Does Celibacy Lead To Homosexual And Pedophile Behavior By Priests?

[MIKolbe]

bottom line...

we all do.

[cooterhein]

I don't know if you planned on reading through the entire Times article or not; I know it's easy to skim things or avoid them when they're bad and you don't want to see them. But there is one important part that has something to do with you, Aloysius. A small quoted selection:

“The thing that is significant about Philadelphia is the assumption that the authorities had made changes and the system had been fixed....But the headline is that in Philadelphia, the system is still broke."

Again- that was in March of this year. This has everything to do with you and some very specific things that you said. You're telling me about the CC's new policies and how they sometimes might even be too stringent now. You're also telling me about how priests with credible accusations are immediately suspended and treated as if presumed guilty (which is not entirely true- did you see what I posted just a little bit ago? You know, the Penn St. thing? Those guys were completely gone one day later, and they didn't even abuse anyone- they were accused of knowing about it and hiding it). Back to what I was saying, though.

The thing that's significant- people thought that the system had been fixed and everything is running smoothly now. That Is You! You are the one who thinks the system is fine now and all your problems are in the past. Well, as it turns out, they're not so far in the past- it only goes back as far as May of this year, which is several years after the sweeping reforms were supposed to fix things. And again, this isn't about sodomy (it's generally molestation) or even anything that technically passes as pedophilia (vics tend to be minors, but are generally pubescent minors). It's not even about having a relatively large number of priests that are guilty, or at least credibly accused.

This is the issue. Watch this.

The issue is that until earlier [b]this year[/b], Philadelphia was a safe haven for 37 priests with credible accusations against them who continued to be employed by the CC and generally continued to have access to children. This would have continued indefinitely if an outside authority had not stepped in and revealed it, over and against the denials of Cardinal Justin Rigali. It also happened years after the diocese was supposed to be functioning at a level where it could police itself. THAT is the issue. This issue is that it WASN'T effectively policing itself, and American dioceses continue to be revealed as insular, non-transparent safe havens that are still, at times, more concerned with protecting the clerical offender than the victims among the laity.

Edited November 8, 2011 by cooterhein

[cooterhein]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1320693884' post='2332662']
then there's this

[url="http://reformation.com/"]http://reformation.com/[/url]
[/quote]Who put this together, exactly? Because it looks like a Catholic's answer to Bishopaccountability. Which was actually created by concerned Catholics who largely continue to be faithful Catholics, with this one caveat- they were victims of clerical abuse and they see a need for accountability within their own church based on how their own situation was handled.

Is this at all comparable, or is it just an example of Catholics taking the fight to non-Catholics?

Edited November 8, 2011 by cooterhein

[Aloysius]

here's my take on the Philadelphia issue: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/abuse_allegations_true_false_and_truthy
many of those priests were previously cleared, and many of the instances were accusations of "boundary violations"; many of them came from dubious and questionable "repressed memory" therapies that are controversial and very often false.

anyways, I will say we can't just say that everything's perfect, but I was trying to get across that your accusation that insinuated that known child abusers were still employed was generally false. it's more complicated than that, but sure things can get better; but we must find a better way to balance the presumption of innocence that should be extended to anyone who is accused and the strict protection of children. it's a hard balance to find. it's hard to really say that the archdiocese was negligent in these cases, especially considering that most of the priests had been investigated and cleared by competent professionals already.

[cooterhein]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320796820' post='2333427']

here's my take on the Philadelphia issue: [url="http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/abuse_allegations_true_false_and_truthy"]http://www.mercatorn...alse_and_truthy[/url][/quote]My central concern has to do with the degree to which the average Catholic diocese in America is successfully policing itself. How would you summarize the central concern expressed in this article?

Also, do you have anything similar on similar recent incidents in Missouri and New Mexico?

Edited November 9, 2011 by cooterhein

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1320590500' post='2332229']
Here's a quote I got from Wikipedia (According to Dr Elizabeth Stuart, a former convener of the Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement)
[/quote]
Yeah, no bias there, huh?

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320563147' post='2332191']
you continue to make assertions WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
[/quote]
There's your problem: you believe that this discussion is about facts and evidence.


[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1320538347' post='2332061']
I believe
[/quote]


[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1320512918' post='2331915']heard of
[/quote]


[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1320517221' post='2331944']I've heard of
[/quote]


[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1320517522' post='2331948']

I don't believe
[/quote]


[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1320517522' post='2331948']
I suspect
[/quote]


[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1320517522' post='2331948']I think that
[/quote]










[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1320501774' post='2331803']
I'm sure that
[color=#000000][/quote][/color]


[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1320501774' post='2331803']I don't buy that.
[color=#000000][/quote][/color]


[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1320501774' post='2331803']
an argument that I basically agree with


[color=#000000][/quote][/color]

[Aloysius]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1320799727' post='2333448']
My central concern has to do with the degree to which the average Catholic diocese in America is successfully policing itself. How would you summarize the central concern expressed in this article?
[/quote]
I think that it is doing so adequately and Catholic dioceses are the safest institutions in our society currently for children compared to other institutions. things aren't perfect or all rosy, but they are incredibly improved IMO; I think the Archdiocese of Philadelphia did not act incorrectly, considering that those who were still in place had been cleared of abuse already, and many are likely innocent. I think by and large in most dioceses across the country you find that even very thin accusations result in immediate suspension.

I also think that the policies of the Catholic Church have been generally much more strict than any other employer across the country, notwithstanding this single example of Penn State, which is mostly a PR move in the face of immense publicity (Philadelphia actually did the same thing: as soon as there was indictments and public attention, the priests were suspended. as has been noted, priests are not exactly in the same category of employee as an assistant coach is, so the Church has a financial obligation to those priests so long as they have not yet been proven guilty in a court of law, a financial obligation that does not exist with a coach of a university, but they were indeed suspended immediately following indictments, same as these coaches).

Philadelphia and Penn State both got rid of the accused offenders following indictments. Most dioceses get rid of accused offenders far earlier than that, immediately following "credible" accusations. So I would say that the state of the Church's self-investigation is pretty thorough and strict right now.

[MIKolbe]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1320796166' post='2333422']
Who put this together, exactly? Because it looks like a Catholic's answer to Bishopaccountability. Which was actually created by concerned Catholics who largely continue to be faithful Catholics, with this one caveat- they were victims of clerical abuse and they see a need for accountability within their own church based on how their own situation was handled.

Is this at all comparable, or is it just an example of Catholics taking the fight to non-Catholics?
[/quote]
Who put this together? no idea. I came across it and found it relevant.

I mean...this IS about protecting children and not grabbing the nearest stick to beat the Catholic Church with?

The problem isn't celibacy, male only clerics or any other rubbish. The problem is sin. That's why you find this cancer everywhere in society.

If we are really serious about protecting those most innocent in society (namely children in this thread), then let's protect them. We have jails, let's throw the perpetrators in there (after a fair trail, of course) The Church, nor any other ecclesical body own the police or the 'judicial system'. Assuming pedophilia is a crime, arrest them, give them a trial and throw them in jail. Assuming hiding people guilty of this crime is ALSO a crime, wash, rinse, repeat. Again, if this is *really* about the children the solution is pretty simple....and logically should be applied to all people in society: catholics, jews, mere-christians, school teachers, head coaches of college football teams......

If one is solely interested in faux hand-wringing about 'those catholics', do it somewhere else. Please.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='MIkolbe' timestamp='1320803752' post='2333478']
Who put this together? no idea. I came across it and found it relevant.

I mean...this IS about protecting children and not grabbing the nearest stick to beat the Catholic Church with?

The problem isn't celibacy, male only clerics or any other rubbish. The problem is sin. That's why you find this cancer everywhere in society.

If we are really serious about protecting those most innocent in society (namely children in this thread), then let's protect them. We have jails, let's throw the perpetrators in there (after a fair trail, of course) The Church, nor any other ecclesical body own the police or the 'judicial system'. Assuming pedophilia is a crime, arrest them, give them a trial and throw them in jail. Assuming hiding people guilty of this crime is ALSO a crime, wash, rinse, repeat. Again, if this is *really* about the children the solution is pretty simple....and logically should be applied to all people in society: catholics, jews, mere-christians, school teachers, head coaches of college football teams......

If one is solely interested in faux hand-wringing about 'those catholics', do it somewhere else. Please.
[/quote]

Why should we do this somewhere else? This is a Catholic debate board. It's he appropriate place to debate this topic.

What makes the pedophilia in the Catholic church unique is the almost exclusively homosexual nature of it. And what makes the Catholic vocations really unique is that they are celibate. So I was questioning if there was a connection.

It appears that the strongest connection between the celibate vocation and the homosexual pedophile abuse -- is that the celibate priesthood in the Catholic church attracts a larger than normal number of homosexuals and they molest kids more often than the general population. And I'm basing that on the fact that the abuse is homosexual in nature so the most likely culprits are the homosexuals -- [i]NOT[/i] the heterosexual Priests! The statistics from the Catholic church alone suggests that the homosexuals are more likely to abuse boys.

Edited November 9, 2011 by southern california guy

[Deb]

It appears to me that it has always been a homosexual issue. It has nothing to do with celibacy. You either live chastely as a priest or a single person or whatever or you don't. You either honor your vows or you don't. It is a moral failing and falling into great sin. Now, if you are saying that homosexuals are less able to live a chaste and celebate life, I have no information on that. What I would say is that you are just presuming this problem is worse in the Catholic Church and that is not true. Priest data on abuse was compared to data collected in 2000 for the AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN. What they found was that the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests. The reason these and many more results like these are not being played up in the media is because the desire is not to protect children from abuse or to report on it, it is to attempt to destroy the Catholic Church. The public doesn't want to know that its oh so expensive public school system is systematically abusing their children. The enemy doesn't care at all. He just wants the church to go down.

[Groo the Wanderer]

this is still being kicked around?

[Aloysius]

remember that Catholic priests are NOT more likely to abuse children than the rest of the population. The fact that homosexuals who entered the priesthood were more likely to abuse underagers than heterosexuals who entered the priesthood is something which is important to note. but think about these stats: if, as you claim, 33% of the priesthood in the US is homosexually oriented, and 1.5% of priests have had abuse allegations against them (ignoring the fact that inevitably there will be some false allegations included in that number), 4.5% of homosexuals who entered the priesthood had abuse allegations against them. just to put the numbers in context.

but mandatory celibacy is one thing, a matter of Church discipline dating back roughly 700 years; celibacy itself is another, it is a biblical doctrine. giving special place to celibacy in the priesthood is a Biblical practice dating to St. Paul's epistles, so if a life of celibacy attracts homosexuals (especially those who do not wish to live as active homosexuals), then any biblical ministry in the Church is going to attract homosexuals because there will always be a place for celibacy in ministry, even if it becomes no longer mandatory.

remember, many who joined the priesthood who had homosexual inclinations did so with the intention of truly living a life of celibacy, and I am sure many of those have done so. the Vatican has made clear that men with deep-seated homosexual attractions should not be admitted to seminaries, but let's not demonize those who have done so just because they give us an icky feeling and we can't "relate to them". they are priests of Jesus Christ, sons of Our Lady, let's pray that they can maintain chastity and celibacy.

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320810830' post='2333553']
remember that Catholic priests are NOT more likely to abuse children than the rest of the population. The fact that homosexuals who entered the priesthood were more likely to abuse underagers than heterosexuals who entered the priesthood is something which is important to note. but think about these stats: if, as you claim, 33% of the priesthood in the US is homosexually oriented, and 1.5% of priests have had abuse allegations against them (ignoring the fact that inevitably there will be some false allegations included in that number), 4.5% of homosexuals who entered the priesthood had abuse allegations against them. just to put the numbers in context.

but mandatory celibacy is one thing, a matter of Church discipline dating back roughly 700 years; celibacy itself is another, it is a biblical doctrine. giving special place to celibacy in the priesthood is a Biblical practice dating to St. Paul's epistles, so if a life of celibacy attracts homosexuals (especially those who do not wish to live as active homosexuals), then any biblical ministry in the Church is going to attract homosexuals because there will always be a place for celibacy in ministry, even if it becomes no longer mandatory.

remember, many who joined the priesthood who had homosexual inclinations did so with the intention of truly living a life of celibacy, and I am sure many of those have done so. the Vatican has made clear that men with deep-seated homosexual attractions should not be admitted to seminaries, but let's not demonize those who have done so just because they give us an icky feeling and we can't "relate to them". they are priests of Jesus Christ, sons of Our Lady, let's pray that they can maintain chastity and celibacy.
[/quote]

I think that for the sake of the young boys in the Catholic church -- as well as the reputation and success of the Catholic church -- no homosexuals should be admitted to the priesthood. No matter what their intentions are. We can feel sympathetic for them, but I think that the costs outweigh the benefits.

[Aloysius]

presuming a worst-case scenario of those numbers, only 4.5% of homosexuals who entered the priesthood were accused of sexual abuse. so I think it's a little ridiculous to paint all homosexuals who have entered the priesthood as dangers to children. in Christian charity, you should make it clear that you're not saying that.

that said, the Church has actually said that those with deep seated homosexual orientations should not enter seminaries. it specifically speaks of those who have not been chaste for at least 3 years prior to entering. the reasons are more theological; celibacy is supposed to be a sacrifice of something which is good, so if someone has exclusively homosexual attractions then by being celibate they are giving up something which is bad, not good. one should have heterosexual attractions which they sacrifice as something which is good, offering up something good for God. people should abstain from homosexual behavior without a vow of celibacy anyway.