Featured Image
Prof. Gerard van den Aardweg speaks at the John Paul II Academy for Human and Life and the Family conference in Rome May 21, 2018Steve Jalsevac / LifeSiteNews

Update Dec. 5, 2018: Footnotes have now been added to this report. 

Editor's note: Dr. Gerard J. M. van den Aardweg is a Dutch psychologist and psychoanalyst. He is one of Europe’s foremost experts on homosexuality. 

December 4, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – “Sexual orientation by itself is irrelevant to child sexual abuse behavior or risks,” stated an article published online at the Jesuit-run magazine America Oct. 22, 2018. In his article titled “No, homosexuality is not a risk factor for the sexual abuse of children” psychology professor Thomas Plante repeated this false slogan in a fruitless attempt to deny the rock-solid fact that “ordinary” homosexuality is most assuredly the key cause of the sex abuse scandals in the priesthood and of the ensuing cover-up maneuvers. 

Avoiding truth, propagating lies

The gay-normalization propaganda clings to the lie that homosexual attractions and behaviors are “by themselves” natural, healthy and morally and spiritually all right. So if some less desirable things turn out to be inherently connected to homosexuality – mental and medical disorders and ailments, excessive promiscuity, partner violence, substance addictions, and relative to our subject here, a substantially enhanced risk of molestation of minors – the gay reflex reaction is: blame discrimination, religious and social prejudices, invent whatever alibis, suppress media attention for the facts; but no critical word about what they revere as 'holy homophilia.' 

But then, how does a homosexual activist explain away these annoying, repeatedly confirmed statistics on abusing priests, and on male molesters of minors in general, for that matter? 

When all cases of minor abuse by priests, pre-adolescents and adolescents are taken together, about 80% concerned boys, so only 20% girls; Two-thirds of pre-adolescent victims are boys and 85% of adolescent victims are boys. Eighty percent (80%) of all victims are adolescents. (1) Thus the abuse of minors by priests is overwhelmingly homosexual: It is homosexual pedophilia as regards abuse of pre-adolescents, but pederasty (abuse of adolescents) in the overwhelming majority of all abuse cases. How can we deny that minor abuse by priests is a question of homosexuality?

Gay rationalization

Plante tries a desperate, almost comical escape: “Most [priest] offenders viewed themselves as more likely to be heterosexual than homosexual.” In other words, the implication is that most abusive priests were bisexuals who thought they might be predominantly heterosexual, so their homosexuality was 'irrelevant.' This gay rationalization or self-deception stems from the second John Jay Report. (2) Think of what “most” of these molesters of juvenile boys are alleged to have said about themselves: 'In hindsight, it is quite possible I am basically heterosexual.' So they generally felt they erred in their choice of the victim’s sex. If this fantastic idea proceeded from some of the abusers themselves, it cannot be made out, for the authors of this peculiar Report show themselves no less skilled in the art of gay rationalization. Anyway, no solid examination of the sexual attractions and fantasies of the offending priests has been made to verify this 'interpretation.' And there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of a type of male heterosexual who is inclined to abuse same-sex minors. 

Adult male molesters of boys invariably prove predominantly homosexual. Their fantasies about boys are obsessive, including their grooming, stalking, and clinging to their prospective victims, whether they are directed to pre-adolescents or teens. While on the other hand, no adult man with normal, heterosexual, feelings is sexually interested in boys; let alone that he would feel tempted to sexually seduce or molest them. No matter how lonely he may feel, or in what emotional crisis he may find himself.

Plante’s second argument for the “irrelevance of homosexuality itself” as the key cause of the priest scandals is that heterosexual men would be as likely to molest minors as homosexuals: “The vast majority [of abusers of minors of either sex] are heterosexual, married, and non-celibate lay persons.” Yes, because the vast majority of people are heterosexual. 

Nevertheless, according to the most reliable estimates, about 2% of male adults have homosexual inclinations, and this 2% are responsible for over 14% of the cases of molestation (which concern pre-adolescent and adolescent boys). Thus 98% of the adult male heterosexuals are accountable for 86% of the abuse cases (of a heterosexual nature) which indeed is the vast majority of the cases, however only in absolute numbers. (3)

It remains that the average homosexual man is more than 8 times more at risk to molest boys than the average heterosexual man to molest girls. (4) If, as it is in the overall population, only 2% of priests were homosexually inclined — and these would be responsible for 100% of the cases of abuse of boys — then the homosexual 2% are responsible for 80% of the cases of all abuse against minors (see above). And, the remaining 98% of priests, those who are heterosexually inclined, would be responsible for 100% of the cases of abuse of girls, what amounts to 20% of the cases of all abuse against minors. In other words, the average homosexual priest would be 200 times more at risk to offend than his heterosexual colleague. But perhaps, during the period of most abuse cases, up to 15% of the priests were homosexual or homosexual pedophiles. Then, the homosexual priests were still more than 20 times more at risk. 

Even if one wants to blame external circumstances or situational factors like the position of authority of the abusing priests – this psychologically nonsensical accusation of “clericalism” – the fact remains that it is homosexuality (and homosexual pedophilia) per se, by itself, that drives the priest to react to these circumstances by seeking sexual lust with young boys, predominantly with teens. 

Pedophilia v Pederasty

The close association between homosexual and pedophile-homosexual desires and the inclination to seduce or molest minors is a well-documented constant, both clinically and statistically. It is a consequence of the neurotic, obsessive nature of these feelings. Let me first clarify the terms “homosexual pedophilia”, “ephebophilia”, and “pederasty”. Heterosexual pedophilia stands for sexual attractions to pre-pubertal girls, homosexual pedophilia for attraction for pre-pubertal boys; ephebophilia for homosexual attraction to teens, and pederasty means sexual contact with teens. (5) The preferred partner age of most homosexually inclined men is adolescence and young adulthood; (6) therefore, seeking contacts with teens, which is the case with 85% of the adolescent (post-pubertal) victims of priests and with 70% of all priest victims taken together, male and female, is just ordinary homosexuality, namely, pederasty. The much higher frequency of homosexual than heterosexual molestation of teens, in general, has been well-documented all along. (7) For instance, a quarter of adult practicing gays admitted sexual experiences with minors under age 16. (8)

Homosexual pedophilia accounted for 64% of the alleged abuse of prepubertal victims of priests, which is 12% of all priest victims. (9) Thus pedophile homosexuality is a minor cause of abuse by priests. Fortunately, the suspect media habit of calling abusing priests “pedophiles” is on the wane, though the taboo on calling them “homosexuals” is far from lifted. Homosexual pedophilia, similar to ephebophilia or androphilia, is to be regarded a subcategory of homosexuality, not as an isolated disorder that has nothing to do with “normal” homosexuality, as is the favorite cliché of the gay propaganda. The pedophile homosexual is principally directed to boys who do not yet show the physical characteristics of puberty, but there is some overlapping between homosexual pedophilia and ephebophilia.

That this pedophilia belongs to the family of the “homosexualities” is confirmed by clinical and statistical studies on the causative or predisposing childhood psychological factors (parent-child interactions, peer relationships), which are much the same in ephebophiles, androphiles, and pedophiles. (10)

That homosexual pedophilia is part of “homosexuality” has always been recognized by gay activists. Homosexual pedophiles have always been prominent in the gay movement. The right-hand man of top homosexual activist Alfred Kinsey, Pomeroy, was a homosexual pedophile. (11) As one Dutch pedophile academic stated in an essay on pedophilia and the gay movement: “By acknowledging the affinity between homosexuality and pedophilia, the COC (official Dutch gay organization) has … broadened gay identity.” (12) Therefore, of all alleged cases of minor abuse by priests according to the statistics in John Jay I, 70% (ephebophilia) plus 12% (pedophilia) add up to 82% cases of homosexuality.

Swallowing gay ideology, hook, line, and sinker

The fairy tales told by Plante in order to deny the all-important involvement of homosexuality in the abuse epidemic signals the blindness to reality that often characterizes many homosexuals and pedophiles who want to see their feelings as normal. (Gay “self-normalizing” and “self-justifying”.) Whether or not he himself labors under the disorder, he clearly swallowed the gay ideology, hook, line and sinker. This most naïve statement of his admits of no other conclusion: “Many see  heterosexuality as normal … while believing that homosexuality is abnormal.” (13)

Gay and pedophile self-normalizers simply turn things upside down. Starting to deceive themselves, they are forced to deceive others. Unless they have the courage to be honest and recognize the abnormality of their inclinations and the wrongness of their behavior, they imprison themselves in an inner world of lies. (14) A mind thus obscured cannot produce but “gay science”, which a lesbian activist once defined as “potentially pernicious” and “more propaganda than truth”. (15) It doesn’t seek the truth but justifications for a sick ideology. In this mindset, Plante, apparently immune to what has become patently clear by the explosion of evidence during the last decades, peddles the same gay rationalization/justification today he sold in a Time interview in 2005: “Being homosexual doesn’t put you at higher risk for committing sexual offences against kids.” (16)

Pro-gay psychologists responsible for the wave of homo-scandals in the Church

So we must make the following observation. This psychologist, who was “comfortable with the 20% to 40% of the priesthood he believes are homosexually oriented” (17) and his not so few colleagues who shared his ideological blindness or psychological ignorance, are partially co-responsible for the wave of homo-scandals in the Church. (18) They acted on one of the “pernicious” gay-science myths, the harmlessness of homo-tendencies and behaviors. Their position has likely been used to help many homosexual young men enter into the seminary. Going by Plante’s present contentions, even today he seems unwilling to dissuade a seminary rector to accept “normal homosexual” candidates. 

The gay and pro-gay indoctrinated psychological and psychiatric professions have been a major force in the homosexualization of the seminaries and the priesthood. They are the ones to blame, not the handful of firm and courageous professionals such as Fr. John Harvey, the founder of Courage, psychiatrist Dr. Fitzgibbons, and an exceptional bishop who, in spite of the disinterestedness and unwillingness of the mainstream Church and most bishops and in spite of lack of money, helped good-intentioned homosexual men and priests to lead a chaste life, and some abusing priests to curb their impulses. (19)

No studies are necessary to discover what everyone knows: Since the sixties, a great number of bishops, modernist or orthodox, more or less gravely neglected their duties and abandoned their flock. For them, sexual sin was abolished, Humanae Vitae was a dead letter, and teaching the whole Catechism was antiquated. 'Why make problems about people with different sexual tastes?' such bishops likely reasoned. Only in such a general climate of decadence could the gay subculture flourish in the Church and develop its powerful networks. 

Influence of gay ideology on bishops has been immense

The influence of the gay ideology on the ecclesiastical bureaucracies and the bishops has been immense. We must remind ourselves that the pastoral letter on homosexuality Always Our Children (1997), approved by the majority of the American bishops, was a whining piece of gay promotion. Along with thickly laid on sentimentality and a lot of dramatization of the social victimhood of young people with homosexual tendencies, the false suggestion was given that homosexuality is inborn and that homosexual relations should be accepted. The “warm welcome” into the Church for people living in same-sex partnerships, which was actually advocated in that glib pastoral document, resurfaced unimpaired in 2014, in the Interim Report of the Bishops’ Synod in Rome.

These historically significant documents reflect the prevailing influences and moods in the Catholic Church up to the present day; they are pro-gay. Not the sound opinions and practical initiatives of the likes of Fr. Harvey and Dr. Fitzgibbons have thoroughly impacted the American Church but the lies, often dressed up as “science,” and immoral ethics of gay ideology. This “compassionate” Always Our Children was even unwilling to recommend the authentically Catholic group Courage in a footnote. (20) Such pro-gay documents do not include the scientifically well-established insights of those psychologists and psychiatrists who explain homosexuality, not as something innate, but as a mental and sexual disorder and who point out that homosexual relations are de-humanizing, self-degrading and self-destructive, as has been perennially taught by the Church. No, included in these documents are the untruths, often masked as science, and sick morality of gay and pro-gay theologians, priests, and bishops. 

Symptomatic of the power of the gay ideology in the U.S. Church of the 1980s, the period Fr. Harvey started his enterprise of restoration, were the activities of the director of the St. Luke’s Institute in Suitland MD, the practicing homosexual psychiatrist Fr. Michael Peterson, well-financed and sponsored by prominent prelates such as the Cardinals Baum and Hickey. In this “treatment center” homosexual and pedophile priests were taught the ideology of the normalcy and unchangeability of their tendencies (only “be careful with children”), while the “expert” himself was allowed to indoctrinate many bishops with the gay science of Alfred Kinsey. (21) The influence and power of a gay guru such as this Peterson casts light on the veritable cause of the sexual abuse- and subsequent coverup crises: the homosexualization of the Church.



1 John Jay Report I. Washington DC: USCCB, 2004; Table 3.5.4 

2 As an “interpretation” of unclear responses of a no less vague subgroup of priest offenders in a “treatment” center. The John Jay II study ( Washington DC: USCCB, 2011) “interprets” from an obviously pro-gay-prejudiced viewpoint a few methodologically substandard studies which used invalid inventories to compare some unrepresentative groups of abusing priests with arbitrary groups of non-abusing priests. The pointless scores and statistics falsely impress the layman as scientifically valuable. A lot of psycho-babble and use of unclear psychological notions must whitewash “homosexuality” as the core problem of the clergy abuse crisis. This psychological jargon was no doubt unreadable for the bishops to whom the report was addressed. 1 or 2 million US$ for providing a few pseudo-scientific arguments in order to distract the attention from the truth. 

3 According to official US statistics.

4 Roughly 10% of molestations of male pre-adolescent concern pre-teens, i.e., homosexual pedophilia. This does not significantly change the relative probabilities of homosexual and heterosexual adults to molest minors.

5 “Ephebos: Greek for male “youth”; “philia”: love.

6 Older large-scale European studies found that the ideal partner for 20% of practicing homosexuals was 13-20 years (ephebophilia), 17-25 years for another 20% (thus in part ephebophilia), and for 35% between 20-35 years (androphilia; “andros”: man). (Giese, H. Der homosexuelle Mann in der Welt. Stuttgart: Enke, 1958; Freund, K. Die Homosexualität beim Mann . Leipzig: Hirzel, 1963.) In practice, the borders between these groups are fluid (For ex., Marshall et al., Sexual offenders against male children: sexual preferences. Behavior Research and Therapy , 1988, 26 , 383-398). 

An American study indicated that as many as 80% preferred a lover between 15-20 years. (Zebulon, A. et al., Sexual partner age preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual B ehavior, 2000, 29 , 67-76.)

7 A review in 1985, dealing with the period that much abuse by the clergy took place, concluded that 25-40% of the cases of “child” molestation reported in the literature were homosexual (Cameron, P. Homosexual molestation of children; Sexual interaction of teacher and pupil. Psychological Reports, 1985, 57 , 1227-1236. The distinction between pre-pubertal and adolescent children in these studies is not always clear). The risk of adult gay men to molest minor boys is 10-20 times the risk of adult heterosexual men molesting minor girls. (For convicts: Walmsley, R. & White, K. Sexual offences, consent and sentencing. Home Office Research Study. London: HMSO, 1979; for foster parents: Cameron, P. Homosexual molestations by foster parents: Illinois. Psychological Reports , 2005, 96 , 227-230; for teachers: Cameron, P. Teacher-pupil sex, how much is homosexual? Empirical Journal of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior (online), 2007, 1 , 1-9.) 

8 Bell, A.P. & Weinberg, M.S. Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men and women . New York: Hill & Wang, 1978; Jay, K. and Young, A. The gay report . New York: Summit, 1979. 30% of the interviewees in the latter inquiry said they “were open” to contact with minors.

9 Statistics in John Jay I (2004). 

10 E.g., Mohr, J.W. et al. Pedophilia and exhibitionism: A handbook. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964; van den Aardweg, G.J.M. On the origins and treatment of homosexuality . New York: Praeger Publishers, 1986. 11 Kinsey himself, a gravely perverted gay man, may have had pedophile tendencies too.

12 Sandfort, T.G.M. Pedophilia and the gay movement. The Journal of H omosexuality, 1987, 7 , 13, 89-110. 

13 Emphasis added.

14 This is what Robert Reilly analyzed in his Making gay okay: How rationalizing homosexual behavior is changing everything . San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2014.

15 Camille Paglia, Statement at a symposium at Harvard Medical School, 1993. Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review, 1997, 4 , 3.

16 Time, October 17. 2005.

17 Plante’s estimate of 20-40% homosexual priests is a substantial exaggeration. He would feel “comfortable” with a priesthood almost half of which is/would be gay. Normal men and women will feel anything but happy if that were the reality, it is a typical gay preference. Wishful exaggeration of the portion of homosexuals in society (the illogical idea is: the more, the more normal) has always characterized the gay propaganda. Kinsey’s distorted statistics “showed” that at least 10% of the male population were homosexually interested. However, it is true that a disproportionally high percentage of priests have homosexual feelings; I would guess up to 15% since the 1960s, and considerably less earlier. The affinity of many Catholic homosexual men for the priesthood and of many Protestant homosexual men for Protestant ministry is another fact of all times. In my view, it is not a question of vocation, but of certain character and personality weaknesses which are endemic in homosexual men.

18 “All four Church-contracted psychologists interviewed by Time agreed vociferously with his [Plante’s] contention that homosexuality doesn’t make one more likely to sexually abuse children.” (Time, 10.17.2005.) 

19 ​A note in defense of Fr. Harvey, Courage, and psychiatrist Dr. Fitzgibbons.
A recent article in Crux accused Fr. John Harvey, Courage , and Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons of having substantially contributed to the abuse crisis in that they directly or indirectly influenced many bishops to refrain from punishment in cases of offending priests. (White, C. Courage founder pushed bishops to resist zero tolerance on abuse. Crux , 2018, Oct.)
As for Fr. Harvey, he recommended leniency when he thought zero tolerance threatened to be over-emphasized at the cost of justice to certain perpetrators, but as far as I knew him from the occasional contacts I had with him since the late 1980s, he was not averse to disciplinary measures, much less in cases of recidivism or possible recidivism. His philosophy was however that neither punishment was the real solution, nor psychological treatment by itself, but religious and moral conversion. (E.g., Harvey, J.F., The homosexual person. S. Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987, 226).
He was not at all the type of sentimental psychologist or pastor who view and treat the homosexual abuser (or homosexual men in general) one-sidedly as victims of childhood “traumas”, stressful circumstances or “availability”, or “discrimination”, as if they had no conscience, free will and responsibility. He treated them with realistic sympathy and understanding, with what he called “tough love”, and taught them to treat themselves the same way. His chastity program was and is demanding: conquer yourself. He was realistic about the personality weaknesses and defects of the average person with homosexual tendencies. He was not naïve either on the modest effects of counseling and of his own retreats for abuser priests: “Several relapsed” (Harvey, 1987, 139). On the results of one project for priests who had molested children and teens (pederasts and pedophiles) he soberly wrote that “we have been able … to help [these] 14 clerics to get some measure of control over their lives.” His next sentence very much deserves being memorized and meditated on because it formulates in a nutshell the deep-seated personality and moral-religious disorder of most homosexual abusers: “Psychologically, they are like little boys [emotional immaturity], morally, they lack sensitivity concerning the damage they may have done to these young people [moral-value blindness and self-absorption]; and spiritually, they have lost contact with their God in the depths of their souls[alienation from God].” (Harvey, 1987, 226). Is it likely that a man with this insight rashly advised or inspired bishops to expose abusing priests to a new situation of temptation? Fr. Harvey’s quick accuser(s) must come up with at least a handful of documented cases where his misguided advice or disproportional leniency had led to a priest’s recidivism. Should they fail to do that, they will have to bow their head(s) in shame for having besmirched the memory of a good shepherd and courageous pioneer. 

Then there is the insinuation that “the methods” of Courage and Dr. Fitzgibbons substantially favored the cover-up mentality, notably in the archdiocese of Philadelphia. Again, without the support of anything in the way of objective evidence. Only a series of far-fetched contentions launched out of thin air. No substantiation with well-documented cases of coverup on the instigation of the accused, no witness testimony by at least a few bishops who would have been led astray by Courage, Dr. Fitzgibbons cum suis

Dr. Fitzgibbons is known as a man of great integrity. He wrote critically about McCarrick before his case exploded; he can testify never to have treated an abuser priest who thereafter was returned to ministry, and to have treated only once such a priest who had not already been removed from ministry.
He (and his co-author Kleponis) did not write they believed a certain group of 21 priests of the Philadelphia diocese were innocent, but that their responses to a “test” that falsely pretends to assess sexual interests in children should never have been used as incriminating evidence, for that constituted grave injustice against the accused, regardless of their guilt or innocence. They found the only priest of these 21 they examined sexually normal and innocent, convicted largely on the basis of the incompetent, arbitrary, thus highly irresponsible interpretation of the man’s responses to this “test” that allegedly had assessed his “unconscious sexual interests” in little girls. (In other words, the accused himself had no idea of his tendencies, but the apparently telepathic psychologist knew what went on in his “unconscious”. And this was “evidence” for the priest’s criminal sexual behavior… ) Objecting to the use of this test was in fact an honorable act of justice and professional integrity. Indeed: Methodologically, this (Abel) test is absolutely invalid, i.e., does not measure what it insolently claims to “measure”; it is charlatanry, no more reliable than gazing into a crystal ball. So much for the solidity of the accusations against Dr. Fitzgibbons in Crux . (One or two more similar contentions are of the same quality.) 

In conclusion: This is a case of defamation, libel. Which at any rate, despite five years of “paradigm shifts”, still is a serious trespassing according to the Catholic Catechism. 

20 The archbishops of Philadelphia, Bevilacqua and Krol were accused in a Grand Jury Report of 2005 of massively covering up repeated sex offences in their diocese. If one seeks who might have influenced them: they were close with the pro-gay prelates Mahony, Brown, Rigali, and McCarrick but had no contacts with a Dr. Fitzgibbons or Courage people (Engel, 2006, 915, 1007, 1170). 

21 Engel, R. The rite of sodomy: Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. Export, PA: New Engel Publishing, 2006, 586 ff. Like her predecessor, Fr. E.T. Rueda ( The homosexual network: Private lives and public policy. Old Greenwich CT: Devil Adair Company, 1982), pro-life journalist Randy Engel has much concrete information. Though some of her stories and conclusions are better documented than others, her book is a valuable source for the history of the homosexualization of the American Church. 

As for St. Luke’s: Was this one of the “treatment centers” for abusing priests that produced one of the studies John Jay II used for its pro-gay speculations?