A comment re "pedophilia"

Sunni Kay Zuniga gulfgal at earthlink.net
Tue May 7 23:18:52 EDT 2002

Clarification: It's unfair to say that most of the cases were not with
teenagers or post pubescent adults (as you term them, Mike). Believe me, I'm
living right in the middle of this in Boston right now and am unfortunately
used to hearing victim's stories. Most of the men seemed to be around the
age of 12 or 13 at the time of the abuse (13 may technically be a teenager,
but it's a pretty fine line between non-teen and teen at 13) and many
children as young as six suffered abuse at the hands of priests. The abuse
continued into their teenage years in some of the cases, which may be part
of the confusion regarding the ages.

And, further, FWIW, why does it seem to make a difference if these were not
children but teenagers (still troubling) and homosexual rather than
heterosexual? Are you implying that some of this activity was perhaps
instigated by homosexual teenagers? The church itself has made this unwise
deduction themselves recently and it has subsequently caused the stir it

Lastly, a crisis in the individuals in a church IS a crisis in the church.
The church is the individuals. Doctrine won't save the church's ass forever.
Some of this mess will have to be addressed in a larger fashion than through
laying the blame on  individuals.

But, this seems far off of Percy.

Just my thoughts,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Frentz" <mfrentz at bbn.com>
To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion"
<percy-l at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 10:45 PM
Subject: [percy-l] A comment re "pedophilia"

> One more brief comment (sorry about the funny spacing in my last message,
I had cut and paste
> the message I had written earlier that for some reason didn't post,
hopefully this one is
> okay..).  This is also not so obviously Percy-centric, but it tries to
clarify a misleading
> comment in several recent posts.
> The term pedophilia has been used in most of the recent messages (and
bandied in the press).
> Almost all of the cases were with teenagers (post pubescent) or adults,
not children per se, so
> the term pedophilia is very misleading.  FWIW, the majority of these cases
were also homosexual,
> rather than heterosexual, a case the press seems reluctant to advertise
(possibly because it
> dignifies the Boy Scout and Supreme Court decisions?).
> Many of the seminaries deviated significantly from Church teaching in the
late sixties,
> seventies, and eighties in a post Vatican II misapplication frenzy and
tolerated dissension
> (e.g. birth control, soft pedaling of prolife and homosexual issues) that
was clearly in
> violation of magisterial Church teaching.  I have heard from many devout
priests over the last
> few years (and indeed, the priests that I've met who've been ordained
recently appear to be much
> more devout than their superiors) that many (most?) of the seminaries have
reformed and are true
> to Rome, and those that have generally also have increasing enrollments.
A priest is married to
> the Church.  The Church believes that celibacy is a gift from God (and
there are actually a
> growing number of celibate lay Catholic ecclesiastical movements).  My
wife goes to a
> Protestant-based Bible study.  The apparent number of bitter ministers'
wives there appears not
> to be a positive solution to priestly recruiting dilemma --  I believe
that faithful bishops
> are.
> Per a recent Wall Street Journal article on a very traditional parish
smack dab in the middle of
> Silicon Valley, the pastor's motto there is "Support the Faith and the
faithful will support the
> Church."  His enrollment is busting at the seams.  That's what will turn
the seminarial tide..
> Mike
> Robert_Pauley at oxy.com wrote:
> > Is the incidence of cleric pedophilia any greater than in any average
> > sampling of adult male population? This seems important to know but I
> > recall any analysis or discussion of it. As for the church's response,
it is
> > just about the same as any and every hidebound institution's response to
> > scandal throughout history, right up to Enron's denials and shredding
> > machines.
> >
> > It seems to me Percy's response would be both complex and morally clear.
> > think he would understand the fact, pardon the vulgarity, of buggerers.
As a
> > scientist of the human condition, he would note it as one more "covert
> > lewdness." I think he would point out the fashionable fallacy of the
> > "solution" of married priests. I think he would properly lambaste the
> > corpulence and arrogance of those Cardinal Bernard Laws who have spent
> > too much time in sirloin and lobster dinners with the Church's sugar
> > than in tending to their flocks. And I think he would reaffirm those
> > of the Church and faith which are beyond the depredations of bad men.
> > never much cared for hypothesizing in this manner, but still I do it,
and so
> > I welcome any challenges.
> >
> > R Pauley
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karey Perkins [mailto:karey at charter.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 6:06 PM
> > To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
> > Subject: [percy-l] Re: Was Percy ever involved in the debate on
> > molestations by Catholic priests?
> >
> > My comment was more about the fact that married priests are the answer
> > the "dearth of priests" that now exist in the American Catholic Church,
> > the fact that many very qualified, quality young men who would like to
> > priests are not choosing that profession due to the celibacy
requirement, so
> > that there is now a crisis in the church when it comes to its
> >
> > Pedophiliacs, as Wade had said already, will gravitate to any profession
> > that provides access to children.  Boy scouts, teaching, coaching,
> > priesthood.  (Whether or not these are married professions or not.)
> > Unfortunately, these are the professions (and those in those
> > that we usually hold to be most admirable, because they involve
> > children.
> >
> > KP
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Nelson [mailto:nelson at newulmtel.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 7:16 PM
> > To: Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion
> > Subject: [percy-l] Re: Was Percy ever involved in the debate on
> > molestations by Catholic priests?
> >
> > >And, are married priests the answer, as might be the >logical
> > >given America's dearth of priests, the recent >pedophilia scandals,
> >
> > I am a lurker mostly but this idea I have never understood. how would
> > married cut down on child abuse in the church? lots of married men many
> > in secular world indulge in pedophilia.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Ryan Nelson
> >
> > --
> > An archive of all list discussion is available at
> > <http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail>.
> > Visit the Walker Percy Project at <http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy>.
> >
> > --
> > An archive of all list discussion is available at
> > <http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy/hypermail>.
> > Visit the Walker Percy Project at <http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy>.
> >
> > --
> > An archive of all list discussion is available at
> > Visit the Walker Percy Project at <http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy>.
> --
> An archive of all list discussion is available at
> Visit the Walker Percy Project at <http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy>.

More information about the Percy-L mailing list