The Catholics. My goodness. Deviant Priests

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

This isn't about trying to blame homosexuality, or about linking homosexuality to sexual abuse. If you are trying to solve a problem, you first need to try to identify the causes. And to ignore the strong correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality in the Church, you are deliberately blinding yourself to all the available data in the name of political correctness.

Let the record reflect I've asked KSUW at least two times already to explain why he thinks it is important to acknowledge this link, correlation, whatever.

I've already explained that in several posts, including this one:

The Church should also be focused on better reporting and enforcement measures, but doing a better job of barring the bad apples from the priesthood in the first place is just as important. To that end, while the undeniable homosexual element to the abuse makes people very uncomfortable from a PC standpoint, it is relevant when considering how to best prevent future abuse.

Some gays such as Andrew Sullivan acknowledge the link but believe that it's the closeted, sexually repressed, and self-hating nature (his words) of gays who choose to enter the priesthood that makes them particularly prone to being abusers. So is the solution to allow priests to marry, thus making the Church a less enticing draw for that sort of person? Seems like a good idea to me for all sorts of reasons - not just this. Or maybe the solution is to allow gay priests to serve openly (let's get real - that's not gonna happen). Or maybe be more stringent in barring homosexuals from entering the priesthood (hard to see how that's practical, or consistent with the idea that priests are supposed to be celibate anyway).

It's a difficult but important issue for the Church (and really everyone). What we don't need is the typical liberal politically correct denial of the obvious and efforts to shut down any discussion on the topic by calling people bigots, etc.

Identifying all the causes of the problem helps develop the best solution to the problem.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think requiring priests to be celibate makes the profession more attractive to homosexuals than it otherwise would be, but I don't see how removing that requirement would make the profession any less attractive to people who want to rape children.

[DQ12]

i don't want to carefully read this thread and i know some of you have basically said the same, but i'd like to make it more explicit - the reason there are so many priests are pedophiles is because rational pedophiles have surveyed the available professions and come to the conclusion that being a priest offers them the best opportunity to both encounter victims and escape punishment.

i don't believe there is any connection to religion other than that.  if, in the future, the catholic church makes it harder either access victims or escape punishment, pedophiles in the future will flock into other professions (pediatrics, wrestling coach, dunno).

I think the more likely explanation is the (understandable) perception that the priesthood is a pretty good profession for predators based on the access to minors, inherent authority/trust between priests and parishes, and institutional protection priests have been afforded.

Ok, it sounds like you've misunderstood my position. I've never said that gay men are more likely to be sexual abusers at large. But when you look at the pattern of sexual abuse in the Church, you cannot ignore the fact that most of the abuse is homosexual in nature. That is a fact. End stop.

The question then is, why? Coincidence? I don't think you believe that, and I don't either. I tend to subscribe to Andrew Sullivan's (and other notable Catholics, gays, and others) belief that gay men who are attracted to the Church as a cover for their "sin" are perhaps susceptible to a host of disorders, including abusing their power for repressed sexual gratification.

This isn't about trying to blame homosexuality, or about linking homosexuality to sexual abuse. If you are trying to solve a problem, you first need to try to identify the causes. And to ignore the strong correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality in the Church, you are deliberately blinding yourself to all the available data in the name of political correctness.

Gotcha.  You're right.  I was misunderstanding your position.  You're not saying what I thought you were saying.  I'm not sure I agree with you, but I'll think about it. 

[wetwillie]

Could start with limiting priest access to children.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's really hard to believe that parents still allow their kids to be altar boys/girls/whatever.

[8manpick]

It's really hard to believe that parents still allow their kids to be altar boys/girls/whatever.

Faith is a powerful thing

[catastrophe]

Why would allowing marriage de-incentivize a gay person from entering the priesthood? As for being openly gay, I don't think the church has any rule against that (not any more than being openly hetero at least).  #3 seems pointless unless you believe that being gay makes one more likely to prey on children.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just cannot reconcile the argument that a "link" or "correlation" is important to recognize without also presuming that gays are more likely to be child molesters.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why would allowing marriage de-incentivize a gay person from entering the priesthood? As for being openly gay, I don't think the church has any rule against that (not any more than being openly hetero at least).  #3 seems pointless unless you believe that being gay makes one more likely to prey on children.

I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like if you really stipulate that gays are not more likely to be child molesters, it makes no sense why a "link" or "correlation" is important to recognize.

Allowing marriage wouldn't necessarily be a disincentive to gay people, but the current requirement of celibacy represents a greater sacrifice for a heterosexual. Gay people pretty much have to be celibate anyway if they are to avoid a sinful lifestyle.

[Kat Kid]

Aren't the libtards pushing to normalize pedophilia anyways??? The Catholics just need to hang on for a few years until its officially homophobic to condemn pedophilia.

really?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

interesting articles. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/20/us/ap-us-sexual-misconduct-gay-priests.html

I was particularly surprised that, even if there is a vigorous debate in the Church as to whether gay priests are a problem, there seems to be general agreement on both sides that a significant percentage of priests are gay.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/04/20/how_the_catholic_priesthood_became_a_haven_for_many_gay_men.html

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/29/catholic-priests-its-empirical-fact-that-many-clergy-are-gay

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/07/23/the-catholic-churchs-sex-abuse-scandals-show-it-has-a-gay-priest-problem-theyre-trapped-in-the-closet/

[catastrophe]

Why would allowing marriage de-incentivize a gay person from entering the priesthood? As for being openly gay, I don't think the church has any rule against that (not any more than being openly hetero at least).  #3 seems pointless unless you believe that being gay makes one more likely to prey on children.

I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like if you really stipulate that gays are not more likely to be child molesters, it makes no sense why a "link" or "correlation" is important to recognize.

Allowing marriage wouldn't necessarily be a disincentive to gay people, but the current requirement of celibacy represents a greater sacrifice for a heterosexual. Gay people pretty much have to be celibate anyway if they are to avoid a sinful lifestyle.

This makes sense, but that logic would lead me to believe it would be heterosexual priests who were more likely to become sexually frustrated / depressed compared to someone who feels they cannot act on their sexual urges regardless of whether or not they are a priest.  That gets into some pretty complex psychology, though, and I'd grant it is debatable.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why would allowing marriage de-incentivize a gay person from entering the priesthood? As for being openly gay, I don't think the church has any rule against that (not any more than being openly hetero at least).  #3 seems pointless unless you believe that being gay makes one more likely to prey on children.

I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like if you really stipulate that gays are not more likely to be child molesters, it makes no sense why a "link" or "correlation" is important to recognize.

Allowing marriage wouldn't necessarily be a disincentive to gay people, but the current requirement of celibacy represents a greater sacrifice for a heterosexual. Gay people pretty much have to be celibate anyway if they are to avoid a sinful lifestyle.

This makes sense, but that logic would lead me to believe it would be heterosexual priests who were more likely to become sexually frustrated / depressed compared to someone who feels they cannot act on their sexual urges regardless of whether or not they are a priest.  That gets into some pretty complex psychology, though, and I'd grant it is debatable.

It's possible they are. I'm not sure if any numbers for the percentage of priests that are homo/heterosexual exist, and I would be pretty skeptical about the accuracy of such figures.

[EMAWican]

i don't want to carefully read this thread and i know some of you have basically said the same, but i'd like to make it more explicit - the reason there are so many priests are pedophiles is because rational pedophiles have surveyed the available professions and come to the conclusion that being a priest offers them the best opportunity to both encounter victims and escape punishment.

i don't believe there is any connection to religion other than that.  if, in the future, the catholic church makes it harder either access victims or escape punishment, pedophiles in the future will flock into other professions (pediatrics, wrestling coach, dunno).

You obvs aren't familiar with the process to become a Catholic priest if you think it's a "profession" that pedos choose from on a list with teaching, daycare, coaching, etc. The Catholic church is not a cowboy church or wanna-be Evangelical group where a blowhard can sign here and become a priest overnight.

[EMAWican]

I'm of the opinion the abuse is an outcome that's developed over time from the nature of priesthood and this needs to change.

Notice every time it's priests and boys (or priests abusing nuns) and not nuns and girls? Priests are the authority figure and hence the majority develop into the abusing personality.

[sys]

You obvs aren't familiar with the process to become a Catholic priest if you think it's a "profession" that pedos choose from on a list with teaching, daycare, coaching, etc. The Catholic church is not a cowboy church or wanna-be Evangelical group where a blowhard can sign here and become a priest overnight.

at what age do you think lad first realizes he wants to eff youngsters?

[EMAWican]

You obvs aren't familiar with the process to become a Catholic priest if you think it's a "profession" that pedos choose from on a list with teaching, daycare, coaching, etc. The Catholic church is not a cowboy church or wanna-be Evangelical group where a blowhard can sign here and become a priest overnight.

at what age do you think lad first realizes he wants to eff youngsters?

Here's a study of the most recent ordination class and studies are available back to the late 1990s. There's some interesting facts that don't line up with the they became a priest because pedo early. It's developed.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-085.cfm

[sys]

at what age do you think lad first realizes he wants to eff youngsters?

Here's a study of the most recent ordination class and studies are available back to the late 1990s. There's some interesting facts that don't line up with the they became a priest because pedo early. It's developed.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-085.cfm

there are no data in that link that provide information on the age at which pedophiles realize they are attracted to children.

[EMAWican]

at what age do you think lad first realizes he wants to eff youngsters?

Here's a study of the most recent ordination class and studies are available back to the late 1990s. There's some interesting facts that don't line up with the they became a priest because pedo early. It's developed.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-085.cfm

there are no data in that link that provide information on the age at which pedophiles realize they are attracted to children.

You said:

the reason there are so many priests are pedophiles is because rational pedophiles have surveyed the available professions and come to the conclusion that being a priest offers them the best opportunity to both encounter victims and escape punishment.

The article states that the average age was 16 when they considered vocation also, the average age for the 2017 class was 34. The age that pedos begin their attraction is concurrent with puberty so around 15 or so. So if all these pedos are surveying the professions at 15-16 and select priesthood, what do they do for on average 18+ years until they are an authority priest? Hide it? It seems like there's a lot quicker and easier options to give in to their deviancy.

[catastrophe]

Wait, so to get this straight. You’re disagreeing with sys’s argument that rational pedophiles are attracted to the priesthood. In support you’re providing evidence that the age people develop/realize a sexual preference coincides with the age most priests begin to consider their vocation?

[sys]

i would not make the assumption that data on how non-pedophile priests chose to become priests accurately describe how pedophile priests choose to become priests.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

You obvs aren't familiar with the process to become a Catholic priest if you think it's a "profession" that pedos choose from on a list with teaching, daycare, coaching, etc. The Catholic church is not a cowboy church or wanna-be Evangelical group where a blowhard can sign here and become a priest overnight.

at what age do you think lad first realizes he wants to eff youngsters?

Here's a study of the most recent ordination class and studies are available back to the late 1990s. There's some interesting facts that don't line up with the they became a priest because pedo early. It's developed.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-085.cfm

It's an absurd premise, and stupid. I think it should be removed from the board.

[gatoveintisiet]

Why would allowing marriage de-incentivize a gay person from entering the priesthood? As for being openly gay, I don't think the church has any rule against that (not any more than being openly hetero at least).  #3 seems pointless unless you believe that being gay makes one more likely to prey on children.

I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like if you really stipulate that gays are not more likely to be child molesters, it makes no sense why a "link" or "correlation" is important to recognize.

Allowing marriage wouldn't necessarily be a disincentive to gay people, but the current requirement of celibacy represents a greater sacrifice for a heterosexual. Gay people pretty much have to be celibate anyway if they are to avoid a sinful lifestyle.

This makes sense, but that logic would lead me to believe it would be heterosexual priests who were more likely to become sexually frustrated / depressed compared to someone who feels they cannot act on their sexual urges regardless of whether or not they are a priest.  That gets into some pretty complex psychology, though, and I'd grant it is debatable.

It's possible they are. I'm not sure if any numbers for the percentage of priests that are homo/heterosexual exist, and I would be pretty skeptical about the accuracy of such figures.

There were statistics earlier in the thread that 1.7% of girls and 3.3% boys in the Catholic Church have been abused.  To get a ballpark est. I would take the gross number of girls abused and using statistics from general population figure out how many heterosexual priests there are.  Subtract the hetero priests from total priests and you get gay priests.  Then I would crosscheck to see if gay priests are abusing at a higher rate than general population.

[gatoveintisiet]

Btw pedos are born that way.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Why would allowing marriage de-incentivize a gay person from entering the priesthood? As for being openly gay, I don't think the church has any rule against that (not any more than being openly hetero at least).  #3 seems pointless unless you believe that being gay makes one more likely to prey on children.

I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like if you really stipulate that gays are not more likely to be child molesters, it makes no sense why a "link" or "correlation" is important to recognize.

Allowing marriage wouldn't necessarily be a disincentive to gay people, but the current requirement of celibacy represents a greater sacrifice for a heterosexual. Gay people pretty much have to be celibate anyway if they are to avoid a sinful lifestyle.

This makes sense, but that logic would lead me to believe it would be heterosexual priests who were more likely to become sexually frustrated / depressed compared to someone who feels they cannot act on their sexual urges regardless of whether or not they are a priest.  That gets into some pretty complex psychology, though, and I'd grant it is debatable.

It's possible they are. I'm not sure if any numbers for the percentage of priests that are homo/heterosexual exist, and I would be pretty skeptical about the accuracy of such figures.

There were statistics earlier in the thread that 1.7% of girls and 3.3% boys in the Catholic Church have been abused.  To get a ballpark est. I would take the gross number of girls abused and using statistics from general population figure out how many heterosexual priests there are.  Subtract the hetero priests from total priests and you get gay priests.  Then I would crosscheck to see if gay priests are abusing at a higher rate than general population.

How do you identify the gay priests? It’s not like they would admit they are gay.

[gatoveintisiet]

You would have to make the sane assumption that hetero priests were abusing girls and gay priests were abusing boys.