Investigators appointed by the Vatican have been instructed to review each of the 229 Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States for "evidence of homosexuality" and for faculty members who dissent from church teaching, according to a document prepared to guide the process.
quote: The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a sociologist who resigned in May as editor of the Jesuit magazine America under pressure from the Vatican, said that with the shortage of priests, the church can hardly afford to dismiss gay seminarians.
quote: The seminary review, called an apostolic visitation, will send teams appointed by the Vatican to the 229 seminaries, which have more than 4,500 students. The last such review began about 25 years ago and took six years to complete.
...
¶"Is there a clear process for removing from the seminary faculty members who dissent from the authoritative teaching of the church or whose conduct does not provide good example to future priests?"
¶"Is the seminary free from the influences of New Age and eclectic spirituality?"
¶"Do the seminarians or faculty members have concerns about the moral life of those living in the institution? (This question must be answered)."
¶"Is there evidence of homosexuality in the seminary? (This question must be answered)."
The questionnaire also asks whether faculty members "watch out for signs of particular friendships."
The Rev. Thomas Baima, provost of the largest seminary in the United States, St. Mary of the Lake, in Chicago, where the Vatican is sending nine interviewers, said such questions were no surprise.
"The reason we're having an apostolic visitation now is precisely in the aftermath of the clerical sexual-abuse scandal," Father Baima said. "Issues about screening our candidates, about formation for celibacy, about how we teach moral theology are going to get more attention than how we teach church history."
But one gay priest, who said he would not give his name because he has been told by his order not to speak out, said the seminary review would demoralize gay priests.
"It says to gay priests, many of whom are hard-working, faithful men who live their promises of celibacy with integrity, that you should never have been ordained," he said.
As many other churches move to open leadership roles to types of people, and thinking, formerly shut out, it will be interesting to see how this plays out in America.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, couldn't resist. It seems like this is the slow, entirely too late reaction to the sexual abuse scandal, and that they're going way overboard, IMHO. I'd hope that they could do something about priests who are molesting children without using such a wide-brush approach that they affect gay priests who are maintaining their celibacy.
"Is the seminary free from the influences of New Age and eclectic spirituality?" Does that bit mean they'll be talking to any priests who own the Harry Potter books?
posted
The article sounds worrisome. Some of the quoted questions above, however, do not. Like, is there evidence of homosexuality in the seminary. I would think heterosexual evidence would be frowned upon, too.
And the question about "special friendships" is not new. That is an old, old question I think. Theory is that adults shut up for long periods of time with same sex can develop relationships that are not consistent with vows and lifestyle. Priests, nuns, monks are warned to be watchful of falling into such habits. They're probably warned not to watch porn or have pinup posters too.
Questions about moral life, again, we're talking about seminaries here. Not unexpected nor particuarly shocking.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It absolutely infuriates me that the hierarchy of the Church seems to think that homosexuality is the reason for pedophelia. The average child molester is a white, upper-middle class heterosexual man.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect the Chruch is taking bold strides towards irrelevancy, a direction it cannot afford to go.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find saddest, in a way, is that some in the church seem to be refuting what I see as the primary belief of the church--that acceptance of Jesus into your heart can transform you, anyone, into a new person.
Those that say that some sins irredeemably scar a person and leave them forever unfit to hold office in the church, they deny this fundamental belief of the church, do they not?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No...it doesn't mean they haven't changed, but it does mean that there is no possible way they will be allowed to continue being who they were....
Or doing what they were doing.
The reoffend at an amazing rate, that has been proven over and over throughout the years, regardless of their religion, so the ONLY responsible thing to do is remove them from positions of power.
They can no longer be active as preists, although only God know what the final judgement of their souls will be in the end.
Forgiveness doesn't mean forgetting it happened, or allowing them unfettered access to children again.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I find offensive about this (aside from the implied gay=pedophile connection) is the implicit assumption that homosexuals are somehow less able to control themselves than straight people.
In my understanding, priests are supposed to be celibate. If this is the case, why does it matter in what direction their sexual preferences lie? They are supposed to be controlling them to the point of not acting on them whatever they are. Lust is lust.
I think the church will shoot itself in the foot on this one. I doubt there are hoards of straight men waiting to jump into the seminary "if only they'd get rid of the gays." The article already mentions a shortage of priests. I predict this will go the way of "don't ask, don't tell" when the bottom line issue becomes retention of troops. (so to speak)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I see no problem with the Catholic church reforming current practices if that means preventing children and anyone else from being abused, but I do have a problem with misguided actions in kicking out people who are actually doing no harm.
On the other hand, it's not my church, so it's not like I have any say.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I did have a say, my solution would be to first clean house of the offenders, publicly in cases of criminal abuse. Next, develop a program to assist priests whose struggle with celibacy manifests itself in temptation toward children. Part of this program would be to help them recognize the temptations they face, and to teach them to remove themselves from situations where the temptation might be strongest. (For example, priests in this program would be forbidden to be alone with children.)
I'd have The Church publicly commit to seriously investigate all charges of abuse or even impropriety. Priests found guilty of impropriety would be required to enter the above program or leave the priesthood. In cases where evidence suggested actual abuse, rather than mere impropriety, cases would be turned over to civil authorities according to the laws of the land.
In seminaries, I'd encourage would-be priests to examine their strengths, motives, and weaknesses and provide counseling and training to ensure they understand and are committed to their vows, including celibacy. (This is of course assuming I was one to believe priests should be celibate in the first place.) I'd also make it clear to those in the seminary that child sexual abuse is a crime and will not be tolerated in the church. There would be no illusions that fear of public embarrassment would keep the church from weeding out priest who would betray such a basic holy trust.
And then I'd stick to those policies.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But one gay priest, who said he would not give his name because he has been told by his order not to speak out, said the seminary review would demoralize gay priests.
"It says to gay priests, many of whom are hard-working, faithful men who live their promises of celibacy with integrity, that you should never have been ordained," he said.
I can understand this man's concern. I came to terms with my sexuality while serving in the USAF. At no time did the fact that I was gay make me a less effective airman or compromise my ability to perform my job. Those facts didn't stop certain military officials from saying that gay servicemen were hurting the military and never should have enlisted in the first place.
From a Catholic perspective, I'd think that it would be invaluable to the institution to have some priests who intimately understand the struggles of homosexuality and are still able to be good Catholics and priests. As it is, the message they are sending is that the mere inclination or temptation of homosexuality somehow taints you in some way different from all other temptations of the flesh. The more that message is sent, the more they will drive good people away and exacerbate pain and dysfunction in many Catholic families.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:"It says to gay priests, many of whom are hard-working, faithful men who live their promises of celibacy with integrity, that you should never have been ordained," he said.
I really don't see how the church can dismiss homosexuals if they are living a celibate life anymore than they would heterosexuals who are faithful to their celibate Catholic vows. If you are celibate, doesn't that somewhat negate the heterosexual/homosexual issue altogether? You're choosing to NOT have sex with either gender.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't make any judgment one way or another without seeing the full document. There's too many unanswered questions about the intent.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What happened to hate the sin, love the sinner?
Is the act of homosexual intercourse the sin, or is it the lust you feel for members of your own sex instead of lust you feel for members of the oppositte sex?
Would your church, whether its Catholic, Baptist, LDS, or whatever, accept into their fold a couple of men who hold hands, talk of their love for each other, and even, occasionally, kiss, but that for fear of their mortal souls, never consumate thier feelings physically?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the LDS church, homosexuals and bisexuals are expected to maintain the same law of chastity that heterosexuals are expected to live by. That means no sex and nothing like unto it outside the bounds of marriage between man and woman - the simplified version. I have no idea of the hand-holding and occasional kiss. I've never thought of it, to be honest. But the bottom line is that as long as the person lives the law of chastity, it doesn't matter who they're attracted to.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
THe church seems to be loosing what it considers to be its founding principals of forgivenss and love for its neighbor. Its the pedophiles that should be gone after and to assume the pedophiles are homosexual is stupid.
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think much of this incredibly wrong-headed reaction by the Church is to distract us from holding the Bishops (who covered this up for generations) accountable. It is scape-goating a vulnerable minority and for this, and many other reasons, is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think many of you are junmping to conclusion about what is going on here. My initial reaction is that Farmgirl is right... they shouldn't be "weeding out" chaste homosexuals, but I don't see that intent in the document. Weeding out homosexual *activity*, on the other hand, makes perfect sense in a Catholic Seminary. There is the point about not appearing to search for heterosexual activity... not sure how much heterosexual activity would be in evidence at a Catholic seminary... *are* there female Catholic seminarians? I believe that heterosexual activity would be frowned upon as well.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if they had just changed this to "weeding out Sexual activity" nobody would have minded, even if they added "including homosexual" though then I would have wanted "and pedophilial".
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the thing is, we don't have a copy of the document, but the words we have don't say anything about weeding out anyone. That's why I put them in quotes.
and I have been informed that there *are* female Catholic seminarians.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It absolutely infuriates me that the hierarchy of the Church seems to think that homosexuality is the reason for pedophelia. The average child molester is a white, upper-middle class heterosexual man.
...unlike the average molesting priest, who is a homosexual man. Not that any of that is relevant.
There's so much wrong with this discussion.
Very little of the so-called pedophile priest scandal had to do with pedophilia. The overwhelming majority was priests molesting teenagers, not children. So statistics on pedophilia in the general population would be irrelevant, even if priests were randomly chosen from the general population, which they aren't.
Most sex abuse cases are girls victimized by men, so that's heterosexual, by definition. Most molester-priest victims are teenage boys, and their abusers are of course all men, so that's homosexual, by definition.
And it's irrelevant to this ecclesiastical decision. Or it might be. The article suggests this is a response to the pedophile scandal, but we don't really know. The article also conceals the name and location of the document; there aren't even any search terms so we can find out for ourselves. Why are they concealing the facts? It's like looking through a window that's so smudged I can't see what's on the other side.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why does a celibate gay priest automatically not believe in the Bible? If he is celibate, he may be struggling against impulses he believes are wrong just as a priest with a tendency towards violence, theft, or gambling would also struggle against what they considered sinful desires.
Doesn't make him an unbeliever. Quite the contrary.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Couple things. Most molester-priest situations happen when there is no access to little girls, so homosexuality is not as definite as you imply. And pedophilia should be separated from hetero- and homosexuality, just as when someone commits bestiality it makes no difference, legally, what gender the animal was. The attraction is to children, and at that age there aren't any secondary gender-based sexual characteristics. Pedophilia is not the same as straight or gay attraction.
Also, "pedophilia" is not limited to little kids. The term varies legally here and there, but generally refers to sex with people 13 and younger.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with what you say about celibate gay priests, Chris, as does, officially, the church. I don't see it as internally consistent to go after them for being homosexual. I presume from this that the question "is there evidence of homosexuality?" is directed at *behavior*, not orientation. If it isn't, then I would agree that there is something wrong here.... as would the Catholic Catechism.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the majority of the underage sex abuse cases in the Catholic church the victims were teenagers -- hence not pedophilia, which refers to attraction to pre-pubescent children.
Attraction to underage but post-pubescent children has anther name -- I think it's eudophilia, but I'm not sure of the spelling. The difference between being attracted to someone who is physically a child or who is sexually mature (physically) is an important distinction for studying and treating the psychology of the offender.
Maybe not so much a distinction on the moral level, though.
Edit: and the majority of the sex abuse cases in the Catholic church (and Protestant churches) are clergy having affairs with adult female parishioners. Those just don't get as much press.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I give up. Why does a celibate priest automatically not believe in the Bible, whatever his attractions? I can't find anything in my posts that suggested that, and I don't believe it.
You say most molester-priest situations happen when there is no access to little girls. What reason could you have for saying that? Catholics don't sex-segregate their parishes.
What dkw said.
And, as far as we can see, this remains irrelevant to the document NYT is both revealing and concealing. To the church, "homosexuality" refers to behavior, not identity, which is a fairly new concept and not one the church embraces. If we read question 4 using the new definition, we can get it to mean something it doesn't, but interpreting the text in a vernacular it wasn't written in is bound to generate wrong conclusions.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Experts in human sexuality have cautioned that homosexuality and attraction to children are different, and that a disproportionate percentage of boys may have been abused because priests were more likely to have access to male targets - like altar boys or junior seminarians - than to girls.
posted
Most of the abuser priests are, for whatever reason, are psycho-sexually immature and unable to form adult sexual relationships - either homosexual or heterosexual. This may be a reason some of them become priests in the first place - hiding from sexual issues.
The Bishops who keep covering this up need also to be held accountable.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I want to clarify, that I am not saying that there are not homosexuals who sexually abuse young people both children and teenagers. I'm not. There are homosexuals (men and women) who abuse children and teenagers just as there are heterosexuals (men and women) who abuse children.
I have a question. Does anyone know if the Catholic Church conducts a criminal background check on those who are entering Seminary? When I was considering the ministry (I am a United Methodist) before I was allowed to begin the exploration process (more than a year before I would have entered Seminary if I had decided that the ministry was my calling) I was required to undergo a criminal background check. Homosexuals who are looking for children or teenagers to abuse will behave in a similar activity to heterosexuals who want to abuse. They will look for a job or a life that will give them a great deal of access to those who will be their potential victims. That's why the Boy Scouts don't want gay people in leadership positions. Not because gay people have no control over themselves, but because those who may be looking for victims are likely to volunteer, realizing that there are dozens of potential victims in that arena.
The same is true of the priesthood. Many Priests work in a parish which has a school which could have hundreds of potential victims. Since most people of either sexual orientation probably begin offending while they are teenagers, they may already have a criminal record. So, I'd like to know; does the Catholic Church conduct a criminal background check on those considering the preisthood? If not, couldn't the implementation of that help prevent "problem Priests" from ever reaching ordination and their potential victims?
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's why the Boy Scouts don't want gay people in leadership positions. Not because gay people have no control over themselves, but because those who may be looking for victims are likely to volunteer, realizing that there are dozens of potential victims in that arena.
Of course, this, in and of itself is unfair. We don't see assumptions that heterosexual men and women who volunteer to work with scouts or young people are going to molest. But this may be heading for a new topic.
EDIT: At least, the paranoia is to a lesser extent.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Most sex abuse cases are girls victimized by men, so that's heterosexual, by definition.
Actually, most experts agree that the majority of molestation cases go unreported, so we have absolutely no way of knowing if that's true. In addition, pedophelia is, in and of itself a sexual orientation. Pedophiles prefer children, female or male. Many pedophiles molest children of both genders.
EDIT: This is why there is no such thing as a "cure" for pedophilia. You cannot cure someone of their sexual orientation.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know a few people who work for teh Boy Scouts...not just Kat, but her as well...
There are a ton of reasons why the BS won't allow gays to become Scout Leaders....
That is not one of them, as far as I have heard. If it was it would prevent, by your own logic, ANYONE from becoming one.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's actually one of the main defenses that they used when taken to the Supreme Court for violations of civil rights.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which doesn't answer the point...if there is no statistical difference between abuses of different sexual orientation (actually there is....more heterosexual males abuse than gay ones ) how can that logic be used to defend excluding the group with a lower overall rate of offences?
I have no problem wiht the BS stance, BTW...well, I don't like it... but they ARE a private, semi-religious groups intitled to have their own rules.
The "logic" of that argument doesn't work at all, though, not as stated here.
quote:Originally posted by andi330: It's actually one of the main defenses that they used when taken to the Supreme Court for violations of civil rights.
Next time you make a claim like that, so me a favor and save me the trouble of reading the entire brief at 2:40 am...only to find out it wasn't included in their arguments for the SCOTUS after all...
Make sure your statment is ACTUALLY IN the brief, as you have claimed.
I read most of it....and scanned perhaps the last 10%, and nowhere in it was that argument. As I remembered, the court acutally ruled that the BS stnce on homosexuality had little to nothing to do with the merits of the case at all.
I could have missed it..if I did, please tell me what page it is on.
The Roman Catholic Church has KILLED hundreds of thousands of people. The Roman Catholic Church has covered up one of the largest pedofile rings in America.
And i can't call that BS?
That is so stupid and cowardly on y'all part.
You want me to treat the Roman Catholic Church like it is Jesus?
No thanks.
"judge not, lest you be judged"
The roman catholic church judges people all the time, so it deserves judgement. It doesn't get a free pass.
The idea that Jesus dis-allows his most faithful the right of marriage is totally bogus.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You want me to treat the Roman Catholic Church like it is Jesus?
You use this a lot: people treat the Church like Jesus, people treat Bush like Jesus, yada yada yada.
I think this says a whole lot more about how you think of Jesus than it does about the people you are judging.
Regardless, you are in clear violation of the rules of this board. There are lots of ways to talk about policies of particular churches that you don't like. It's done here all the time.
But calling it "bullshit" without even formulating the beginning of a coherent argument isn't one of them.
I am asking you to please stop being so insulting. I'm not even asking that you bother engaging in dialog about the many pronouncements you make from on high, although that would be nice to do on a discussion board. But I'll settle for some basic courtesy.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
U.S. Asks Court to Dismiss Abuse Suit That Names Pope
quote: By The Associated Press The Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian should be dismissed because the pontiff enjoys immunity as head of state of the Holy See.
In a filing on Monday, Peter Keisler, an assistant United States attorney, said that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would be "incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests."
There was no immediate ruling from Judge Lee Rosenthal of the Federal District Court in Houston. But American courts have been bound by such "suggestion of immunity" motions submitted by the government, Mr. Keisler's filing says.
A 1994 lawsuit against Pope John Paul II, also filed in Texas, was dismissed after the federal government filed a motion similar to the one filed by Mr. Keisler.
Mr. Keisler's motion had been expected, because the Vatican Embassy in Washington had asked the United States government to issue the immunity suggestion and do everything it could to have the case dismissed.
The pope, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, was named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit by three plaintiffs who say that Juan Carlos Patino-Arango, a Colombian-born seminarian on assignment at St. Francis de Sales church in Houston, molested them during counseling sessions in the church in the mid-1990's.
Mr. Patino-Arango has been indicted in a criminal case by a grand jury in Harris County, Tex., and is currently a fugitive.
The lawsuit says the pope, who as Cardinal Ratzinger headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, was involved in a conspiracy to hide Mr. Patino-Arango's crimes and help him escape prosecution. The lawsuit cites a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger, dated May 18, 2001, and written in Latin to bishops around the world, explaining that "grave" crimes like the sexual abuse of minors would be handled by his congregation and that the proceedings of special church tribunals handling the cases were subject to "pontifical secret."
Daniel Shea, a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, has said such secret proceedings amounted to a conspiracy to cover up the crimes.
The Vatican and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have said that the secret church procedures in the sexual abuse case were not designed to cover up abuse or to prevent victims from reporting crimes to law enforcement authorities.
The document deals with church law, not keeping secrets from secular authorities, the Vatican and the conference say.
The pope's lawyer, Jeffrey Lena, said yesterday that it was appropriate that the Justice Department determined that the pope was "the sitting head of state of the Holy See."
In a telephone interview, Mr. Lena said the motion would now be considered by the Texas court.
Many lawsuits stemming from the church sexual abuse cases have named the pope, the Vatican and high-ranking church officials, but they have failed because the officials could not be served with the papers.
Cardinal Ratzinger, however, was served with legal papers.
Mr. Shea said yesterday that he would challenge the constitutionality of the diplomatic recognition of the Holy See on the grounds that it goes against the First Amendment clause barring laws "respecting an establishment of religion."
Mr. Shea said that in trying to have the case dismissed, the pope's lawyers had admitted in court papers that the Holy See was a church.
A May 26 motion to dismiss the suit, citing the First Amendment, said the case should be thrown out because it would "invite court intrusion into the internal affairs of the Roman Catholic Church."
Officials at the United States Embassy to the Holy See said they were familiar with the case but had no comment.
The Vatican also declined to comment.
Besides the pope, the lawsuit names as defendants Mr. Patino-Arango, the Diocese of Galveston-Houston, Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza and the Rev. William Pickhard, Mr. Patino-Arango's vocational director.
I wonder how this will play out. Very interesting in terms of both Church/State issues and the accountability of the Bishops in the matter of covering up these crimes.
My gut reaction is that airing this out in open court would do a world of good.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I read this thread I immediately thought of those old PSA's that played after school...the one with the bulemic girl.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its interesting how much people are extoling the virtues of homosexuality in regards to ones eligibility for priesthood. I too believe that somebody who has the weakness of homosexual urges yet chooses to control them is a perfectly acceptable person within any religious order.
BUT how do you KNOW that every homosexual priest is an non practicing one? Well you have to interview them. As priests they must be completely honest when questioned by superiors. I am not for removing anybody just because they have a weakness only if it is a possible liability. In many casses homosexuality can be especially with everyone applauding when a priest comes out as a homosexual and gives the finger to the church he belonged to.
Somebody made the arguement that priests are celebate therefore their sexual orientation is irrelevant. That is WRONG. Priests though celebate are supposed to encourage men and women to marry and have children. To become a priest is a very personal descision. If you are a practicing homosexual priest you are in direct violation of the rules of your own religion. How can you be expected to encourage others to obey the tennants a faith you yourself do not agree with?
The catholic church has an obligation to appoint priests that believe in their tenants with all their heart and mind. If you dont like it, dont be a priest, or find a religion that you feel is closer to the truth. I will NOT condemn a religion for actually trying to practice its beliefs instead of letting society dictate what God's will ought to be.
Oh and if you are angry at me for calling homosexuality a weakness, thats fine but that how I believe, you are free to call it a virtue if you will, I am not angry at YOU for doing so.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
The average child molester is a white, upper-middle class heterosexual man.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) how can that logic be used to defend excluding the group with a lower overall rate of offences?
