Ms. Albertone graciously e-mailed me back to say she had received my e-mail. however she “hears my position, but doesn’t agree with it.”
I wonder what part she doesn’t agree with?
That this is homosexual ephebophilia not pedophilia? If so, she is clearly wrong.
I found this explanation online:
The concepts child and adolescent are commonly used without further characterization. Still one can recognize clear differences between ephebophilia and pedophilia. Ephebophilia can be described as an erotic and sexual preference by adult men for the budding young male person, that is, the young person shortly after puberty (ephebe = youth, half-adult). Before puberty we are still concerned with children. Ephebophilia is in the transitional area between homophile pedophilia and adult homosexuality. Although the one and the other may seem to be clearly defined, appearances are deceptive. Of course we are familiar with signs of bodily maturation, such as beard growth, change of voice, ejaculation, etc. But the development of each of these characteristics takes place at a different pace for each individual. The age at which these developments is apparent is definitely much earlier for some boys than for others. It is impossible or very difficult to put limits on the concepts of emotional development and maturation. Moreover, not all psychic functions develop at the same rate. Still, we make use of these distinctions in spite of their fuzziness. Of central significance is the fact that the child is erotically attractive for the pedophile and because of this is sexually approachable; by maturation to a youth, the child loses this attractiveness.
If the diocese of Cleveland insists that this is a pedophilia problem, i.e. adults attracted to children, I can’t see how we will be successful in totally protecting the majority of victims in this scandal- the adolescent males who were the predominant victims.
Or does Ms. Albertone disagree that it is not the burden of the laity and the volunteers to be the front line of defense here? She apparently believes that if every one is trained, if everyone knows how to spot abuse that the problem will be solved. It may in part, but it seems to me that nipping the problem in the bud with seminarians would be a good place to start! How are candidates for the priesthood screened, how are they monitored during their formation. How are they being formed? Shouldn’t that also be a huge part of preventing further scandal in the diocese? If Bishop Pilla thinks so he isn’t advertising it. It’s not on the web site that I could see.
Or does Ms. Albertone disagree that the church should actually be teaching and passing on Catholic values and moral doctrines? Would some clarity on that in the Diocese also be helpful in preventing more scandal?
I don’t know but I feel that the situation is pretty much as I feared. There doesn’t seem to be any acceptance of responsibility for forming priests for the priesthood loyal to church teachings and willing to live them out as a way of preventing abuse. It seems like the burden for preventing further damage IS going to be on the laity.
So if I understand correctly, 118 priests abused kids in my Diocese, and that’s why I have to be finger printed, go through a background check and take mandatory uncompensated additional training to maintain my volunteer status. What’s wrong with this picture?
Please feel free to leave a comment under the posting, or sign my Spiritbook (guestbook) and chat on the tag board at the bottom of the page.
