there for 34 years, and it is interesting to note that George H. W. Bush grew up at that church, both his parents were buried there. 

The rectors during that time have died and so no abasement or apology from them is possible.

The current policy of background checks was implemented 10 years ago after Tate had been on the staff some 25 years.  It is unlikely that a background check would have produced anything at that time, if he didn’t have an arrest record.  Abusers tend to have many abuses before they are arrested, and so screening and monitoring employees is very important.

It will be interesting though to see if the current rector apologizes and abases himself for the mistakes of his predecessor.

John316, thanks for filling in some of the gaps in the story.

I guess the main thing I get from this new info, is that the perp was active as a sexual predator within the church, for over 3 decades.  I’m not so interested in where Prescott Bush is buried, though that is an interesting bit of trivia.

I am much more concerned with the folk walking around with holes in their souls, caused by the perps and the church folk ignoring the signs.

Scotsreb,  I agree, and neither am I interested in whether the “current rector apologizes and abases himself”, but it is vitally important that the current rector, bishop and vestry pledge themselves to making sure that sexual abuse of young people will never be overlooked or tolerated in that Church again.

Thats pretty much it Scott.  We don’t trust straight men alone with our daughters as a matter of societal policy, so why on earth would we trust gay men alone with our sons?  It’s simple common sense right?  Gay or straight, men are horny pigs, duh.  But for some strange reason, gay men get REALLY OFFENDED by this.  Funny, straight men don’t seem to have a problem being kept away from our daughters….

Scott, Marty, Betty,

I exercise at a boxing gym that has a collection of members from all walks of life, some white collar, some ex-prison with little formal education. I also attend a wonderful Episcopal church that has an extremely committed congregation and excellent liturgy. If I had a family emergency where I needed to leave my son for a few hours I would choose the boxing gym over the church every time.

In general, churches have an appalling track record when it comes to child abuse. There is no evidence to suggest that the Episcopal Church or any Christian Church is remotely competent at weeding out their bad apples or even capable of comprehending the issue.

Lakeland

So, Brian from T19, as we asked you (and multiple other reappraisers/liberals) months ago with you ignoring the question yet again:  Where do YOU draw the line?

At consent.  True informed consent.  Whether it is sado-masochism, multiple partners, etc. it all comes down to consent.  Now, of course, you’ll ask me to define consent - see below.

And what do YOU do when YOUR line is crossed?

I don’t consent.

Who gets to make those desicions, and impose discipline when needed?

The State.  We have laws that say minors are incapable of consent (statutory rape) and you can not consent to illegal activities (polygamy).  The State sets the laws and they have the right to enforce them.  Consent must bne between adults for legal activities.

I would not trust a homosexual man to look after my young son, period, and there is no reason why I should.

And this is the central issue and problem with this post.  People link pedophilia and homosexuality.  It is a bigoted bias.  You are free to be a bigot and raise your son to continue your bigotry, but I believe that we should all be educated on the subject rather than give in to homophobia.

People link pedophilia and homosexuality.  It is a bigoted bias.

It is a common misconception, yes.  But there are reasons why this misconception keeps arising: it’s not all due to homophobia.  Pedophiles have received support from some activists within the gay community.  Essays in gay anthologies and magazines advocating sex with little boys, the fact that NAMBLA was once permitted to march in gay pride parades, and Little Sister Books (a famous gay & lesbian bookstore in Canada) stocking and selling pedophilic literature, all combine to give the impression of a high level of tolerance for pederasts within the GLBT community.  You may argue this is a false impression, but it’s not just based on ignorance.

Where do YOU draw the line?

At consent.  True informed consent.

Brian, I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: consent alone is not sufficient for Christian sexual ethics.  An adulterer and his mistress, a threesome, a polyamorous group, and an incestuous brother/sister couple are all consenting adults.  That doesn’t mean we have to condone their “lifestyles”.

If “consent” is where you draw the line, fine.  But that is a secular mindset, and this (in case you haven’t noticed) is a Christian forum.

I believe that we should all be educated on the subject rather than give in to homophobia.

Brian, you’ve managed to make two fallacies in one assertion.

1. This a blatant false dilemma. Our choices are not to “be educated on the subject” OR<b> “give in to homophobia.” We may be educated on the subject, <b>AND still make the assertion that there is a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. But “homophobia”? That’s where you’ve managed to…

2. Beg the question: It is not “homophobia” to state that the incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals is significantly higher than among heterosexuals. It is simply fact.

2. Beg the question: It is not “homophobia” to state that the incidence of pedophilia among homosexuals is significantly higher than among heterosexuals. It is simply fact.

Greg, Are you including homosexual females in that group?  They don’t seem to offend at a rate even as high as heterosexual females, a group that has been making news lately for extracurricular activities at school.

Male-male offenders, the largest group, are often identified as upstanding married fathers in the community, likewise male-female offenders.  Male-male offenders even report repulsion at the thought of adult males as partners.

For instance, some studies which indicate a higher percentage of homosexual offenders that are sometimes cited have looked only at males-male offenders who self identify as homosexual and do not include female homosexuals, so the jury is still out on whether or not homosexuality is a part of a very complex issue.

The only way to keep safe is to have two child care workers with children at all times and keep up other safeguards.

The State.  We have laws that say minors are incapable of consent (statutory rape) and you can not consent to illegal activities (polygamy).  The State sets the laws and they have the right to enforce them.

And why should certain activities be illegal when adults can participate with “True informed consent?”  You at long last concede that there must be some standard behind consent.  But you do not identify it.  Will you now run off and hide behind some version of positive law and say “That which is legal is moral” or will you finally provide some standard by which we may determine the limits of consent on legitimizing sexual behavior?

carl

Using the left handed coffee abuser analogy of yesterday, would seem to suggest that organist choirmasters should be hired from a pool of available homosexual women in order to provide the safest organist/choirmaster for children.

The tragedy of the Tate story is that he was extremely gifted and a world renown children’s choirmaster who allowed child abusers into the presence of children, even as he traveled internationally for sex with minors.  When a church employee found child pornography on a church laptop that had been in his possession, it triggered the investigation and dismissal.  Remarkably, at his sentencing, parents of his former choir members pled for leniency because he was so gifted and had done so much for their children.

The lesson is to keep strong safeguards in place, and never let your guard down.  One thing is certain, children are most often abused by someone that they know.  If you don’t believe me, ask Hosea 6:6, he’s done the research.

Are unable to comment fully until this weekend.  Just don’t want Brian to think we give Brian from T19’s answer a pass.

John3:16, Post 80 - Regarding your post: “Remarkably, at his sentencing, parents of his former choir members pled for leniency because he was so gifted and had done so much for their children.”

Don’t these parents care about the danger that their attitude poses to their children? I hope they have recovered from “stage mom fever” and that they realize that their own children and other children in the church may have been abused.
I would hope that each parent would talk to their children and help them to understand that it is not their fault if they were taken advantage of by the choir director or others.  As it stands now, if the child thinks their parents idolize the choir director so much that they would defend his actions in court, the child would probably not feel free to tell his parents that the choir director, or others had abused him.

I have to wonder who exactly Brian thinks “the State” is.

Is it “we the people” voting our conscience through our elected representatives?  Or is it some guy in a black robe that somebody else appointed years ago, for reasons no one even remembers…

Betty See,
You make a very important point in your [82]. The parents who pled for leniency were sending a terrible message to their own children.

Déjà Vu,  Maybe there should be a special listening process for children.  We might find that we are not teaching them what we think we are teaching them at all.
Jesus had a remarkable way of speaking to all generations and children can understand many of his His parables so it seems to me that we should stay very close to Scripture when trying to nurture children. I am afraid that the “new thing“, with its emphasis on sex and ignorance of Scripture, will lead children into a wilderness they cannot understand.

Brian from T19, you really didn’t answer the questions asked of you, but will work with what you gave.

Your “answer” to our question : Where do YOU draw the line?

At consent.  True informed consent.  Whether it is sado-masochism, multiple partners, etc. it all comes down to consent.  Now, of course, you’ll ask me to define consent - see below. 

Hmmm.  Consent.  Most states prohibit the sale of alcohol to people under the age of 21 because enough of that age group don’t have the ability to make wise decisions in imbibing it.  The larger set of under 21 is protected.  And there is no excuse of “consent” accepted, violators are prosecuted and punished.

In the larger context of which we asked you this question before, is in the church.  Not society at large.  What do you use to base your value set on?  From your writings, it’s whatever has been voted on.  Society can and has written any law it chooses that conflicts with Christian values.  As has TEC.  Abortion is one of the first that come to mind.  Our question remains and has been what will you do when something is passed in the church that violates YOUR conscience.  This question is what you have avoided. 

Next Question: 

And what do YOU do when YOUR line is crossed?

I don’t consent.

The spirit of the question posed to you was what would YOU do when things are passed that by your own conscience you can not consent. 

We recently had to listen multiple times to someone ridiculing former Presiding Bishop Jack Allen because he didn’t want to take communion from a woman after General Convention allowed it.  It was against +Allen’s conscience and beliefs—as it remains for others today.  The Anglican “tent” is supposed to allow this diversity of “consent”, yet doesn’t. 

Final Question asked: 

Who gets to make those desicions, and impose discipline when needed?

The State.  We have laws that say minors are incapable of consent (statutory rape) and you can not consent to illegal activities (polygamy).  The State sets the laws and they have the right to enforce them.  Consent must bne between adults for legal activities.

The “State” can enact anything it wants, even if it’s contrary to Christian principles - which it has and we as a nation are seeing and living out the consequences of those poor decisions.  The questions posed to you were not in this context.  We would be willing to bet that if the “State” passed a law that all people named Brian or whatever must report for execution, you would be fighting it tooth and nail.  You would not consent.  But yet, there would be a law requiring your consent.  That was the context.

What many of us have said is that TEC has gone too far from its Christian roots and WE DON’T CONSENT!  TEC is so far out on the limb that it’s pulling the tree out of the ground.  And that tree is dying, make no mistake about that.  Anyone who has seen a tree uprooted by hurricane or tornado knows that it isn’t going to survive unless it is in the ground the way it was designed.  No law or constitution and/or canons written by man can change how God designed things and His call for our obedience.  You may choose to ignore that call, that’s the free will He gave you.  But one day, He will be asking you about that consent and what you used to define it.  But more importantly, He will be asking you why you didn’t use HIS definitions.

God will be asking why these men were not taught and did not learn to keep their hands off these children.  God will be asking why TEC allowed an environment that these men felt it was permissible to inflict un-Christian AND illegal activity on these children.  And God will be asking every person what they did to prevent it.  We didn’t consent just isn’t good enough, He requires active battle.