How do future child molesters get through seminary?

[commenter]

NY State recently changed its law so the vast majority of offenses committed before 18 are treated as juvenile, which means only Family Court, record sealed, no publicly accessible track record, no sex offender registry for what they did before age 18. This is true even if they were sent to Residential care for rape.

This was a liberal cause for years

 

[Ridgerunner]

Went to the John Jay numbers…11 to 14 is the largest block, however, I do think its important to say that the majority of victims were post pubescent…which provides us data on the exact nature of the problem(s) so we can appropriately address it.

I understand there is no psych test for homosexuality with one exception. A PhD psych once told me that homosexuals generally score abnormally high on the narcissism scale.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Have you not known any alcoholics? I’m not trying to be cute; I mean that they are capable of going to great lengths to hide their drinking. If this weren’t true, a “high-functioning alcoholic” couldn’t really exist. Believe me, they absolutely do.

I have known a number of alcoholics, including family members. They can be extremely adept at hiding it. But eventually, it “outs” most of them because it gets worse and worse over time. But not always. I remember one guy who probably drank a fifth a day, but maintained his life in reasonable order. A friend of mine once joked that the fellow “…was proof positive that whiskey can’t kill you…”

 

[Maximus1]

Those over the age of majority were not criminal cases. They were abuse cases.

 

[Maximus1]

Many of the charges derived from people who made charges when they were older.
And many could not be made because of suicide.

 

[PetraG]

You’re confusing
(A) behavior never manifests in public, with
(B) behavior sometimes manifests in public

(B) can be a mental illness, since demonstrates an inability to control actions despite environment (e.g. police officers, etc)

You seem to be implying that a mental illness is always so crippling of the patient’s will that the illness will inevitably manifest itself in a public way. If not, I am not sure what you’re saying?

If that is what you are saying, I would really like you to find any psychologist who is willing to make the distinction you’re making. I have never heard one say anything like that. I don’t think it exists in the DSM. I don’t know that I have ever heard that the premise put forward that a person cannot have a mental illness if they have a disorder that they can hide from public view. There seem to be far too many counter-examples to support that premise, particularly among known pedophiles. (Even the pedophiles say as much; I mean the ones who explain to those looking to prevent child abuse how they would go about grooming and victimizing children.)

 

[PetraG]

I have known a number of alcoholics, including family members. They can be extremely adept at hiding it. But eventually, it “outs” most of them because it gets worse and worse over time. But not always. I remember one guy who probably drank a fifth a day, but maintained his life in reasonable order. A friend of mine once joked that the fellow “…was proof positive that whiskey can’t kill you…”

The sad thing is the number of times that people are so good at hiding their mental illnesses that their disorders do lead to their premature deaths before they ever get the help that might have saved them. The shock of those close to them upon going through their papers and finding what they were really going through is difficult to overstate.

 

[Aquinas11]

You seem to be implying that a mental illness is always so crippling of the patient’s will that the illness will inevitably manifest itself in a public way. If not, I am not sure what you’re saying?

Nope never said that.

 

[PetraG]

Nope never said that.

You wrote:
You’re confusing
(A) behavior never manifests in public, with
(B) behavior sometimes manifests in public

(B) can be a mental illness, since demonstrates an inability to control actions despite environment (e.g. police officers, etc)

If that wasn’t meant to imply that behavior that never manifests in public cannot be a mental illness, what was it meant to say?

Or are you saying that people running seminaries should be blamed if anyone with a mental disorder is ever ordained, because there HAD to be some public manifestation that they could have used to disqualify men from the priesthood and prevent men with mental disorders from being ordained?

I really am confused about what you’re trying to say about the topic: that is, how it is possible that men who prey on children or young people can get through seminary and be ordained without the seminary always being at fault. I think it is possible to identify some candidates who need to be disqualified from ordination, but not every single one.

I don’t think that is possible.

 

[Aquinas11]

If that wasn’t meant to imply that behavior that never manifests in public cannot be a mental illness, what was it meant to say?

It says what it says. Not sure why its so complicated.

Or are you saying that people running seminaries should be blamed if anyone with a mental disorder is ever ordained, because there HAD to be some public manifestation that they could have used to disqualify men from the priesthood and prevent men with mental disorders from being ordained?

Nope never said that either

 

[FranciscoLaureano]

There was a dynamic in play that partially explained some of the pedos ending up in seminary.
It’s the 1950s/60s. You know you are a deviant with no desire to marry etc. If you are also a homosexual then becoming a priest was a great beard. So, you have some pedophiles hiding out as priests and some homosexuals hiding out as priests and some who are checking both boxes.
Not being married made you a weirdo in many communities unless you had a reason not to be. Like being a priest.

A side note-many faithless opportunists used the catholic education system to get a subsidized education then abandoned church or even worse, worked to undermine the church while maintaining the security of their employment and social benefits
of clergy. A deep state situation.

 

[PetraG]

“It says what it says” is practically the definition of begging the question.

What does public vs private nature of a behavior have to do with (a) whether or not a behavior is indicative of a mental illness or (b) the topic of this thread?

 

[Aquinas11]

Not going to repeat things I’ve already said

 

[otjm]

Your responses do not answer my comments.

The charges people have made have been that they were abused by priests; you started off about the priests having abused when they - the priests - were young (and by that I presume you mena teenagers). Not shown.

Anyone not making charges because of suicide does not show their abusers were absuing when teenagers. It does not show anything if they made no charges.

 

[otjm]

I am not sure how this conversation devolved to issues about mental illness. Whatever personal opinions are concerning whether or not homosexuality is a mental illness (and I am not suggesting you think this), the issue of child molesters getting through seminary revolves around 3 primary issues.

1. is pedophilia, which is an abnormal sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children, and is often but not always “equal opportunity” in that pedophiles are known often to abuse both boys and girls. We might agree this is a mental illness or aberration; but given there are no pre-pubescent children in and around seminaries, one has to wonder how that will supposedly manifest itself. Whether or not we now have psychological tests which can reveal the aberration in an adult I will leave to others; I am not familiar with it. However, it should come as no surprise that someone with this issue could pass themselves off as normal among other adults. It isn’t as if they go around drooling and moaning.
2. the term ephebophilia is the proper term for adults exhibiting a strong sexual attraction to post pubescent children - and it applies to children of both sexes. So an adult male who has a predilection to teenage girls may easily suppress any evidence of it while in Seminary; likewise there are few if any teenage girls around, so again it is something that would not normally be evident simply by being in seminary. Again, whether there is a means of testing I will leave to others.
3. the last issue is that of those with SSA who additionally have a predilection to teenage boys. This is a known subset among the homosexual population, but does not appear to be anywhere near consistently identified with SSA; it appears that the majority of adults with SSA are attracted to other adults. However, there is evidence going back to pre Christian Greece that it was prevalent then, and I doubt it faded out over the next 20+ centuries.

Again, there may be adequate means of filtering adults re: SSA; and “adequate” certainly doe not mean that everyone with SSA is going to be identified. Whether there is a means of testing for adults who are attracted to same sex teenagers is another matter, and I will leave that to others.

So how do they get through seminary? The same way any heterosexual male gets through seminary; by prayer and study. The comment made by he OP that those who abuse have no spiritual life is the same as saying that anyone who commits a mortal sin has no spiritual life. The comment is gratuitous and without merit.

 

[PetraG]

Not going to repeat things I’ve already said

OK, well…you didn’t convince me whatsoever that I am “confusing behavior that never manifests in public, with behavior sometimes manifests in public” with respect to identifying pedophiles or functional alcoholics or any of a number of other mental health problems, let alone mental illness in general. There are undoubtedly some mental illnesses that always manifest themselves in public, but that is not applicable to pedophilia.

 

[PetraG]

I am not sure how this conversation devolved to issues about mental illness.

The question is whether or not it is realistic to expect seminaries to identify all candidates who are unacceptable for ordination because of their likelihood to abuse children sexually or commit any other kind of sexual abuse, such as coercing sexual cooperation by abuse of a position of authority or trust. The only thing this has to do with same sex attraction is that a seminary offers opportunities to abuse trust between men, in constrast to Hollywood, which offers opportunities to offend against male or female victims.

 

[Maximus1]

There are people followed by counselors and psychologists. They commit suicide and there are witnesses to document their cases.
I don’t understand your point. Do you have an idea about the volume of cases distributed everywhere on the globe?
Cases of pedophilia since there are no criminal cases with consent age adults

 

[GladTidings]

What evidence is there that the abusers molested others when they were young?

Do you think these adults woke up one day and decided to begin harming children?

why do you presume that a molested child will tell the parents? And assuming a child did, why do you think the parents would understand what they are being told?

Why do you assume I am presuming this? I didn’t say anything about this, so I’m not sure where that came from.

The crisis goes back to priests who were ordained in the 1940’s, 1950,s 1960’s and since.

Your point is what?

 

[otjm]

The issue is whether your statement about abusers abusing at a young age; my comment is where is your evidence that the abuser did so at a young age… we are talking about priests who abused - mostly teenage boys. where do you get information that those priests abuse when they were young?