Aurini writes, in Schelling Points & the Catholic Church:
Pope Benedict’s resignation seems to have been driven by the attempts to prosecute him for the Priest Molestation scandal (and let’s keep things in perspective; children are still 100 times safer around a Priest than a School Teacher – let alone a Social Worker [the original report – long and boring for you]), which is all the more of a loss since he did so much to clear out the Liberal, and possibly Marxist priests from the Church. RTWT
A Reader is a devout atheist (though not a member of the Atheistkult), but he can’t avoid noticing that almost all cases of Priest Molestation involved boys, i.e., the priests involved were not just pedophiles, they were gay pedophiles. So here are the questions few people thought to ask:
- Do priests have a higher incidence of pedophilia than the general population of men? (Despite the ongoing narrative, the correct answer is no — as Aurini points out in the excerpt above.)
- Do gay men have a higher incidence of pedophilia than the general population of men? (A Reader doesn’t know the answer, but wouldn’t be surprised if it’s yes.)
A Reader has nothing against homosexuals, and enjoys their contributions to culture and the arts; he further notes that very few homosexuals are pedophiles. Also, the behavior of the Church’s hierarchy in the whole story was inexcusable and revealed the rot and corruption therein.
Still, the questions above are about relative incidence: basically, which of the two descriptors, gay or priest, is more informative, even if either is a weak predictor of the behavior? What A Reader finds revealing is that the corporate media emphasizes the priest dimension of the molestation and deemphasizes the gay dimension, when the most likely answer is that gay is a better (albeit still very weak) predictor of molestation than priest.
It’s almost as if the corporate media were deliberately trying to bring attention to, and heap derision upon, one of the foundations of Western Civilization, the Catholic Church, while distracting from something that might support conservative positions.
Surely they wouldn’t do that on purpose.