Archbishop links priestly celibacy and Catholic sex abuse scandals

[sidbrown]

Sidbrown, you’ve had a few posters question your position and who’ve provided succinct, respectful and factual responses. With the possibility that you’ve obtained new information, have you re-considered your position?

Yes. I have done some further investigation on this. I have checked with the published reports of abuse in another Church, sometimes called a sister Church or a second lung of the Catholic Church, which allows for married priests. Their figures show fewer abuse reports, but I am not interested in that aspect. It appears that the number of cases occurring among the celibate clergy is higher than that among their married clergy. There are some married clergy but it looks like it leans strongly in the celibate direction.

 

[Adira]

… I think that the celibacy requirement very clearly discourages men with normal, natural heterosexual inclinations from choosing the priesthood. The result is that seminaries fill up with an unusually high percentage of homosexuals and men who are mentally immature and end up fondling boys in the confessional.

I think this is quite plausible.

I recall during the height of the priest molestation scandal here in Boston, there were several seminarians who (anonymously) spoke out about gay encounters between seminarians. They believed there was a very ‘gay friendly’ climate in some seminaries.

The seminarians who were participating in the ‘gay lifestyle’ didn’t view what they were doing as violating chastity. Chastity could only be violated between men and women, according to them.

The seminaries where our priests are trained need to have very frank talks with the seminarians about what chastity means. It means men with men or men with women, it also means no kind of sexual contact with children at all.

Perhaps more in-depth probing of the seminarians, one-on-one, with a priest or other authority where they target sexual urges. If a seminarian can’t control his sexual urges for men, women, or children he should be asked to leave.

I think priests should be required, every so many years, to go on a retreat with a superior who would pose in-depth questions regarding any sin that may befall a priest.

The Church should do more than is being done now to identify clergy who are sinning continuously (like the French priests living with women for 20 yrs.) and discipline them.

I don’t want a witch hunt, but something more needs to be done.

 

[peary]

Cardinal Schonborn argues that priestly celibacy has a lot to do with paedophilia.

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/priestly-celibacy-catholic-sex-scandals

Cardinal Schonborn shows exactly what is wrong with the hierarchy in the Church: they just don’t get it. To blame priestly celibacy on pedophilia is absolutely unconscionable. He needs to check the formation process in his own seminary that ALLOWS such behavior in individuals to go unchecked and given the stamp of approval for ordination. THAT is where the problem lies, not in celibacy and chastity.

 

[dixieagle]

Cardinal Schonborn shows exactly what is wrong with the hierarchy in the Church: they just don’t get it. To blame priestly celibacy on pedophilia is absolutely unconscionable. He needs to check the formation process in his own seminary that ALLOWS such behavior in individuals to go unchecked and given the stamp of approval for ordination. THAT is where the problem lies, not in celibacy and chastity.

I’ve read the original link and several others, including this one:
catinfor.com/en/2010/03/12/vienna%E2%80%99s-schonborn-says-study-celibacy-abuse-links/

Actually, nowhere can I find that the Cardinal said celibacy causes “pedophilia”. He said that a close look must be taken at all possible contributing causes of the sexual abuse scandal, celibacy being one of the things to be examined. For all we know, he may simply have meant (as is my sentiment) that the celibate priesthood has provided a convenient place for single men with sexual disorders to hide out and gain access to children/teens.

I think that his statement has been taken out of context and inflammatory headlines concocted - as if often the case.

 

[peary]

Dixieagle:

I totally am in agreement with you. One of the ‘submerged’ homosexual tendencies is that of being attracted to young teenage boys (or adolescents). This is found in all the valid literature on the subject. It is similar to heterosexual men who have tendencies toward young teenage girls.

Most sexual abuse of children in today’s society is done by a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend of the child’s parent. And most violoent abuse of children is done by same.

And again, it’s the FORMATION PROCESS in the seminaries which has led to this scandal in the Church. It is NOT priestly celibacy. Anyone who feels that celibacy is the root cause of child abuse in the Church is thoroughly ignorant of the truth.

 

[otjm]

I am not buying it. I think that a good and decent Catholic wife would keep a sharp eye out for problems. I think that all priests should be required to be married and celibacy should be done away with completely. All of these stories coming out every day of perverts and coverups are thoroughly disgusting and shameful…

Then you know very, very little about sexual abuse of children. The number of children abused by a parent or step parent ( and the vast majority are abused by a male in one of those roles) gives lie to the belief that the wife will protect the children.

Believe me - I spent 12 years as an attorney in child abuse cases. The first time I came across the family where the mother failed to protect the children, I was absolutely astounded. As time went on, I was only absolutely appalled, having seen it so often. It was a rare, rare case where the mother protected the children and got the abuser out of the house.

Celibacy is not the cause of child abuse, nor is it a cause of homosexual attraction, nor can we presume that because a man chooses celibacy, that he does so for any nefarious or wrong purpose. The number of priest abusers is in about the 3% to 4% range of all priests; granted there never should be one of them, but the level of abusers indicates that ceilbacy is simply not the issue. And I would gladly support a priesthhood in which we had both celibate and married clergy (and in fact we already do; it is simply that there are extremely few married priests in the Roman rite).

However, there is no valid evidence that celibacy is in any way linked to child sexual abuse.

 

[otjm]

Cardinal Schonborn shows exactly what is wrong with the hierarchy in the Church: they just don’t get it. To blame priestly celibacy on pedophilia is absolutely unconscionable. He needs to check the formation process in his own seminary that ALLOWS such behavior in individuals to go unchecked and given the stamp of approval for ordination. THAT is where the problem lies, not in celibacy and chastity.

It is always wise to actually read the report before going off blaming the clergy for another round of “not getting it”. This is actually a case not of the Cardinal not getting it, but rather a case of the reporter not getting it. He a(the Cardinal) did not blame celibcy for sexual abuse; he said that training needed to be much greater and more focused.

 

[dixieagle]

Dixieagle:

I totally am in agreement with you. One of the ‘submerged’ homosexual tendencies is that of being attracted to young teenage boys (or adolescents). This is found in all the valid literature on the subject. It is similar to heterosexual men who have tendencies toward young teenage girls.

Most sexual abuse of children in today’s society is done by a live-in boyfriend or girlfriend of the child’s parent. And most violoent abuse of children is done by same.

And again, it’s the FORMATION PROCESS in the seminaries which has led to this scandal in the Church. It is NOT priestly celibacy. Anyone who feels that celibacy is the root cause of child abuse in the Church is thoroughly ignorant of the truth.

Agreed!

Not long ago, we discovered that a seminarian in formation for this diocese was a former high school classmate of our daughter. He was a very “out” practicing homosexual with serious psychological issues; it was no secret to anyone who had spent any time with him, as he was quite open about it. Yet, there he was in the seminary, and carrying the cross in procession for various diocesan celebrations. Makes one wonder.

 

[otjm]

Agreed!

Not long ago, we discovered that a seminarian in formation for this diocese was a former high school classmate of our daughter. He was a very “out” practicing homosexual with serious psychological issues; it was no secret to anyone who had spent any time with him, as he was quite open about it. Yet, there he was in the seminary, and carrying the cross in procession for various diocesan celebrations. Makes one wonder.

Maybe it makes you wonder. It makes me madder than a wet hen.

I am not much for writing the bishop; but on this one, if I had any evidence (someone who could actually testify to the practicing part) I would get a Canon lawyer and not let up until either the bishop said “uncle” or Rome had their say. I certainly would not try it without a Canon lawyer.

 

[peary]

It is not the same as having a devoted and dedicated Catholic wife. My solution to minimising this problem:
Require that all priests without exception get married to devout family oriented Catholic women.

So, you want the Church to “let’s make a deal” in finding a “devout family-oriented Catholic woman” for their incoming priests?

 

[dixieagle]

Maybe it makes you wonder. It makes me madder than a wet hen.

I am not much for writing the bishop; but on this one, if I had any evidence (someone who could actually testify to the practicing part) I would get a Canon lawyer and not let up until either the bishop said “uncle” or Rome had their say. I certainly would not try it without a Canon lawyer.

Someone did go to the bishop. The young man shortly left the seminary.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

So, no dual income families, everyone must homeschool, no sports or extracurricular activities, and parents can’t leave the house alone until the last child is 18? Are you serious? Do you not even trust Grandma, Grandpa, Aunts, Uncles?

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[otjm]

So, no dual income families, everyone must homeschool, no sports or extracurricular activities, and parents can’t leave the house alone until the last child is 18? Are you serious? Do you not even trust Grandma, Grandpa, Aunts, Uncles?

In Christ,

Ellen

That would be taking it to an extreme. However, parents are responsible for the safety of their children; that means being alert to issues, never ignoring a child that is upset about another adult, and teaching age-appropriate information to your children concerning their personal safety to assure them that if they are uncomfortable around any adult, they can come to you as the parent and tell with no reprecussions.

Not all or most, or even a large minority of adults are abusers. However, it only take one, and the damage can be incalcuable. It may be a family member that didn’t abuse you as a child, but you were not the sex they pick on; you have a child of the opposite sex and they may be at risk.

People need to use their brains for something besides keeping their ears apart. It is not at all unlikely to have a family where there has been no abuse; it is also not at all unlikely to have a family where one or more relatives who may be abusers. The world has not necessarily suddenly descended into depravity; it (sex abuse) existed before, but it was one of those things “people didn’t talk about”. Whether or not there is more abuse I will leave to someone else to tally; but the point still is that children have a right to be safe and it is the responsibility of the parents to provide that.

Trust is not trust if it is blind to the fact that people are human, humans sin, and one of those sins is sexual abuse against children. Blind trust is just another definition or either ignorance or naivity. No, not everyone does it. But just because someone is related to you or has been your neighbor for 10 years or is the popular teacher/coach at the local school does not mean they are not the source of damage to your children.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

That would be taking it to an extreme. However, parents are responsible for the safety of their children; that means being alert to issues, never ignoring a child that is upset about another adult, and teaching age-appropriate information to your children concerning their personal safety to assure them that if they are uncomfortable around any adult, they can come to you as the parent and tell with no reprecussions.

Not all or most, or even a large minority of adults are abusers. However, it only take one, and the damage can be incalcuable. It may be a family member that didn’t abuse you as a child, but you were not the sex they pick on; you have a child of the opposite sex and they may be at risk.

People need to use their brains for something besides keeping their ears apart. It is not at all unlikely to have a family where there has been no abuse; it is also not at all unlikely to have a family where one or more relatives who may be abusers. The world has not necessarily suddenly descended into depravity; it (sex abuse) existed before, but it was one of those things “people didn’t talk about”. Whether or not there is more abuse I will leave to someone else to tally; but the point still is that children have a right to be safe and it is the responsibility of the parents to provide that.

Trust is not trust if it is blind to the fact that people are human, humans sin, and one of those sins is sexual abuse against children. Blind trust is just another definition or either ignorance or naivity. No, not everyone does it. But just because someone is related to you or has been your neighbor for 10 years or is the popular teacher/coach at the local school does not mean they are not the source of damage to your children.

I totally agree with all that (and always wondered why the parents of these abused kids didn’t go to the police themselves, instead of letting the church “take care of it”. Different culture, I guess? Way too much enamoration for the clergy during that time period?), but the pp wrote that parents shouldn’t leave their kids alone w/ ANY adult. That’s simply not realistic (not to mention what fearful kids you’d be raising-scared of everybody but Mom and Dad, when 95% of people aren’t child abusers).

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[otjm]

I totally agree with all that (and always wondered why the parents of these abused kids didn’t go to the police themselves, instead of letting the church “take care of it”. Different culture, I guess? Way too much enamoration for the clergy during that time period?), but the pp wrote that parents shouldn’t leave their kids alone w/ ANY adult. That’s simply not realistic (not to mention what fearful kids you’d be raising-scared of everybody but Mom and Dad, when 95% of people aren’t child abusers).

In Christ,

Ellen

One does not have to make children fearful of strangers to acquaint them with the fact that they have a right to personal integrity and that if they are not comfortable with anyone touching them, they should come to their parent and let them know immediately.

And I would support the poster to the extent that one has more than a casual duty to protect children from sexual abuse. Leaving them with no one is an over-reaction; paying no attention to the fact that sexual perversion is a reality is at best and kindest an under-reaction. One does not have to be hyper to be alert. Ond does not have to be a fear monger to train children that they have a right to not be molested and that there are bad people win the world.

There has been far, far more than one story of a boy coming home complaining of the priest and what he did, and getting the tar beat out of him at home. And the same goes for kids coming home and telling what “Uncle Joe” did and getting the same. Parents do not always react as they should; sadly, sometimes the parent themself had been the victim of abuse.

Telling children of harm that can come their way is not going to leave them scared of everyone any more than telling them that they can get run over in the street makes them scared to cross in the cross walk. There is such an issue as balance. It needs to be handled appropriately; if a parent doesn’t know how, then a short chat with a good pediatrician is a good place to start. There is absolutely no excuse for not having the conversation.

 

[The_Geographer]

???

 

[Soutane]

Tuesday March 23, 2010
PUSH FOR CELIBACY IMPLIES GAY GUILT

March 23, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue addresses the spate of articles on priestly celibacy:

Reports in Ireland and Germany of decades-old cases of priestly sexual abuse have triggered an array of articles, surveys and talk-show discussions on the need for the Catholic Church to end the celibacy requirement. The implication, of course, is that more heterosexuals, and less homosexuals, would therefore be drawn to the priesthood, thus alleviating the problem.

The reasoning is sound: as we have seen from several studies—including the one just released by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops—80 percent of the victims are male. Just as important, the majority of the victims are post-pubescent. In other words, we are talking about homosexuality, not pedophilia.

Those who fancy themselves progressive would never, of course, say there is a homosexual link to priestly sexual abuse. But they know it to be true in their heart of hearts. For example, no one seriously believes that pedophiles would be inclined to marry if celibacy were lifted—they are not interested in adults. But surely homosexuals would find the seminaries and parishes less attractive if most of the men were married.

So as not to be misunderstood, it is nonsense to say that homosexuality causes sexual abuse. Moreover, it is both untrue, and unfair, to say that most gay priests are molesters. They are not. But it is also true that most of the molesters are gay. Is this not the unstated predicate of progressives pushing for an end to celibacy? Why else recommend doing away with it?

In short, the only difference between most progressives and most conservatives on this issue is that the latter are not afraid to identify the elephant in the room.

Share this Article

 

[Soutane]

No kidding there’s an elephant in the room.We need a Catholic Steve Irwin,by crikey!God rest his beautiful Australian soul.

 

[papistgiant]

So, no dual income families, everyone must homeschool, no sports or extracurricular activities, and parents can’t leave the house alone until the last child is 18? Are you serious? Do you not even trust Grandma, Grandpa, Aunts, Uncles?

In Christ,

Ellen

I don’t have kids yet, but there are certain people that I have already decided that I will not leave my children alone with.

 

[papistgiant]

I don’t think that the celibacy requirement causes priests to become homosexuals or pedophiles, but I think that the celibacy requirement very clearly discourages men with normal, natural heterosexual inclinations from choosing the priesthood. The result is that seminaries fill up with an unusually high percentage of homosexuals and men who are mentally immature and end up fondling boys in the confessional. To eliminate the celibacy requirement would not absolutely eliminate the possibility of future sexual abuse, but I am certain that it would allow for many more normal heterosexual men with normal heterosexual desires to enter the seminary.

So they’d be more likely to go after post-pubescent girls? and have affairs?

And these would be less scandalous? I’m in favor of allowing married men into the priesthood, and I agree that it would lessen the amount of abuse, but not for the reasons mentioned. I think it would be good just so there are more priests, leading to more eyes watching, and not being alone with anyone.