printer icon

 

Commentary:

Same-Sex Marriage: Not in the Best Interest of Children (May / June 2009 issue of “The Therapist,” a publication of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists—CAMFT)

LGBT Curriculum Coming to an Elementary School near You (May 2009)

Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Increase Prevalence of Homosexuality:
Research Provides Significant Evidence (September 29, 2008)

Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings:
Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality (June 30, 2008)

A Review and Analysis of Research Studies Which Assessed
Sexual Preference of Children Raised by Homosexuals (June 30, 2008)

Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children (October 15, 2007)

Perceptions of Evil One Year After 9/11: A Psychological Analysis (September 2002)

Journalists and the Pedophile Smokescreen

Feminist Infantilization and Filicide

The Politics of Rape: Debunking the Feminist Myth

Dissertation:

An Investigation of Object Relations, Reality Testing, Erotophobia, and Defenses in Mothers of Incest Victims (1996)

 

Journalists and the Pedophile Smokescreen

By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

Here’s a question: Since most journalists know the definition of a pedophile, and therefore must realize that the vast majority of priests involved in the current sex abuse scandal don’t fit that definition, why do they persist in calling them pedophiles?

Let me offer an answer.

Most journalists purposely mislabel the abusive priests as pedophiles in order to create a smokescreen; their aim is to obscure the fact that most of these men are actually predatory homosexuals. Other journalists—a smaller subset—merely parrot the oft repeated phrase “pedophile priest”—without definitional consideration—and therefore participate only inadvertently in this obfuscation.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Perhaps we should start with a basic definition of pedophile. A pedophile is any adult who has a sexual desire for prepubescent children. Since most of the offending priests preyed sexually on teenage boys, they are not, by definition, pedophiles.

A significant majority of the sexually abusing priests are actually pederasts. Pederasts are adult male homosexuals who seek post-pubescent male minors with whom to act out their sexual inclinations. In my business of psychology they’re called sexual predators; in the business of law enforcement they’re called statutory rapists, or more simply, criminals. But no matter what, they’re not pedophiles.

Here are some additional facts that bear on the subject: First, according to most published estimates, between 25% and 50% of priests are homosexual. This figure stands in stark, statistical contrast to the fact that only about 3% to 5% of the general population is homosexual. Homosexuals, therefore, disproportionately fill the ranks of the priesthood. Second, approximately 85% to 95% of the known sexual abuse perpetrated by priests was against teenage boys. Since one would statistically predict only 25% to 50% of the priest molestation cases to be homosexual—based on their percentages in the total priest population—one is struck by the fact that these homosexual priests are molesting in much higher percentages than one would expect, and thus in much higher percentages than their heterosexual priest counterparts.

Male homosexuals with whom I’ve spoken are not surprised by these percentages and have frankly acknowledged that a significant number of gay men, priests or not, do seek out teenage boys as “sex partners”—these men are known in the homosexual community by various monikers such as “chicken-hawks.”

As an aside, it is interesting to note that those who lambasted the Boy Scouts for barring openly gay scoutmasters have turned deafeningly silent since the priest scandal broke. I wonder if that’s because the fears implicit in the Boy Scout regulations now seem thoroughly reasonable in light of the predatory behavior of far too many homosexual priests?

But let me get back to the issue at hand—journalistic truth telling. Though as many as 95% of the priest molestation cases reported so far involve homosexuals molesting teenage boys, most journalists ignore the sexual orientation angle and inaccurately label the abusive priests as pedophiles. For most, this is not a mistake.

It appears that many journalists intentionally use the word pedophile because it is nonspecific as to sexual preference and thus conceals the fact that a disproportionately high number of the predatory priests are homosexual. These journalists—who tend to lean socially and politically leftward—want to obscure this fact because it would be detrimental to the homosexual agenda which has long contended that homosexuals are no more likely to molest minors than heterosexuals—a claim not true in this instance. And since most journalists would rather help than harm the homosexual agenda, they engage in this obfuscation.

Objective journalists—a phrase that should be redundant—are suppose to report the facts without regard to their effect—positive or negative—on any given agenda. The masking of truth behind a politically-correct, agenda-driven smokescreen is not only anathema to the ethics of professional journalism, in this case, it also jeopardizes our nation’s young people. If we’re to solve the problem of sexually predatory priests, we need a clear view of what the problem is. And based on what we know so far, the primary problem is not pedophiles.

###

©2002 Dr. Trayce Hansen. All rights reserved.

printer icon