Dust Storm,I find you one of the more intelligent and informed posters. Nevertheless I would like to respond to the article/link you provided.<quoted text>
First a correct definition of pedophilia is a psychological definition with certain characteristics. ne characteristic is the attraction/compulsion to children.
A person who sexually acts against an adolescent post pubescent is not a pedophiac by definition. He is however a sexual abuser and a sexual offender if there is a relationship of trust/ authority. Therefore a prioest or preacher that sexually acts out against an adolescent post pubescent would be a sex offender.
Secondly,false memory is an accurate but dangerous and misued phenomenon that has caused great harm to victims. Those suffering from false memory would be minute. This should not have been a point of argument for the authoprs of the article.
Thirdly I dispute the conclusions drawn by the authors re
there is evidence that priests have a higher rate of false and unfounded allegations than adults in the general population. Less than half of the allegations were found to be substantiated and even with those that were criminally prosecuted a large number—nearly a third—were found not guilty.
The reason I would dispute this is that there are a number of factors that could affect the retraction, unsubstantiation of charges against priests. I would rely more heavily on not guilty verdicts.
I am vehemently against agenda-driven attacks against the Church re sexual abuse, against the characterization of priests, and exagerration of the extent of the problem. I will defend against such rubbish.
At the same time,my vehement defense and advocacy of victims prompted me to respond to the article.