nytimes reporting

[sessiboy]

I know that policing the liberal-ish paper of record may seem nit-picky, but I've been extremely annoyed with their reporting on gender studies and LGBTQI issues and they ARE supposed to be accurate. I believe I'm not the only one in this community that has been tracking and emailing the nytimes over poor science (due diligence) and failure to

Comments

[bodlon]

See, I didn't read the article that way at all. Particularly because they flat out say in the article that experts on sexuality say that the prevalence of male victims should be attributed to ease of access, not sexual orientation. The article seemed to me to be more pro-gay, anti-crazy Vatican idea than anything else.

I mean, is anyone surprised that our ex-Inquisitor is getting it wrong? Or just using an opportunity to remove gays from the Church?

[redindigo]

i think there is little connectivity in the article, but it doesn't lack in supporting the gay perspective/community. the fact that the journalist focused on interviewing "alternative" members of the priesthood suggests that the catholic perspective is very clear and unwavering...something to be debated and questioned as well.

i think that the knee-jerk reaction of the catholic church often whitewashes the essence of the situation. when an institution believes that something is immoral and depraved, they often link it to something also immoral and depraved. the reality is, it's difficult to say that in any aspect of life, pedophilia and homosexuality are mutually exclusive, because it has been revealed that in many priest-like instances, they are not. however, the overwhelming truth is that queer folk are not: depraved, immoral or pedophiles. the church is simply making an example, and a mockery, of the bad seeds.

[squinting_kitty]

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.

See, I read that sentence as saying that experts have told people to be wary of linking homosexuality with attraction to children because they are different. Are were you just unsatisified with the weakness with which they proclaimed that statement? I was a bit confused by your response to that paragraph.

My biggest problem(s) with the article (and perhaps Catholicism in general) is that way back in the 1970s psychologists removed homosexuality from their huge book of "psychological disorders," meaning that homosexuality is not abnormal. Neither is it inherently harmful. Attraction to children, however, is considered a disorder. But that disorder has been found predominantly in heterosexual males