Does Celibacy Lead To Homosexual And Pedophile Behavior By Priests?

[ardillacid]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1320632696' post='2332407']


So the most obvious conclusion that someone can draw is that the biggest differences between the Catholic religion and the Protestant ones are the celibate orders.
[/quote]

Really. The main reason Lutherans, methodists, etc., don't reunite is not because of the pope, eucharist, confession, praying to saints, purgatory or any of that minor stuff, but because of celibacy. Huh. Fascinating.

[Aloysius]

first, your math is absolutely off. I won't dispute the possibility that 33% of the priests in the US might be homosexually oriented, but I would absolutely dispute the accusation that 33% are actively homosexual (please recognize that there is such a thing as a chaste homosexually oriented person, and while the Church has called for those people not to enter the priesthood, those who have entered are worthy of our respect and love especially if they persevere in chastity), or are homosexual abusers (some may engage in homosexual activity with people who are OF AGE, something which is bad, but should not be lumped in with abuse). please read through the statistics cited on the Catholic League website: http://www.catholicleague.com/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

[quote]According to a survey by the [i]Washington Post[/i], over the last four decades, [b]less than 1.5 percent [/b]of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse. According to a survey by the [i]New York Times[/i], 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse. Thomas Kane, author of [i]Priests are People Too[/i], estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.[/quote]

please also note that some charges have been proven false, and many charges are unprovable but are may be false due to some questionable methods among some psychiatrists regarding "repressed memories". there is a lot of controversy over whether so-called repressed memories are even a legitimate psychological phenomenon (ie memories that one absolutely doesn't remember until it is unlocked in some therapy). I think a lot of this repressed memory stuff can be triggered by the popular mythos surrounding sexual abuse by priests/ministers, a self-fulfilling prophecy. anyway, that's something that absolutely affects these numbers, the fact is that there ARE some false allegations, and we can never really know how many are false. one ought to keep that in mind.

[quote]Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young altar boy or girls of any age.”[/quote]

so 80-90% of 1.5%, so about 1.3% of priests have been ACCUSED of homosexual abuse. a large majority of priests who abuse are homosexual, but a large majority of priests who are supposedly homosexual (the 1/3 number, assuming it is accurate, which I don't dispute necessarily) are NOT abusers. and again, I think I have pretty thoroughly demonstrated that the homosexuals in the priesthood were homosexually oriented prior to entering seminary.

also, you have claimed that protestant and other profession's sexual abuse tends to be heterosexual. I'd like to see your evidence for that. the statistics I've posted cited on the Catholic League site do not indicate one way or another, HOWEVER, the overall picture painted (ie how many males are abusers vs. how many females are abusers combined with how many boys have been abused and how many girls have been abused in their lifetimes) indicates that there is plenty of homosexual abuse outside of the Catholic priesthood as well. I have not seen adequate data one way or another. I guess I wouldn't necessarily dispute that among our 1.5% of underage abusers, there might be more homosexual abuse than among the Protestants' 2-3% of underage abusers. but again, I can't say that for certain; and because those numbers are so small, I find it unlikely that your personal experience is going to really give an adequate picture of that. how many of the instances of underage sexual abuse in Protestant churches have you heard of? they're far less publicized, so unless we have some good stats on the subject there's nothing we can really say about how much of it is homosexual and how much is heterosexual.

as to your other problems with celibacy, that's an entirely different story. if you want to be against celibacy for those reasons, feel free, and such discussions and debates can happen, but please don't accuse celibacy of causing homosexuality or pedophilia when those things are present among married protestant clergy and other professions, and when we can pretty well demonstrate that those psychological conditions would be present in them prior to entering the seminary.

[Ed Normile]

Well I did not bother to read most of this thread as its too long and the premise is just pure offal. I did read the first post wher he wrote something like " we all think of this at some time" thats a paraphras as I did not copy it, but I have to say that this thought has never crossed my mind, and it seems like the babblings of a confused mind.

Its a shame they allow threads like this to appear here.

ed

[Jaime]

Also (and just because this bugs the croutons out of me) Pedophilia and homosexuality are in no way connected. These are two completely different issues. In fact statistics bear out that most sexual abuse on young boys are done by men who are heterosexual.

[Socrates]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1320623348' post='2332336']
Does celibacy lead to homosexual and pedophile behavior by priests?

No, I don't believe there's any legitimate evidence to indicate that it does. However, the celibacy requirement that they have these days (it wasn't always this way, you know) is a bad idea for other reasons. Additionally, these issues among Catholic priests continue to be of grave import- not because a priest is more likely to offend than someone from another group of people (which he most likely is not in any given scenario), but because of the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability, and the opportunity for any offender to do it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again.
[/quote]
Yes, this explains why the rates of sexual abuse of minors by protestant ministers are as high or higher than in the Catholic Church

[url="http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/06/18/80877.htm"]Report: Protestant Church Insurers Handle 260 Sex Abuse Cases a Year[/url]

As someone commented:“Responding to heavy media scrutiny, the Catholic Church has reported that since 1950, 13,000 ‘credible accusations’ have been brought against Catholic clerics ([b]about 228 per year.[/b]) The fact that this number includes all credible accusations, not just those that have involved insurance companies, [b]and still is less than the number of cases in Protestant churches reported by just three insurance companies[/b], should be making front page of [i]The New York Times[/i] and the network evening news. It’s not.”

Or much worse in our public school system: [url="http://Forgotten%20Study:%20Abuse%20in%20School%20100%20Times%20Worse%20than%20by%20Priests"]Forgotten Study: Abuse in School 100 Times Worse than by Priests[/url]
[url="http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf"]Actual Report Here[/url]

But, yeah, the problem's all with the big bad Catholic Church.


Sexual abuse by priests, when it happens, is utterly shameful and disgraceful, but let's not pretend that anything was going on that was unique to the Catholic Church.

Good article here: [url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html"]10 Myths About Priestly Pedophilia[/url] (good reading for everyone posting one here)

[quote]Celibacy bears no causal relation to any type of deviant sexual addiction including pedophilia. In fact, married men are just as likely as celibate priests to sexually abuse children (Jenkins, Priests and Pedophilia). In the general population, the majority of abusers are regressed heterosexual men who sexually abuse girls. Women are also found to be among those sexual abusers. While it's difficult to obtain accurate statistics on childhood sexual abuse, the characteristic patterns of repeat child sex offenders have been well described.[b] The profiles of child molesters never include normal adults who become erotically attracted to children as a result of abstinence[/b] (Fred Berlin, "Compulsive Sexual Behaviors" in [i]Addiction and Compulsive Behaviors[/i] [Boston: NCBC, 1998]; Patrick J. Carnes, "Sexual Compulsion: Challenge for Church Leaders" in [i]Addiction and Compulsion[/i]; Dale O'Leary, "Homosexuality and Abuse").[/quote]

Also worth noting:
[quote]Pedophilia is a particular type of compulsive sexual disorder in which an adult (man or woman) abuses prepubescent children.[b] The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia — homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent — comparable to the rate among married men[/b] (Jenkins, [i][url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195145976/qid=1018031507/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_67_2/102-6224020-8904105"]Pedophiles and Priests[/url][/i]).[/quote]

[MIKolbe]

then there's this

[url="http://reformation.com/"]http://reformation.com/[/url]

[Papist]

How does celibacy make someone gay?

[Aloysius]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1320690232' post='2332632']
Also (and just because this bugs the croutons out of me) Pedophilia and homosexuality are in no way connected. These are two completely different issues. In fact statistics bear out that most sexual abuse on young boys are done by men who are heterosexual.
[/quote]
pedophilia in its precise definition (attraction to pre-pubescent children) is not connected to homosexuality, whether the victims are male or female.

ephebophilia, attraction to underage post-pubescent teens, is indeed connected to a homosexual orientation when the victims are male. the majority of priest sex abuse is ephebophilia, not pedophilia.

[url="http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/plante.html"]http://www.psywww.co...lig/plante.html[/url]

Edited November 7, 2011 by Aloysius

[dominicansoul]

[url="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57319878/sandusky-case-officials-seek-alleged-victims/"]http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57319878/sandusky-case-officials-seek-alleged-victims/[/url]


apparently, Coach Sandusky was practicing celibacy...

[Winchester]

I was coming in to mention that guy and the apparent celibacy of coaches. Well played, DS.


Have I mentioned lately how incredibly stupid this thread is? It's comparable to dairy polls and breathless South Dakotan paranoia.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1320693382' post='2332656']

Yes, this explains why the rates of sexual abuse of minors by protestant ministers are as high or higher than in the Catholic Church[/quote]I think you misread my post. Based on what I wrote, you should have concluded that I do acknowledge that in almost any situation, priests are going to have a lower rate of abuse than another group of people. I did indicate some concerns that I have, though, and you didn't seem to notice them.

[Aloysius]

the response to the sexual abuse crisis by the hierarchy should allay those concerns; while there is some question as to if there was adequate justice for past offenses and past coverups, the current protocols and canons surrounding the issue are very strict and, some would argue, have erred too much on the side of presuming guilt in any accusation.

I think your questions and concerns are valid concerning the past, but regarding the present and foreseeable future, those problems have been dealt with and offenders are dealt with more severely now, even with only the slightest hint of any possibility of wrong doing.

also, I would question whether it is accurate to say that there was less accountability and more cover-up in the Catholic Church than among Protestants or school teachers. There was a long period that, as a society, we were trusting psychologists to "cure" these people and many institutions attempted to protect themselves and hush things up. There's plenty of blame around; it may be true that the Church was one of the worst if not the worst in terms of cover-ups and non-accountability, but it happened in all the institutions that were dealing with these things during that period of time.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1320569757' post='2332200']
Jerry Sandusky, married, former Penn State coach, is in the news right now about his pedophilia and the cover up.
[url="http://news.yahoo.com/child-sex-charges-possible-cover-rock-penn-st-080217588.html"]http://news.yahoo.co...-080217588.html[/url]

So how does this fit in with all the celibacy leads to homosexuality and pedophilia?
[/quote]Oh, oh, check this out! I'm glad you brought this up. It doesn't fit in with the non-existent causal connection between celibacy and pedophilia, but it does present some opportunities for some illuminating contrast. Ready?

Penn State controversy- Two Penn State officials surrendered Monday on charges....Senior VP Gary Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley both stepped down from their posts last Sunday, one day after the charges were announced. Despite their claims of innocence, the school has permanently severed ties with them and will work to distance themselves from the two men as the situation continues to develop.

Contrast this with a typical CC controversy involving priests....Two high-ranking Church officials (let's say, a bishop and an archbishop) are facing charges for concealing dozens of counts of abuse at the hands of a half-dozen priests (or teachers or seminarians or whatever) that were under their supervision. These church officials continue to be employed by the CC and will enjoy full financial backing in their efforts to prove their innocence, and will have millions at their disposal for out-of-court settlements if that's what it takes. As long as they are not found guilty in a court of law, they will continue in their present service to the CC and retire on their terms whenever they want.

One more little contrast: The Penn St. controversy centers around charges of sexual misconduct by a former assistant football coach. And now the contrast:

The priests who are accused of molesting children? Yeah, they still work here.


Maybe it's not the kind of comparison you were looking for. But it's relevant.

[Aloysius]

priests who have even somewhat credible accusations against them are automatically suspended. of course, the Church does have the obligation to allow them the financial ability to defend themselves. someone with a career is different, as they probably have savings; being a priest doesn't pay too much, bishops are more like parents in this instance than employers, since the priest has dedicated his life to the diocese and is therefore so hugely dependent upon the diocese.

but priests who have credible accusations against them are immediately suspended and treated as presumed guilty; priests with accusations against them are NOT working for the diocese at all. there have been some shady things in the past, mostly dealing with things that were happening around the 80's, but the Church has tightened up its discipline very strictly; actually to the point where it probably violates the accused priests' rights, because remember: there should be a presumption of innocence.

anyway, that type of stuff is not going on anymore. accused priests are NOT working for the diocese, though they often remain dependent upon the diocese while they retain their presumption of innocence.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320791907' post='2333387']
priests who have even somewhat credible accusations against them are automatically suspended. of course, the Church does have the obligation to allow them the financial ability to defend themselves. someone with a career is different, as they probably have savings; being a priest doesn't pay too much, bishops are more like parents in this instance than employers, since the priest has dedicated his life to the diocese and is therefore so hugely dependent upon the diocese.

but priests who have credible accusations against them are immediately suspended and treated as presumed guilty; priests with accusations against them are NOT working for the diocese at all. there have been some shady things in the past, mostly dealing with things that were happening around the 80's, but the Church has tightened up its discipline very strictly; actually to the point where it probably violates the accused priests' rights, because remember: there should be a presumption of innocence.

anyway, that type of stuff is not going on anymore. accused priests are NOT working for the diocese, though they often remain dependent upon the diocese while they retain their presumption of innocence.
[/quote]Philadelphia. Earlier this year. 37 priests with credible accusations against them, and they still had access to children. Steps have been taken, and the Vatican put something out there in May that bishops are pseudo-required to adhere to within the year- but there's no penalty if they decide not to, and in effect, steps that may or may not be taken in the near future continue to be up to the discretion of the individual bishop. In the past, bishops have easily been able to run a diocese like an insular police department that protects corrupt or abusive cops. Some bishops are only just beginning to address the problem, but some of them aren't and not all of the ones making an honest effort are really making any headway.

[url="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/us/05church.html"]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/us/05church.html[/url]

Bottom line- you still got a ways to go.