Jesuit priest well-chosen to give “contextual” evidence

Share Button

It took a bit of doing, but I finally managed to post Sexual Abuse in the Church: A Quest For Understanding, a 1989 article by Father John Loftus, the Jesuit priest and former Executive of Southdown who will take the stand to give “contextual” evidence at the Weave Shed next week.

As you will see the article has a rather strange layout. Try as I might I could not get the text to expand to the width of the page.  I finally admitted defeat.

I am far from finished with the Loftus posting.  There are other related documents which I must post and I intend to expand the brief introductory comments which were written quickly to try to put the lengthy article into context.

But, for now, I must run.  I have posted it as is and will get back to work on it this evening.

Just one final comment:  Loftus is well-chosen to help Justice Normand Glaude frame his inquiry and pen his astronomically-expensive tax-payer-funded research project. More on that later….

Enough for now,
Sylvia
(cornwall@theinquiry.ca)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Jesuit priest well-chosen to give “contextual” evidence

  1. Myomy says:

    I read through the Loftus document and the overwhelming conclusion is that he doesn’t know anything. He says this many times. The few things that he does claim to have evidence for are good for his business but in each of these cases there are escape clauses for himself. For example Treatment is good but there are no guarantees and screening is good but nobody knows what someone else will do in the future. An example of one of these hedged conclusions:

    Can These People Be Treated Successfully?

    The answer here contrary to much of what one hears from the media experts is a decided yes! Three observations fuel my optimism. First, our actual lived experience over the past years at Southdown; second, the need to distinguish carefully what is meant by “successful treatment;” and third, the realization that we are not dealing with a single homogenous pathology but a continuum of varying degrees of wellness and dysfunction.

    Another of the few things he knows relates to homosexuals.

    There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are intrinsically more promiscuous, or more likely to be pedophiles (Money, 1972; 1976; 1986a; 1986b; 1988). In fact, there is some evidence to the contrary.

    This is simply wrong. Promiscuity is the most common trait of homosexuals and as for the prevalence of pedophilia when 2 or 3 percent of the population account for almost half of the pedophilia then they are definitely more likely to be pedophiles.

    Fr Loftus is an elitist who expects us to agree because he says so. Under the question is this part of a growing homosexual problem he dismisses all the common sense of ages when humanity was able to channel the sexual appetite in more constructive ways…

    All this is to say that it is very difficult, indeed, to challenge popular notions that run so deep with mere facts. “Prejudice remains rife,” suggests the latest, insightful commentary by the New York Times Magazine, entitled “Homosexuality: who and why?”(Konner, 1989)

    If I analyzed this document completely it would be become longer than the original. All this twirling around is explained by one thing. We are spiritual beings who can make free choices between good and evil. This is bedrock catholic teaching which Fr Loftus is ignoring. He is looking at human nature as a very complex machine or computer which can nevertheless be understood and its actions predicted if we put enough effort into “reverse engineering” This basic assumption of Psychology is false and so all of this dancing around by Fr Loftus is a waste of time or worse. If the inquiry relies on Fr Loftus as its expert it too will be a waste of time or worse. We need to question the assumptions that Fr Loftus starts from before spending hours listening to this bafflegab.

Leave a Reply