Thursday, February 9, 2012

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Attempt to ‘Disappear’ Frank Lombard Moves from Church to Commune

Monday, June 29, 2009 • 9:08 am


CJ was the first to alert me last night to the growing attempts to ‘disappear’ alleged child rapist Frank Lombard from the commune where he lived in Durham, North Carolina.

Lombard’s story can be found here, and in it you can see the minute-by-minute details of the way we first discovered a link between Lombard and the Episcopal Church of the Advocate in nearby Carrboro. Lombard was on the vestry of the church and was scheduled to rotate off in 2010. Saturday morning as the news began to break, ECOTA started removing from its site all references to Lombard, including his name on a page listing vestry members, then a “Who’s Who” PDF that listed Lombard as a vestry member along with his Duke email address, and finally an archived church newsletter from February 2008 that we believe shows Lombard (and perhaps his two adopted children) with a group from the church posing on the front steps of a home-turned-office.

As is our habit with stories like this, we downloaded everything we thought was relevant and stored it for safe keeping before we posted anything on our site; thus we’re able to provide the redacted documents for everyone to see.

We’re not surprised that ECOTA would scrub its site of all references to Lombard, but it is odd that the church has not issued a statement of any kind on the matter. This would be understandable if Lombard were merely a parishioner: Anyone, engaging in any perversion, is free to attend almost any church they want, Episcopal or not. The revelation of criminal behavior may prompt a church to issue a statement, but in that case a church doesn’t owe the public a statement any more than any other organization owes the public a statement in a similar situation.

But Lombard is/was on the vestry of ECOTA. While perhaps a statement on a vestry member’s alleged criminal actions is not called for as it would be had the allegations been made against a rector or staff member, the complete silence from ECOTA is steadily moving from understandable (a small church, a story breaking on a weekend), to odd (presumably the rector and staff were aware of the story on Sunday, and present at the church, and able to cobble together something, no matter how cursory or vague), to frankly suspicious (here we are on a Monday morning, close to midday, and still nothing).

The failure of ECOTA to handle this crisis properly at least has plausible explanations. It is obviously a tiny church. It is probably unaccustomed and unequipped to deal with accusations this horrific, which hit this close to home. So their silence in the first 48 hours is at least explained - perhaps - by their size and unfamiliarity with how to behave in situations like this. However, it’s now time to say something - anything - or risk raising suspicions that what’s behind the church’s silence is not simply shock or incompetence, but something worse.

Now, it appears that the attempt to ‘disappear’ Frank Lombard has moved beyond the confines of his tiny Episcopal church, and into the commune where he lived. Eno-Commons is a community of a couple of dozen homes in Durham, North Carolina, where Lombard lived with his male partner and their two adopted African-American boys, at least one of whom was allegedly molested by Lombard. Eno-Commons pulled their website over the weekend (their site is 403 as of this writing); the internet archive service Wayback Machine has copies of some of the pages available, but the most recent snapshot is from December 25, 2007.

Quotes from this article do nothing but heighten suspicions on what’s going on inside Eno-Commons that they feel they need to block access to their entire web site, as well as to the commune itself:

Neighbors of Lombard had nothing to say about him Saturday to a reporter who visited Eno Commons, a co-housing community in north Durham.

Residents ordered the reporter to leave the neighborhood, which emphasizes communal life.

A roadblock with a “no trespassing” sign and a Subaru greeted visitors Saturday to Indigo Creek Trail, a private street in the 22-home neighborhood.

It’s past time that the Episcopal Church of the Advocate issue some sort of statement. If that doesn’t happen soon, then attention is going to start turning to North Carolina Bishop Michael Curry. If it comes to that, then don’t be surprised if Curry, one of the church’s staunchest advocates of gay marriage, begins to face questions on the appropriateness of homosexuals marrying and adopting children.

Beyond that, it’s beginning to look like Eno-Commons has something to hide as well. Shock and speechlessness are one thing, but whitewashing and wagon-circling - both at the church as well as the commune - are quite another.


89 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

The story was picked up here: http://tinyurl.com/njyz3m

The author adds:

After the news of Lombard’s arrest broke, I located his Face Book page so I could send him an interview request – but certainly not a “friend” request. For those not familiar with Face Book, it allows one to fill out a little “About me” line below one’s profile picture. Mine says “I never dated Sarah Palin. But I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express.” Until shortly after his arrest, Frank Lombard’s read “Fan of Gene Robinson.”

[1] Posted by robroy on 06-29-2009 at 09:10 AM • top

subscribing to watch,listen,  and learn

[2] Posted by TLDillon on 06-29-2009 at 09:24 AM • top

What he has done with these children is horrific.  How can one not be suspicious of homosexual males in positions of power (clergy, vestry) in churches, when the carnage has been so great.

There will be those that correctly cite the heterosexual abuses, but statistically, due to the small size of male homosexuals in the population, the incidence of abuse of children by these deviants must be lopsided.

Where there is smoke, there’s usually fire.

[3] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 06-29-2009 at 09:29 AM • top

Though I think we should be very careful not to jump to conclusions about Eno Commons and Lombard’s “church,” the conduct of both certainly invites suspicion whether it is justified or not.

[4] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 06-29-2009 at 09:31 AM • top

I wonder if the silence of the community is based on the possibility of future legal action against Lombard?  I would not be surprised if at this point the parents in the community are not in close communion with police and children’s advocates to try and find out if there are more victims. 

As for the church.  I would think the sexual abuse scandal in the RC church would have shown other churches that appearances of a coverup (whether real or not) is not the way to convince people you are acting in the victims’ best interest.  And at worse it can trigger speculation that the church had reason to be suspicious of Lombard.

[5] Posted by Paula Loughlin on 06-29-2009 at 09:41 AM • top

To add to my comment, whether or not they have something to hide (And I think they probably don’t have much to hide.), they are becoming a textbook case in how not to respond to scandal.

[6] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 06-29-2009 at 09:41 AM • top

To me the best answer would be (and already should have been) that the parish is consulting legal council.  And they should be doing that to ensure that they can provide proof that this person did nothing wrong while involved in parish activities or using parish property.  Their silence is very, very disturbing.

[7] Posted by BillB on 06-29-2009 at 09:59 AM • top

A Frank Lombard is listed as an “inactive” vestry member of The Episcopal Church of the Advocate. With a year left to serve on his three-year term.

http://www.rtpnet.org/ocm/vestry.htm

It is funny to me that some news stories say that he is accused of molesting his son while others only refer to a five-year-old boy - any thoughts on that? I haven’t read the affidavit - did it specify that the victim was his adopted son? If so, I don’t understand why some news stories are hiding that fact.

[8] Posted by oscewicee on 06-29-2009 at 10:01 AM • top

Am I correct that at this moment nothing is proven in the sense of a Court judgement or verdict?  If that is so, Mr. Lombard is under the presumption of innocence rule and legal lay people (like priests) are perhaps well advised to keep their opinions private.  IANAL so I would clam up in that circumstance although I would be calling my legal people about now—Monday morning. 

Stick a mic under my nose and I would say simply that Mr. Lombard does appear to have some legal problems and has left the vestry (assuming he has.)  I certainly would not comment further.  That is not liberal or conservative perspective it is simply good practice. Lying to the media is the second worst mistake one can make, the worst is talking too much.

FWIW
jimB

[9] Posted by jimB on 06-29-2009 at 10:07 AM • top

I agree that this (the revision of the web site) does not help the church at all. I don’t know anything about that parish or this community, but “openness” does not seem to be active right now.

[10] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 06-29-2009 at 10:08 AM • top

jimB offers up some good advice for all to reflect on.  Withholding comment handicaps further speculation by those bent on building a relationship between an individual’s actions and the church he attends.

[11] Posted by ruauper2 on 06-29-2009 at 10:39 AM • top

subscribe

[12] Posted by kalee on 06-29-2009 at 10:41 AM • top

Even giving the benefit of the doubt to The Episcopal Church of the Advocate, it does not seem like they are handling this matter with appropriate openness (so much for “transparency”). The removal of the newsletter page with the photo is the key. The proper procedure in a case like this where the charges are so serious would be to suspend Lombard from the vestry, and if he is found guilty to remove him permanently. In those instances removing his name from the vestry list would be appropriate and should be viewed as an attempt to accurate reflect the make up of the vestry, not as a cover-up. Removing the picture Lombard however is separate from this and represents a willingness to “scrub” the official record and cover up his association with the church. If this is the case than shame on TECOTA.

[13] Posted by Ecclesiastes 1:18 on 06-29-2009 at 10:42 AM • top

Without knowing anything about the church, I have some sympathy for them - the man is innocent until proven guilty yet any church, with children for members or seeking to attract families with children, is bound to be a bit horrified at such charges against a vestry member and might not want his face featured on their website. They can’t condemn the man or say much about his present situation without the risk of facing legal liability (what if they slander him and it turns out he is innocent)? I’m glad our vestry is not faced with this one.

[14] Posted by oscewicee on 06-29-2009 at 10:51 AM • top

“a bit horrified” is a huge understatement….

[15] Posted by oscewicee on 06-29-2009 at 10:52 AM • top

Why do these series of events seem so dark? A short statement would seem appropriate otherwise it feels like complicity.
Intercessor

[16] Posted by Intercessor on 06-29-2009 at 10:53 AM • top

#8,

That URL seems to have been ECOTA’s web site before they got their domain name.  Now that it’s public, I expect Lombard’s name will disappear soon.

[17] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 06-29-2009 at 10:57 AM • top

Ecclesiastes,
I have served on a vestry.  There is no national canon provision for any authority to suspend a vestry person.  In fact, once elected they are more securely in place than the clergy whose license can be revoked by the bishop.  Absent national canons that provide a process.  Diocese and congregations can cover this but it is a bit spotty.

There was a move to amend the canons at this year’s GC to formalize a removal process.  In a rare moment of unity, liberals and conservatives both hated the proposed canons and I think they were dropped.  So the relevant canon is probably local, probably has not been read by either a lawyer or a bishop in years, and may not provide (I would bet on this) the path you suggest. 

Wanna bet someone down there is investigating the canon situation as we type?

FWIW
jimB

[18] Posted by jimB on 06-29-2009 at 11:01 AM • top

Lombard’s name is back on the vestry page, with (inactive) beside it.

[19] Posted by Marty the Baptist on 06-29-2009 at 11:04 AM • top

Ahem.  I did post the link to the newspaper article here at SF on Sunday morning.

[20] Posted by Katherine on 06-29-2009 at 11:11 AM • top

Christopher Johnson, his name also shows up here:

http://www.ouradvocate.org/vestry.htm

I assume that’s their domain name?

[21] Posted by oscewicee on 06-29-2009 at 11:17 AM • top

#8

It is funny to me that some news stories say that he is accused of molesting his son while others only refer to a five-year-old boy - any thoughts on that?

Sure. It’s the very reasonable attempt to cover the news without identifying a 5-yr-old abuse victim. It’s commonplace in most cases of abuse, but obviously much harder when the victim is related to the abuser.

I think we should keep this in mind before jumping on the parish for their actions. It’s not entirely unreasonable to remove things that might serve to identify the child(ren) (someone implied there were pictures of the kids) or might imply support for the abuser (there was a time when being on the vestry of an Epicopalian parish engendered respect). I see no reason to expect a small church to feed the 24/7 internet news ScandalOgre.

[22] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 06-29-2009 at 11:27 AM • top

I can also image parents of some children in the pics with Lombard not wanting them on the website to protect their own children from publicity.

[23] Posted by Fidela on 06-29-2009 at 11:28 AM • top

#21,

That’s the one he was initially erased from.  We might be looking at a case of panic here.

[24] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 06-29-2009 at 11:33 AM • top

I agree with you, Positive Phototaxis, about cutting the church some slack. It’s a terrible thing to have to deal with and they are probably appalled at this turn of events and not at all sure how best to handle it. I wouldn’t be.

But I’ve grown used to seeing news stories that mention the relationship if a child is abused by a parent. Since some do and some don’t on this one, I wondered.

[25] Posted by oscewicee on 06-29-2009 at 11:39 AM • top

Since some do and some don’t on this one

While the principle seems simple enough, news organizations all have their own standards on when/if to identify a victim or alleged victim. Most will not publish the name of a rape victim… some won’t do so even if the story is later thought to be false… some will publish it from day one on the theory that not doing so adds to the stigmatization of women who have been assaulted. 

In this internet age, the end result is that anyone can find out just about anything they want even when some news sources attempt to be responsible. This, of course, is a shame.

[26] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 06-29-2009 at 11:53 AM • top

If you check out the Diocesan website, you will see that the Vicar of “The Advocate,” Lisa Fishbeck, is a deputy to GC09.  One more reason to try to avoid Lombard’s connection with the mission congregation?

Interestingly, another deputy, The Rev. Timothy Kimbrough, is a solidly orthodox priest who is the rector of Church of the Holy Family (the more conservative parish in the Chapel Hill area.

[27] Posted by Eddie Swain on 06-29-2009 at 12:09 PM • top

The church needs to be very careful. They could get into a Christ Church, Greenwich, CT, situation if they scrub too deeply.

http://newhaven.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/2007/nh121807d.htm
It may be why his name was returned as an “inactive” member of vestry.  The lawyers may be working overtime on this one.

[28] Posted by Dr. N. on 06-29-2009 at 12:11 PM • top

Where is the partner in all this? After all, this is a model couple in the eyes of their church. Is the partner totally unknowing of what is happening to his children?

[29] Posted by Dr. N. on 06-29-2009 at 12:41 PM • top

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming that since this congregation has only a vicar and not a rector, it’s a mission, and not a full parish.

That would suggest to me that the Diocese is in charge.  I know that if I were the vicar, if this kind of horrible situation arose on my watch, the diocesan HQ would be the first place I would call.  Heck, a rector would probably do the exact same thing, forget it just being a vicar.

Where is the Diocese in all of this?  I find it impossible to believe they have not been consulted by the church about what they should do.

[30] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 06-29-2009 at 01:16 PM • top

Egads.  This is horrible.  I hope they throw away the key…

As far as the church goes - you can’t really blame them for distancing themselves, but it appears they are “covering up” a little too much.

[31] Posted by B. Hunter on 06-29-2009 at 01:47 PM • top

Wouldn’t you think, with KJS & Co. offering so much “legal” help all over the country, that they would also step in to advise the church in this crisis?  Or is their “legal” help only available when bucks or real estate is involved??  (Miaou)

[32] Posted by Goughdonna on 06-29-2009 at 02:15 PM • top

#32, based on the “anything goes” resolutions coming up in GC09, perhaps 815 is standing back to let the TEO “new identity” become more definitely established…..

[33] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 06-29-2009 at 02:24 PM • top

I’d like to suggest, that given the dem controlled senate’s interest in forcing through S.909 which would provide a gaping loophole through which such types could attack religion and churches, as well as redefine pedophiles, among other paraphilias as “sexual orientation” that those willing contact their 2 senators and express their concern, as well as mentioning this horrifying case.

[34] Posted by mari on 06-29-2009 at 02:34 PM • top

I’ve been having a look at the Eno Commons Cohousing website and I found reference to an article there - “Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender Friendly:Yes (check this article about one of our families: http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2004-06-09/cover.html)

I had a look at the Indy Week website because the link just takes you to the archive page, and I found this news story - http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:21870 - “Paper mommies and friendly lawsuits: Gay and lesbian parents must create a legal patchwork to protect their children. Luckily, studies say, the kids are all right.”

It’s the correct issue, 2004-06-09, and the article says, “Settling down in an environment where they feel supported was important to Surles and Rimer. In our cozy, idyllic neighborhood, there are few single or childless people, but gay families are a visible presence. All the kids play together on the play set and in the meadow.”

The Eno Commons website speaks specifically about a “meadow”. If you click on “About Eno Commons” and scroll down to “Paradise for Children”. it says “From the time they decide to participate at the age of two or three, children can help make some of the community rules.  They clear their places at community meals, leave their shoes on all of our porches, run through the meadow (or more likely around Sam and Margaret’s yard) with their friends, get homework help from all of us, follow animal tracks through the woods, or choose to be alone.”

[35] Posted by kailash on 06-29-2009 at 02:35 PM • top

Also if you look at the first comment from the Indy week article someone else worked out the connection to Lombard.

[36] Posted by kailash on 06-29-2009 at 02:47 PM • top

Further reading (the Duke University newspaper The Chronicle) reveals that Eno Commons was the brainchild of a lesbian involved with the glbtq parents movement, who was involved with, get this, the lawsuit from Massachusetts that demanded glbtq rights to custody, adoption and fostering. I can’t remember the entire lawsuit title, but it was E.N.O. vs whomever the defendent was.

Wonder if that’s where the Eno in Eno Commons comes from?

[37] Posted by mari on 06-29-2009 at 02:54 PM • top

The Eno Commons website is back up btw.

[38] Posted by kailash on 06-29-2009 at 02:56 PM • top

Mari, good work.

[39] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 06-29-2009 at 02:58 PM • top

mari: Looks like the “Eno” comes from Eno River State Park which the commune is next to.

[40] Posted by kailash on 06-29-2009 at 02:59 PM • top

Well, it’s not a “cosy, idyllic neighborhood” anymore. No wonder why the residents are not talking to anybody. Whatever ones feels about adoption by gays, the residents must be under the same cloud that priests felt after the abuse scandal, or that Protestant clergy feel when the same sorts of stories come out. You just want to distance yourself completely because everybody except those in your own group starts pointing fingers saying, “You’re all horrible child abusers, aren’t you?”

As far as the church, I think they possibly got legal advice to cover up information about this twisted man and his involvement in church life.

[41] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 06-29-2009 at 04:03 PM • top

A gay newspaper is not happy with the (limited) media exposure: http://tinyurl.com/ktupfv

[42] Posted by robroy on 06-29-2009 at 04:35 PM • top

Dr N asks, “Where is the partner in all this?” Have we established that both roomies adopted the kids?

Also, Drudge has picked up the story. It’s not going away soon.

[43] Posted by off2 on 06-29-2009 at 05:07 PM • top

Yeah, once something shows up on Drudge, the MSM has a hard time ignoring it.

[44] Posted by elanor on 06-29-2009 at 06:25 PM • top

Could someone provide a link to the report on Drudge?  I went there and didn’t see this story.

[45] Posted by Fidela on 06-29-2009 at 06:34 PM • top

Fidela,

Last time I saw it, it was on the right column, near the end of the news links just before the advertisement.

[46] Posted by Greg Griffith on 06-29-2009 at 06:52 PM • top

Thank you, Greg.

[47] Posted by Fidela on 06-29-2009 at 06:59 PM • top
[48] Posted by JanDioMA on 06-29-2009 at 07:58 PM • top
[49] Posted by JanDioMA on 06-29-2009 at 09:23 PM • top

Ah, yes.  Good work on the Eno Commons community.  This is why the local news media are tiptoeing around the story.  WRAL (CBS affiliate) is reporting that gay adoptive parents in North Carolina are very worried that this story will cause trouble for them.

[50] Posted by Katherine on 06-29-2009 at 10:36 PM • top

I looked up the church statistics and it has about 70 in attendance in 2007—so it is small but not tiny.

The chart is strange—it only starts in 2004. Does anyone know why that is?
http://12.0.101.92/reports/PR_ChartsDemo/exports/ParishRPT_6302009124731AM.pdf

[51] Posted by MargaretG on 06-29-2009 at 10:50 PM • top

The parish is a mission started at about that time, MargaretG.

[52] Posted by Katherine on 06-29-2009 at 10:55 PM • top

More on the commune:
link
speaks of a valentines’ day “secret pal” event bringing children together randomly with a secret pal adult.

Seven years ago Suzanne started the Secret Pal week tradition to celebrate Valentine’s Day at Eno Commons.

The goal of Secret Pal week is to promote interaction between adults and kids. Adults are asked to volunteer to be a secret pal and are matched with a child. During the week leading up to Valentine’s Day, the adults give their secret pal children little gifts and clues, but the adults keep their identity a secret. At the end of the week, the kids prepare the brunch.

It is fun watching the kids huddling together trying to guess who their secret pal is. Can you think of a better way to connect kids with adults?

[53] Posted by j.m.c. on 06-30-2009 at 01:07 PM • top

The more I read about this housing unit/compound, the more sorry I feel for the kids. Really treacly stuff there.

[54] Posted by oscewicee on 06-30-2009 at 01:11 PM • top

We have gotten to the point in this culture that touch is looked at askance between adults and children they are not related to. People do need to be safe, but it’s sad to me that a teacher-for instance-can’t hug a young child of the oposite gender in public when it’s clear that it’s not a sexual hug.

I think the idea was probably well intentioned to begin with, but this kind of thing just lays itself open to all kinds of problems and the hideous problems that can result are apparent.

[55] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 06-30-2009 at 01:44 PM • top

FenelonSpoke, if your 55 is in response to my 54, you missed my point. (And if it wasn’t, apologies.) I don’t think kids need or want adult “friends” in the way many of the descriptions at this community describe things. I think they want and need adults who will be adults, who set boundaries, who love them *and* “boss” them.  Not “secret pal” valentines. Ick.

[56] Posted by oscewicee on 06-30-2009 at 02:10 PM • top

It wasn’t in response to your post, oscewicee. Just an unconnected thought. :^)

I do agree kids don’t need adult friends. They probably do, however, need loving, moral people who may not be related to them who can give them hugs and who they can give hugs to in return.

[57] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 06-30-2009 at 02:13 PM • top

I also think “secret pals” between kids and adults is really problemmatic.

[58] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 06-30-2009 at 02:14 PM • top

Kids do need adult role models, Big Brothers/Big Sisters come to mind in the filling of that role. Its a bit hasty to read something into the secret pal “game” that is discussed here. One could point to the fact it may well have sprung from the secret pal “game” so often a part of adult social club activity. In both cases there’s something magical/mystical about the fact you have a secret pal. True, in isolated instances there may be an ulterior motive on the secret pal’s part but its a rush to judgement to hold that such is the case here.

BTW, there’s a huge difference between being gay or being a pedophile. The gay is usually a male and attracted to other males. The pedophile, usually a male, is attracted to children. period. You’ll recall FL didn’t want any sexual activity with children going on when his gay partner was present in the home.

[59] Posted by ruauper2 on 06-30-2009 at 05:09 PM • top

I assumed that was because he didn’t want his partner to know, ruauper2. This particular male pedophile appears to also be attracted to male adults? Hence the partner? I feel sorry for the partner if he was unaware of his lover’s depravity.

My impression of the attitude toward children at the community was not based just on the “secret pal” game - which I still find icky - but on all their child-focused descriptions. A bit too saccharine.

[60] Posted by oscewicee on 06-30-2009 at 05:15 PM • top

How can you be acting as role model if your identity is secret? Is giving gifts in secret really the best way to be a role model? And why the association with valentines day? I concur: icky. And what is the ‘huge difference’? You yourself admit that these things exist all of a piece in the unity of a single person.

[61] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 06-30-2009 at 05:25 PM • top

[61]

I used Big Bros/Big Sisters as an example of Adult role modeling can be accomplished. You misread and thus misinterperted the relationship between a children’s “sceret pal game” and that of a similar adult ‘secret pal game that I was trying to make. i made no claim that secret gifts were a part of adult role modeling. Your reference to an “association with valentine’s Day” by me is puzzling. I never made such a remark.

I stand by my statement that there are differences between gays and pedophiles. A gay male is attracted to other males. A pedophile’s interest is in children. Two different individuals with different attractions, not one person with two different sets of attractions.

Apparently the partner’s role/orientation in all this is something yet to be determined. FL has been careful to arrange appointments when he is not around. We know nothing else about the partner so speculation about him will be just that, speculation.

[62] Posted by ruauper2 on 06-30-2009 at 07:36 PM • top

[60]

Your right, the partner thing is most interesting. I don’t recall ever running into a similar case in the many years I dealt with child abuse cases

[63] Posted by ruauper2 on 06-30-2009 at 07:44 PM • top

Two different individuals with different attractions, not one person with two different sets of attractions.

Ah, no, that’s a negative.  I agree that attraction to prepubescent children is a distinct phenonomena from attraction to same-age or adults.  If you are intending to say that one can’t be attracted to prepubescent children and adults, you are mistaken.

[64] Posted by AndrewA on 06-30-2009 at 08:13 PM • top

I stand by my statement that there are differences between gays and pedophiles. A gay male is attracted to other males. A pedophile’s interest is in children. Two different individuals with different attractions, not one person with two different sets of attractions.

That’s not at all clear since a solid majority of victims are boys (falling clearly into the “other males” category)... in that case it’s one person with either “both” or “the same” attraction(s). The only debate there is whether (or to what extent) they are “different” - Joseph on Kidergarden Cop knew the difference… surely these perps do.

[65] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 06-30-2009 at 09:12 PM • top

ruauper2:  Lombard, if guilty as charged, is clearly one individual with both a gay male attraction (the partner with whom he owns the home) and same-sex pedophilia urges (at least the one child).

The partner has not been charged and may not have known.  I do not know if he had also adopted the children or if that was in process.  I do feel sorry for him.  He goes on a business trip and when he comes back his partner is in jail on horrific charges and the children are gone, probably never to return.

[66] Posted by Katherine on 06-30-2009 at 11:02 PM • top

#62 I was referring to the quote in #53 ‘leading up to Valentine’s day’ bothers me. If you missed that do you admit that’s inappropriate? Even granting the intentions of the others who put this together, do you admit that *because there is risk* that people like FL will misinterpret/exploit events like this, in the interests of safety, it’s best not to have events like this? That’s my only point.

BTW, two Christmases ago, we had a ‘Secret Santa’ where I work. One of the women joked, ‘It’s almost like having a stalker’. Not even all adults think of these activities as wholesome.

[67] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 07-01-2009 at 09:19 AM • top

I meant ‘even granting the good intentions’

[68] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 07-01-2009 at 09:23 AM • top

I’m glad that the last time I was part of a “Secret Santa” thing I was in a church, the secret santa involved adults and nobody raised the idea of it being synonymous with stalking.

[69] Posted by FenelonSpoke on 07-01-2009 at 09:25 AM • top

In response to [65] I was writing about separate individuals and their sexual orientation. I later added that I had not run into the situation that has been published in regards to FL and his partner’s lifestyle, i.e., where one’s orientation is unknown but speculation says he is gay and the other partner is both gay and a pedophile.

As for [64] your belief there is a “negative” in my examples I will leave that for you to prove or disprove. This assumes of course that there is a negative buried somewhere in my post.

I agree boys are the main victims. I don’t recall ever seeing any literature that addressed the situation as you have, i.e., just the shading or degree of preference. Just as there are different shades of white it may be there is a transition from gay to pedophile with a combination of both somewhere along the continuum but I doubt it. If there is a case to be built for that model then one has to wonder where the lesbian, trans-sexual or bisexual fit in the picture if, in fact, they do.

I don’t agree its inappropriate or that the possibility something may just happen rules out having a secret pal game. Totally erasing any and all games that involve adults and children seems a rather drastic cure for an event that may or may not happen. Install safeguards of your liking if so inclined but let’s not be throwing the baby out with the bath water just because some undefined “bad” thing may happen.

[70] Posted by ruauper2 on 07-01-2009 at 04:41 PM • top

As for [64] your belief there is a “negative” in my examples I will leave that for you to prove or disprove. This assumes of course that there is a negative buried somewhere in my post.

Perhaps my use of informal radio slang was confusing.  “That’s a negative” is another way of saying “That is wrong”. 

I agree boys are the main victims. I don’t recall ever seeing any literature that addressed the situation as you have, i.e., just the shading or degree of preference. Just as there are different shades of white it may be there is a transition from gay to pedophile with a combination of both somewhere along the continuum but I doubt it.

I’m suspecting that we are inadvertantly talking past each other here.

I’m starting to feel like a broken record here, but ...
I don’t think same-sex attraction to the post pubescent invarialbly coincides with same-sex attraction to the pre-pubescent.  However, there are most certainly people that have same-sex attraction to be pre and post pubescent.  The exact “Age of Attraction” range will vary from person to person.  Some might be attracted to men and teens, some to teens and boys, some to men teens and boys, etc.  Some might not be interested in boys under 8.  Some might have a thing for toddlers. 

If there is a case to be built for that model then one has to wonder where the lesbian, trans-sexual or bisexual fit in the picture if, in fact, they do.

Well, for example, bisexual cases where men are interested in women and “beardless youth” (pre and early pubescents) but would be disgusted by the thought of doing something with another man are particularly notable in Greek and Roman history, and still happens. 

Going back to Frank Lombard, if we were to take his Amazon wish list as an indication of his sexual interests, combined with the alleged crimes, assuming the accusations are true he clearly has an interest in men, teens and pre-teens.  However, there is no shortage of other cases in which adults with an active sex life with other adults, often with a wife or partner of their own, were caught abusing children of possesing child pornography. 

BTW, the DSM backs me up on this.
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia
(cautionary statement) 
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.

Specify if:

Sexually Attracted to Males
Sexually Attracted to Females
Sexually Attracted to Both

Specify if:

Limited to Incest

Specify type:

Exclusive Type (attracted only to children)
Nonexclusive Type

An individual exibiting the behavoirs that have been attributed to Frank Lombard would be a non-exclusive pedophile attracted to males.  Since he is non-excuslive, nothing prohibits him from also be categorized as homosexual.  Therfore, he his homosexual and a pedophile. 

Perhaps I was misinterpeting what you were trying to say, but if you were trying to say that a man can not be sexually interested in other men and boys at the same time, you are incorrect.

[71] Posted by AndrewA on 07-01-2009 at 05:22 PM • top

Andrew A

Your right, I was looking at it from a different angle. Oft times on these blogs debates tend to become, on occasion, very technical and almost philosophical debates. In the simplest of terms I was saying that being gay does not automatically mean one is also a pedophile.

What first bothered me in this case was the initial assumption by someone that there was a clear relationship between gay and pedophile. You’ll recall my reference to the continuum between the two and just where on that line we could place the various attractions. I may well have mislead you and others by placing them along a continuum which inferred there was a direct relationship between the two. I qualified that proposal or thesis by later stating I doubted there was a relationship between the two. I have never observed a situation where anyone, including gays, present a normal psychological profile and are then classified as pedophiles. There is no doubt much of the public believes the two are synonymous but that does not mean it is true.  Being gay is not a mental disorder, rather it is probably a complex set of hereditary,  mental, social and other complex factors that just have not yet been sorted out.

However, I now come to the main point you raise about pedophiles. It is one of several mental disorders grouped together in the DSM under “Paraphilia”. The use of the “gay” diagnosis as a mental disorder was dropped from the DSM years ago. So, in order for anyone, including gays, to be classified as a pedophile would require he be so diagnosed.

The fact one is gay does not, of itself, make one a pedophile. The fact one is a pedophile does not, of itself, make one a gay.

As a side note there is no longer any mention made in the literature that heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual orientations are mental illnesses. Mental health professionals acknowledge that many years of objective observation has proven public bias was probably the leading factor for listing them in the DSM from which they were removed years ago. I don’t recall that I disputed anything in the DSM, I merely cited it as the basis for my position that being gay does not automatically assume a diagnosis of the mental disorder pedophillia. Gay refers to men, pedophilia is a mental disorder.

As I stated before, I have no argument with the DSM citations you make, in fact I think they support my contention. However, I think we both know the DSM is not cast in stone, it has gone through four revisions and the fifth is on its way. The authors continue to make efforts to correct, discover or amend its contents. That signals that there is more than one opinion as to the correctness of its contents.

Cheers

[72] Posted by ruauper2 on 07-03-2009 at 10:51 AM • top

I don’t believe people have mentioned gay or homosexual with pedophile to infer that all homosexuals are pedophiles, BUT, to make a point to mention that, despite the homosexual communities nearly 2 decades long spreading of the meme that homosexuals can’t be pedophiles, it is the case that there are homosexual pedophiles, and that a larger percentage of the homosexual community are pedophiles, than the percentage of heterosexuals, and the fact can’t be so conveniently dismissed. Nor should it be a hate crime or should someone be censored for addressing that fact. Those who attempt to do so, are actually in aid of working to protect homosexual pedophiles, and make the reporting of such crimes much more intimidating, for fear of the threats of being attacked by the wealthy and powerful homosexual lobbies.

Yesterday, I read that lesbian pedophiles have actually started their own version of NAMBLA, that alone should tell you of their intent, and how they feel empowered and protected from the scorn such a thing rightfully deserves.

Rather than continue to attempt to put those down who have every right to scorn homosexual molesters of children, as indeed we scorn heterosexual molesters of children, especially when the reporting of the crime is being suppressed by the same wealthy and powerful community and their organizations who lie about the existence of such crimes, those who do, should be taking a principled stand, stop defending such monsters and speak up on behalf of the child victims of such monsters.

[73] Posted by mari on 07-03-2009 at 11:30 AM • top

Found it interesting that while the church-related angle is the main focus here, the N&O website closed down comments due to abuse on one of the articles about this story.  A commentary revealed that race is being argued about - that the child was African American, Mr. Lombard apparently while.

We’d like to put out a reminder to keep the children in prayer.  They are the main issue, in our opinion.  Has anyone heard of a fund being started for them?

[74] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 07-03-2009 at 11:47 AM • top

ruaupar, as I had suspected, we were arguing past each other. 

I was under the impression that you were attempting to make the claim that a gay person could not also be a pedophile.  You seem to have been under the impression that people were arguing that all gay people were pedophiles. 

All I was attempting to say was that a person can be gay and a pedophile at the same time, though by no means are all gay people pedophiles, and by no means are all pedophiles gay people.

Now, the greater dispute, I think, is actually over semantics rather than facts.

Namely:  Is an adult male attracted to a preteen boy “gay”?

For those that define the as simply “same-sex attraction” than the answer is “yes”.  However, if one were to look at how the word “gay” is most commonly used, especially by the subcultures of people that self-define as “gay,” the word is used to refer to attraction to post-pubescent males.  This is particularly true if one uses “gay” to refer to cultural and learned behavioral charactersitics, like when one speaks of a “gay sub-culture”.

I personally would say that if an adult male is atracted preteen boys but is not attracted to adult males, than he is a male-oriented exclusive pedophile, but is not “gay”.  Many such male-oriented exclusive pedophiles do not self identify is “gay” and have zero interest in “gay culture”.  They are also almost certainly going to be closeted about their attractions, and are unlikely to be going around telling everyone they are “gay”, particularly if they are actively searching for sexual contact with boys.

[75] Posted by AndrewA on 07-03-2009 at 05:27 PM • top

that a larger percentage of the homosexual community are pedophiles, than the percentage of heterosexuals, and the fact can’t be so conveniently dismissed.

Maybe it can’t be dismissed.  I think it might be true.  But it certainly hasn’t been proven. 

What do we really know?  We know that…

Caveat:  I’m not a math major and can’t seem to find the FBI reports everyone keeps refering to, but…

Taking the sum total of child sexual abuse victims that the FBI knows about, a certain percentage (lets call it percentage X, until someone can do me the favor of linking the studies they keep refering to) were males abused by males.  That percentage is higher than the percentage Y, which is the percentage that many sources guestimate as the percentage of the population that is “homosexual”.

However, there are a handful of problems that complicate us using this to make conclusions about the entire population of those that are “gay” or “homosexual”, much less anything called the “homosexual community”.

[76] Posted by AndrewA on 07-03-2009 at 05:47 PM • top

For starters, knowing the sex of the victim and the sex of the offender does not tell us the sexual orientation of the offender.  Many sexual offenders, often called “situational offenders” are not sexually oriented toward children but abuse for other reasons.  They are likely to abuse children that are outside of their normal gender preferences.

[77] Posted by AndrewA on 07-03-2009 at 06:01 PM • top

Also, even among prefferential offenders, the fact that they have a sexual preference for pre-teen boys says nothing about what their sexual interests are when it comes to adults. 

To repeat what I said in comment 75, many prefferential offenders that abuse boys are male oriented exclusive pedophiles, and therefore NOT attracted to men.  They are unlikely to be involved in gay relationships with other men, unlikely to be involved in a “gay community” and are unlikely to be telling people that they are gay. 

Furthermore, believe it or not, many men that abuse boys are male oriented non-exclusive pedophiles AND heterosexuals.  In other words, they like men and boys, but not other men.  They may even date women, marry women, and participate as externally normal members of the “heterosexual community’.

[78] Posted by AndrewA on 07-03-2009 at 06:09 PM • top

So the real question, in my mind, is:

What percentage men that are attracted to men and also sexually abuse children?

What percentage of men that are attracted to women also sexually abuse children?

It is entirely possible that someone has done a good study of these questions, but so far none of the stats I’ve seen bandied about actually answer the question of whether or not “married” gay people are more likely to abuse children than married straight people.  I’ve seen people put for some plausable hypothesis about why they think that would be the case, but nothing that amounts to indisputable evidence.

[79] Posted by AndrewA on 07-03-2009 at 06:22 PM • top

In other words, they like men and boys, but not other men.  They may even date women, marry women

That should read, “They like women and boys, but not other men.”

[80] Posted by AndrewA on 07-03-2009 at 06:27 PM • top

One other problem with the way people have been using statistics on the relative genders of abusers and victims:

If I were to cite a statistic saying that 90% of all prison-rapes in which a prisoner raped another prisoner were same-sex rape, can I conclude that 90% of all criminals are gay?  Or should I take into account that the fact that prisoners are segregated by sex and therefore are far more likely to have access to potential victims of the same sex than otherwise.

Naturally, the general population is not as strictly sex-segregated as the prison population.  However, adult males in general have unsupervised or poorly supervised access to male children (especially teens) than they are to have unsupervised or poorly supervised access to female children (especially teens).  I would suspect that makes things a lot easier for men those that prey on male children to be sucessful (and thus come to the attention of the FBI) than it is for men that prey on female attention. 

Think about it:  If the male highschool coach going to have the same access to girls locker room that he would to the boys locker room? 

I also suspect that cases where females sexually abuse male children (especially teens) are greatly unreported, but that is just a hypothesis.

[81] Posted by AndrewA on 07-03-2009 at 06:53 PM • top

Mari [73]

As I understand it you believe most homosexuals are pedophiles. Not true. If you search the literature on the subject you’ll find that the objective studies estimate about 5% to 10%  of the gay community may be diagnosed as pedophiles. That means a far greater majority, 90% to 95%, are not.

We just don’t know what the prevalence of this diagnosis is in the general population since there have never been any studies about the matter in that population. Speculation on the subject suggests that 1% to 3% of the world population is gay, others offer the possibility there are 8 million gays in the U.S. population. However these “guesstimates” all qualify themselves by saying how one defines “gay” will alter the “guesstimates” figures. What we can say is that we just don’t know what the answer really is.

As for “put downs” you’ll have to be more specific, I don’t believe anyone has engaged in that game. Speaking for myself I have never seen anything that would support an accusation the “wealthy and powerful community” anywhere is or has suppressed such information. Perhaps you may be able to provide direction as to where those allegations may be found.

[82] Posted by ruauper2 on 07-03-2009 at 08:08 PM • top

With errors and omissions fixed:

Naturally, the general population is not as strictly sex-segregated as the prison population.  However, adult males in general are more likely to have unsupervised or poorly supervised access to male children (especially teens) than they are to have unsupervised or poorly supervised access to female children (especially teens).  I would suspect that this makes it a lot easier for men those that prey on male children to be successful (and thus come to the attention of the FBI) than it is for men that prey on female children to be successful.

[83] Posted by AndrewA on 07-03-2009 at 08:12 PM • top

If you search the literature on the subject you’ll find that the objective studies estimate about 5% to 10%  of the gay community may be diagnosed as pedophiles.

Interesting.  I didn’t know that.  Presumably there has been no comprable studies of the heterosexual population?

Have any links to the studies?  I’d be very curious to see how they collected their data. 

We just don’t know what the prevalence of this diagnosis

Of course, for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, the number diagnosed is going to be far lower than those that actually have the attractions, considering that people who are attracted to children have very strong reasons for not advertising the fact to anyone.

[84] Posted by AndrewA on 07-03-2009 at 08:28 PM • top

ruaper2, apparently because you can not engage in honest debate, you construct straw men arguments as a means to attack those facts you can’t dispute. I didn’t say all or most were pedophiles, but I did state that a greater percentage of the homosexual community are pedophiles, compared to the percentage of heterosexuals.

You wish to obfuscate, because Frank Lombard being caught as a deviant criminal is not going away, it’s being discussed, and you can’t make it stop. Spend some time condemning him, and pedophiles and pederasts, including homosexuals who molest children, other wise you are giving silent approbation to such crimes.

BTW, apparently someone has scrubbed Frank M. Lombard’s amazon.com wish list, but someone in the comments section of the News & Observer article seems to have saved the data. What’s strange about that is, does anyone really think Lombard would be given online time in federal custody? Apparently someone knew about his wish list and how it exposed his deviancy, and they sought to hide it. I wonder who that was..

[85] Posted by mari on 07-03-2009 at 08:35 PM • top

Andrew [75]

Agreed. The final two paragraphs of your post summarizes matters far better than I could. Too bad it took us so long to realize that. My apologies for the confusion I created initially.

BTW, I read in some British journal that a study there indicated anywhere from 5% to 20% of all reported child sexual abuse cases were committed by lesbians. Just how, when or where the study was conducted I don’t recall having been mentioned so the stat should probably be filed under “Interesting Information”.

Also, your prisoner example was interesting. My better half who worked in that system offered the comment that consenual sex is more the norm in prisons. Sex in the prison seemed to be revolve mainly around what was gained from the encounter,i.e., gratification or what was materially gained from the encounter—money, smokes or dope for example.

[86] Posted by ruauper2 on 07-03-2009 at 09:03 PM • top

Andrew A [84]

Plug into Wikipedia, use pedophile as your search term and then check out the footnotes.
psycholgy.com, newsbbc.co.uk, signonsandiego.com and pn.psychiatryonline.org are all interesting sites with some articles as recent as 2008.

As you probably know Wikipedia can be be changed on line so be on guard if its just their comments, The DSM site is also a good one but you can get lost by the point/counterpoint debates.

[87] Posted by ruauper2 on 07-04-2009 at 07:03 PM • top

ruaper2, still avoiding answering my question to you? Again, you edit my comments to avoid having to deal with what I said. Homosexual activist groups are wealthy and powerful, they aren’t some poor persecuted minority. GLAAD, has been found to be siding with NAMBLA a homosexual male pedophile organization. A similar organization for lesbian pedophiles has also formed.

Heterosexuals speak out against pedophiles, so explain why homosexuals do not?

[88] Posted by mari on 07-05-2009 at 07:45 AM • top

[88]
I am reminded of a quote by Henry Bessemer

‘I had an immense advantage over many others dealing with the problem in as much as I had no fixed ideas derived from long-established practice to control and bias my mind, and did not suffer from the general belief that whatever is, is right.’

[89] Posted by ruauper2 on 07-05-2009 at 10:18 AM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.